Joint Appendix — Metropolitan Wash. Airports Authority v. Noise Abatement Citizens
Supreme Court brief1991
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
} FILED | |
~~ MAR 1 1991
No. 90-906~~ .
$$ crc |
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1990
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, et al.,
. Petitioners,
CITIZENS FOR THE ABATEMENT OF
AIRCRAFT NOISE, INC., et al.,
Respondents,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor.
On Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
JOINT APPENDIX
WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, JR.* PaTTI A. GOLDMAN *
DONALD T. BLIss ALAN B. MORRISON
DEBRA A. VALENTINE PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION
NANCY E. MCFADDEN GROUP
O’MELVENY & MYERS 2000 P Street, N.W.
555 13th Street, N.W. Suite 700
Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20036
Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 785-3704
(202) 383-5325 Counsel for Respondents
Of Counsel: KENNETH W. STARR
GREGORY WOLFE Solicitor General
EDWARD S. FAGGEN Department of Justice
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON Washington, D.C. 20530
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY (202) 514-2217
44 Canal Center Plaza Counsel for the United States
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 739-8740
Counsel for Petitioners
* Counsel of Record
(mn ee SA
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED DECEMBER 10, 1990
CERTIORARI GRANTED JANUARY 14, 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
on *
Chronological List of Relevant Docket Entries
Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc.,
et al. v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority,
et al., Complaint dated November 16, 1988
Selected Exhibits to Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Mo-
tions for Summary Judgment in the United States Dis-
trict Court for the District of Columbia:
Advisory Commission on the Reorganization of
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Report to
the Secretary (December 18, 1984) (Plaintiffs’
Exhibit (Pl. Ex.”) 2)
Letter to the Honorable Norman Y. Mineta from
John R. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General (Au-
gust 6, 1986) (Pl. Ex. 3)
Minutes of MWAA Board of Directors Meeting
of June 3, 1987 (Pl. Ex. 7)
MWAA Resolution No. 87-12 (June 3, 1987) (PI.
eon oe)
we S20 ~
— > <a
Lok ee
oo
=
- — -~
— ee, ’
ys Ti ood
hae toe ow 2. ee
oe oe
w
et eee PSs
7 ———,-
Minutes of MWAA Board of Review Meeting of
August 6, 1987 (Pl. Ex. 20)
Minutes of MWAA Board of Directors Meeting of
September 2, 1987 (Pl. Ex. 8)
MWAA Resolution No. 87-27 (September 2, 1987)
(Pl. Ex. 10)
Minutes of MWAA Board of Review Meeting of
February 24, 1988 (Pl. Ex. 19)
MWAA Resolution 88-8 (March 16, 1988) (De-
fendants’ Exhibit (“Def. Ex.”) 7)
Minutes of MWAA of Review Meeting of April 13,
1988 (Pl. Ex. 18)
MWAA Resolution 88-34 (July 6, 1988) (Pl. Ex.
zk
' =
aa i eh
v , bee dy ‘ -
4 3 $ «
.
ee — Se ei;
ts
.
——_——-
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
Resolution No. BOR 88-1 (August 9, 1988) (PI.
BBB. BD) 2 .ccnccccceccccecseneessccecesecnscenessnnesenesennesninnnnnnnnannnn
Affidavit of Sherwin Landfield (December 13,
Tl Se : ae | pe
Affidavit of James A. Wilding (January 30, 1989)
1 8 oF
The following opinions, decisions, judgments, orders
and exhibits have been omitted in printing this joint
appendix because they appear on the following pages
in the appendix to the printed Petition for Certiorari:
Memorandum Opinion and Order of the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia
in Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise,
Inc., et al. v. Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority, et al., 718 F. Supp. 974 (D.D.C. 1989)..
Opinion of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia in Federal Firefighters Asso-
ciation, Local 1, et al. v. United States, et al., 723
F. Supp. 825 (D.D.C. 1989) ..................:cccceeeeeeeeees perenne
Opinion and Judgment of the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc.,
et al. v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Au-
thority, et al., 917 F.2d 48 (D.C. Cir. 1990) —..........
Order Granting Stay of Mandate and Effective
Date of Opinion and Order, dated December 6,
BOBO .nn.cccccccessccsecsencescoseseressseneneesstnssannnnnntsnnnnnnnannnE
Bylaws of the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority, dated as of March 4, 1987 (Def. Ex. 4) ..
Lease of the Metropolitan Washington Airports,
dated as of March 2, 1987 (Def. Ex. 3) ....................
Page
85
88
29a
56a
la
148a
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF
RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES
DATE PROCEEDINGS
November 16, 1988—Complaint filed in the United States Dis-
trict Court for the District of Columbia.
December 16, 1988 —Answer filed.
December 20, 1988 —Motion by plaintiffs for summary judg-
ment filed.
January 30, 1989 an ‘ross Motion by defendants for summary
judgment and opposition to plaintiffs’
motion for summary judgment filed.
February 14, 1989 —Reply Memorandum by plaintiffs in sup-
port of motion for summary judgment
and in opposition to defendants’ cross
motion for summary judgment filed.
February 27, 1989 —Reply Memorandum by defendants in
support of cross motion for summary
judgment and in opposition to plaintiffs’
motion for summary judgment filed.
April 19, 1989 —Notice filed by plaintiffs of case in United
States District Court for the District of
Columbia—Federal Fire Fighters Associ-
ation, Local 1, et al. v. United States, et
al., Civil Action No. 88-1022-LFO— in-
volving common issue of law.
June 5, 1989 —Notice filed by defendants of order by
court staying consideration of the iden-
tical constitutional issue in case involv-
ing common issue of law.
July 20, 1989 —Memorandum Opinion and Order by
Judge Joyce H. Green denying motion for
summary judgment by plaintiffs and
granting cross motion for summary
judgment by defendants.
August 3, 1989 —Notice of Appeal filed by plaintiffs from
order entered July 20, 1989.
DATE PROCEEDINGS
of
the United States to exercise his statu-
tory right to intervene as a full party in
the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit.
December 1, 1989 —Brief for appellants filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit.
January 17,1990 —Brief for the United States filed.
January 30,1990 —Brief for appellees filed.
February 26, 1990 —Reply Brief for appellants filed.
October 26,1990 —Opinion and Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit reversing the dis-
trict court’s ruling.
November 19, 1990-—-Unopposed Motion of appellees for stay
of mandate and effective date of opinion
and order filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.
December 6, 1990 —Order entered staying issuance of man-
date and effective date of court’s opinion
and order.
December 10, 1990 —Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed.
December 19, 19990 —Respondents’ Brief in response to peti-
tion for a writ of certiorari filed.
December 19, 1990 —Brief for the United States filed.
January 9,1991 —Brief of the Commonwealth of Virginia
as amicus curiae in support of petitioners
filed.
January 14,1991 —Petition for Writ of Certiorari granted.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Action No, 88-3319
JOYCE GREEN, J. JHG
CITIZENS FOR THE ABATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE, INC.,
2001 O Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036,
JOHN W. HECHINGER, SR.,
2838 Chain Bridge Road, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016,
and
CRAIG H. BAAp,
4404 Greenwich Parkway, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007,
Plaintiffs,
v.
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY,
Hangar 9
Washington National Airport
Washington, D.C. 20001,
and
BOARD OF REVIEW,
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority,
Hangar 8
Washington National Airport,
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendants.
4
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
[Filed Nov. 16, 1988]
1. This action seeks a declaration that the review of
certain actions of the defendant Metropolitan Washing-
ton Airports Authority by a Board of Review composed
of nine Members of Congress is unconstitutional. It also
seeks an order enjoining the Board of Review from ex-
ercising its review authority and enjoining the Metropoli-
tan Washington Airports Authority from performing any
of the actions that are required to be submitted to the
congressional Board of Review.
JURISDICTION
2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
& 1343.
PARTIES
8. Plaintiff Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft
Noise, Inc. (“CAAN”) is a non-profit membership or-
ganization composed of citizens’ groups and individuals
from the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland,
most of whom live under flight paths to and from Wash-
ington National Airport. It is incorporated in Maryland,
but has its principal place of business in the District of
Columbia. Its primary purpose is to develop and imple-
ment a rational transportation policy for the Metropoli-
tan Washington D.C. area, which would include balanced
service at the area’s three airports, reduce aircraft oper-
ations at Washington National Airport, and alleviate the
noise, safety problems, and air pollution that result from
such operations. In order to further the community inter-
est in health, safety, and environmental improvements at
National Airport, CAAN advocates its positions before
defendant Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.
5
4. Plaintiff John W. Hechinger, Sr., is a member and
honorary co-chairman of CAAN. He resides in the flight
path of airplanes going to and from Washington National
Airport and is adversely affected by noise, vibrations, and
the environmental consequences of the air traffic going to
and from that airport. For two decades, he has been an
advocate for reducing noise at Washington National Air-
port both as Chairman of the Council of the District of
Columbia during 1967-1969 and as a private citizen.
5. Plaintiff Craig H. Baab resides in the flight path of
airplanes going to and from Washington National Air-
port and is adversely affected by the noise, safety prob-
lems, and environmental consequences of overflights. He
is concerned that airplanes that routinely fly at low
elevations over his neighborhood present safety problems
that increase as the level of air traffic increases.
6. Defendant Metropolitan Washington Airports Au-
thority (“Airports Authority”) is a public body that was
established by chapter 598 of the 1985 Virginia Acts of
Assembly, as amended by chapter 665 of the 1987 Vir-
ginia Acts of Assembly, and the District of Columbia
Regional Airports Act of 1985, D.C. Code §§ 7-1501-7-
1511, in accordance with the terms of the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-591,
99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986) (“Airports Act”), to oper-
ate and improve the Metropolitan Washington Airports,
i.e., Washington National Airport and Washington Dulles
International Airport. On June 7, 1987, it assumed oper-
ating responsibility for the Metropolitan Washington Air-
ports. Its offices are located at Washington National Air-
port.
7. Defendant Board of Review of the Airports Au-
thority is composed of nine Members of Congress ap-
pointed by the Board of Directors of the Airports Au-
thority from lists supplied by the Senate and House of
Representatives. It has the power to veto certain major
6
actions of the Airports Authority as described in para-
graphs 12 and 13 below.
STATUTORY SCHEME
8. The Airports Act authorized the transfer of oper-
ating responsibility for the Metropolitan Washington Air-
ports from the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”)
to the Airports Authority. 49 U.S.C. §§ 2452, 2454.
9, Under section 2456(c) of the Airports Act, D.C.
Code § 7-1506(c), and 1987 Virginia Acts, ch. 665, S 5,
the Airports Authority has the power to acquire, main-
tain, improve, operate, protect, and promote the Metro-
politan Washington Airports for public purposes, to issue
bonds, to acquire real and personal property, to levy fees
and other charges, and to make agreements with employee
organizations.
10. The Airports Authority is governed by an eleven-
member Board of Directors, which is composed of five
members appointed by the Governor of Virginia, three
members appointed by the Mayor of the District of Co-
lumbia, two members appointed by the Governor of Mary-
land, and one member appointed by the President with
the advice and consent of the United States Senate. 49
U.S.C. § 2456(e) (1); D.C. Code § 7-1506(e) (1); 1987
Virginia Acts ch. 665, §4(A). The Board members serve
for staggered six-year terms, except that most of the
initial terms are of shorter duration. 49 U.S.C. § 2456
(e) (3); D.C. Code § 7-1506(e) (3); 1987 Virginia Acts
ch. 665, § 4(C).
11. The Airports Act also created a nine-member
Board of Review to be appointed by the Airport Author-
ity’s Board of Directors. 49 U.S.C. § 2456(f). Under
the Airports Act, all of the members of the Board of Re-
view must be Members of Congress, selected from lists
provided by the Speaker of the House and President pro
tempore of the Senate. They must include two members
7
of the House Public Works and Transportation Com-
mittee, two members of the House Appropriations Com-
mittee, two members of the Senate Commerce, Science,
and Transportation Committee, two members of the Sen-
ate Appropriations Committee, and one member chosen
alternately from the House and the Senate. Jd, § 2456
(f)(1). The Airports Act states that the Board of Re-
view members serve “in their individual capacities, as
representatives of users of the Metropolitan Washington
Airports,” but it prohibits Senators and Representatives
from Maryland and Virginia and the District of Colum-
bia Delegate from serving on the Board of Review. Id.
The Board of Review members serve staggered six-year
terms, except that most of the initial terms are of shorter
duration and the alternating member serves a two-year
term. /d. § 2456(f) (2).
12. Any actions of the Board of Directors that (1)
adopt an annual budget, (2) authorize the issuance of
bonds, (3) adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation (which
includes all changes in the hours of operation and types
of aircraft serving either of the airports, id. § 2456(g) ),
(4) adopt or revise a master plan, including any pro-
posal for land acquisition, or (5) appoint the chief execu-
tive officer, cannot go into effect if the Board of Review
disapproves them. Id. § 2456(f) (4).
13. The Board of Directors must submit any actions
of the kind described in paragraph 12 to the Board of
Review at least 30 days before they are to become effec-
tive, with the exception of the annual budget, which
must be submitted at least 60 days before it is to become
effective. Id. § 2456(f)(4)(A). If five members of the
Board of Review disapprove any of the actions described
in paragraph 12 within 30 days of their submission,
such actions shall not take effect. Jd. § 2456(f)(3) &
(4). On August 9, 1988, the Board of Review exercised
its veto power to nullify an Airports Authority regula-
ee a EN ee
8
tion that would have allowed car pools to use the Dulles
Access Road for one year.
14. In addition to its power of disapproval, the Board
of Review may ask the Airports Authority to consider,
vote, or report on any matter “related to” either Na-
tional or Dulles airport, and the Airports Authority has
a statutory obligation to comply with any such request as
promptly as feasible. Id. § 2456(f) (3) & (5). Members
of the Board of Review may also participate as nonvot-
ing members at all meetings of the Airports Authority’s
Board of Directors. Id. § 2456(f) (6).
15. Section 2456(h) of the Airports Act provides that,
if the Board of Review is unable to carry out its func-
tions by reason of a judicial order, the Airports Author-
ity shall have no authority to perform any of the actions
that are subject to disapproval by the Board of Review.
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY PROCEEDINGS
16. In October 1987, the Airports Authority proposed
a master plan for National Airport.
17. In November 1987, CAAN submitted comments to
the Airports Authority on the master plan for National
Airport, in which CAAN objected to the planned intro-
duction of wide-bodied aircraft and the overall expansion
of National Airport facilities to accommodate an in-
crease in the level of passenger activity. CAAN also
criticized the absence of a comprehensive analysis of en-
vironmental impact, the disregard of safety concerns,
and the failure to reduce (and the likelihood of an in-
crease in) the amount of aircraft noise, in part, be
cause CAAN believes the Master Plan will lead to an
increase in nighttime flights.
18. In March 1988, over CAAN’s opposition, the Air-
ports Authority approved the master plan for National
Airport, which makes no provision for reducing noise
levels, and provides for expanding the airport’s capacity.
9
The Airports Authority can put this plan into operation
only if it has the powers, which are subject to disap-
proval by the Board of Review, to raise and budget
funds for this purpose.
19. On April 13, 1988, four members of the Board of
Review met and voted not to disapprove the master plan.
Thereafter, the Airports Authority implemented the
master plan by entering into construction contracts and
beginning construction at National Airport.
20. In March 1988, the Airports Authority issued its
first bonds series to fund improvements at Washington
National and Dulles Airports. It has since issued three
additional bonds series for such improvements. The
Board of Review did not veto the issuance of any of
these bonds series.
21. Because the congressional Board of Review ex-
cludes representation from the metropolitan Washington
D.C. area, and yet it wields ultimate control over the
Airports Authority, it has diminished the influence that
CAAN and its members have over decisions concerning
the operation of the airports, which were previously
made by Congress and/or the FAA. ;
CAUSE OF ACTION
22. The Board of Review’s power under 49 U.S.C.
$ 2456(f) (4) to disapprove actions of the Airports Au-
thority violates the bicameralism requirement of Article
I, §§1, 7, the Presentment Clauses, Article I, § 7, cls.
2-3, and the doctrine of separation of powers.
23. Since the Board of Review cannot constitutionally
exercise its veto power, the Airports Authority does not
have the authority under the Airports Act, because of
the operation of section 2456(h) set forth in paragraph
15, to perform any of the actions subject to review. As
a result, the Airports Authority may not, consistent with
the Airports Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, implement its
=
10
Master Plan, which is now causing injuries to CAAN
and its members because of increases in noise levels and
safety and environmental problems at National Airport
and is likely to cause increasing injuries to them in the
future.
RELIEF
Wherefore, plaintiffs pray for an order and judgment
(1) declaring that the Board of Review’s authority
under 49 U.S.C. § 2456(f) (4) to disapprove actions of
the Airports Authority is unconstitutional and void be-
cause it violates the bicameralism requirement of Ar-
ticle I, $$ 1, 7, the Presentment Clauses, Article I, § 7,
cls. 2-3, and the doctrine of separation of powers;
(2) enjoining the Board of Review from exercising
its review authority and from taking any other actions
under the Airports Act;
(3) declaring that the Airports Authority is forbidden
from implementing any of the actions that are required
to be submitted to the Board of Review and enjoining
it from implementing the Master Plan approved by it in
March 1988;
(4) awarding plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and
costs; and
(5) granting such other and further relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
/s/ Patti A. Goldman
PATTI A. GOLDMAN
D.C. Bar No. 398565
/s/ Alan B. Morrison
ALAN B. MORRISON
D.C. Bar No. 073114
November 16, 1988
11
/s/ Eric R. Glitzenstein
ErRIc R. GLITZENSTEIN
D.C. Bar No. 358287
Public Citizen Litigation Group
Suite 700
2000 P Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 785-3704
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2
ADVISORY COMMISSION ON THE
REORGANIZATION OF THE
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS
REPORT TO THE SECRETARY
DECEMBER 18, 1984
I. Introduction
The Secretary of Transportation created this Advisory
Commission on June 18, 1984 and charged it with devel-
oping a proposal for transferring the Metropolitan Wash-
ington Airports (MWA), Washington National and Wash-
ington Dulles International, from federal ownership to a
state, local or interstate public entity. It is important to
understand that she did not ask us to determine whether
the airports should be transferred, but how they should
be transferred.
The transfer idea is not a new one. The government’s
venture in operating air carrier airports began when
National Airport opened for business in 1941. By 1948,
the Airport was identified as inappropriate for operation
as a conventional federal agency, and the Hoover Com-
mission recommended that it be turned over to a govern-
ment corporation in 1949.
In the following thirty-five years, many attempts were
made to reorganize first National, and later both Na-
tional and Dulles into a government corporation. In the
late 1960s, the alternative of local control was considered.
Although the idea of transfer is not new, Secretary Dole’s
approach to the issue is: She asked a commission com-
prised of the parties principally interested in the opera-
tion of the Metropolitan Washington Airports to recom-
13
mend how the airports should be transferred. Her ap-
proach reflects a recognition that transfer is essentially
a political issue which requires a broad consensus for
success.
The Commission has diligently sought to find a middle
ground that best serves the public interest and meets the
concerns of the several jurisdictions the Airports serve,
the users of the Airports, and the Congress, which must
authorize transfer. Although we have not been able to
reach unanimous agreement on all points, we have agreed
on many of the basics and hope that the Secretary will be
able to fashion a workable proposal to the Congress on the
basis of our efforts.
Finally, the Commission recognizes that its report is
necessarily general, and anticipates that the Secretary
will provide more detail in her legislative proposal to the
Congress.
Il. The Commission’s Deliberations
The Commission held seven public meetings, all at the
Department of Transportation Headquarters Building,
and a public hearing at the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration auditorium.’
Early meetings were devoted to defining the scope of the
Commission’s concerns. A survey of existing authorities
capable of acquiring and operating the Airports found a
number of agencies with sufficient authority, but none
able to balance the interests of the three jurisdictions
without further legislation. Moreover, none of the can-
didate authorities, excepting only the Maryland State
Aviation Administration, had any experience with the
operation of airports. The Commission quickly concluded
that a new authority should be created to operate the
1 Meetings were held July 25, August 7, October 17, November 7,
November 29, December 13 and December 18. The public hearing
was held Sepvember 12.
i
PI
P|
Fi
H
Hi
Ee
I
|
)
14
Airports, so that it could be tailored to meet the needs
of the metrupolitan area.
The Commission also received a summary report on the
structure of several existing airport authorities, and fo-
cused its attention on two well-known and successful au-
thorities whose facilities serve several jurisdictions: the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which
operates the three major air carrier airports in the New
York metropolitan area, and the Kenton County Airport
Board, a Kentucky-based agency that operates the Greater
Cincinnati International Airport.
Speakers from both authorities appeared at the October
17 meeting.? The Cincinnati airport, located across the
Ohio River in Kentucky, is owned and operated by a
Kentucky municipal agency. The Airport Board, con-
sisting of six members who are residents of Kentucky,
and the Advisory Board, consisting of eight members who
are residents of Ohio, meet as a single board. Because of
restrictions in Kentucky law, only the Airport Board
members may vote.
The Port Authority, an interstate compact agency created
in 1921, undertook operation of the New York area air-
ports in 1948. It is governed by a twelve-member Board
of Commissioners, six appointed by the Governor of New
York and six by the Governor of New Jersey. Each Gov-
ernor has the right to veto Board actions.
Although the Commission concluded that neither author-
ity provided the ideal model for a Metropolitan Wash-
ington Airports authority, their presentations provided
useful advice on how to address interstate concerns. And
despite considerable differences in the structure and ex-
2 Patrick J. Falvey, General Counsel and Assistant Executive
Director, and Dr. William J. Ronan, a Commissioner, addressed
the Commission on the Port Authority’s experiences; William C.
Whitson, Chairman, and Wilbert Ziegler, General Counsel, discussed
the organization and history of the Kenton County Board.
15
perience of the two authorities, their representatives
agreed on major points. They both emphasized the im-
portance of an independent board with distinguished
members, and recommended that they not receive com-
pensation.
The Commission also received financial advice from
Wheat, First Securities of Richmond and Salomon
Brothers of New York in the form of a report (copy at-
tached) and several presentations. In sum, the report
concluded that an independent Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority would be self-sustaining, and capable
of financing major improvements at both National and
Dulles at favorable rates through issuance of tax-exempt
revenue bonds, without appropriation of federal or state
funds. Later meetings were devoted to discussion and
debate of the principal issues, as described below.
III. Jssues and Recommendations
The Commission identified the following issues, and the
majority reached a consensus on them as follows:
A. Single Authority
Washington National and Washington Dulles Inter-
national Airports should be transferred by the Con-
gress to a single, independent public authority to be
created jointly by the Commonwealth of Virginia
and the District of Columbia, with the capacity to
issue tax exempt revenue bonds to finance improve-
ments at both airports.
The Commission inquired into the possibility of trans-
ferring the two airports separately, but financial analysis
shows that separating them would require such “substan-
tially higher landing fees and terminal rentals” at Dulles
that “may put [it] at a competitive disadvantage.” In
addition, the Commission believes that for operational
effectiveness, promotion and economic development, and
service to travellers, the two airports should be coor-
16
dinated by a single management, as they have been in >
the past.
Independence is critical because both airports serve the
entire metropolitan region, and the authority therefore
should not be an agency within any one state or local
government.
The ability to issue tax-exempt revenue bond is an ad-
vantage critical to the transfer proposal. This enables an
airport authority to finance capital improvements from
private capital sources at a minimum cost.
The Maryland members of the Commission*® agree with
the majority with respect to revenue bonding authority,
but believe that the Metropolitan Washington Airports
should be separated. They recommend that Dulles be
transferred to the Commonwealth of Virginia, while Na-
tional be transferred to a tripartite authority with equal
representation of Maryland, Virginia and the District
of Columbia.
B. Conditions of Transfer
The transfer should be by long-term lease with only
nominal consideration, on the condition that the new
authority operate both National and Washington
Dulles Internationa) as primary air carrier airports
serving the metropolitan Washington area. Any rev-
enues of the new authority should be expended only
on Dulles and National airport facilities. The au-
thority should assume any existing hypothetical debt
of the MWA to the Treasury.
Valuation of airport property is a difficult business, as
airports are rarely bought and sold. The Commission is
satisfied that, however a market price might be deter-
mined, a public transferee willing to pay a substantial
price for the Metropolitan Washington Airports is not
available. Nevertheless, the Commission believes that a
3 Paul Sarbanes, Steny Hoyer, James Truby and Scott Fosler.
17
new airport authority should reimburse the federal gov-
ernment for the recoverable costs of past airport capital
investments. This should be done on the same basis the
Metropolitan Washington Airports has been repaying
these costs to the Treasury. The existing debt stands at
$67.3 million. The new authority would make progress
payments over a fixed period of not more than 35 years
as part of its lease.
C. Governing Board
The authority should be governed by a single board
of eleven members serving staggered six-year terms,
five members to be appointed by the Governor of
Virginia; three by the Mayor of the District of Co-
lumbia; two by the Governor of Maryland; and one
by the President, with the advice and consent of the
Senate. The board should elect a chair from among
its members.
Members should not hold elective or appointive polit-
ical office, should reside in the Washington Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area, and should serve with-
out compensation. The residence requirement should
not apply to the Presidential appointee.
A seven-vote majority should be required to approve
bond issues and the annual budget.
The Commission has been most impressed with the need
for a non-political, independent authority with a board
able to reach decisions without consideration of extrane-
ous issues. The conditions proposed on board membership
are common to most successful airport authorities. The
residency requirement is recommended to allay any con-
cerns that either Governor might appoint members from
other parts of the state who might have interests incon-
sistent with those of the Washington area.
Consistent with their overall position, the Maryland mem-
bers dissent from the proposed allocation among the three
jurisdictions of members of the board, though not from
18
the proposed restrictions on their appointment, or the
choice of the governors and the mayor as appointing au-
thorities. With respect to National Airport, they recom-
mend three members appointed by each jurisdiction, with
the possibility of two members to represent the Congress.‘
Mr. Ignatius, on behalf of the Air Transport Association,
prefers an allocation of board members that would pro-
vide for a majority of the appointees from a single ju-
risdiction, and abstains with respect to the composition
of the eleven-member board.
D. Employees
Pay levels, pensions and other benefits for present
employees should be preserved.
The Commission has been impressed with the favorable
reputation enjoyed by employees of the Metropolitan
Washington Airports. Continuity will be required when
the Airports change hands, and employees should be pro-
tected not only out of fairness to them, but to keep the
airports functioning as efficiently as in the past.
For that reason, the new authority should provide a level
of rights and benefits for the existing employees no less
than what they are receiving at the time of transfer. To
this end, the authority should be permitted to participate
in the federal pension system with respect to present em-
ployees, or to develop an at least equivalent pension sys-
tem of its own. MWA employees should retain any fed-
eral employment rights for a period of two years. An
adequate transition period should be provided to assure
that a complete pay and benefit package is developed be-
fore employees must elect between employment with the
new authority and continuing federal employment.
The Maryland members do not dissent from this recom-
mendation.
‘Mr. Fosler advocates an agreement based on the same board
structure for a single authority operating both airports.
19
IV. Conclusion
The Commission therefore recommends to the Secretary
of Transportation that she submit to the Congress legis-
lation authorizing the transfer of the Metropolitan Wash-
ington Airports to an independent authority to be estab-
lished by interstate compact between the Commonwealth
of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The transfer
should be made only if the two jurisdictions enact legis-
lation establishing such an authority with the character-
istics set forth above.
Respectfully submitted,
/3/ A. Linwood Holton, Jr. /s/ William J. Ronan
A. LINWoopD HOLTON, JR. WILLIAM J. RONAN
Chairman
/s/ Franklin E. White /s/ Pauline A. Schneider
FRANKLIN E. WHITE, for PAULINE A. SCHNEIDER, for
CHARLEs 8. RoBB MARION BARRY, JR., Mayor
Governor of Virginia of the District of
Columbia
/s/ John W. Warner
United States Senate /3/ Frank Wolf.
FRANK WOLF
/s/ Betty Ann Kane House of Representatives
Betty ANN KANE
District of Columbia Council /s/ Martha V. Pennino
MARTHA V. PENNINO
/s/ Paul R. Ignatius Fairfax County Board of
PAUL R. IGNATIUS Supervisors
Air Transport Association
/s/ Duane H. Ewedahl
/3/ John H. Winant DUANE H. EwWeEDAHL
JoHN H. WINANT Regional Airline Association
National Business Aircraft
Association
Attachments
Views of the Maryland Delegation
Wheat, First & Salomon Brothers Analysis
20
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Washington, D.C. 20515
Steny H. Hoyer Appropriations Committee
5th District, Maryland Treasury, Postal Service,
General Government
Labor,
Health and Human Services,
Education
To: MEMBERS, ADVISORY COMMISSION ON THE REORGAN-
IZATION OF THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
AIRPORTS
FROM: CONGRESSMAN STENY HOYER, SENATOR PAUL
SARBANES, GOVERNOR HARRY HUGHES, COUN-
CILMAN SCOTT FOSLER
Re: ALTERNATIVE REPORT TO THE COMMISSION
These comments are offered in the interest of produc-
ing a report which contributes to achieving our shared
objective, as outlined in the Commission’s Charter:
transferring National and Dulles airports to an appro-
priate state, local, or interstate body.
As we indicated during the December 13th Commission
meeting, Governor Holton’s efforts to “forge a solution”
which reflects the interests of the Commission member-
ship have been impressive. In this regard, we appreciate
the Governor’s openness to submitting a report to Secre-
tary Dole which describes two approaches under which
local control of National and Dulles could be exercised.
We concur with Secretary of Transportation Dole’s
premise that the Federa] Aviation Administration should
not be in the business of operating airports. We believe
that the proposal submitted by C ongressman Hoyer to
transfer National Airport to an interstate authority and
21
Dulles International Airport to the State of Virginia
is consistent with the Secretary’s objectives of heighten-
ing local control over the two Washington Metropolitan
Airports, as well as relinquishing federal control over the
airports.
Maryland strongly endorses the transfer of National
Airport to an-interstate authority and Dulles Airport to
the State of Virginia. Under this approach, National
would be leased to a nine member interstate authority
with three members each from the District of Columbia,
Virginia and Maryland, ampointed by the Mayor of the
District of Columbia and the two Governors. The Na-
tional Airport Authority would have full policy, operating
and financing authority.
We are open to including one or two representatives of
the Federal Government on the authority to recognize
the Federal interest in the “Nation’s Airport.”
The members of the authority would serve staggered
six year terms and would not hold elective or appointed
political office, would reside in the Washington Metro-
politan Area, and would serve without compensation.
Employees of National Airport would be protected, and
their pay levels, pensions and other benefits would be
preserved.
Under our proposal, Dulles International Airport would
be transferred to the State of Virginia. Employees of
Dulles would be protected, and their pay levels, pensions
and other benefits would be preserved. Virginia, of
course, would have full policy and financing authority and
responsibility once the transfer of Dulles has occurred.
This approach, we believe, reflects the significant inter-
est of each of the principal jurisdictions in National Air-
port while allowing Virginia to develop Dulles in the
same way Maryland is developing Baltimore-Washington
International.
20
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Washington, D.C. 20515
Steny H. Hoyer Appropriations Committee
5th District, Maryland Treasury, Postal Service
General Government
Labor,
- Health and Human Services,
Education
To: MEMBERS, ADVISORY COMMISSION ON THE REORGAN-
IZATION OF THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
AIRPORTS
FROM: CONGRESSMAN STENY HOYER, SENATOR PAUL
SARBANES, GOVERNOR HARRY HUGHES, CouN-
CILMAN SCOTT FOSLER
RE: ALTERNATIVE REPORT TO THE COMMISSION
These comments are offered in the interest of produc-
ing a report which contributes to achieving our shared
objective, as outlined in the Commission’s Charter:
transferring National and Dulles airports to an appro-
priate state, local, or interstate body.
As we indicated during the December 13th Commission
meeting, Governor Holton’s efforts to “forge a solution”
which reflects the interests of the Commission member-
ship have been impressive. In this regard, we appreciate
the Governor’s openness to submitting a report to Secre-
tary Dole which describes two approaches under which
local control of National and Dulles could be exercised.
We concur with Secretary of Transportation Dole’s
premise that the Federal Aviation Administration should
not be in the business of operating airports. We believe
that the proposal submitted by Congressman Hoyer to
transfer National Airport to an interstate authority and
21
Dulles International Airport to the State of Virginia
is consistent with the Secretary’s objectives of heighten-
ing local control over the two Washington Metropolitan
Airports, as well as relinquishing federal control over the
airports.
Maryland strongly endorses the transfer of National
Pres: to an interstate authority and Dulles Airport to
the State of Virginia. Under this approach, National
would be leased to a nine member interstate authority
with three members each from the District of Columbia,
Virginia and Maryland, appointed by the Mayor of the
District of Columbia and the two Governors. The Na-
tional Airport Authority would have full policy, operating
and financing authority.
We are open to including one or two representatives of
the Federal Government on the authority to recognize
the Federal interest in the “Nation’s Airport.”
The members of the authority would serve staggered
six year terms and would not hold elective or appointed
political office, would reside in the Washington Metro-
politan Area, and would serve without compensation.
Employees of National Airport would be protected, and
their pay levels, pensions and other benefits would be
preserved.
Under our proposal, Dulles International Airport would
be transferred to the State of Virginia. Employees of
Dulles would be protected, and their pay levels, pensions
and other benefits would be preserved. Virginia, of
course, would have full policy and financing authority and
responsibility once the transfer of Dulles has occurred.
This approach, we believe, reflects the significant inter-
est of each of the principal jurisdictions in National Air-
port while allowing Virginia to develop Dulles in the
same way Maryland is developing Baltimore-Washington
International.
22
By recognizing that all jurisdictions do not have equiv-
alent interests in Dulles, the Hoyer approach avoids the
problem of fair representation which is inherent and in-
soluable in the single-authority proposal. As stated ear-
lier, we understand that Virginia is troubled by the pros-
pect of subsidizing Dulles during the initial period under
a two-authority approach. However, we point out that
Maryland’s $200 million investment in Baltimore-
Washington International is paying significant dividends.
We believe that this type of investment by Virginia and
Dulles should prove equally beneficial.
Finally, we also believe that the Alternative Pro-
posal offered by Councilman Scott Fosler of Montgomery
County is a worthwhile alternative in that it endorses a
single airport board for both National and Dulles air-
ports—a concept that meets the efficiency-in-operations
objectives of Secretary Dole and has the support of a
majority of the Members on the Airport Commission.
The Fosler proposal, takes what we believe to be an im-
portant step further by recognizing the implicit interest
of each of the neighboring jurisdictions in a fair regional
air transportation policy, and provides that the single
board reflect an equal representation of members from
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Coiumbia. We
believe that the Fosler proposal warrants further discus-
sion.
Respectfully submitted,
/3/ Harry R. Hughes /8/ Paul S. Sarbanes
HARRY R. HUGHES Senator, State of Maryland
Governor, State of Maryland
/s/ Seott Fosler
/s/ Steny H. Hoyer Scott FosLer
STENY H. Hover Councilman, Montgomery
Congressman, County, Maryland
State of Maryland
23
Alternative Proposal
Submitted by Councilman Scott Fosler
I support the Maryland proposal to transfer Washing-
ton National Airport to an interstate authority and Dulles
Airport to the State of Virginia as an important step
toward regional airport management. However, I also
believe the benefits to the entire region would be even
greater if the two airports were managed by a single au-
thority that genuinely reflected the interests of the entire
Washington metropolitan area. While the Commission
has done an admirable job of moving toward our shared
objective, I do not believe the majority proposal for an
authority comprised of five members from Virginia, three
from the District of Columbia, and two from Maryland,
with one member appointed by the President, will accom-
plish the representation I believe essential for success.
I believe that a single, regional authority governing
Washington National and Dulles Airports, with equal rep-
resentation from Virginia, Maryland, and the District of
Columbia (with provision for federal representation) _is
the simplest, fairest, and most practical way to provide
effective airport management for the Washington region.
Washington National is indisputably a regional airport
and should be governed with equal representation from
the region’s principal governments. Dulles, while cur-
rently producing neither the regional benefits nor the
burdens in the magnitude of Washington National, none-
theless has substantial regional impact. The fact that the
Virginia members of the Commission feel their state
would decline to accept sole responsibility for Dulles with-
out National, fearing that Dulles by itself would not be
financially viable is a clear indication that the prime im-
portance of Dulles lies not in its geographical location,
but rather in its role as a regional air facility.
Viewed separately, Washington National is a more
fully regional facility than Dulles. Taken together, the
24
two airports constitute a regional airport whose collective
benefits and burdens have substantial impact on the en-
tire Washington region, including the Maryland as well
as the Virginia and District portions. However these
benefits and burdens are measured—whether in popula-
tion, airport patronage, economic development, or envi-
ronmental impact—the current and potential effect of
airport management on any of the three jurisdictions
argues strongly for equal representation from each on a
regional governing body.
A single regional authority with equal representation
Is not only fair and workable, it is also the most likely
plan both to win the approval of Congress and to advance
the spirit of partnership which is essential to effective
regional government in the Washington metropolitan
area.
25
USS. District Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3
JRB:JEP:JDT :djy
H.R. 5040
[LOGO]
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
Aug. 6, 1986
Honorable Norman Y. Mineta
C iairman
Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Public Works and Transportation
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Mineta:
At the request of the Department of Transportation
we have reviewed several alternatives proposed by your
staff as substitutes for H.R. 5040, the “Metropolitan
Washington Airports Transfer Act of 1986,” which will
authorize the Secretary of Transportation to transfer
Washington National and Washington Dulles Interna-
tional Airports to an independent Metropolitan Washing-
ton Airports Authority (Airports Authority), created by
an interstate compact between Virginia and the District
of Columbia. These staff proposals would provide for the
creation of a board consisting of members of the House
and Senate, which would have the authority to disap-
prove certain decisions made by the Airports Authority,
including the adoption of an annual budget, the issuance
of bonds, the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a reguls-
tion, the adoption of development plans and plans for
land acquisition, and the appointment of the General
Manager.
26
Two of the suggestions made by the staff would pre-
sent substantial constitutional problems. The first of
these proposals would create a “Federal Board of Di-
rectors,” consisting of three members of the House, ap-
pointed by the Speaker, three members of the Senate, ap-
pointed by the President pro tempore, and the Comptroller
General. As proposed, this Federal Board would clearly
be unconstitutional. In reality the Federal Board would
be no more than a committee of Congress plus the Comp-
troller General—who is clearly a legislative officer. This
committee would be authorized by the bill to veto certain
types of actions otherwise within the Airports Author-
ity’s power under applicable state law.? In the absence of
the Federal Board, the Airports Authority could imple-
ment those decisions without further review or approval.
Disapproval by the Federal Board of a particular action
would thus have “the purpose and effect of altering the
legal rights, duties, and relations of persons .. . outside
the Legislative Branch,” INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,
952 (1983), and would plainly be legislative action that
must conform to the requirements of Article 1, section 7
of the Constitution: passage by both Houses and ap-
proval by the President. Id. at 954-955. Congress can-
not directly vest the Federal Board with authority to
veto decisions made by the Airports Authority any more
than it can authorize one House, one committee, or one
officer to overturn the Attorney General’s decision to al-
low a deportable alien to remain in the United States,* to
reject rules implemented by an executive agency pur-
1 See Bowsher v. Synar, —~ U.S. —— (July 7, 1986), slip op.
at 11-16.
* Both Virginia and the District of Columbia have enacted into
law the provisions of the interstate compact, which create the Au-
thority and vest it with powers to operate the airports. We under-
stand that the compact was entered into pursuant to standing
statutory authorization, and therefore no additional congressional
approval is needed for the compact or, presumably, for any changes
to the compact.
* INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. at 955.
LD OL Re ap a ee
PEND le ct te
27
, : d-
t to delegated authority,‘ to dictate mandatory bu
ak eae i he made by the President,® or to overturn
any decision made by a state agency.°
ngress could, consistent with the constitutional
.. delegate this sort of authority to a board within
the executive branch. However, since the responsibilities
to be exercised by the Board are clearly operational, par-
ticipation by members of Congress chosen by the leader-
ship would violate the Incompatability Clause and the
Appointments Clause* of the Constitution. If the Fed-
eral Board were to be established as an executive branch
agency, its members would have to be appointed by the
President or the head of an executive department or
agency,’ and members of Congress could serve, if at all,
only in an advisory capacity.
4Consumer Energy Council of America v. FERC, 673 F.2d 425
(D.C. Cir. 1982), aff'd 103 S.Ct. 3556 (1983).
5 Bowsher v. Synar, slip op. at ——. ; |
s gress t often included legislative veto devices in
onan that ee to the executive branch, and conse-
quently litigation over legislative veto issues has cen een
sharing of power within the federal government. The Court’s eci-
sion in INS v. Chadha clearly encompasses, however, any legislative
action taken by Congress—i.e., any action that affects the legal
rights, duties, and relations of persons . . . outside the Legisla-
tive Branch.” 462 U.S. at 952. The clear import of Chadha is
that when Congress legislates in a manner that affects the author-
ity of anyone outside the legislative branch—including the states or
private individuals—it cannot retain the authority to alter that leg-
islation through less than the plenary legislative process.
ited States, shall
™ [No person holding any Office under the Un h
be a ae of either House during his Continuance in Office.
oS President] shall appoint . . . all other Officers of the
wast ieee whose Appointments are not herein otherwise pro-
vided for, and which shall be established by Law; but the Congress
may be Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as
they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law,
or in the Heads of Departments.” Art. II, section 2, clause 2.
® Congress could, if it chose, require Senate confirmation of such
appointments.
28
Thus, the creation by Congress of the Federal Board
and the assignment to the Board of authority to veto de-
cisions made by the Airports Authority are clearly in-
consistent with the requirements of the Constitution. The
Department of Justice strongly opposes enactment of any
such legislation.
A second staff draft would require Virginia and the
District of Columbia to establish the Board under state
law, as a condition to their acceptance of the transfer of
the airports, rather than directly establish and empower
the Federal Board. As we understand it, this alternative
would provide that the transfer of the airport property
may necessitate the enactment by Virginia and the Dis-
trict of Columbia of additional legislation (which would
necessarily reflect a change in the underlying compact
agreement) to create a new entity whose membership
and powers would be identical to the proposed Federal
Board.” Under this alternative the Board in theory
would not exercise Congress’s legislative powers, but
rather powers granted to it under state law, thereby
removing any federal constitutional problem."
This alternative presents complex and novel questions
involving the relationship between federal and state
grants of authority. The Supreme Court has long recog-
nized that Congress may place conditions on the transfer
of funds or property to the states,” See, e.g., Pennhurst
Virginia and the District of Columbia may have existing en-
abling legislation that would authorize the creation of the Board
under their laws without a separate enactment.
1! We do not address here whether this alternative would be con-
sistent with applicable state laws. We recommend that counsel
for Virginia and the District be given an opportunity to identify
any possible legal problems arising from state law.
12 Congress’s power to condition the transfer of federal property
arises from the grant in Article 4V, section 3, clause 2 of authority
to Congress to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regula-
tions respecting the... Property belonging to the United States.”
29
State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 US. 1, 17
(1981) (Congress may “fix the terms on which it shall
disburse federal money”); Oklahoma v. United States
Civil Service Commission, 330 U.S. 127, 143 (1947);
United States v. San Francisco, 310 US. 16, 29-30
(1940) (“Congress may constitutionally limit the dis-
position of the public domain to a manner consistent with
its views of public policy.”). The Court has also long
recognized, -however, that Congress cannot attach uncon-
stitutional conditions to a legislative benefit or program
merely because it has authority to withhold the benefit or
power entirely. For example, Congress could, if it chose,
bar aliens from our shores, but could not admit them
under conditions which deprive them of constitutional
rights such as the right to a fair trial. Wong Wing v.
United States, 163 U.S. 228, 237 (1896). The require-
ment that the Senate consent to appointments of execu-
tive officers does not, by inference, empower the Senate to
exert control over the removai of officers once approved
(see Myers v. United States, 272 US. 52, 126 (1926)),
any more than the Senate’s power to advise and consent
to ratification of treaties can be used to override the re-
quirements of the Constitution. See Reid v. Covert, 354
U.S. 1, 16-17 (1957). See also, Geofroy v. Riggs, 133
U.S. 258, 267 (1890); The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 US.
(11 Wall.) 616, 620-621 (1871); Fourteen Diamond
Rings v. United States, 183 U.S. 176, 183 (1901) ( Brown,
J., concurring). A fortiori, Congress could not use its
constitutional authority to place conditions on the dis-
position of federal property to achieve an unconstitutional
result.
It is not entirely clear, however, whether creation by
the states of the Federal Board would be an unconsti-
tutional result. For example, both staff drafts currently
provide, in somewhat analogows terms, that the transfer
of the airports is conditioned on establishment of the
Airports Authority as “a public body corporate and pol-
itic, having the powers and jurisdiction as are conferred
upon it jointly by the legislative authority of the Com-
monwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia see”
and on imposition by the states of certain “minimum”
requirements on the powers and rights of the Authority.”
If Congress were to create this Authority directly, rather
than the states, we would undoubtedly view the Authority
as a federal agency whose members would have to be ap-
pointed pursuant to the Appointments and Incompatabil-
ity Clauses and that would be subject to all other federal
constitutional requirements. Because its powers and du-
os wong ye from state, rather than federal law
owever, irports Authority is j
constitutional objection. esi entice
Based on this analogy, a colorable argument can be
made that Congress could require the states, as a condi-
tion to transfer of the airports, to establish the Federal
Board under state law and to vest it with the power to
veto decisions made by the Authority. The Board would
differ from the Airports Authority in that its memibers
would have to be congressmen, and would be appointed
by the congressional leadership rather than by the par-
ticipating states and the President. In the absence of
other factors, we would not ordinarily find any federal
* 18 These include, for example, that the Airports Authority be
Pree dent” of state and local governments; that it be consti-
uted “solely to operate both Metropolitan Washington Airports
to issue bonds secured by revenues. to acquire other real and
’ r-
sonal property, and to levy fees and charges: that it be cuhdest to
certain conflict-of-interest provisions; and that it be governed
by a board of 11 members appointed by the Governor of Virginia
the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Governor of Maryland
* By contrast, members of the Airports Authorit
elective or appointive office. rports Authority may not hold
31
constitutional objection to designation by the states of
members of Congress to exercise state legislative author-
ity. If otherwise permitted under state law,” for in-
stance, we believe members of Congress could be ap-
pointed to state regulatory agencies or other state ex-
ecutive positions.
Nonetheless, given the evident purpose of the Federal
Board as it would be constituted, and the context in which
the creation of the Board is being considered, we have
grave reservations whether the Board is constitutional.
The Supreme Court made clear in Chadha that Congress
may place limitations on the scope of the authority it
delegates to the executive branch and may designate
which executive officers shall exercise that authority;
what Congress cannot do, however, is to delegate author-
ity to one of its houses, committees, or officers to veto
particular decisions made pursuant to that delegated
authority—in effect, to retain day-to-day control over
the exercise of executive authority. See INS v. Chadha,
462 U.S. at 955 (“Congress must abide by its delegation
of authority until that delegation is legislatively altered
or revoked.”) Chadha makes: clear that “once Congress
makes its choice in enacting legislation, its participation
ends. Congress can thereafter control the execution of ~
its enactment only indirectly—by passing new legislation.”
Bowsher v. Synar, slip op. at 18.
By analogy, Congress can impose conditions on the
transfer of public property that limit the manner in
which that property may be used and designate which
state or federal executive officers may make decisions
about use of the property. The proposed condition re-
quiring establishment of the Airports Authority and
specifying its powers and duties thus presents no Chadha
15 As we noted above, there may be statutory or constitutional
impediments that arise under state law. We do not address that
question here.
32
problem. However, the proposed Fede -
nificantly different from 'the Airports 7 A na is on
It would clearly be intended to be an agent of Congress
and to exercise direct congressional oversight authority
over the Board.” Even though the Board would be ere-
ated under state law and would theoretically derive its
courts would view this Board as an attempt by Congress
to circumvent the clear requirements of Article 1, section
to agree to the condition, while perha i
" ps sufficient to avoid
any subsequent objections based on state sovereignty,"
** As currently proposed, we believe the Boa
: ‘ rd Id -
sidered to be an “agent of Congfess,” acting on Chaenane Sean
= at its behest. The Board would consist of members of Congress
esignated in their official capacity, appointed by (and therefore
subject to removal by) the congressional leadership. As the Su-
preme Court noted recently in Bowsher v. Synar, slip op. at 14, the
ability to remove an individual from office “dictate[s] that he will
ao to Congress.” The Board would thus clearly be
. = to Congress, rather than to Virginia or the District
umbia, even though created under state law. Moreover, the
language of the bill recites Congress’s express intent to acsuee
we age congressional oversight of airport operation and develop-
= in the Federal interest.” Finally, we cannot ignore that the
ternative requiring the states to establish the Board has been
sayy precisely to avoid the clear constitutional objections raised
7 — direct effort by Congress to establish and empower the
oa a context that strongly sugyests Congress intends the
Board, however authorized, to act as its agent.
17 As discussed above, the Supreme Court has repea
held, in broad terms, Congress's authority to Race. enn a
the exercise of authority to spend funds and transfer ropert
But the question addressed in those cases has been wtietiies havi i.
accepted the benefit of the federal funds or property the ciate
had a “sovereign right to retain [the benefit’ without comply i :
with those conditions.” Bell v. New Jersey, 461 U.S. 174 "791
(1983). To the extent those cases are relevant here they cane
tee he ee
33
would not change the fact that Congress is unwilling to
give its consent to the transfer unless it is able to retain
some direct control, through its agents, over use of the
property. This is precisely the sort of “appealing com-
promise” that the Court has found inconsistent with the
constitutional scheme for legislation. INS v. Chadha, 462
U.S. at 958; see also Bowsher v. Synar, slip op. at 18.
If it were not as clear that this proposed alternative
is imtended to give Congress, gua Congress, continued
direct control over operation of the airports, the argu-
ment in favor of its constitutionality would be strength-
ened. As the Board would be established, it would be
difficult to escape the conclusion that the members serve
in their official legislative capacities, as representatives
of Congress as a whole. However, members of Congress
certainly constitute a significant user group of the two
airports, and it would perhaps not be inappropriate for
them to have a voice in the operational decisions in their
individual capacities. For example, it might be possible
for Congress to require the states to establish a board
composed of representatives of user groups, such as mem-
bers of Congress, to oversee decisions made by the Air-
ports Authority.” If it were made clear that those
members serve only in an individual capacity, to repre-
sent their personal interests in the operation of the air-
ports, rather than as agents of Congress, we do not be-
lieve a Chadha problem would necessarily be presented.
In our judgment, the best way to disassociate the Board
only that Virginia and the District of Columbia could not accept
the transfer of the airports and then refuse to comply with the
condition requiring establishment of a Federal Board on the ground
that the condition infringes their state sovereignty.
A board consisting solely of, and designated hy, members of
Congress, with veto authority over decisions made by the Airports
Authority, would be problematic in light of Chadha, and in this
regard, we do not believe that merely designating members of Con-
gress as “users,” without placing their appointment to the Board
outside of Congress, would be sufficient to overcome our objection.
34
from Congress would be to vest appointment and removal
authority in someone other than the congressional leader-
ship. Moreover, language should be included in the bill
or its legislative history which articulates the importance
of the airports to individual congressmen, because of their
frequent use, and specifically stating that the congres-
sional members of the Board shall represent only their
personal interests.’®
In that regard, the third draft suggested by your staff
does not present the same constitutional objection as the
two earlier drafts. Under this alternative, the participat-
ing states (including the District of Columbia) would be
required to establish, as a condition of leasing the air-
ports, a “Board of Review” consisting of four members
of the House of Representatives and four members of the
Senate. This Board would have the same authority to dis-
approve actions taken by the Airports Authority as would
the Federal Board proposed under the other staff drafts.
The members of the Board would serve in their indi-
vidual capacity as users of the airport and not as rep-
resentatives of Congress, and would be appointed by the
Board of Directors of the Airports Authority from
names submitted by the Speaker of the House and the
President pro tempore. Even though as a practical mat-
ter the Speaker and the President pro tempore will be
able to exercise some influence over the appointment by
choosing the names on the required lists, we do not view
that limitation as one of constitutional dimension. An-
alogously, we have not historically objected to statutes
providing that the President make appointments of ex-
ecutive officers from lists provided by Congress, so long
as the President is free to request additional names if
19 We caution, however, that if such a board were established,
the congressional members would have to take care to distinguish
between their respective roles as members of Congress and as
member of the board. We also note that we have not reviewed
whether the applicable ethics rules of the House and Senate would
pose any bar to such membership.
a ee ee
35
he does not find a list satisfactory. We assume the same
flexibility will be accorded the Airports Authority.
Although the issue is not free from doubt, we believe
that with the revisions made by this third draft, the pro-
posal will withstand constitutional scrutiny. An explicit
recitation in the bill that the members of Congress serve
only in their individual capacity, as users of the airports,
will serve as a clear indication that Congress does not
intend the Board to function as an adjunct or agent of
Congress qua Congress—i.e., Congress acting in its legis-
lative capacity. We assume that this understanding will
be discussed in some detail in the legislative history of
the bill. Importantly, vesting final appointment and re-
moval authority in the Board of Directors of the Airports
Authority, disassociates the Buwrd from the direct control
and supervision of the congressional leadership.
For the foregoing reasons, we would not object on con-
stitutional grounds to enactment of the provision con-
tained in the third staff draft. We defer to the Depart-
ment of Transportation as to the merits of the proposal.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised this
Department that there is no objection to submission of
this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s
program.
Sincerely,
/s/ John R. Bolton
JOHN R. BOLTON
Assistant Attorney General
36
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS
AUTHORITY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 1987
The regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority was held
on June 3, 1987, in the West Building at Washington
National Airport. The meeting was called to order by the
Chairman at 9 a.m.
PRESENT
Ten members of the Board were present:
Bette Anderson
Michael Barnes
Linwood Holton
Ron M. Linton
Elijah Rogers
Polly Shackleton
T. Eugene Smith
Thomas P. Smith
William Thomas
Carrington Williams
Mr. Jack Edwards, nominated as the Presidential ap-
pointee, was also in attendance.
The first order of business was approval of the pre-
viously distributed minutes of the meeting held on May 6.
Governor Holton noted that the minutes as written were
not to be construed to mean that the Board would not
examine the Master Plan for Washington Dulles. The
minutes were approved.
37
Following the agenda of the meeting, (copy enclosed),
under agenda item II, Committee Reports, the Chairman
called for reports of the various committees.
Ms. Bette Anderson, Chairperson of the Finance Com-
mittee reported the following:
The Finance Committee has met twice since the last
Board Meeting. At the May 22 meeting, the Finance
Committee reviewed the four mcnth Transition Pe-
riod Financial Plan which had been prepared by the
Metropolitan Washington Airports (MWA) staff.
With some modifications, the Committee supported
that plan. A copy of the Financial Plan, as endorsed
by the Committee, was enclosed in the material which
was forwarded to each Board Member for today’s
meeting. At the appropriate time, Ms. Anderson
noted that she was prepared to move the adoption of
that plan, with a Resolution which was also included
in the mailing for today’s meeting.
The Finance Committee met again on May 28, to
consider the Authority’s insurance program. This is
one of the areas which the full Board had delegated
to the Finance Committee. Using that delegation,
the Finance Committee had also earlier authorized
award of several contracts for employee health and
life insurance. At the May 28 meeting, the Finance
Committee reviewed various options available for
other necessary insurance coverages and authorized
the MWA staff to proceed to place insurance in a
variety of areas, with the major items being the Air-
port Liability, Property, and Workers’ Compensation
coverages. These coverages are being placed this
week and will be in effect by the planned transfer
date, June 7.
The Finance Committee has not yet approved place-
ment of coverage for Public Officials liability. The
quotes received were very expensive. The Committee
38
is further pursuing that item with the hope of hav-
ing coverage placed in the very near future.
Mr. Ron Linton, Chairman of the Operations Committee,
reported that the Committee had met since the last Board
Meeting and minutes from that meeting had been dis-
tributed to all Board Members. The Committee’s initial
focus will be on air safety matters at the two airports.
The Committee and MWA staff are planning to develop
a study session and Board Members will be advised when
this will take place.
Mr. Carrington Williams, Chairman of the Planning
Committee, reported that the Committee is endeavoring
to find a date when a considerable amount of time could
be spent with the professional planners, architects and
engineers to discuss fully the Master Plan for Washington
Dulles. The dates of July 11, 18, and 25 have been
determined as being available with the various consultant
firms for the Dulles session. The MWA staff will be
contacting the Board Members to determine which, if
any, of those dates is most convenient for the Board
Members.
Turning to the information items under agenda item III,
Mr. Edward Faggen reported on the status of legislation
in the local jurisdictions. He noted that the D.C. Council
had taken final action this past Tuesday to amend the
enabling legislation and it was expected to be signed by
the Mayor. On June 1, the Loudoun County Board of
Supervisors adopted an Ordinance that would apply to
certain County Ordinances at Dulles. On June 6, Arling-
ton County is expected to adopt a similar amendment to
their Ordinances.
Under agenda item IIIb, progress report on other transfer
activities, Mr. Wilding reported that 93 percent of the
MWA work force had opted to transfer with the Author-
ity. Of the 93 percent, 83 percent were straight trans-
a ee
39
fers and 10 percent were those individuals who would
be retiring and returning.
Governor Holton inquired about the status of the Lease.
Mr. Faggen reported that Governor Baliles is expected to
sign it before Saturday night. The Mayor of the District
has signed it.
Mr. Wilding noted that the Lease identified a number of
items which had to be accomplished before the Lease
became effective. He indicated that there were a few of
those items remaining and, once all were accomplished,
Secretary Dole and Governor Holton would be asked to
execute a certification document to that effect.
On agenda item IIIc, report on use of direct hiring au-
thority, Mr. Wilding reported that there wasn’t anything
new to report since the last meeting. Overall, this author-
ity had been used in 31 instances and since it was an
interim measure pez‘ng the transfer, this would be the
last report.
Mr. Linton inquired as to whether we were moving on
hiring additional police and firefighters. Mr. Wilding
responded by saying we were hiring ten additional fire-
fighters effective the following Monday and that a lot of
work was being done in these areas.
On agenda item IIId, current concession and construction
activities, Mr. Wilding noted that Mr. Thomas Smith had
suggested at the May Board Meeting that a list of con-
cession type solicitations be developed. This has been done
and was in the folder before them. It will continue to be
updated on a regular basis. Mr. Wilding also noted that
the airport traffic statistics for April were in the folder
before them.
Governor Holton then introduced Mr. Najeeb Halaby,
President of DartRAIL who presented a briefing on Dart-
RAIL, a proposed 16.7 mile light rail system beginning
at the West Falls Church Metro station and ending at
Washington Dulles International Airport’s main terminal.
40
DartRAIL, as proposed, would be constructed on the
median strip dividing the Dulles Access Road. Mr. Halaby
encouraged the Board to give their support to the trans-
portation system,
Governor Holton told the DartRAIL representatives that
he admired the innovative initiatives that DartRAIL had
produced, noting that there were still a lot of unanswered
questions.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the Planning Committee con-
sider what the Authority should be doing now to pursue
some type of rapid rail to Dulles (not necessarily Dart-
RAIL).
Mr. Wilding noted that this raises some serious priority
questions because there are so many issues to which the
Authority needs to be devoting their energies and re-
sources.
Governor Holton said the Planning Committee should
take a preliminary look at rail systems and present a
recommendation to the Board, taking into account Mr.
Wilding’s viewpoint.
Mr. Faggen reported on agenda item IVa, adoption of
two additional regulations, (1) landing fee rule and (2)
weapons rule. Mr. Faggen reported that the FAA had
now completed the modification of these two regulations,
as had been forecast at the time the Board adopted the
other regulations.
Mr. Williams moved the adoption of the following Reso-
lution and it was unanimously passed:
RESOLVED, That the regulations of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Metropolitan Washington
Airports in Federal Aviation Regulations, Sections
159.79, 159.181, 159.183, 159.184, and 159.185 as
they are effective on June 6, 1987, are hereby adopted
by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
with the force and effect of law as of the effective
41
date of the transfer of the Airports to the Metro
politan Washington Airports Authority.
Further, until the Airports regulations are recodi-
fied, they shall be cited as the Metropolitan Washing-
ton -“irports Regulations §§ 159.1 et seq.
Under agenda item Va., delegations of authority, Mr.
Linton noted that the Operations Committee was working
with the MWA staff on non-financial items and would
examine policies to see whether there were any recommen-
dations that needed to be brought before the full Board.
It was noted that the General Manager needed the neces-
sary “tools” to carry out the operations of the airports.
Mr. Thomas suggested and it was agreed that under item
d., in the delegations package, which had been previously
distributed to the Board Members, that the language be
changed to delete the phrase “easements and rights of
way.
On page 2 under item b., of this package, Mr. Rogers
suggested and it was agreed that the dollar amounts
be cut in half and the General Manager could approve
these sums. Anything in between the lower amount and
the figures as previously shown would need approval of
the Finance Committee. Anything above the figures pre-
viously shown would need to have the full Board’s
approval.
Mr. Rogers moved the adoption of the following Resolu-
tion and it was unanimously passed:
RESOLVED, That the General Manager of the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority is
hereby delegated the authority of the Board, subject
to the limitations expressed herein:
a) to manage the operation of Washington Na-
tional and Washington Dulles International Airports,
including hiring, administering and organizing the
42
staff to maintain, improve, operate, protect, and pro-
mote the airports,
b) to acquire, by purchase, lease or otherwise,
goods, services, and property, consistent with an
approved financial plan or budget,
c) to provide for the use of airport property by
airlines and other commercial enterprises, non-
commercial and governmental entities for aviation
business or activities, or activities necessary or ap-
propriate to serve passengers or cargo in air com-
merce, including concession agreements, or for non-
profit public use facilities,
d) to grant licenses and permits pertaining to the
use of airport property,
e) to enter into, administer, modify and terminate
contracts and agreements legally binding upon the
Authority for the purposes set out in paragraphs a
through d,
f) to expend Authority funds for the purposes set
out in a through d,
g) to redelegate and authorize further redelega-
tion and cancel any such redelegation as he considers
appropriate,
h) to issue directives to implement the above.
Limitations:
a) All authority delegated herein shall be exer-
cised in accordance with the laws, regulations and
bylaws applicable to the Authority and applicable
resolutions of the Board of Directors.
b) The acquisition of goods, services, and property
shall be accomplished in accordance with the per-
manent procedures and limitations to be adopted by
the Board which will include a program for obtain-
43
ing contracts with minority and women owned busi-
nesses.
1. Pending the adoption of this permanent pro-
cedure, Board approval is required: i) before the
solicitation and before the award of any contract to
acquire goods, services, and property at a cost to the
Authority of $200,000 or more, or any concession
contract which is anticipated to generate annual reve-
nue to the Authority of $100,000 or more, ii) before
solicitation for a contractor to perform construction
for the Authority that will cost the Authority
$1,000,000 or more, and iii) before approval of ten-
ant construction that will cost the tenant $1,000,000.
2. Pending the adoption of permanent procedures
on matters for which Board approval is not required,
approval of the Finance Committee of the Board is
required: i) before the solicitation and before the
award of any contract to acquire goods, services and
property at a cost to the Authority of $100,000 or
more, or any concession contract which is anticipated
to generate annual revenue to the Authority of
$50,000 or more, ii) before solicitation for a con-
tractor to perform construction for the Authority
that will cost the Authority $500,000 or more, and
iii) before approval of tenant construction that will
cost the tenant $500,000 or more.
ec) The delegation does not include authority for
the acquisition or sale of real property or the grant
of easements.
d) Notwithstanding these delegations, the Board
may expressly reserve any specific management or
contracting matters and decisions to itself or to a
duly constituted committee.
e) The General Manager shall present the Board
with a plan for staffing the airports. All selections
44
for positions reporting directly to the General Man-
ager shall be subject to approval by the Board.
Under agenda item Vb., adoption of Transition Period
Financial Plan, Ms. Anderson moved the adoption of the
proposed Resolution with a change suggested by Mr.
Thomas. The following Resolution was unanimously
passed :
RESOLVED, That the Trunsition Period Finan-
cial Plan is hereby adopted, the General Manager is
authorized to incur and liquidate direct expenses for
the transition period of June 7, 1987, through Sep-
tember 30, 1987, in a total amount not to exceed
$21,484,000 for the care, operation, maintenance, con-
struction, improvement, and protection of Washing-
ton National and Washington Dulles International
Airports, and the General Manager is authorized to
adjust or modify the financial plan in a manner gen-
erally consistent with the Plan and within the level
approved herein.
Turning to agenda item Vc., appointment of Board of
Review, Governor Holton said that letters had been re-
ceived from the Speakers of the United States House of
Representatives, Thomas O’Neill and from Jim Wright,
(copies enclosed) recommending the following for the
Board of Review:
Honorable Silvio O. Conte, Committee on Appropria-
tions
Honorable William Lehman, Committee on Appropri-
ations
Honorable Lawrence Coughlin, Committee on Appre-
priations
Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt, Committee on
Public Works and Transportation
Honorable Norman Y. Mineta, Committee on Public
Works and Transportation
45
Honorable Newt Gingrich, Committee on Public
Works and Transportation
Honorable Dan Rostenkowski, House of Representa-
tives
Governor Holton recommended the adoption of the follow-
ing Resolution which was unanimously passed:
RESOLVED, That in accordance with Article IV
of the Bylaws of the Metropolitan Washington Air-
ports Authority, each of the following named indi-
viduals having been properly recommended by the
Speaker of the United States House of Representa-
tives, the Board of Directors hereby appoints
from the Committee on Appropriations, the Honor-
able Silvio O. Conte and the Honorable William
Lehman,
from the Committee on Public Works and Trans-
portation, the Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt
and the Honorable Norman Y. Mineta,
from the House of Representatives, the Honorable
Dan Rostenkowski, to serve on the Board of Review
of the Airports Authority as representatives of the
users of the Metropolitan Washington Airports.
Further, these appointments shall be effective on
the effective date of the Lease between the Airports
Authority and the United States for the Lease of the
Metropolitan Washington Airports. The terms of
each of these appointments was determined by a
drawing, and is as follows, except that the Board
of Directors may remove for cause an appointee to
the Board of Review prior to the conclusion of his
term:
The Honorable Silvio 0. Conte 2 years
The Honorable William Lehman 4 years
The Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt 6 years
The Honorable Norman Y. Mineta 6 years
The Honorable Dan Rostenkowski 2 years
46
As yet, no names have been received from the Senate.
Under agenda item Vd., adoption of existing labor agree-
ments, Mr. Linton pointed out that a section in the
Lease required that the Board continue certain activities,
namely, to adopt all labor agreements which are in ef-
fect on the effective date of the Lease and to provide
for certain rights for employees of the FAA, MWA, who
transfer to the Authority and who are terminated by the
Authority during the first five years. He made a mo-
tion to adopt both Resolutions as previously distributed
to the Board. This was unanimously passed. Mr. Thomas
asked that the minutes reflect that this action was being
taken only because it was required by the Federal legisla-
tion and reflected in’ the Lease.
At 10:20 am., the meeting was adjourned and the Board
went into executive session to discuss personnel matters.
3 Enclosures
Submitted by /s/ June G. Anderson
JUNE G. ANDERSON
Secretary (Acting)
47
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9
RESOLUTION NO. 87-12
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION
RESOLVED, That in accordance with Article IV of
the Bylaws of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Au-
thority, each of the following named individuals having
been properly recommended by the Speaker of the United
States House of Representatives, the Board of Directors
hereby appoints
from the Committee on Appropriations, the Honor-
able Silvio O. Conte and the Honorable William
Lehman,
from the Committee on Public Works and Trans-
portation, the Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt
and the Honorable Norman Y. Mineta,
from the House of Representatives, the Honorable
Dan Rostenkowski, to serve on the Board of Review
of the Airports Authority as representatives of the
users of the Metropolitan Washington Airports.
FURTHER, these appointments shall be effective on
the effective date of the lease between the Airports Au-
thority and the United States for the lease of the Metro-
politan Washington Airports. The terms of each of these
appointments is as follows, except that the Board of Di-
rectors may remove for cause an appointee to the Board
of Review prior to the conclusion of his term:
48
The Honorable Silvio 0. Conte
The Honorable William Lehman
The Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt
The Honorable Norman Y. Mineta
The Honorable Dan Rostenkowski
/s/ June G. Anderson
JUNE G. ANDERSON
Acting Secretary
(Adopted at MWAA Board Meeting, June 3, 1987)
49
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 20
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
BOARD OF REVIEW
Washington National Airport
Washington, D.C. 20001
MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 1987
The first meeting of the Board of Review of the Metro-
politan Washington Airperts Authority, convened at the
call of the Authority, was held Thursday, August 6,
at 8:45 a.m. in Reom 2167 of the Rayburn House Of-
fice Building. Four members were present. As the Sen-
ate members had not yet been appointed, a quorum was
present.
Members Present:
John Paul Hammerschmidt
William Lehman
Norman Y. Mineta
Dan Rostenkowski
Absent:
Silvio 0. Conte
Authority Officers Present:
James A. Wilding, General Manager
Walter B. Hobart, Jr., Manager,
Administrative Systems
Gregory Wolf, Secretary and Counsellor to the
Board of Directors
50
Matters Pending Review
1. Appointment of James A. Wilding as General Man-
ager and Chief Executive Officer of the Authority.
Action taken by the Board of Directors at its regu-
lar meeting May 6, 1987; transmitted to the Board
of Review by Linwood Holton, Chairman, Board of
Directors, June 8, 1987.
2. Adoption of an Annual Budget for Fiscal year 1988
(October 1, 1987-September 30, 1988). Action taken
by the Board of Directors at a special meeting July
22, 1987; transmitted to the Board of Review by Lin-
wood Holton, July 23, 1987.
The Secretary, Mr. Wolfe, called the meeting to order
and requested nominations for Chairman. Mr. Hammer-
schmidt nominated Mr. Mineta; Mr. Rostenkowski sec-
onded. Nominations were then closed on the motion of
Mr. Lehman, and Mr. Mineta was unanimously elected by
a voice vote. He immediately assumed the chair.
The Board proceeded to consider the Fiscal year 1988
Annual Budget. Mr. Wilding provided a general briefing,
and he and Mr. Hobart responded to questions. The
Board then unanimously approved the Director’s adop-
tion of the annual budget, thus terminating the 30-day
review period.
The Board thereupon went into executive session to con-
sider the appointment of James A. Wilding as General
Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the Authority.
When the regular session resumed, the Chairman an-
nounced that the Board had unanimously approved the
Directors’ appointment of Mr. Wilding.
The Chairman announced that he would defer discvssion
both on the establishment of the position of Vice Chair-
man and on the employment of staff to the Board of
Review until] the rest of the Board had been appointed.
He also requested that the Authority provide informa-
51
tion about its organization to the Board of Review mem-
bers, and that briefings and tours of the facilities be
arranged. Mr. Wilding advised that the Board of Di-
rectors had on August 5 approved amendment to the
Authority’s taxicab regulations, and that they would be
forwarded soon to the Board of Review.
There being no further business, the meeting was ad-
journed at 9:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted:
/3/ Gregory Wolfe
GREGORY WOLFE
Secretary
approved
February 24, 1988
GW
52
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
Washington National Airport
Washington, D.C. 20001
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1987
The regular monthly meeting of the Metropolitan Wash-
ington Airports Authority Board of Directors was held
in the West Building at Washington National Airport
on September 2, 1987 and called to order by the Chair-
man at 9:00 a.m. The following nine members of the
Board and the as yet unconfirmed Presidential nominee
were present:
Bette B. Anderson
Michael D. Barnes
Linwood Holton, Chairman
Ron M. Linton
Elijah Rogers, Vice Chairman
T. Eugene Smith
Thomas P. Smith
William Thomas
Carrington Williams
Jack Edwards (Presidential nominee)
The Secretary and the following Authority officers were
also present:
James A. Wilding, General Manager
Hugh Riddle, Jr., Deputy General Manager
Edward S. Faggen, Legal Counsel
53
The first order of business was approval of the pre
viously distributed minutes of the last regular monthly
meeting, held August 5, 1987. The minutes were unani-
mously approved.
In accordance with the Authority’s bylaws, the Chairman
called for nominations for Chairman and Vice Chairman.
A motion made by Eugene Smith that the present Chair-
man and Vice Chairman be reelected for another one-
year term was adopted unanimously.
The Chairman then called for reports of the Finance,
Operations and Planning Committees.
Finance Committee Chairman Bette Anderson reported
that, although several Committee members were unable
to attend, the Committee had met August 19, 1987, and
had discussed with the staff a number of issues the Com-
mittee planned to act on at its September meeting. They
included: obtaining directors’ and officers’ liability insur-
ance, which is not included in the original insurance
coverages for the Authority; selecting a second fixed base
operator at Dulles; and continuing the Price Waterhouse
contract for support services to the Authority during the
transition period.
The Finance Committee also reported on the need to
expedite contract solicitations for bond counsel, feasi-
bility consultant, outside auditor, and program manager.
Ms. Anderson stated that she was prepared to move the
adoption of a resolution delegating authority to the Fi-
nance Committee to approve these solicitations at the
appropriate time.
Replacement of one of the fire engines demolished in an
accident on August 4, 1987, had also been discussed at
the Finance Committee meeting. Two alternative Resolu-
tions for replacing this vehicle would be offered.
Ron Linton, Operations Committee Chairman, reported
that the Committee had not met because a quorum could
sheath
54
not be assembled. The Committee would meet on Sep-
tember 17, 1987, and a report would be ready for the
next Board meeting.
Planning Committee Chairman Carrington Williams re-
ported that the Committee held a lengthy meeting on
August 28, 1987, chiefly to address the status of master
planning at National. Several Dulles issues had also
been discussed, including the decision to proceed with
moving sidewalks in the midfield terminal design and
close-in parking access alternatives, including decked
parking, without impacting the aesthetics of the Saarinen
terminal. Further exploration by the architects would
be requested in order to achieve an acceptable compro-
mise. Mr. Williams stated that this would be an issue
the Authority must confront, and noted that there are
strong Board member opinions on both sides.
Mr. Williams also reported that Howard, Needles, Tam-
men & Bergendoff (HNTB) had provided the Planning
Committee with an update on the Master Plan for Wash-
ington National. The consensus of the Committee was
that the reported status of the new terminal road net-
work and configuration of airline gates was “as good a
compromise as could be worked out.” At the request of
Board Members, HNTB had developed a preliminary de
sign concept that would connect the Metro station and
parking structure with an enclosed bridge structure in-
stead of a tunnel, as previously proposed. Further pre-
sentations would be made to the full Board as the Plan
develops. Mr. Williams then called on Mr. Wilding for
additional comments.
Mr. Wilding reported that Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
(SOM) had resumed work on a Dulles midfield terminal
design. He noted that moving sidewalks in the midfield
terminal will be a “bit expensive.” SOM had already
been instructed to include them in the design.
Governor Holton commented that he was pleased with the
decision to include moving sidewalks in the midfield ter-
55
minal design. He also expressed satisfaction with the
layout of the new terminal building at Washington Na-
tional, noting that it is centered on the subway platform,
with escalators at the north and south ends of the Metro
station and parking behind the elevated Metro struc-
ture. He said this is exactly what is needed.
Mr. Williams noted that the terminal, as planned, would
be about 250 feet closer to the Metro station than the
current North Terminal.
Mr. Linton also endorsed the bridge proposal. He took
exception to the Washington Post account of the last
regular Board meeting, objecting to the report that the
Dulles Master Plan had been approved with minor
changes. He asked that these minutes clarify it had not
been his understanding or intention to approve and ac-
cept the Plan as it now stands.
Mr. Holton responded that the minutes of that meeting
report the Master Plan had been approved and that only
access and parking had not been fully accepted.
Mr. Eugene Smith observed that the limited development
options available at National would lead more easily to
unanimity there than at Dulles.
Mr. Wilding reported that as of Monday night, August
31, 1987, the Authority had $3.9 million on deposit. Since
the transfer on June 7, 1987, income had been roughly
$16 million and expenditures about $12 million.
Mr. Wilding also mentioned that construction was under
way at Dulles on the extension of one of the interim
midfield terminals, built by Presidential and now oc-
cupied by Continenal. Under an agreement with Con-
tinental, American Airlines had funded and occupied four
gates of the expansion. As of noon that day, American
Airlines’ flights were to be in service from its portion
of the interim midfield terminal. By the middle of the
following week, Continental’s portion of the expansion
56
would be operational. Construction of the ramp portion
of United’s nine-gate extension of its interim midfield
terminal had begun the previous week and was scheduled
for completion next Spring. Trans World Airlines will
fund and occupy four gates at that facility.
Mr. Wilding also reported United would establish new,
non-stop service from Dulles to Nassau at the end of
October, a significant improvement to the Dulles service
pattern.
Mr. Riddle summarized the traffic statistics already pro-
vided to the Board Members, noting that Washington
National’s passenger traffic was up 11.2 percent for the
month of July and 7.3 percent for the preceding 12
months. The growth trend has been continuing from last
year after a number of years of unsteadiness. The pas-
senger count was at 15.3 million for the year and was
likely to eclipse the previous high in 1979. Washington
Dulles’s passenger count was up 14.7 percent for the
month of July and 56.3 percent for the preceding 12
months. It was at 11.3 million for the 12-month period.
Air carrier operations for the month of July at Dulles
were a little over 17 thousand, compared to 16 thousand
at National. Mr. Riddle noted that National, however,
slightly exceeds Dulles in total operations.
Mr. Riddle then reported on the proposal to establish a
Terminal Control Area (TCA) at Dulles. The Federal
Aviation Administration had announced its intention to
establish a TCA at Dulles and another at Baltimore/
Washington International Airport. Washington National
already had a TCA. Seven other new airports, also an-
nounced as candidates for TCAs, would be added to the
23 airports that currently have them. Mr. Riddle added
that all airplanes operating in a TCA must have elec-
tronic gear that reports the plane’s altitude and position
to air traffic controllers, and must be subject to positive
control. He also commented that the proposed establish-
ment of a TCA at Dulles reflected growth at that air-
57
port. Mr. Riddle advised that we would be likely to see
some controversy about the new TCAs in the coming
months as the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking works its
way through the federal government.
In the absence of questions, comments or unfinished bus-
iness, the Chairman turned to new business.
Governor Holton reported that a letter from the Presi-
dent pro tempore of the Senate nominating Senate mem-
bers to the Board of Review had been delivered to his
office after close of business August 4, 1987, but that
he had not learned of it until some time after the last
Board meeting on —— 5. Only four names had been
submitted. He repo that the Board of Review, op-
erating with the previously appointed House members
only, had met with MWAA staff and approved the ap-
pointment of Mr. Wilding as General Manager and the
Authority’s FY 1988 budget.
After discussing the alternatives open to the Board, in-
eluding requesting additional Senate nominees, and re-
jecting one or more of the nominees, a motion made by
Mr. Linton that the Resolution appointing the four Sen-
ate members to the Board of Review be adopted was
unanimously accepted. The Resolution is as follows:
RESOLVED, That in accordance with Article IV
of the bylaws of the Metropolitan Washington Air-
ports Authority, each of the following named indi-
viduals having been properly recommended by the
President pro tempore of the United States Senate,
the Board of Directors hereby appoints:
from the Committee on Appropriations, the Honorable
Robert C. Byrd and the Honorable Ted Stevens; from
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transpor-
tation, the Honorable Ernest F. Hollings and the
Honorable Nancy L. Kassebaum;
FURTHER, that these appointments and the ap-
pointments previously made in Resolution 87-12 shall
be effective as of June 3, 1987. The terms of each
of these appointments are as follows, except that the
Board of Directors may remove for cause an ap-
pointee to the Board of Review prior to the conclu-
sion of this term:
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 2 year term
The Honorable Nancy L. Kassebaum 4 year term
The Honorable Ted Stevens 6 year term
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings 6 year term
The term of each was determined by a drawing conducted
by Governor Holton immediately after adoption of the
resolution.
Mr. Wilding noted that two alternative Resolutions con-
cerning replacement of the fire truck had been mailed
with the agenda. He proposed adoption of the second,
authorizing the General Manager to approve the purchase
of a new truck. He anticipated a decision could be
reached at the end of the week.
Mr. Eugene Smith moved the adoption of the following
Resolution, which the Board agreed to unanimously :
RESOLVED, that the Board delegates authority
to the Genera] Manager to purchase an aerial ladder
truck to replace the Authority firefighting vehicle
demolished on August 4, 1987.
Ms. Anderson moved the following Resolution delegating
authority to the Finance Committee, which the Board
agreed to unanimously:
RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors delegates
to the Finance Committee the authority to approve
the issuance of solicitations for Bond Counsel, Feasi-
bility Consultant, Outside Auditor, and Program
Manager.
Governor Holton then requested that the Board go into
executive session to discuss informational items. He
noted that because the Board would not be taking any
59
formal action in executive session, there would be no
further public session.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned
at 9:26 a.m.
Respectfully submitted:
/s/ Gregory Wolfe
GREGORY WOLFE
Secretary and Counsellor
to Board of Directors
60
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
RESOLUTION NO. 87-27
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION
RESOLVED, That in accordance with Article IV of
the bylaws of the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority, each of the following named individuals hav-
ing been properly recommended by the President pro
tempore of the United States Senate, the Board of Direc-
tors hereby appoints:
from the Committee on Appropriations, the Honorable
Robert C. Byrd and the Honorable Ted Stevens; from the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
the Honorable Ernest F. Hollings and the Honorable
Nancy L. Kassebaum;
FURTHER, that these appointments and the appoint-
ments previously made in Resolution 87-12 shall be effec-
tive as of June 3, 1987. The terms of each of these
appointments are as follows, except that the Board of
Directors may remove for cause an appointee to the
Board of Review prior to the conclusion of his term:
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 2 year term
The Honorable Nancy L. Kassebaum 4 year term
The Honorable Ted Stevens 6 year term
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings 6 year term
/s/ Gregory Wolfe
GREGORY WOLFE
Secretary
(Adopted at MWAA Board of Directors Meeting, Septem-
ber 2, 1987)
61
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 19
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
BOARD OF REVIEW
Washington National Airport
Washington, D.C. 20001
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 1988
The second meeting of the Board of Review of the Metro-
politan Washington Airports Authority, convened at the
eall of its Chairman, was held Wednesday, February 24
at 8:45 a.m. in Room S-146 of the Capitol.
Members Present:
Norman Y. Mineta, Chairman
William Lehman
Authority Representatives Present:
James A. Wilding, General Manager
Edward S. Faggen, Legal Counsel
Francis J. Conlon, Chief Engineer
Nancy Bruce, Governmental Affairs
Gregory Wolfe, Secretary and Counsellor to the Board of
Directors
Franklin D. Raines, Lazard Freres & Co., Financial Ad-
visor to the Authority
Action Pending Review
Review of the Board of Directors authorization for
the issuance of bonds for the “Early Development
Program” projects at both Washington National and
62
Washington Dulles International Airports. Action
taken by the Board of Directors at its regular meet-
ing February 3, 1988; transmitted to the Board of
Review by the Secretary on February 3, 1988.
The Chairman, Mr. Mineta, called the meeting to order
at 9:05 a.m.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The first order of business was approval of the pre-
viously distributed minutes of the last meeting, held
August 6, 1987. The minutes were unanimously ap-
proved.
II. REPORT ON “EARLY PROGRAM” PROJECTS
Mr. Wilding reported on the authorization for the issu-
ance of bonds, describing the purpose of this early financ-
ing and the projects it would fund. He explained that
the financing was intended to enable construction to begin
this spring on the first part of the development program
at both Airports. Part of the proceeds would be used for
the approximately $30 million payment the Authority
owes the federal government to cover its pension liability.
The Master Plan for National would be moving through
the final stages of approval during the week of March 1,
1988. Consideration by the Planning Committee of the
Board of Directors would be required before the Com-
mittee could recommend approval to the full Board on
March 16 for approval. The Plan would then be sub-
mitted to the Board of Review, which would have 30 days
to disapprove it. Submission should occur on March 16.
Mr. Lehman asked why money was being spent for re-
habilitation in advance of a master plan, and if the work
would be consistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Wilding
replied that the rehabilitation projects are entirely con-
sistent and are necessary repair and maintenance proj-
ects.
63
Mr. Mineta asked if maintenance was being neglected
until financing was approved. He noted that either the
maintenance program was inadequate, or maintenance
was being deliberately delayed. He cited the defective
lighting system in the Dulles main parking lot as an
example.
Mr. Wilding responded that he recognized certain deplor-
able conditions existed, and they were being addressed,
but it would take four or five years to work through a
backlog of projects that had not been funded while the
Airports were federally operated.
Mr. Wilding then turned to the fourteen projects listed
in National’s “Early Program”, showing their location on
a large aerial photograph. The first and largest project
would be a parking garage, which would provide a net
increase of 1,200 spaces.
Mr. Lehman inquired about the distance from the new
garage to the Main Terminal, and whether there would
be a skybridge. Mr. Wilding replied the distance would
be 1200 feet, and the connection would be a tunnel with
moving sidewalks.
Mr. Wilding then described the second major project at
National: the demolition of Hangar 1 (the hangar closest
to the Main Terminal) and construction on its site of a
two-level parking structure to be used by waiting taxi-
cabs. This project would result in the elimination of the
lines of cabs along the roadway system.
The third major project would be a portion of the new
roadway system, heading south along the property line
parallel to the George Washington Parkway.
In response to Mr. Mineta, Mr. Wilding reported that
work on the Early Program projects would begin soon,
and the road project and cab facility would be complete
in the summer of 1989. The parking garage would open
late 1989,
64
Mr. Mineta asked about the number of parking spaces at
National. There were about 4,700; the plan was to in-
crease the total to about 8,000. Mr. Wilding also men-
tioned that the construction of the garages would elim-
inate existing spaces, so additional satellite parking would
be provided at the south end of the Airport before con-
struction begins.
Mr. Lehman asked about the parking lots along the
Smith Boulevard exit roadway. Mr. Wilding responded
that those public parking lots (Lot No. 1 and Short-Term
Lot B) would be closed when construction of the new
terminal begins. The Congressional lot would remain in
its current location during the Early Program construc-
tion period.
Mr. Mineta asked generally about changes from earlier
plans, and the relationship between the Metro station and
the new terminal. Mr. Wilding explained that the plans
had not changed much, but further consideration had
resulted in locating the new terminal building closer to
the Metro.
Mr. Mineta asked how the two levels of the new road
system would be used, and Mr. Wilding explained that
the top would be for departing passengers and the bottom
would be for arriving passengers and taxis.
Mr. Lehman noted that northbound traffic from the Air-
port presented a serious traffic problem, and asked what
would be done about the situation and how soon. Mr.
Wilding said he expected a fourth lane to be added to
the George Washington Parkway between the Airport
and the 14th Street Bridge. The staff had been working
with the Park Service, which would have to agree to any
such changes.
Mr. Mineta asked if any of the Early Program projects
would be undone as the development plan progresses.
65
Mr. Wilding responded that all the Early Program proj-
ects were included in the full development program.
Mr. Lehman asked how often shuttle buses would oper-
ate. Mr. Wilding explained that there would be at least
enough buses to maintain the frequencies being oper-
ated now, one trip every three or four minutes.
Mr. Mineta asked what the Early Program would cost at
National. Mr. Wilding estimated $50 million, noting that
it might reach $60 million.
Mr. Mineta asked how many levels there would be in the
new parking garage; the response was 3'% level floors.
Mr. Mineta asked if flat floors with ramps were more
expensive. Mr. Conlon said that while he did not know
the precise difference in costs, the plan is to tie in the
structure architecturally with the Metro station and the
Main Terminal, and the decision had been made to use
31% floors. He thought the cost differential was not sig-
nificant.
On a chart of the Airport, Mr. Wilding showed an Early
Program project to pave an area near the runways for
parking aircraft that was critical to the construction of
the terminal building. Mr. Mineta asked if it would meet
1,000-foot distance requirement from an active runway.
Mr. Wilding responded that aircraft had to be parked
750 feet from the runway and assured that all safety
criteria would be met.
Mr. Mineta asked if the airlines were already obliged to
pay for the improvements under the contract with the
Authority. Mr. Wilding explained that the Authority
could cancel the current airline agreements at any time,
but they would expire next calendar year. Negotiations
would begin later this year with the carriers to reach
new long-term agreements.
Generally, the carriers had been agreeable and very sup-
portive of the overall development program, and the
66
“Early Program” had been discussed frequently with the
air carrier committee created to monitor the development
program at National.
Mr. Mineta asked about the revenues required to cover
the bonds, and how the Authority knew that the income
would be adequate. Mr. Raines noted that the Author-
ity could finance the entire Early Program without
airline agreement. The bonds would be supported by
the market, the demand for airline service to and from
Washington. Both National and Dulles were heavily
origin and destination (“o & d”) airports, which meant
great strength financially.
Mr. Wilding noted that the activity level at National was
stable now at about 16 million passengers, with a 1%
percent increase per year. The Authority expected
growth to stop at about 19 million 15 years from now.
Five years ago, there had been 2.5 million passengers
at Dulles; it currently had 11 million, and the total was
expected to increase to 20 million by 2005.
Mr. Lehman asked if there was an alternative to build-
ing flanking garages at Dulles, and suggested under-
ground garages. Mr. Wilding answered that while the
option did exist, underground construction would be very
expensive, as well as difficult, since it would be necessary
to go through shale rock. He advised that the current
proposal was to depress the ground level four feet and
add one deck.
Mr. Mineta asked why it was necessary to depress one
level, and why two decks could not be built. Mr. Wilding
answered there was a strong sense that adding even one
deck could interfere with the view of the Saarinen Main
Terminal.
Mr. Wilding then described the Early Program projects
at Dulles, showing their location on an aerial photograph.
The construction of a new international arrivals facility
67
to accommodate 2,400 arriving passengers hourly would
cost about $44 million. The existing facility now nor-
mally handled 700 international passengers hourly.
A design contract for extension of the Dulles Terminal,
and a contract for the removal of the Main Terminal
ceiling, possibly the largest asbestos ceiling in North
America, were also included. While it would be some time
before the ceiling would be removed, it was being moni-
tored very closely and was not leaking.
In addition, the Early Program included expansion of the
domestic baggage claim facilities and upgrading of the
automated flight information system. Two runway high-
speed turn-back fillets would be expanded, and Taxiway
W-2 would be extended. Two roadway improvements
would be undertaken, and nine hundred acres would be
acquired to build a third north-south parallel runway.
Mr. Lehman asked about depressed parking and what
effect it would have on temporary and long-range park-
ing plans and shuttle bus systems. Mr. Wilding responded
that there would be 12,000 public parking spaces daily.
The Authority believes that a mix of more close-in park-
ing and satellite parking with shuttle system can meet
the parking needs. There would ultimately be 20,000
parking spaces. The new parking plans would not con-
flict with present roadways.
Mr. Mineta asked to what extent had surrounding juris-
dictions prevented residential encroachment at Dulles.
Mr. Wilding responded that Loudoun and Fairfax Counties
had been cooperative, and the new parallel runway was
shown on the Loudoun land use plan.
The discussion now turned to the financing program. Mr.
Raines explained that it was desirable to move ahead
with the development program to take advantage of the
construction season. Prospects for the sale of bonds were
good; the Authority had received proposals from banks
68
offering letters of credit and bond insurance companies
offering to guarantee the bonds.
Mr. Lehman asked if there was a rating on the bonds.
Mr. Raines said that a rating would not be obtained until
the feasibility analysis necessary to support the Author-
ity’s own credit had been established. In the meantime,
the Authority’s bonds would be supported by the AAA
rating of the bond insurer and letter of credit banks.
Mr. Mineta next asked how the underwriters had been
chosen. Mr. Raines explained that underwriting firms
had submitted proposals addressing, among other mat-
ters, the qualifications and experience of the firm and the
individuals who would be working on the Authority is-
sues, the firm’s understanding of the Authority’s needs,
the firm’s airport experience, and experience in the Wash-
ington region.
Staff had reveiewed the responses, and had ranked the
firms by the criteria established in the Request for Pro-
posals. The Board of Directors, in turn, had developed
a short list of prospective firms. All firms on the short
list had been interviewed, making both oral and written
presentations to enable the Board to make a selection.
Mr. Mineta asked if the selection criteria were public.
Mr. Raines responded that Mr. Mineta would be provided
with a matrix for his review.
Mr. Mineta asked if there had been any affirmative ac-
tion requirements in the criteria. Mr. Raines responded
that three minority, seven regional, and four national
firms had been selected. There would probably be over
200 firms in the marketing group selling bonds for the
Authority.
Mr. Mineta questioned how the final cuts had been made.
Mr. Raines replied that the staff had done a quality
ranking, and the Finance Committee had reviewed this
ranking and had interviewed the firms with the staff
and financial advisors.
69
The Chairman then called for action on the business of
the day.
III. ACTION ON MWAA RESOLUTION NO. 88-3
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS
FOR “EARLY PROGRAM” PROJECTS
The Secretary explained that the proposed Resolution was
framed in the negative because the Board of Review
could only disapprove. Mr. Lehman then moved the adop-
tion of the following Resolution:
RESOLVED, That Resolution 88-3 of the Board of
Directors, authorizing the issuance of bonds in an
amount not to exceed $281 million to fund initial
construction at Washington National and Washing-
ton Dulles International Airports, is hereby dis-
approved.
The Resolution was unanimously disapproved.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS AND ADJOURNMENT
Steven Palmer, representing Senator Hollings, inquired
about a Bill, S. 2004, introduced by Senator Sarbanes and
supported by the Federal Firefighters Union. Mr. Fag-
gen explained the Authority’s differences with the fire
fighters and opposition to the legislation.
Mr. Mineta commented that he was pleased the improve-
ments had begun, and suggested a meeting late in March.
The Mas’er Plan should be forwarded to the Board of
Review on March 16 and the Board of Review would
have 30 days to act, until April 15. The Authority agreed
to schedule individual briefings on the Master Plan for
the Members of the Board of Review.
The meeting formaliy adjourned at 10:35 a.m.
Respectfully submitted:
/s/ Gregory Wolfe
GREGORY WOLFE
Secretary
Approved
4/13/88
lm
70
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Defendants’ Exhibit 7
RESOLUTION NO. 88-8
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority is charged in the interstate compact legisla-
tion creating it and in its lease with the federal govern-
ment promptly to commence improvement of both of the
Metropolitan Washington Airports, Washington National
and Washington Dulles International ;
WHEREAS, There has never been an approved Master
Plan for Washington National Airport;
WHEREAS, The current Master Planning process be-
gan in 1982, before the Authority assumed control of the
Airports;
WHEREAS, The proposed Master Plan has been de
veloped in consultation with local governments, federal
agencies, user groups, and a regional advisory committee,
and has been adequately reviewed by them;
WHEREAS, The proposed Master Plan has been pre-
sented to citizens groups, government bodies, and the
general public by the Authority staff and its consultants;
WHEREAS, The Board of Directors is satisfied that
the proposed Master Plan includes facilities necessary and
appropriate to serve the projected numbers of passengers
at National Airport, and that it will not bring about an
increase in air traffic there;
WHEREAS, The Board of Directors is satisfied that
the proposed Master Plan will not affect the noise ex-
71
posure on National’s neighbors, and that noise abatement
planning will continue in the Authority’s ongoing noise
(“Part 150”) study;
WHEREAS, The Board of Directors is satisfied that
the Federal Aviation Administration and the air carriers
are responsible for determining and will adequately ad-
dress all questions of the safety of operation of any type
of air carrier aircraft before operating it at National
Airport; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the proposed Master Plan for Wash-
ington National Airport, consisting of an Airport Land
Use Plan, Airport Layout Plan, and a Terminal Area
Site plan, each dated March 4, 1988 and prepared by
Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff, is hereby ap
proved and adopted, effective thirty days after submis-
sion to the Board of Review.
/s/ Gregory Wolfe
GREGORY WOLFE
Secretary
(Adopted at MWAA Board of Directors Meeting, March
16, 1988)
72
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 18
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
BOARD OF REVIEW
Washington National Airport
Washington, D.C. 20001
MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 1988
The third meeting of the Board of Review of the Metro-
politan Washington Airports Authority was held Wed-
nesday, April 13, 1988, in Room H-301 of the Capitol
and was called to order by the Chairman at 8:10 a.m.
Members Present:
Norman Y. Mineta, Chairman
Silvio O. Conte
John Paul Hammerschmidt
William Lehman
Dan Rostenkowski
Authority Representatives Present:
James A. Wilding, General Manager
Edward S. Faggen, Legal Counsel
Francis J. Conlon, Chief Engineer
Nancy Bruce, Governmental Affairs
Gregory Wolfe, Secretary and Counsellor to the
Board of Directors
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The first order of business was approval of the minutes
of the last meeting, held February 24, 1988. The minutes
were unanimously approved.
73
II. ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 88-8 ADOPTING
THE MASTER PLAN FOR WASHINGTON NA-
TIONAL AIRPORT
Action Pending Review
Review of the adoption of the Master Plan for Wash-
ington National Airport. At its regular meeting
March 16, 1988, the Board of Directors adopted the
Plan by Resolution No. 88-8. The Secretary trans-
mitted the Resolution to the Board of Review the
same day.
Mr. Wilding made a presentation on the Washington
National Master Plan using graphics and recent aerial
photographs. He noted that National comprised 860
acres, of which 680 are above water. There were ap-
proximately 45,000 passengers daily, and 1,000 flight op-
erations, half of which are by air carriers.
Mr. Wilding then referred to a display showing the key
elements of the Master Plan for National, as adopted by
the Board of Directors. He explained that the airfield
would not be changed, except for a new taxiway system.
General aviation activities would be moved from the
north to the south end of the Airport. Commuter air
carrier traffic would be shifted to the Main Terminal.
The existing General Aviation, Commuter, and North
Terminals, and two or three hangars would be demolished
to create a major new terminal building.
At the completion of the Plan, the existing number of air
carrier gates (44) would be preserved; 32 would be in
the new Main Terminal and 12 would remain in the ex-
isting Main Terminal. Parking would be provided for
8,000 cars, increased from 4,700, in three garages.
The parking structures would be adjacent to the Metro
system, and both parking and Metro would be connected
to the new Main Terminal by two enclosed bridges. A
completely new roadway system would be constructed,
74
with separate levels for arrivals and departures at the
Main Terminal. Hangar 1 would be demolished, and a
new parking structure constructed on that site to park
waiting cabs, which now are stored on the roadways and
in parking lots.
Mr. Wilding reported there would be over $400 million
spent for work over the next four to five years. Con-
struction on some smaller projects would begin over the
next two months.
Mr. Hammerschmidt asked if the bonds currently being
marketed would cover only the portion of the Master
Plan Mr. Wilding had described. Mr. Wilding responded
that the bonds would cover the cost of projects in the
“Early Development Program”, including the first park-
ing structure, demolition of Hangar 1, creation of the
taxi storage area, certain apron work, and the roadway,
and not the entire Master Plan.
Mr. Rostenkowski asked if the highway would have two
decks. Mr. Wilding responded that there would be two
levels immediately adjacent to the new terminal.
Mr. Lehman questioned if a rating on the bonds had been
obtained. Mr. Wilding responded that the bonds had
been triple-A, based on the credit of a bond insurer. A
rating for the Authority’s own credit would be obtained
for more traditional financings in the future.
Mr. Mineta acknowledged the presence of members of the
Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise (CAAN),
stating he appreciated the correspondence he had re-
ceived, and assured CAAN the Board of Review was
aware of their concerns.
Mr. Mineta asked about the impact of the Master Plan
on aircraft noise at National. Mr. Wilding responded
that the Master Plan would not affect the noise at Na-
tional, as noise is driven by activity levels, which would
not be changed by the Plan.
75
Mr. Mineta cited the present level of activity--approxi-
mately 550 air carrier operations, 200 commuter opera-
tions, and 250 general aviation operations per day—and
asked what changes were contemplated for the future.
Mr. Wilding indicated the forecasts were for 350,000
annual air carrier operations, increasing to 375,000 in
the more distant future, or about 1,060 daily.
Mr. Mineta asked if the Master Plan envisioned 24-hour
operation of the Airport. Mr. Wilding responded that
there was no relationship between the Master Plan and
24-hour operation. He explained the existing nighttime
noise rule, which permits only the quietest aircraft to
operate. Only two air carrier aircraft currently meet
the standard. He also pointed out that the Authority
had a Part 150 noise study under way, and that night-
time noise was a part of it. Any change in the night-
time noise rules would require rulemaking.
Mr. Mineta asked if flights still had to conform to the
noise standards between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Mr.
Wilding confirmed that the rule remained in effect, but
noted that any flight scheduled to arrive before 10:00
p.m. could land until 10:30 p.m.
Mr. Mineta pointed out that any change in the noise
regulations would have to be reviewed and approved by
both the Board of Directors and the Board of Review.
Mr. Mineta asked what the Authority was doing at the
Airport to be a better neighbor, and to reduce current
noise levels. Mr. Wilding responded that the Federal
Aviation Administration operations rules provided for
noise abatement flight patterns along the Potomac River
and noise abatement operating procedures. Mr. Wilding
again made reference to the Part 150 Noise Study. He
mentioned that another solution was increasing use of
newer, quieter aircraft, but noted this is happening very
slowly on its own.
76
Mr. Mineta asked whether flight paths would be spread
out. Mr. Wilding responded that such a “scatter” plan
would not be adopted. The Federal Aviation Administra-
tion had tried this approach unsuccessfully.
Mr. Mineta asked how residents affected by the noise could
get involved in developing solutions. Mr. Wilding said
they could participate through the Part 150 Noise Study
and a number of other mechanisms. The Northern Vir-
ginia Planning District Commission and the Committee
on Noise Abatement at National and Dulles Airports
(CONANDA) were working with the Authority on noise
issues at both Washington National and Washington
Dulles Airports.
Mr. Mineta inquired who was actually listening to the
residents, noting that they complained that no one was.
Mr. Wilding responded that there is a distinction between
listening and agreeing. He believed the Authority had
always listened, but had not necessarily agreed. He also
mentioned that he had held discussions with several people
who were in the audience.
Mr. Mineta asked who should be contacted at the Author-
ity to report noise complaints. Mr. Wilding indicated
that noise complaints could be reported to Sue Silverman,
Community Relations Officer, or to the operations office.
Mr. Mineta asked the status of the Part 150 Noise Study.
Mr. Wilding said it should be completed by August.
Mr Mineta asked how citizens could be informed about
noise briefings or noise abatement measures. Mr. Wild-
ing responded that information was available from the
technical staff, the community relations staff, or himself.
Mr. Mineta asked if there were any bias favoring liberal-
ization of the nighttime noise rule. Mr. Wilding re-
sponded if there were any tilt, it would be against
loosening the rule. He said he believed that nighttime
noise levels would be tightened up.
77
Mr. Mineta asked about traffic peaks. Mr. Wilding re
plied that the High Density Rule, limiting the number of
scheduled air carrier flights to 37 per hour, prevented
“peaking”.
Mr. Mineta asked about the increase in the number of
passengers at National. Mr. Wilding reported there are
now 15.7 million passengers, and the forecasts showed
growth to 19.5 million passengers over the next 17 years.
Most of the growth would come through increased load
factors (now at 55 percent), more origin and destination
traffic, and the introduction of two-engine “widebody”
aircraft.
Mr. Lehman commented that the problem did not appear
to be the twelve flights after 10 p.m., but repeated opera-
tions in other hours. If the people would have to live
with the noise, they should be told so.
Mr. Wilding again mentioned the increased numbers of
quieter aircraft. Mr. Lehman commented that they would
be introduced over 10 to 15 years, a relatively long period.
He also repeated that the people should not be misled
about improvements in noise levels. Mr. Wilding re-
sponded that no one had ever told the community the
noise problem would disappear. Mr. Lehman noted the
message appeared to be that noise would not get worse.
Mr. Wilding agreed that the noise would not get worse,
but would improve “glacially”.
Mr. Mineta asked about the noise generated by general
aviation jets. Mr. Wilding responded that there would be
some growth in general aviation operations, but without
a significant noise impact.
Mr. Rostenkowski asked why the slot limitations at Na-
tional did not prevent general aviation aircraft from
landing or taking off at any time. Mr. Wilding noted
that the High Density Rule, applied to Instrument Flight
Rule conditions only, which meant there could be addi-
tional general aviation operations in Visual Flight Rule
3]
78
conditions. Mr. Mineta asked if general aviation aircraft
were subject to the noise regulations. Mr. Wilding re-
sponded that they were.
Mr. Mineta then explained the negative procedures
peculiar to the Board of Review. Mr. Rostenkowski there-
upon moved to disapprove the Washington National Air-
port Master Plan. The motion to disapprove was unani-
mously rejected.
The Chairman then asked Mr. Wilding to address the
Dulles Airport Access Road proposal.
III. BRIEFING ON THE AUTHORITY’S PRO-
POSAL TO CHANGE ITS CURRENT REGULA-
TION TO PERMIT HIGH OCCUPANCY VE-
HICLE USE OF THE DULLES ACCESS HIGH-
WAY ON A TEMPORARY BASIS.
Mr. Wilding explained that Washington Dulles Inter-
national Airport includes the Dulles Access Highway,
which had been built in 1960. In 1959, a policy to reserve
the Access Highway for Dulles Airport traffic only had
been announced.
During the 1970s, exceptions had been granted for Wolf
Trap Ferm Park traffic and commuter buses. In the
early 1980s, carpools and commuter traffic were allowed
co use the Access Highway on a temporary basis, until
the Dulles Toll Road was completed.
In 1984, the exceptions terminated when the Dulles Toll
Road opened adjacent to the Access Highway. After a
year or two, traffic on the Toll Road had begun to build
up to the point that it became seriously congested. Con-
gressman Frank Wolf had urged the construction of slip
ramps from the Toll Road to the Access Highway for use
by commuter buses. Secretary of Transportation Eliza-
beth Dole had approved the proposal, and they had been
in operation for two years.
79
Mr. Wolf and Fairfax County now proposed to broaden
the current exemption to allow vanpools and carpools to
use the eastbound ramp as well. It appeared the Author-
ity could help eastbound traffic on the Toll Road in the
morning if the half of the Access Highway east of Reston
could be used for two hours a day by vanpools and car-
pools.
The Access Highway could accommodate up to 4,000 cars
per hour. On the section now being considered for non-
airport use, there are 1,275 cars per hour. An additional
200 to 500 vehicles per hour, the projected demand, would
only bring the total up 1,775 per hour at worst. The
proposal under consideration would be for a limited
period only, expiring when a third lane was added to
the Toll Road.
Mr. Mineta asked when an additional lane would be
constructed on the Toll Road. Mr. Wilding said the Vir-
ginia Department of Transportation expected to finish
it in 1991.
Mr. Mineta then asked about traffic service levels on the
Access Highway, noting that level F was expected for the
Toll Road. Mr. Wilding responded they would stay be-
tween the B and C ranges. :
Mr. Mineta then asked what the service level would be
on the Toll Road in the morning peak hours after the
third lane was complete. Mr. Wilding responded low C
to high D range.
Mr. Mineta expressed concern that if the change was
made, it would be difficult to convert back to exclusive air-
port use. Mr. Wilding agreed that there was a risk
involved.
Mr. Mineta asked about the procedures for monitoring
the vanpools and carpools. Mr. Wilding responded there
would have to be positive police controls on the ramps.
80
Mr. Mineta commented that presently the only way for
commuters to get into the Access Highway was by back-
tracking. Even though it was illegal and the rules were
enforced by police, the congestion on the Toll Road leads
motorists to attempt to cheat. Mr. Wilding said that the
Authority Police enforced against backtracking, and that
cheating was being reduced.
Mr. Mineta expressed reservations about the proposal,
even though he was sympathetic to people who sit on the
Toll Road. He emphasized, however, that the Access
Highway had been built exclusively for airport users.
Mr. Hammerschmidt expressed his concern that granting
carpool access would develop a strong constituency, and
that it would be difficult to roll it back.
Mr. Mineta said he also believed that changes in the
operation of the Access Highway would present Fairfax
and Loudoun Counties with added incentives to develop
more office buildings in the Access Highway corridor,
further increasing roadway congestion.
Mr. Lehman also expressed reservations, noting that the
Access Highway had been a direct federal project, built
with General Funds from the U.S. Treasury, and with-
out the customary state or local contribution.
Mr. Conte asked if there had been any discussion to
provide access to Dulles by rail, recalling past federal
efforts in that regard. Mr. Wilding responded it had been
discussed, and mentioned the current DART proposal to
connect Dulles with the Metro system using the reserved
right-of-way in the median strip of the Access Highway.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS AND ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was ad-
journed at 9:02 a.m.
Respectfully submitted:
/s/ Gregory Wolfe
GREGORY WOLFE
Secretary
Approved August 9, 1988
GW
81
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12
RESOLUTION NO. 88-34
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION
RESOLVED, That Section 159.35 of the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority Regulations is revised,
effective September 12, 1988, to read as follows:
§ 159.35 Use of Washington Dulles International
Airport Access Highway
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this
section, a person may use the Washington Dulles
International Airport Access Highway only for the
purpose of going to, or leaving Washington Dulles
International Airport for airport-related business,
or, with the permission of the Airport Manager, or
his designee, to perform work on the Highway. Use
by any person of the Washington Dulles Interna-
tional Airport Access Highway for a purpose not
authorized by this section is prohibited.
(b) Exceptions. No person may use the Highway
for other than airport related business except:
(1) In (i) buses that are being operated in
common carriage of persons by companies hold-
ing a certificate of public convenience and neces-
sity for its operation and for which use of the
Highway is appropriate, or (ii) in school buses
as the term is defined in § 46.1-1(37) of the
Code of Virginia.
(2) Until September 11, 1989, in a high
occupancy vehicle (“HOV”) occupied by three
or more persons, provided:
(i) The vehicle entered the Highway at
a point designated by an official sign as an
HOV entry point;
82
(ii) The vehicle is traveling eastbound
from the designated entry point in the east-
bound lanes of the Highway; and
(iii) The vehicle is being operated dur-
ing the hours of the day that HOV use of
the Highway is authorized as provided on
an official sign at the HOV entry point.
(c) No person may:
(1) Enter the Highway through other than a
road or ramp approved by the Airport Manager
or on his authority for that purpose;
(2) Exit the Highway through other than
a road or ramp approved by the Airport Man-
ager or on his authority for that purpose;
(3) Make a U-turn on the Highway;
(4) Enter upon or cross through the median
strip of the Highway;
(5) Operate the vehicle in violation of oper-
ating signs posted on the Highway by the Air-
port Manager or on his authority. The fact that
such signs are posted shall be prima facie proof
that such signs were posted by the Airport Man-
ager or on his authority.
(d) All violations of § 159.35 are classified as
Class 4 misdemeanors, punishable by a maximum
fine of one hundred dollars ($100).
(e) All laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia
and any ordinance or regulation of any political sub-
division in which the Highway is located also apply.
/s/ Gregory Wolfe
GREGORY WOLFE
Secretary
(Adopted at Board of Directors Meeting, July 6, 1988)
83
US. District Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 11
RESOLUTION NO. BOR 88-1
BOARD OF REVIEW
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority Board of Directors approved a change in the
regulation of the Washington Dulles International Air-
port Access Highway (Access Highway) to permit high
occupancy vehicle use thereof, in the east bound direc-
— during the morning rush hour only, on a temporary
asis;
WHEREAS, The Access Highway was constructed by
the Federal Aviation Administration with appropriated
federal funds from general revenues;
WHEREAS. The Access Highway was intended for the
exclusive use of air passengers and others with business
at Washington Dulles International Airport;
WHEREAS, The Federal] Aviation Administration pro-
vided right-of-way for the adjacent Dulles Toll Road
without cost to the Commonwealth of Virginia;
WHEREAS, The Commonwealth of Virginia and its
Counties of Fairfax and Loudoun have not provided ade-
quate highway capacity for vehicle traffic in the rapidly
developing Dulles corridor ;
WHEREAS, The Dulles Toll Road, even with addi-
tional lanes, will operate at congested traffic service
levels;
WHEREAS, The Dulles Toll Road will never have suf-
ficient rush hour capacity to provide a free-flowing alter-
native to the Access Highway ;
84
WHEREAS, Without adequate capacity for carpool
traffic on the Dulles Toll Road, the Authority will find it
difficult, if not impossible, to remove carpools from the
Access Highway once such operations are allowed;
WHEREAS, the Authority’s Engineering Division pro-
jects congested traffic service levels on the Access High-
way as early as 1995 if carpools are permitted to use the
Access Highway ;
WHEREAS, there are serious questions about the abil-
ity and willingness of the Fairfax County Police to en-
force a rule permitting only carpools to use the access
ramp to the Access Highway ;
WHEREAS, that the use of the Access Highway by
carpools, unrelated to airport use, is inconsistent with
the purpose for which it was built, and is contrary to
the interests of the users of the Airport; now, therefore,
be it
RESOLVED, That Resolution No. 88-34, adopted by
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board
of Directors July 6, 1988, and amending section 159.35
of the Authority Regulations to permit non-airport re-
lated, high occupancy vehicle use of the Washington
Dulles International Airport Access Highway, is hereby
disapproved.
Roll Call Vote
Members in Favor:
Mr. Hammerschmidt
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Lehman
Mr. Mineta
Mr. Rostenkowski
Members Opposed: None
Abstentions: None
/s/ Gregory Wolfe
GREGORY WOLFE
Secretary
(Adopted at the Board of Review Meeting of August 9,
1988 )
US. District Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBiA
Civil Action No. 88-3319 JHG
(Judge Joyce Hens Green)
CITIZENS FOR THE ABATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE, INC.,
JOHN W. HECHINGER, SR.,
and
CRAIG H. Baas,
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY,
and
BOARD OF REVIEW,
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF SHERWIN LANDFIELD
I, Sherwin Landfield, hereby declare and state as fol-
lows:
1. I am on the Board of Directors of Citizens for the
Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc. (“CAAN”), one of
the plaintiffs in this action.
2. CAAN is a nonprofit membership organization com-
posed of citizens’ groups and individuals from the Dis-
trict of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia who wish to
minimize adverse noise, safety, and environmental ef-
fects of air traffic at Washington National Airport.
CAAN’s bylaws, which are attached, describe CAAN’s
purpose and structure. Attachment 1.
3. CAAN’s primary purpose is to encourage the de-
velopment and implementation of a rational air trans-
portation policy for the Metropolitan Washington D.C.
area, which would include balanced service at the area’s
three airports, reducing aircraft operations at Washing-
ton National Airport, and consequently alleviating the
noise, safety problems, and air pollution that result from
such operations.
4. Most of CAAN’s members live under the flight path
going to and from National Airport. They are adversely
affected by the noise, air pollution, vibrations, and safety
threat from air traffic at National Airport. They are also
adversely affected by the traffic congestion resulting from
passenger activity at that airport. Some have developed
health problems that they attribute to the air traffic, and
others’ property values have suffered as a result of their
proximity to the airport or its flight path.
5. CAAN’s members generally favor a nighttime cur-
few on air traffic and reduction in the level of daytime
air traffic at National Airport, accompanied by an ex-
pansion of air services available at Dulles International
and Baltimore-Washington International Airports.
6. The Airports Authority’s Master Plan for National
Airport will injure CAAN’s members further because it
proposes to expand the airport’s facilities, to build them
to accommodate wide-bodied jets, to increase passenger
levels, and to increase air carrier traffic by utilizing cur-
rently unused slots. Washington National Airport Master
Plan Presentation to MWAA Board of Directors at 1
(March 1988) (Exhibit 16).
87
7. The Airports Authority is implementing the Master
Plan by issuing bonds to finance it and entering into con-
struction contracts. In March 1988, the Airports Author-
ity issued its first bond series, and it has since issued
several additional bonds series to finance airport improve-
ments.
8. If we are successful in this lawsuit, the Airports
Authority will not have the power to implement the
Master Plan or to otherwise expand National Airport,
which will benefit CAAN and its members.
9. Previously, CAAN advocated its position with some
success before Congress and the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration. However, since the transfer, CAAN’s influence
is greatly diminished because the congressional Board of
Review excludes loca] representation and because the Rep-
resentatives and Senators from Maryland and Virginia,
and the District of Columbia Delegate no longer have any
power over the airports. Before the transfer, some local
representatives, such as Representative Frank Wolf from
Northern Virginia, served on the committees that had
oversight responsibilities over the airports so that they
could better serve their constituents. However, now that
Congress as a whole exercises no power over the airports,
Representative Wolf has taken other committee assign-
ments and made airport noise from National Airport less
of a priority.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and Local Rule 106(g),
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on this 13th day of December, 1988.
/s/ Sherwin Landfield
SHERWIN LANDFIELD
88
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Defendants’ Exhibit 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBA
C.A. No. 88-3319 JHG
Hon. Joyce Hens Green
CITIZENS FOR THE ABATEMENT OF
AIRCRAFT NOISE, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES A. WILDING
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ss)
) ss
COUNTY OF ARLINGTON )
I, James A. Wilding, being duly sworn, depose and say:
1. I am currently the General Manager and Chief
Executive Officer of the Metropolitan Washington Air-
ports Authority (“Authority”), the operator of Washing-
ton National and Washington Dulles International Air-
ports (“Airports”). The Board of Directors of the Au-
thority appointed me to my current position on May 6,
1987. Prior to that, I served as Director of the Metro-
politan Washington Airports when they were operated by
the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). I also
89
served as the Deputy Director and the Chief of the Engi-
neering staff. I have been employed at the Airports in
various capacities since 1959, and I am very familiar with
their operation.
2. I am very familiar with the development of the
Master Plan for National Airport and the content of
that Plan. I am also familiar with the aircraft noise
abatement issues at the Airports and with the on-going
study of possible measures to further promote compati-
bility between National Airport and the surrounding
communities. That study is being conducted in accord-
ance with FAA regulation Part 150 and will be com-
pleted on or about May 1, 1989. Further, I am familiar
with an organization called Citizens for the Abatement
of Aircraft Noise (“CAAN”), the plaintiffs herein, and
I have, on several occasions corresponded with members
and representatives of CAAN, and met with them, to
discuss the Master Plan for National Airport and air-
craft noise abatement matters.
8. The Master Plan for National and aircraft noise
abatement at National are two separate issues. The
Master Plan, which the Authority’s Board of Directors
adopted on March 16, 1988, Resolution No. 88-8, con-
sists of three maps—an Airport Land Use Plan, and
Airport Layout Plan, and a Terminal Area Site Plan
(Attachment A). The Master Plan for National Air-
port was developed to rehabilitate the Airport, not to
expand it. The Master Plan for National Airport was
developed to alleviate several serious problems at the
Airport, including congested and confusing roadways as-
sociated with the existing physical plant; inadequate
public parking; inconvenient access to the terminals from
the Metrorail station; congestion and inadequate facilities
and passenger amenities within the terminals; and on
the airfield, inadequate apron taxiways. The Master Plan
addresses these and other related areas. Under the
Master Plan, a new terminal will be built, but it pre-
90
serves the existing number of gates for the air carriers’
aircraft (44). The Master Plan also provides for a new
dual level roadway system to improve and simplify traf-
fic flow and parking structures to accommodate the pub-
lic and waiting cabs so as to eliminate roadway con-
gestion. The Master Plan does not change the airfield in
terms of the number of runways, runway length, or
runway orientation.
4. The lease agreement between the Authority and
the U.S. Department of Transportation has placed cer-
tain restrictions on the Authority’s discretion to alter
the number of aircraft operations at National. The
Authority cannot increase or decrease the number of air-
craft operations authorized under an FAA regulation
known as the High Density rule. The FAA High Density
rule allocates 37 air carrier schedules or “slots” per
hour. Further, the Authority cannot impose a limitation
on the number of passengers using National.
5. Based upon my correspondence and personal dis-
cussions with CAAN representatives, it is clear to me
that CAAN wanted the Authority to adopt a Master
Plan for National Airport that would represent a-lesser
commitment to the rehabilitation of National Airport
than the Plan that was adopted. CAAN sought a Master
Plan which would make only essential repairs at Na-
tional. CAAN’s objective was to reduce the levels of
activity at National and therefore sought to have that
objective embraced by the Authority in its Master Plan.
They envisioned a Master Plan that would have the effect
of reducing aircraft and passenger activity at National
by modifying past policy and legislative decisions which
we view as cast in place by the lease.
6. The Master Plan that was adopted by the Author-
ity did not adopt CAAN’s proposals. The Master Plan
adopted does not, consistent with the Authority’s lease,
reflect an intent to increase or decrease aircraft or pas-
91
senger activity. It is a Plan to rehabilitate, renovate,
and modernize the terminal, roadway, and parking facil-
ities for the activity that will occur there. The Plan does
not expand the use of National and further, in my opin-
ion, the Master Plan is noise neutral. It does not alter
the number of aircraft operations, the flight paths util-
ized, or the type of aircraft allowed to operate at Na-
tional. It does not increase the number of aircraft that
will fly into the Airport at night (when the Airport is
restricted to aircraft below a specified noise level). A
forecast of activity prepared by the Authority in con-
junction with the preparation of the Master Plan showed
some increase in nighttime aircraft operations occurring,
not as a result of the Master Plan but as a result of the
production of more aircraft technologically capable of
meeting the Authority’s nighttime noise level regulation.
The decision on what the regulated noise limits should
be rests with the Authority, and a decision to operate at
night with aircraft that meet the regulation rests with
the aircraft operator. These decisions are not made in the
Master Plan. The Master Plan does contemplate that the
aircraft gates to be built at the new terminal will be able
to accommodate some new technology or larger aircraft
than use the Airport today. This will occur only if an
air carrier wants to use these aircraft at National and
the FAA determines that it is safe to do so. These newer
aircraft, such as the A-300 and Boeing-767 are, as a gen-
eral principle, substantially quieter than aircraft such as
the Boeing-727, B-737, and the McDonnell-Douglas DC-9
which are the predominant aircraft in use at National
Airport today.
7. The Master Plan was submitted to the Authority’s
Board of Review on March 16, 1988, and the Board of
Review voted not to disapprove the Master Plan on April
13, 1988. The Master Plan is in effect.
8. I am familiar with the matters that have been
referred to the Authority’s Board of Review. In only one
92
instance has the Board of Review disapproved an action
by the Board of Directors of the Authority. The Board
of Review disapproved a change to the Authority’s regu-
lations that would have permitted non-Airport related
traffic to use the Dulles Airport Access Highway. The
Board of Review disapproved the proposed change be-
cause “the use of the Access Highway by carpools, un-
related to airport use, is inconsistent with the purpose
for which it was built, and is contrary to the interests
of the users of the Airport.” Resolution No. BOR 88-1
(Attachment B).
9. As part of the Part 150 noise compatibility study,
the Authority has considered many different noise abate-
ment measures (Attachment C). Several of these meas-
ures are being considered in detail. Meetings with the
general public have been conducted as part of this proc-
ess, and CAAN, through the public review process, has
had an opportunity to comment upon the measures and to
influence the Authority with regard to this study. CAAN
will have additional opportunity in the future to comment
on specific noise abatement measures.
/s/ James A. Wilding
JAMES A. WILDING
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30th day of
January, 1989.
/s/ Cynthia B. Howard
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.