[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RESIDENTIAL THROUGH-THE-FENCE
AGREEMENTS AT PUBLIC AIRPORTS: ACTION TO DATE AND
CHALLENGES AHEAD
=======================================================================
(111-136)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
September 22, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-459 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JERROLD NADLER, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB FILNER, California GARY G. MILLER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi Carolina
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania SAM GRAVES, Missouri
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York Virginia
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
JOHN J. HALL, New York AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin PETE OLSON, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TOM GRAVES, Georgia
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
PHIL HARE, Illinois
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
DINA TITUS, Nevada
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
(ii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Blue, Brent M.D., Founder of throughthefence.org................. 16
Comer, Carol L., Aviation Programs Manager, Georgia Department of
Transportation................................................. 16
Coyne, James K., President, National Air Transportation
Association.................................................... 16
Crook, Ann B., Airport Manager, Elmira Corning Regional Airport.. 16
Lang, Catherine M., Acting Associate Administrator, Office of
Airports, Federal Aviation Administration...................... 16
Schrader, Hon. Kurt, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Oregon...................................................... 14
Swecker, Mitch, State Airports Manager, Oregon Department of
Aviation....................................................... 16
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Cummings, Elijah E., of Maryland................................. 50
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................ 57
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 60
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 61
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Blue, Brent M.D.................................................. 65
Comer, Carol L................................................... 74
Coyne, James K................................................... 80
Crook, Ann B..................................................... 85
Lang, Catherine M................................................ 89
Schrader, Hon. Kurt.............................................. 101
Swecker, Mitch................................................... 102
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Petri, Hon. Thomas E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin, statements for the record:
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Craig L. Fuller,
President................................................ 5
Experimental Aircraft Association.......................... 9
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.028
HEARING ON RESIDENTIAL THROUGH-THE-FENCE AGREEMENTS AT PUBLIC AIRPORTS:
ACTION TO DATE AND CHALLENGES AHEAD
----------
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:13 a.m., in room
2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable James
Oberstar [Chairman of the Full Committee] presiding.
Mr. Oberstar. The Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure will come to order. Apologies from the Chair for
being delayed; the traffic jams had traffic jams this morning.
I like August much better, I told Mr. Petri; there aren't as
many people around Washington; traffic isn't so horrible.
This morning we gather to review a very intriguing subject
that has existed for some time but hasn't come to the fore as a
subject of public policy concern in all of my 25 years of
working on aviation issues, residential through-the-fence
agreements at public airports. Today, we are exploring the
effects of residential through-the-fence agreements at the
Nation's public airports. We are seeking a balance between the
interests of homeowners who own and operate aircraft, and the
government and the public at large, who have invested
substantial amounts of money to develop airports.
When this issue came up, I thought immediately of the
former president of AOPA, Phil Boyer, who was sent off to the
sunset in a lovely event right here in this room, in fact,
among other events that were done for him, with a picture of
Phil rolling his airport out of his hangar, to which his home
was attached, and moving right over to the adjacent airport.
That is really what this is about, agreements between the
State and local governments who own and operate the airports,
and, on the other hand, people who have land adjacent to the
airports. These colloquially called through-the-fence
agreements exist for a very unique purpose: they allow
homeowners to park their personal aircraft at home, and taxi
the aircraft to and from airport runways and taxiways at their
leisure. I thought of that this morning. It might have been a
lot easier to get to downtown Washington than to struggle
through the traffic.
These are people who are very keen on aviation, who do
service to the Nation promoting general aviation; they watch
over the airport. They have invested in a lifestyle that allows
them to support their airports and to support general aviation.
And a majority of those who have the privilege or negotiated
the agreement to have through-the-fence access exercise their
privilege with restraint and a sense of civic responsibility.
Yet, there are challenges. If you read, as I did last
night, through all the testimony, there are some very
intriguing comments. Challenges for the FAA, for local
airports, and homeowners, challenges that have developed
because of these agreements. In certain situations, the
agreement may hold back airport development; it may prevent an
airport from expanding; it may prevent critical safety
improvements; it may even result in the access holders'
improper use of airport property for non-aviation purposes.
Since a year ago, the FAA has approved more than $2.8
billion in Federal grants for airport infrastructure. They are
made to support our national system of integrated airports.
Each of them has a role in each I say as an indispensable part
of our national airport system. When these through-the-fence
agreements become a constraint on airport development, or when
they create safety issues that limit the ability of pilots to
use an airport, then that return on investment is diminished.
So there are some situations, there are cases where that in
fact is happening, according to the documentation we have
received that airports and the FAA has supplied for us.
Last year, FAA began to deal with the issue by publishing a
policy that would discourage through-the-fence agreements. The
FAA typically received a large number of comments on the
policy. Many took a rather opposite view of the decision to
discourage agreements and some are uncertain about the future
of such through-the-fence agreements in the aftermath of FAA'S
publication of that policy.
In September of this year, just a few days ago, the FAA
published revisions to its policy that take into account some
of the criticisms that they received. Under the FAA proposals,
homeowners will be able to continue to enjoy access when their
airports comply with reasonable requirements to ensure that all
points of access are accounted for and mapped. Homeowners and
airport owners must work to ensure that, in the future, these
through-the-fence access agreements do not establish or lead to
safety issues or legal issues that FAA has documented in the
past.
We will hear from Kate Lang, of FAA, the Office of
Airports, who has been doing a splendid job in that position
for many, many years; is now the acting. Maybe some day they
will do the right thing and make her the Director. I also look
forward to hearing other witnesses who have personal experience
and expertise on these issues.
I especially want to thank our Committee colleague,
Congressman Graves, Missouri Graves, for bringing this issue to
my attention and to the Committee's attention. The gentleman
has been a very strong supporter of general aviation; is a
knowledgeable and vigorous advocate for general aviation. When
he says there is an issue, we pay attention and we have to
address those issues that are raised.
And also Mr. Schrader, whom I saw just a few weeks ago in
Portland at a bridge event, reconstruction and repainting and
realignment. It was a great infrastructure day.
Now I will yield to my very good friend, the Ranking
Member, Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing today.
Residential through-the-fence agreements are not new. In
fact, some agreements date back to the 1970's and others were
drafted with the assistance and approval of local FAA
officials. Simply put, a residential through-the-fence
agreement is an agreement between an airport operator and a
private landowner who owns residential property adjacent to the
airport, commonly referred to as a hangar home. The agreement
sets forth the terms and conditions for the private landowner
to have direct access to the airport from his or her own
property.
While the Federal Aviation Administration has never been a
huge fan of residential through-the-fence agreements, in 2009,
the agency proposed to eliminate all residential through-the-
fence agreements. Earlier this month, after receiving hundreds
of comments on the 2009 proposal, the FAA published new
guidance and again asked for public comment. In its recently
published document, the FAA proposes to prohibit any new
residential through-the-fence agreements while requiring a two-
year review of existing agreements and a review upon renewal of
any existing agreements.
This is an issue that impacts a very small universe of
public general aviation airports in the United States. Of the
3,300 airports in the National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems, the FAA has provided a list of only 75 public general
aviation airports with residential through-the-fence
agreements, which represents less than 3 percent of all public
airports in these United States. But for those airports and
landowners impacted by this change in FAA policy, this is a
very important property right and aviation issue.
Opponents of residential through-the-fence agreements,
including the FAA, claim that these agreements are more trouble
than they are worth and allow incompatible land use near
airports that will constrain future airport development.
Residential through-the-fence agreements may not make sense at
every airport, I am sure they don't, but they do make sense at
many locations and in some communities provide much needed
aviation and local property tax revenue.
While there may be isolated issues at some locations, in
general, hangar homes are owned by aviation enthusiasts who
love the industry and lifestyle. What better neighbors could a
general aviation airport ask for?
Proponents of residential through-the-fence agreements also
point out that airports should have the flexibility to enter
into these agreements if they want to, and can remain in
compliance with their grant assurances. After all, airport
authorities are locally accountable government entities.
Today we have before us the FAA and representatives of
interested groups to testify about residential through-the-
fence agreements. I am pleased that parties on both sides of
the issue have joined us here today to give us their insights.
It is important that the Committee hear from all sides of this
issue to gain a better understanding of what residential
through-the-fence agreements are, who is impacted, what issues
are related to the use of such agreements, and what effect the
FAA'S proposed guidance will have on private property rights
and on small airports and communities.
I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today and look
forward to hearing from them.
And before I yield back, I would ask that statements by the
Experimental Aircraft Association and the Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association be made part of the hearing record.
Mr. Oberstar. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.035
Mr. Petri. Again, thank you for indulging my use of time.
Mr. Oberstar. Oh, my goodness, no. It was a very thoughtful
statement.
The Chair will now yield to Ms. Johnson in her new
neckpiece.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Oberstar. I am sure you would rather have a more
stylish one, but glad to see you are recovering very well from
your most recent operation.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you for being here this morning.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much and thank you for
holding this hearing today on residential through-the-fence
agreements.
None of the public airports in my district employ through-
the-fence agreements; however, there are between 7 and 11
airports in Texas with such agreements. It seems that this is a
very personal and emotional issue for many general aviation
pilots whose planes are parked at their homes and who take
advantage of direct access to airport taxiways.
I can understand their concerns if they have grown
accustomed to the use and benefits of the through-the-fence
agreements; however, I can also understand the safety and land
use concerns raised by the FAA. This Committee takes
transportation safety issues very seriously, and I believe the
FAA raises some valid concerns.
In reviewing through-the-fence agreements, the FAA found
incidents, such as incursions of pets, people, and private
vehicles, on airport property, the construction of structures
that interfere with navigational radio signals and the ability
of airports to make safety-critical improvements to runways and
taxiways.
I am glad that we are taking time to hear from both sides
of this issue and hope that we can find a solution agreeable to
all interested parties.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Petri, for holding the
hearing this morning. I yield back.
Mr. Oberstar. The Chair will now yield to Mr. Graves,
sponsor of the legislation and initiator of this hearing.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and Representative Ranking Member Mica for holding this
hearing. This is obviously a great way to bring this issue to
light.
For those of you who don't know, or folks out there that
don't know, residential through-the-fence agreements are
agreements between an airport sponsor, and that might be the
city, the county, or a municipality, between them and an
individual with privately owned land adjacent to an airport
that provides that landowner and their aircraft access to the
airport.
You know, nothing that the FAA does prohibits anybody from
developing that land, and I hear a lot of talk about not being
able to develop land or being able to expand an airport. Yet,
all an residential through-the-fence agreement does is allow
access. You can still develop that land. You can do anything
you want to, for that matter, with that land, within reason.
Of the few thousand public use general aviation airports,
there are roughly 75 known airports with residential through-
the-fence agreements. In some cases, such as the 75 mentioned
above, the airport sponsor and the airport manager might feel
these agreements benefit the airport and surrounding areas;
whereas, in other instances, they simply might not like these
agreements. But the decisions made about existing potential
agreements are deliberated by the local community, and they
should be; they own the airport, they have the investment in
the airport. It should be up to the local community and
municipality to make that decision.
I am not saying that every airport should have a
residential through-the-fence agreement. I am just saying it
should be their right to choose.
With that said, I am sure there are a few extreme examples
out there of residential through-the-fence agreements that can
be improved, which I am sure I know some of our panelists are
going to point that out. But, likewise, I think there are many
more great examples of existing through-the-fence agreements
which could be a model for future agreements.
Earlier this year I introduced legislation, which is H.R.
4815, in the hopes of providing more uniformity and developing
a framework for all of these agreements. I made a few changes
post-introduction, but we shouldn't take the easy way out, I
believe, and ban all future residential through-the-fence
agreements. I think with proper planning and coordination
amongst all the stakeholders we can find some reasonable
solutions.
The Federal Aviation Administration recently published, as
has been pointed out today, in the Federal Register a proposal
which would allow existing agreements to remain in effect.
However, it clearly prohibits any new residential through-the-
fence agreements. I believe the FAA policy on existing
agreements is a great step in the right direction, but I also
believe that you have really missed the mark on future
arrangements, and without significant changes to the proposal,
I just will not support it.
I firmly believe that residential through-the-fence
agreements can safely and efficiently coexist with GAA airports
now and in the future, and I also believe the Federal
Government should protect its investments. But I don't think
the agreements we are discussing today adversely, or without
exception, affect an airport's authority, their ability to
operate or the FAA'S ability to protect their investment.
Again, this comes down to a city's choice or a county's
choice, whatever the case may be; and if they don't like them,
then they don't have to have them. But if they do like them, I
believe that they should be allowed to have them. And it also
comes down to just access. That is all it is. And we are going
to see examples up here and we are going to see pictures up
here, and you are going to see a lot of development around an
airport, but the bottom line is that development can take place
regardless. If somebody owns a piece of property, and it
doesn't matter if it is a Driggs or independent, if somebody
owns a piece of property adjacent to an airport, they can
develop it. And if the airport needs to expand, what they will
probably do is condemn that property or do whatever it takes to
expand it. They have that option. But, regardless, all this is
allowing is access for that individual.
And as far as pets on an airport and vehicles on an
airport, those are still unauthorized. If it is an unauthorized
vehicle, and I know we are getting into specifics here, and I
didn't necessarily want to do that, but if it is an
unauthorized vehicle on an airport, then it is unauthorized.
That is just all there is to it. And I think we can put these
agreements together in such a way that it benefits everybody.
But, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the fact that you
decided to have this hearing, and I know we talked about it on
the floor, but thank you very much, and thank you to Ranking
Member Mica for also agreeing to it.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Graves. Certainly those issues
you raised will be explored during the course of this hearing.
Now, Mr. Schrader, also an advocate for through-the-fence
agreements, we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KURT SCHRADER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity you are giving me today to speak with you about the
residential through-the-fence agreements at our federally
supported airports.
As a licensed general aviation pilot, I have been familiar
with this issue for some time. While I was in the State
legislature in Oregon, I had the privilege of working on this
issue with Oregon State Senator Betsy Johnson, who continues to
be a leading advocate for aviation in our great State. It is a
privilege to come before you today as a Member of Congress to
represent the interests of my constituents living at
Independence Airpark.
In a few moments, you are going to hear from Mitch Swecker,
the Oregon State Airports Manager, and he can tell you about
the success Oregon has actually had with residential-commercial
through-the-fence agreements at our State airports that receive
FAA grants. I know he will be a valuable resource to you today,
and I thank him for coming.
For my constituents who make their homes at Independence
Airpark, I am proud to be before you to attest to their
commitment to keep Independence Airport a highly functional and
important part of National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems.
Since 1976 the Independence Airport has been the heart of
this community. Each resident has chosen to live there and is
invested in their community's future. The 213 houses in
Independence Airpark I think serve as a model for how
residential through-the-fence agreements can and should work.
In Oregon we have done through-the-fence the right way, and I
am glad the FAA has proposed a new rule that will allow Oregon
and Independence Airpark to continue operating under their
existing residential through-the-fence agreements while we here
in Congress figure out the long-term success.
Mr. Chairman, as the Congressman for the Independence
Airpark and a strong supporter of Mr. Graves, Mr. Boswell's,
Mr. Ehlers' and Mr. Petri's Community Airport Access and
Protection Act of 2010, I am grateful to you for holding this
hearing to explore the issues of through-the-fence agreements,
hopefully granting further FAA assurances in the future. I look
forward to continuing to work with you and my colleagues who
sit on this Committee to develop a fair and very sound policy
on residential and commercial through-the-fence agreements.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, thank you for your testimony. You have
had an opportunity, I gather, to review the current September
revisions by the FAA of their original policy. I would like to
get your thoughts about it. I think the cornerstone is making
changes for the future, leaving existing agreements in place,
but strengthening compliance with grant agreements, FAA-AIP
grant agreements.
Mr. Schrader. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I
appreciate the direction the FAA is going. Certainly the
existing agreements I think need to be honored, and there is a
lot of good lessons to be learned from the airparks like
Independence that do it right. And I think everyone in any
airparks all over the issues of safety, I think that goes
without saying. But I would hope there would still be an
opportunity for new through-the-fence agreements. I have
actually two airports out of the 75, apparently, nationwide
that are in my district. They both are major airports for the
communities. One, actually a little further north than
Independence, actually serves as a potential hub or outlier
airport for our greater Portland community.
So having this sort of agreement and understanding promotes
the jobs in these areas. A lot of our communities are severely
hard hit right now. This would be just one more blow to our
economy and to the ability for honest Americans that made a
decision to live near an airpark to exercise their free will.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you.
Other Members have questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Oberstar. If not, thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. We will now hear from Kate Lang, who is the
Director of Airports for the FAA; from Ms. Carol Comer,
Aviation Programs Manager for the Georgia Department of
Transportation; Mr. Mitch Swecker, Airports Manager for the
State of Oregon Department of Aviation; Ms. Ann Crook, Airport
Manager, Elmira Regional Airport.
Been passed Elmira many times over the years. My late wife
was from Rochester, New York. We used to drive up that way from
here to Rochester.
Jim Coyne, a former colleague who spends more time
answering quorum calls and votes up here, and not actually
voting, than probably when he was a Member; and Dr. Brent Blue,
Founder of Throughthefence.org.
Ms. Lang, we will begin with you. Thank you very much for
being with us this morning. But again let me repeat my
compliments for the service you have rendered as Director of
Airports, the splendid job you have done particularly through
the period of the stimulus, moving those airport grants out
very quickly. We have 98 percent of FAA stimulus funding under
contract, actually onsite work carried on.
My recollection is that the airport grants under stimulus
affects some 2.5 million operations a year at airports that
have used those grant funds, and they have been put into effect
very quickly, projects completed. In fact, there is one airport
that invited me to a groundbreaking ceremony, and by the time I
got there a few weeks later, there was a ribbon cutting; they
had already completed the project. That is good news. People
working jobs and permanent benefits left for the Country.
I know that didn't happen by accident; it happened because
you had a portfolio of projects that had been vetted, that had
been cleared, that had gone through all the preliminary
reviews, environmental review, design engineering, and ready to
go to bids. And in many cases bids had already been taken even
before we passed this stimulus, because airports can hold those
bids for quite a period of time, unlike the highway program.
So, with that, please begin.
TESTIMONY OF CATHERINE M. LANG, ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF AIRPORTS, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; CAROL L.
COMER, AVIATION PROGRAMS MANAGER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; MITCH SWECKER, STATE AIRPORTS MANAGER, OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION; ANN B. CROOK, AIRPORT MANAGER, ELMIRA
CORNING REGIONAL AIRPORT; JAMES K. COYNE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
AIR TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; AND BRENT BLUE, MD, FOUNDER OF
THROUGHTHEFENCE.ORG
Ms. Lang. Thank you. And I will pass your kind words on to
the airports team.
Chairman Oberstar and other Members of the Committee, good
morning and thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the
FAA'S proposed policy regarding access to airports from
residential property.
In order to frame this discussion properly, let me explain
what a public use airport is and how it differs from an
airpark. There are approximately 21,000 airports and landing
strips in the United States. Out of these, only 3,332 have been
selected for inclusion in the National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems, or the NPIAS. These are public use airports
that must be open to all aeronautic users, must be sufficiently
expandable and adaptable so as to accommodate new aircraft and
future demand, and must develop in a way that meets FAA safety
standards. It is these airports that are eligible for Airport
Improvement Program, or AIP, grants.
Conversely, private airparks are financed and maintained by
the aviation community that uses them, and they are free to set
their own standards for use, access, and safety.
It is also necessary to consider the longstanding principle
that with the expenditure of any Federal grant funds certain
conditions attach. In keeping with this principle, every time
we make a Federal investment at a NPIAS airport, the sponsor
agrees to 39 Federal assurances, the vast majority of which are
explicitly congressionally mandated. These are assurances
designed to protect the public aeronautical characteristics of
the airport, to encourage good airport management, and to
impose conditions to protect the public purpose for which the
investment of taxpayer dollars was made. These principles and
assurances have, for 60 years, protected and expanded the most
robust system of airports in the world.
Over the past decade, the FAA has responded to several on-
airport residents and residential through-the-fence proposals
from NPIAS airport sponsors and developers. Our view, both then
and now, was that residential development does not meet the
statutory requirement for compatible land use. Over time,
inconsistent approaches to residential through-the-fence
agreements have developed, and we recognized that a more
comprehensive approach was warranted.
After our initial attempt last year to clarify our
residential through-the-fence policy, we ultimately assembled a
policy team to review the gaps in our approach. The team met
with a wide variety of interested parties, visited five
airports with residential through-the-fence access, and
reviewed countless documents and comments received on our
previous guidance materials.
At several of the sites we visited and studied, the
fundamental distinctions between public use, public purpose
airports and private airports have begun to blur. While private
airparks serve an important and cherished purpose for members
of the aviation community, AIP funds must be used strategically
and responsibly at NPIAS airports that serve public purposes
and retain the characteristics expected from public use, public
purpose airports.
The agency's statutory charge to invest in a national
system of airports for the long-term, coupled with the fact
that residential through-the-fence arrangements can compromise
the ability of the airports to serve the public purpose
expected of tax-funded airports, led us to the policy we are
proposing. The policy is twofold. We propose both minimum
requirements that airports with existing residential through-
the-fence access must meet and proposed prohibit sponsors from
entering into new arrangements. Among other things, airports
with existing access would be required to develop access plans
to address general authority for control of airport land, the
safety of airport operation, cost recovery, air space
protection, and compatible land use. While these arrangements
continue to be undesirable, we believe that this will address
our most serious concerns, while offering a common sense and
fair solution for the communities involved.
This proposed policy is currently out for public comment,
and the comment period will remain open until October 25th of
this year. We have worked extremely hard to arrive at a policy
that addresses the concerns and needs of State and local
governments and of the general aviation community, while
fulfilling our obligation to protect the role that NPIAS
airports play in the national system.
I believe our staff has given full and fair consideration
to all the ideas and feedback we have received up to this point
in the process, and I assure you that we will continue to be
open-minded as we review the public comments on our draft
policy.
As stewards of the Federal tax dollars, the FAA takes
seriously our responsibility to make wise investments with AIP
grant funds. I believe our proposed policy regarding access to
airports from residential property reflects the long view this
Committee explicitly expects us to take when we invest $3.5
billion of taxpayer money in our airport systems annually.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, this concludes my
prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions you
might have.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Ms. Lang. I am going to have to
leave; I have another Committee responsibility in a different
mode of transportation, I have to go talk to a transit group,
and Mr. Boswell will take the Chair during that time. But I
just wanted to ask you about the revisions in the FAA policy. I
made note in 2007 FAA issued a determination that residential
development adjacent to airport property is an incompatible
land use. Is that still the guiding policy and principle?
Ms. Lang. It is, sir.
Mr. Oberstar. And the safety concerns, you have cited some
issues and there is evidence in other statements about safety
concerns. What are the principle safety concerns that you would
cite that should be a part of the agreement, the AIP grant
agreement between FAA and the owner of the airport?
Ms. Lang. Well, for all NPIAS airports, we really work to
drive Federal investments to meet FAA standards so a pilot
flying into an airport has a uniform experience. What is
happening at some of the through-the-fence airports, some of
the ones where we have done the deeper review is, let's take an
example of an airport that has a runway with a parallel
taxiway. We have instances where through-the-fence operators on
the other side of the airport just do a perpendicular taxiway
right into the middle of the runway. Now, all over the country
we spend Federal tax dollars to provide situations so we do not
have pilots at federally obligated airports back-taxiing. Yet,
to accommodate through-the-fence operations, we see incident
after incident in which----
Mr. Oberstar. Can't those be avoided by guidance and
training? I mean, physically it is not necessary to do that; it
may be a little more difficult to approach properly, but isn't
that a manageable matter or not?
Ms. Lang. What, back-taxying?
Mr. Oberstar. Yes.
Ms. Lang. Well, you know, at an untowered airport, I mean,
you would hope----
Mr. Oberstar. They just do it, you are saying.
Ms. Lang. Right. I mean, the fact of the matter is that we
have major initiatives, particularly in western parts of the
United States, to eradicate the instances where we have runways
without parallel taxiways to eliminate what we find to be an
unsafe condition. We intentionally invested in this particular
airport to provide that parallel taxiway to achieve that safety
outcome, only to have it compromised by the airport giving up
the rights and power by allowing through-the-fence access that
undermined the Federal investment to achieve the higher safety
standard. We actively use Federal money at public airports to
specifically avoid those situations.
Mr. Oberstar. There is another issue of expansion. If there
is a need for expansion and the airport owner is allowed
residential development so close, to expand, you have to
acquire that property. Shouldn't there be agreements, shouldn't
there be covenants in the grant award that the airport owner
will take care not to allow encroachment?
Ms. Lang. Mr. Chairman, this Committee has, over the years,
given very good guidance to the FAA on how to think about the
development of airports receiving Federal funds. On the one
hand, we give airports the infrastructure and the land they
need to operate the airport. But Congress has also urged us,
and we have done it vigorously, to provide money to develop
compatible land use planning around an airport to make sort of
a buffer zone there. Throughout the last several decades, homes
have been found to be a non-compatible use. Building a home is
one of the most difficult arrangements to make. If someone does
an on-airport hangar, they generally will understand that the
hangar will extinguish at the end of that and the airport
should retain the right to do that. But with homes, people buy
homes and take mortgages thinking that those will continue in
perpetuity. Homes, versus other arrangements, are considered
not to be extinguished.
Mr. Oberstar. One of the biggest issues we have is airport
noise, and I insisted, I think it back in 1990, that we have
language, that the FAA include language directing counties or
cities or those who have public ownership of land around
airports to have a provision in the mortgage agreement that the
buyer of the home or builder of the home acknowledge that they
are living within the DNL and that they understand there is
going to be airport noise, so that they can't come later and
complain that there is airport noise. That is not acceptable to
me; I just have no patience with people who buy a home in the
vicinity of an airport and then complain there is airport
noise. If you can't see that it is an airport and there are
airports coming in, then goodness knows you don't belong there,
you belong someplace else. I mean, I really truly have little
patience for that.
But then in subsequent testimony from Ms. Crook I though it
was very interesting, even airport residential through-the-
fence agreement complain about a jet aircraft coming in. It is
OK for their own airplane, but they don't want a small jet
coming in the airport. You can't have it both ways.
Well, we will have to pursue that. I would love to be able
to pursue this further, but I will have to ask Mr. Boswell to
take the Chair, and I will return as soon as I can.
We will continue with Ms. Comer.
Ms. Comer. Chairman Oberstar, Members of the Committee, we
are pleased to report that not one of Georgia's 91 publicly
owned and federally obligated airports has residential through-
the-fence access. The majority of these issues have been
successfully resolved by educating our airport sponsors. We
advise them that these agreements are inconsistent with their
obligation to ensure compatible land use adjacent to the
airport. We review their grant assurances and discuss the
inherent safety, security, and liability issues that are
associated with these proposals. Lastly, we inform the airport
sponsor of the undesirable consequences of noncompliance with
their Federal grant assurances: they risk not receiving future
Federal funds.
The remaining proposals we review, simply put, take on a
life of their own. They tend to be as unique as the airport and
their proponent, and contain elements that may adversely impact
the safe operation of the airport. Rarely do they contain
provisions that are truly in the best interest of the airport,
and they consume the valuable personnel and financial resources
of all involved.
One such proposal presented to us in 2006 still remains
unresolved today. The original proposal contained a substantial
residential component along with a long water feature which
would provide a habitat for birds and wildlife, potentially
posing a safety hazard to aircraft operations. This particular
proposal is further complicated by the sponsor's lack of
jurisdiction for zoning around the airport and ongoing
litigation between the sponsor and the proponent. More than 30
meetings have taken place in the last five years over this
issue, but we are very close to resolving it.
As this example illustrates, these issues have a high
degree of complexity, are contentious, are usually protracted
over a number of years, and can result in significant expense
to the airport sponsor and the proponent.
In working with our airport sponsors to resolve the more
difficult proposals, we have long criticized FAA for its lack
of a clear and enforceable policy on this issue. The word
``discourage'' does very little to dissuade local government
officials with very little experience in airport operations or
a true understanding of their Federal grant obligations.
In 2008, the FAA selected the State of Georgia to become
the 10th Block Grant Program State. When we executed the
Memorandum of Agreement with FAA, they did not give us an
option to enforce only those policies and rules and regulations
that we liked or agreed with. Resolving through-the-fence
issues are one of the most difficult parts of administering the
Block Grant Program.
During the past 12 years, Georgia has invested more than
$50 million in our own State funds to extend runways at 37
airports statewide in support of regional economic development
opportunities. This will keep Georgia's citizens and its
business and industry connected to the global economy. It is
imperative that we provision for and protect the future
development of our airports so they will continue to serve for
the public benefit in our State and national airport system.
After reviewing comments from residential through-the-fence
proponents, I am compelled to offer a personal perspective to
answer their question ``Who are these people who are telling us
and our local airports we can't do this?''
For more than 25 years I have held an FAA pilot's license
with a multi-engine and instrument rating, and a flight
instructor's certificate. I have owned four airplanes, am an
avid general aviation pilot, logging more than 3,000 flying
hours, and I have lived for eight years in a privately owned,
private use residential flying community. I assure the
Committee I understand the desires of a pilot who wishes to
live in this environment. However, my personal enjoyment of
this lifestyle should not be associated with a publicly funded
airport. In Georgia, more than 35 privately owned, private use
residential airparks exist specifically for this purpose.
We respectfully urge the Congress to support FAA'S update
to its residential through-the-fence policy and amendment to
its grant assurances in order to minimize safety risk, protect
the future development of our publicly owned airports, and
maintain the integrity of the Federal, State, and local dollars
invested in these facilities. This would support the past and
future efforts of our staff and FAA as we work to ensure the
safest possible operating environment on our airports and
compliance with all Federal policies and regulations.
Thank you for the opportunity to share Georgia's
experiences and challenges with residential through-the-fence
agreements. This will conclude my formal remarks and I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Boswell. [Presiding] Thank you very much.
We will move on now to Mr. Swecker. Thank you very much.
You are now recognized.
Mr. Swecker. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee
today. I am currently the State Airports Manager for the Oregon
Department of Aviation, and the Department is overseen by a
seven member board of directors appointed by the governor, and
I am here at their behest.
The Department's mission is to support Oregon communities
by preserving and enhancing aviation safety, infrastructure,
and development, and part of my charter is to be the manager
for 28 of those public use airports that are State owned.
Oregon is a mostly rural State, and those general aviation
airports provide essential services, such as transportation,
medevac, airborne firefighting, as well as aviation related
recreation.
I am here today in support of residential and commercial
through-the-fence and H.R. 4815, the Community Airport Access
and Protection Act of 2010. On behalf of the Oregon flying
community, I thank Representatives Graves, Boswell, Ehlers, and
Petri as sponsors of that bill. Additionally, I would like to
thank the cosponsors, including Representative Schrader of
Oregon.
On a larger scale, residential through-the-fence is almost
entirely a general aviation issue, and general aviation
contributes $1.8 billion annually to the Oregon economy,
according to data provided by the Alliance for Aviation Across
America. It also directly and indirectly is responsible for
close to 197,000 jobs in Oregon. The largest kit built aircraft
company in the world, Van's aircraft, is located at one of our
airports, and there are numerous aviation manufacturers located
at airports around the State.
Keeping general aviation and the industries that support it
alive has to be part of any economic recovery, and it seems
contradictory to discourage one of the strongest supporters and
customers of the aviation industry. Residential airpark tenants
are that aviation community that loves flying so much that they
are willing to live close to an airport, despite the noise,
that they literally live what the previous Oregon Department of
Aviation Director used to call the Wright Brothers spirit. They
are the most ardent of aviation supporters and have enhanced
the value of the community through the tax base and through
their civic contributions. They are consumers of aviation
products that essential to keeping general aviation industries
viable across the United States.
In Oregon we have seen firsthand that residential through-
the-fence is not, contrary to FAA draft policies, inherently
wrong. The State of Oregon believes that when done wisely it
can be a tremendous asset to an airport. Independence
Residential Airpark has over 200 homes laid out in a model
development that clearly demonstrates residential airparks can
be done safely, help to make the airport economically self-
sustainable, and probably are more secure than most airports
that don't have homes with access to the airport.
The State of Oregon is not looking to combat the FAA. It is
a great organization that does a remarkable job and we have a
good working relationship with it. Yet, occasionally we have a
professional difference of philosophy on how best to enhance
and promote aviation in Oregon. We have worked well with the
FAA and even invited Randall Fiertz, the FAA'S Director of
Compliance and Field Operations, to our State to see firsthand
how a successful residential TTF airport could look.
As background, in September 2009, the FAA changed the
5190.6A from 1989 that, by the FAA'S own admission, did not
address residential through-the-fence in a meaningful way. The
clarifications in the new manual are a significant departure
from the past practices on the part of the FAA. The verbiage in
the new manual radically changes the approach to residential
through-the-fence, making it absolutely unacceptable under any
circumstances, and we appreciate that they have agreed to
modify that just a little bit.
The homeowners at Independence have invested significantly
in their community. They have lived in safety and harmony since
1976, when the first airpark homes were developed and sold. And
up until the late 2000's they were also in harmony with the
FAA, having been through multiple FAA grant assurance
inspections over the years without issue related to through-
the-fence.
Both the State of Oregon and the homeowners appreciate
concessions offered by the FAA; however, the newest proposed
revision verifies that the FAA'S mind-set has remained the
same, that residential through-the-fence is not good for
airports, and it also calls into question the commitment and
promises made to the Oregon Department of Aviation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude my remarks by
respectfully requesting the following: approve and pass H.R.
4815; encourage the FAA to work with the States on a policy
that fits each State's situation vice using a one size fits all
approach; and recognize the economic, safety, security, and
community value of TTF, through-the-fence, both commercial and
residential, and that they are not inherently wrong in and of
themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity to
appear before your Committee.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you for your testimony.
We move on now to Ms. Crook, Airport Manager, Elmira
Corning Regional Airport. Welcome.
Ms. Crook. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members
of the Committee. I am the Manager, as you mentioned, of the
Elmira Corning Regional Airport, but am also the past Director
of the Oregon Department of Aviation. I am an accredited
airport executive, so my comments today are based on over 20
years of managing public use airports, many of them with
through-the-fence agreements.
In my opinion, what we are here talking about today is not
residential airparks. What we are talking about is the
appropriate way to allocate the scarce airport improvement
program funding and how to prioritize that to the essential
components of the public use airport system.
First I want to talk, again from my experience, about a
comment we have heard several times already this morning about
residential airpark homeowners being good neighbors and
proponents of aviation. I absolutely believe in that. We have
heard some very good comments already about how these people
are drivers of general aviation, supporters of general
aviation, and proponents of that element of the industry.
However, I have received noise complaints from residents of
a residential home park with through-the-fence agreement who
are absolutely trying to protect their investment and their
homes and their way of life, but when there have been different
kinds of aircraft operations that are appropriate at a public
use airport weren't consistent with their way of life, and this
was, for example, helicopter noise; other aircraft, transient
aircraft, aircraft not based at the airport operating after
their normal hours, at night, maybe; and also when we have, at
a particular airport, had discussions with businesses in the
community about the possibility of developing the airport so
that it could accommodate light jets to accommodate corporate
flight activity, the residents of the airpark were extremely
opposed to any development of the airport that would make it
accessible to jet type of traffic.
So while I do believe that they are supportive of their
residential use of the airport, I haven't found them to be
supportive of the airport and its public use in general.
Another factor that I have seen is, again, as Ms. Lang
mentioned, the fact that homeowners tie to their home, their
major investment, their asset in their life is different than
the business relationship that pilots will have on their hangar
or a commercial hangar that is on an airport. Again, the
expected value of a home continues forever, it is not just for
the life of an agreement or for your expected use of your
hangar. It is expected that your home is an asset that becomes
part of your estate, that you can convert to your heirs or sell
with a value that is not only consistent, but is expected to
grow. I mean, everyone is expecting to gain equity in their
home over time, and a major portion of the value of that home
is the access to the airport.
That becomes an issue when, again, sometime in the future,
the airport may need to do some development to accommodate
public use. If that development eliminates that opportunity for
the access, then we are not just talking about moving a
taxiway; what we are talking about is reducing the value of
this home that, if that home no longer has access, then it
becomes a residential development next to the airport that can
be a real incompatible land use, that can cause noise problems
and other problems for the airport in the future. And that is
where I think putting our public funding, our scarce AIP
funding into that is a mistake.
I do want to say that the FAA'S proposal that came out a
couple of weeks ago is a very, very good compromise. It allows
for places that already exist, like the Independence State
Airport in Oregon, to demonstrate that they can meet the
requirements to make sure that the airport operates safely and
securely, maximizes future investments, but doesn't allow
future type of developments that might create problems for the
FAA and for the community in the future.
I also wanted to stress that this proposal does not attempt
to prohibit residential airparks. It doesn't at all. What it
does is say that it is inappropriate to invest Federal funds in
airports that have those, and that is a very important
distinction.
That is the end of my comments, but I am available for any
questions. Thank you very much.
Mr. Boswell. Well, thank you. Appreciate your comments.
We would now like to recognize Mr. James Coyne, President
of the National Air Transportation Association. Welcome.
Mr. Coyne. Thank you very much, Congressman Boswell and
other Members of the Committee. I am Jim Coyne, the President
of the National Air Transportation Association. We are
sometimes called the voice of aviation business; we represent
about 2,000 aviation businesses across the Country, companies
that provide fuel, services, repairs, and so forth, at both
private aviation locations and at regular airports across the
Country, public use airports.
The FAA, of course, has issued a proposed policy related to
residential through-the-fence agreements at federally funded
airports. This policy would subject existing through-the-fence
agreements to closer oversight and scrutiny, and prohibit
federally obligated airports from entering into any new
through-the-fence agreements.
NATA supports the FAA'S proposed policy and believes it is
in the long-run interest of the air transportation system to
adopt such a policy. The Association believes the FAA proposal
comports with existing Federal grant assurance requirements and
applicable case law with regard to prohibiting new through-the-
fence agreements, while providing a reasonable accommodation
for existing agreements to continue. In short, we feel that
this is a compromise, a compromise that meets the objectives of
just about everybody involved.
Congress has recognized the value of maintaining and
developing a network of airports across the Nation through the
establishment of the AIP program. This program provides Federal
funds for the maintenance and development of airports that are
deemed important to the national air space system. This
investment of taxpayer dollars in airport development is
protected by, as we have heard, Federal grant assurances. These
assurances require airport owners to operate the airport in a
manner that best serves the interest of the entire
transportation system, not just one or two local residents.
Without these assurances, the Federal investment in airport
infrastructure would be subject to the whim and preference of
local politics and local consideration.
Of course, this body has, for the last 50 years, worked so
hard to develop a national air transportation system, and that
is why I think it is so important for us to emphasize that the
issue before the Committee today is what step most protects a
national system. I think somebody, it may have been Phil Boyer,
once said, it is the system, stupid. And keeping this system
viable depends upon us creating rules at the FAA at the
national level that support these public airports.
As a legal document, the through-the-fence agreements
convert access and other rights, depending upon the specific
language in the agreement, to individuals owning residential
property near the airport. These access rights at their core do
not necessarily conflict with the idea of maintaining airport
utility public interest. Conflicts can, however, occur when the
transportation needs of the surrounding communities and region
dictate a change in airport environment and, as we have heard,
nobody in this room can predict the changes that we are going
to need to make to our aviation system in the future, and it is
wrong to handicap our ability to adapt to those future changes
at this time through unwise legal agreements with homeowners
around airports.
NATA member companies have invested billions of dollars in
creating on-airport service facilities that cater to the needs
of the flying public. This investment, much like the Federal
investment, is protected by the Federal grant assurances from
unreasonable or unjust loss. Businesses, the majority of which
are small businesses, across the Nation have created service
facilities, jobs and economic activity based upon the idea that
public use airports are maintained and operated for the benefit
of the transportation needs of the whole region and the Nation.
These on-airport businesses are subject to tight oversight from
the airport sponsor to ensure that their activities are aligned
with the needs of the airport and the public. These businesses
accept the fact that the needs of the airport as a public use
facility supersede the plans of the individual business owners.
This is acceptable because the needs of the commercial
operation usually align with the growth and development of the
community and the region. Activities such as the creation of
residential through-the-fence agreements, which reduce the
future utility of airports, can devastate the investment in on-
airport facilities made by these businesses.
In closing, let me say that NATA understands the position
of residential through-the-fence proponents. General aviation
is an industry that was born in the United States and has grown
from the ground up. It is successful because of the passion and
devotion of countless aviation enthusiasts and entrepreneurs.
It is these same individuals who, because of their passion,
desire to reside near the local airport and operate the
aircraft directly from their homes.
Nothing in the Federal grant assurances or other Federal
law prevents residential through-the-fence operations from
occurring at the many private airports around the Country.
However, allowing private rights of access via residential
through-the-fence agreements from residential properties
adjacent to federally funded airports threatens the investment
of public funds made in those airports. The vision of public
airports must extend beyond the current use of the airport and
account for the various possible future needs of the Nation and
the traveling public.
NATA believes that the FAA has proposed a policy that well
serves the long-term interest of airports, airport businesses,
and the public. Any attempt to override that policy by statute
would result in unintended consequences that damage the future
utility of public use airports and could call into question the
future of all grant assurances and the FAA'S ability to ensure
that those obligations are followed by all airports receiving
Federal funding.
Thank you very much and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
I would like to recognize now Dr. Brent Blue, Founder of
the through-the-fence organization. Dr. Blue.
Dr. Blue. Thank you very much, Members of the Committee. It
is a pleasure to be here. My name is Brent Blue. I am a family
physician from Jackson, Wyoming. I am the Founder of
throughthefence.org, which is a site for dissemination of
information about residential through-the-fence activities and
the FAA'S attempt to change them.
I am, for what it is worth, the Democratic candidate for
coroner in Teatime County, Wyoming. Like the coroner's
position, this issue should not be partisan, and I don't know
how it has gotten to be partisan. It is not a Republican or
Democratic issue, but an issue of whether a local airport
should have the right to determine who its best neighbors are
and which ones will benefit that airport the most.
General aviation has been hit hard by the recession, and
was having hard times even before due to increasing fuel prices
and other factors. We need to do everything we can to support
general aviation.
Residential through-the-fence access is an income source
for airports and helps the viability of noncommercial general
aviation airports, and the viability of these airports is
important to the economy of the Country. Demonstrated by the
adverse effects of commerce during the shutdown after 9/11, the
lack of business aviation had significant adverse impacts on
many industries during the three weeks of restricted general
aviation activity.
Examples of viable airports and the positive economic
effects of residential through-the-fence access can be seen at
many places like Batavia, Ohio, where Phil Boyer, by the way,
lives; Independence, Oregon; Driggs, Idaho; and Erie, Colorado.
In Driggs, half the airports' board airports budget is paid for
by through-the-fence activity, and that number is expected to
be 60 percent for Erie, Colorado.
Residential through-the-fence activity also provides the
eyes on the field, especially at night, when most small
airports are vacant, helping increasing security. This is an
extension of the AOPA's Airport Watch Program, which has been
endorsed by the TSA and the FAA. A classic example of this was
in a March drug bust in Colorado, where a residential through-
the-fence homeowner noticed suspicious activity during the
night and called the police.
The FAA cites issue after issue to discourage through-the-
fence access, but most of these issues are unsupported by any
hard data and are significantly influenced by the personal bias
of FAA personnel. One bias is the sense that residential
through-the-fence owners receive an unfair economic benefit
from Federal improvements at adjacent airports. This is like
saying that somebody who lives near a bus shelter that has an
improvement done with Federal monies is benefitting. The same
could go for highway interchanges, open water projects, or home
near bike paths.
The FAA wants to guard against titled easements to restrict
residential through-the-fence properties because their mission
is to guard the Federal investment. Aside from the fact titled
easements are not a requirement for residential through-the-
fence access, these easements do guaranty income for the
airport and is a positive for the government investment by
making the long-term viability more secure.
The FAA has said it will be more difficult to move
residential through-the-fence owners over other land uses
around the airport, if indeed that needs to be done in the
future. But the FAA has not considered a much more difficult
move: moving cemeteries, which are common ``compatible''
airport neighbors. Moving a cemetery is more controversial than
moving anybody's home, and cemeteries are forever.
The bottom line is I am concerned about the future of
general aviation. I am not sure the FAA'S Airport Compliance
Office has the same concerns. Ms. Lang, in her written
testimony, characterizes residential through-the-fence
homeowners' input at a public airport board meeting as
``influence'' and is an inappropriate process. Public comment
at an airport board meeting inappropriate process. I believe
the FAA is an American institution.
This attempt to codify the ban on residential through-the-
fence access is Federal bureaucracy gone bad and should be
stopped.
Thank you very much for your time and I would appreciate
any questions.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
I wasn't here for the opening remarks; I was actually
reviving and I did see some of the things that were said as I
was coming passed the monitor.
First off, this is a hearing. We are not going to take any
votes today, so you know that, and we are here to gather
information. But I guess I could confess to some bias that I
would have on the issue. I personally think, and I will say
some more in a minute, after I recognize Mr. Graves and go
through the order here of questions, that, you know, absolutely
I concur with Mr. Oberstar and, before him, Mr. Young. Safety.
Safety is an absolute must. There is no argument.
But, you know, I think that pilots do understand that they
must follow and comply with instructions, whether it is
entering a taxiway or a runway or whatever, and it would seem
possible and reasonable to me that through education, signage,
and firm regulation, that this could and, I might add, should
be worked out in a safe and respectable manner, and we can
continue to have the incentives and the economic impact and the
safety for the through-the-fence operations.
You might have thought I felt that way before I took this
chair, but I think there is room, Jim, for the FBOs to do
their, you know. You know, I think folks like you and me could
sit down and work this out. I really believe that.
So, having said that, I recognize Mr. Graves, and we will
go through the order. Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Mr. Young has to leave, so----
Mr. Boswell. Excuse me. I just got corrected.
Mr. Young, sir.
Mr. Young. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, at this time,
would like to yield my five minutes to Mr. Graves, if I may.
And I do yield back the balance of my time. I yield to Mr.
Graves.
Mr. Boswell. Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It
is unfortunate that we have this hearing today on a day we
don't have votes, because we don't have very many Members here,
obviously, on this very important issue.
I have a lot of questions to go through and I will start
with Ms. Comer. You stated in your testimony that the State of
Georgia has no residential through-the-fence agreements at any
of your public airports.
Ms. Comer. I made the distinction we do not have any
residential through-the-fence agreements at our 91 publicly
owned airports that are contained in the NPIAS that receive
Federal funding.
Mr. Graves. And that is what we are talking about today. Is
there any Federal regulation that requires you to have a
through-the-fence agreement?
Ms. Comer. Would you restate your question?
Mr. Graves. Is there any Federal regulation out there that
requires you to have a through-the-fence agreement?
Ms. Comer. That requires? No, sir, not that I am aware of.
Mr. Graves. OK. So basically it is your decision. It is the
State of Georgia's decision and you have decided that you don't
want any through-the-fence agreements with any of the airports.
And I am short on time, so yes or no.
Ms. Comer. Ask the question one more time.
Mr. Graves. So basically the State of Georgia has made the
determination that you don't want any through-the-fence
agreements. That has been your decision, correct?
Ms. Comer. We are, as a State Block Grant program State,
administering Federal funds for the FAA. We are required to
ensure that our airports are in compliance with their Federal
grant assurances in order to maintain their eligibility.
Mr. Graves. And you have made that decision as the State of
Georgia, then, not to have any through-the-fence agreements,
which is interesting in the fact that you are a Block Grant
State, so you really make the decision. But, regardless, you
have made that decision that the State of Georgia chooses not
to do through-the-fence agreements.
Ms. Comer. Congressman Graves, I think something I will
remind a comment that you made. The airport makes that decision
of whether or not to enter in----
Mr. Graves. But you use the term educate. You educate them
to do that. All I am trying to get at is it is your decision,
is that correct? I mean, it is their decision after you have
educated them.
Ms. Comer. It is not our decision, it is their decision. We
offer the education to them of the potential.
Mr. Graves. OK. So you are here testifying today that you
believe that every State shouldn't be able to have through-the-
fence agreements, and you want the Federal Government just to
say no, period.
Ms. Comer. I am only testifying on behalf of Georgia's
experience.
Mr. Graves. Perfect. That is all I need to hear. You are
here for Georgia.
Ms. Crook, I will say the same thing to you. You know, at
your airport you have decided that it is not going to be in the
best interest to have a through-the-fence agreement, so you
don't have any through-the-fence agreements, correct?
Ms. Crook. Actually, we do have commercial through-the-
fence agreements.
Mr. Graves. You have commercial through-the-fence
agreements. I said residential, or I meant to say residential.
You have three commercial through-the-fence agreements, isn't
that right?
Ms. Crook. That is correct.
Mr. Graves. But you have decided not to have any
residential through-the-fence agreements.
Ms. Crook. That is correct.
Mr. Graves. So essentially you are here testifying to say
that everybody else shouldn't have them either.
Ms. Crook. Actually, no. I am here to testify that
residential through-the-fence agreements on public use airports
should not be eligible for AIP funding.
Mr. Graves. OK. That brings us to other issues.
Then I am going to go to Mr. Coyne. I am real quick now.
The National ATA, you basically oppose all residential and all
commercial through-the-fence agreements.
Mr. Coyne. What we propose and support is this compromise,
which allows existing residential through-the-fence agreements
to continue to operate, and we feel----
Mr. Graves. But all new.
Mr. Coyne. All new residential agreements I think should
follow the rules of this proposal.
Mr. Graves. How about business through-the-fence
agreements?
Mr. Coyne. Well, I think, as a general rule, business
through-the-fence agreements don't have exactly the same
issues, but they do have some concerns as well, and we don't
have, at this point, a blanket rule about all business or
commercial through-the-fence agreements, but we are very
cautious about them because many of them, as you know, involve
circumstances where they threaten the economic viability of the
businesses at the airport and threaten the economic viability
of the airport itself.
Mr. Graves. OK, I am running out of time, Mr. Chairman, and
I can come back, too, because I know other Members probably
have other obligations to go to.
Let's come back to this idea, and I keep hearing it from
everybody, that it prevents the future development of the
airport or the viability of the airport. Now, explain that to
me. In fact, on these residential through-the-fence agreements
it is private property, is it not? It is private property. And
I am still talking to Mr. Coyne and then I will come back. It
is private property. So you can't prevent that individual from
building a house next to the airport.
Mr. Coyne. Well, we truly believe that residential
homebuilding near airports, especially important airports that
are part of the NPIAS, is something that is not in the national
interest. The more residential homes----
Mr. Graves. Can you prevent somebody from building a house
on a piece of property adjacent to an airport?
Mr. Coyne. We would love to see ways in which the FAA could
do that because there are many circumstances when it really is
in the national interest and the interest of safety and others
to do that. I think, in fact, the FAA does work very hard to
prevent unnecessary residential construction around airports.
To use the word prevent is a complicated term, but I think,
frankly, we would like to see much less residential development
around airports. And this is an important issue for what we are
talking about here. If we leave aside the question of the
taxiway to the individual's home adjoining the airport, I think
most of the people involved in this debate would say, yes, we
don't want more residential activity around airports, because
residents around airports usually become the opponents of
airports, and we have seen time and time and time again how
vulnerable the important national air transportation system is
to just a handful of two or three people who call all the time
and say shut down the airport.
Mr. Graves. It is still private property, is it not?
Mr. Coyne. Of course it is private property. But private
property----
Mr. Graves. No, no, no, no. Where do you draw the line on
where the Federal Government's jurisdiction should stop, how
far away? Two miles? One mile? Where should the Federal
Government quit telling people on private property----
Mr. Coyne. I don't think the Federal Government is
necessarily the organization that is going to lead the
restrictions.
Mr. Graves. That is what everybody here is advocating.
Mr. Coyne. Well, no, we are certainly----
Mr. Graves. Not everybody. I apologize.
Mr. Coyne. I was saying the word lead. I think the local
governments should become, first and foremost, the groups that
oppose residential development around airports, and I strongly
support local zoning, county zoning----
Mr. Graves. And is that their decision now?
Mr. Coyne. Most local communities are totally ignorant----
Mr. Graves. Is it their decision? Is it the local
community's decision now?
Mr. Coyne. I think they are doing a very poor job of
protecting the environments of airports from unnecessary----
Mr. Graves. But is it their decision?
Mr. Coyne. Well, I think some of them aren't even aware of
it, whether it is their decision.
Mr. Graves. Is it their decision?
Mr. Coyne. I think in many cases they are an important part
of the equation.
Mr. Graves. Is it their decision?
Mr. Coyne. It is not their unilateral decision, I don't
think. I think the questions of zoning are shared by many
people. The Federal Government has roles in zoning. To say that
every local----
Mr. Graves. Let me rephrase one more time. Who owns the
airport?
Mr. Coyne. The sponsor.
Mr. Graves. Who is the sponsor?
Mr. Coyne. Well, it varies from airport to airport. In some
cases it is the New York Port Authority----
Mr. Graves. County, city?
Mr. Coyne. Sure.
Mr. Graves. Community?
Mr. Coyne. Yeah.
Mr. Graves. Who makes the decision?
Mr. Coyne. The decision about----
Mr. Graves. The ultimate decision on whether or not there
should be a through-the-fence agreement? Who makes that
decision? Who makes that decision now?
Mr. Coyne. That decision historically has been made by the
individuals around the airport and the people who influence
that airport. Sometimes it is made by very powerful political--
--
Mr. Graves. But who makes it? Yes.
Mr. Coyne. It is made by a political entity, sometimes
which can be swayed by one or two powerful political forces.
Mr. Graves. I will come back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boswell. OK. Thank you very much. That was interesting.
We will probably have some more discussion in that area.
I would like now to recognize the gentlelady from Texas,
Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
am really seeking information, not trying to admonish anyone
for their thoughts here.
Ms. Lang, in your written testimony you described a
situation where residents with through-the-fence access
attempted to prevent an airport sponsor from preserving its
rights and powers with respect to the airport property and
development. Could you elaborate a little bit on that?
Ms. Lang. Sure. Thank you for the question. There are a
number of ways in which we have seen this happen. Again, we are
talking about, really, nationwide, a very small percentage of
federally obligated airports with this problem. But the
problems are various. Like I said, in some cases an airport
gave away a right to access that penetrated a runway, and that
is a situation that we actually do try to avoid. In another
case, a private developer built a parallel taxiway adjacent to
the runway, which violated FAA separation standards between
runways and taxiways for the kind of operation of the aircraft
going into the airport. It was extremely difficult to get the
proper separation done so we would have safe operation of the
aircraft. That is a dilemma. In other cases we have had homes
that have gone up.
Bear in mind that in many of these cases the community and
the airport operator did not consult with the FAA. We found out
about these developments only after the fact, without
consultation, in some cases. I will concede up front in other
cases we were advised and said no; in other cases our field
folks inappropriately gave the approval. But there are cases
where they proceeded with development that did things, that put
hangar homes in places on airports, literally on airport that
eliminated the line of sight, that we then had to pay other
investments to correct.
Throughout all of these there has been a very casual
relationship with the processes, and that is kind of a
fundamental violation of the standard set by the United States
Congress, that you have to go to the FAA to make changes on the
airport. A lot of the problems we are seeing were developed by
local communities, without consulting with the FAA as to
whether or not the arrangements made for these through-the-
fence operations would in any way injure or harm the operation
or movement of the airport or the safety of the airport. So it
is kind of a mixed bag.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you. Anybody can comment on
this question. In the area where I live, which is Dallas,
Texas, we have had much growth, and when the airports get ready
for any kind of expansion, there are usually hearings and
usually FAA has some rules or regulations on safety. That is my
number one concern, is safety. Now, is this is a rural airport
50 miles from a major urban area, it might make a difference.
But if you are in a city, where it is already congested, it
seems to me that there should be some type of rules to follow,
because we have two major airports, and I know we are generally
talking about the general airport, and we have that too, but we
don't have that off-the-fence or whatever you call it, through-
the-fence agreement because it is very near a neighborhood, and
the citizens object to having a lot of extra traffic because of
safety.
So I would like the people here to comment on whether or
not you think location and whether or not the density around
that airport makes a difference. I can see relenting a bit for
very rural or very large spaced airports, but in large urban
areas it could really present a real safety problem. So whoever
would like to comment on that, I would like to hear.
Ms. Crook. I will give you my perspective on that. One
reason that I really enjoy managing airports, particularly in
small communities, is because airports are economic drivers.
The presence of an airport, many cases brings jobs, creates
momentum, and drives economic growth in the area. And an
airport lasts; it is a piece of infrastructure that lasts very
a very long time.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. I know the value of an airport. But I
am talking about this type of arrangement.
Ms. Crook. Yes. That is wonderful. My concern is that even
an airport that seems like it is in a sleepy little rural area
with not a lot happening that you could build a home with
access to the airport and it would have very little impact, in
the future, which could be 50 years in the future, that might
now be now a bustling area that, all of a sudden, now that home
with access is limiting the future development potential of the
airport.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Yes. My time has expired, but you
keep talking.
Dr. Blue. Could I make a comment about that? There is a
major difference between a residential through-the-fence access
hangar home and another type of residence that is not aviation
connected. In actuality, aviation-connected homes provide a
buffer to other residents around airports, it provides space
between those non-aviation-connected residences and airports.
So there is a major difference there. And the FAA doesn't
receive, at least from our FOIA request, does not have
documented complaints of noise complaints from hangar home
residents, nor have they ever, through another FOIA request,
ever bought a hangar home because of noise considerations like
they have non-aviation-connected residences. So by having
aviation-connected residents around airports, that actually
provides some buffering to the noise issue.
Mr. Swecker. Mr. Blue actually made my point, but I would
add that, as a manager of 28 airports, I don't get complaints
from residential through-the-fence neighborhoods; I get
complaints from non-residential across the State.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you. I know my time has
expired.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Westmoreland.
Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Comer, it is good to see you here, and I want to tell
everybody that is here that may not know you, you do a great
job for the State of Georgia and we appreciate all the help
that you have given us. You mentioned one particular situation
I think you and I both are very familiar with in the State of
Georgia, but some of these through-the-fence agreements have
been given by deed to some of these property owners. In some
particular cases some of this through-the-fence agreements have
been given in deed by a Federal agency, and I am talking about
the resolution trust, the RTC. When they sold some of this
property, in the selling of it they actually gave the person
they sold to through-the-fence rights, and they have not been
able to use it. So I would just like to know how you feel about
that, number one. And number two is that we do have some
residential through-the-fence that is already there, do we not?
Mr. Comer. No, sir, not on any of our publicly owned and
federally obligated airports.
Mr. Westmoreland. OK. But you have evidently done that
quite well, because I have not had any complaints from anything
about anybody even trying to get a residential through-the-
gate. But we, of course, have had discussions about some of
these through-the-gate agreements that people feel like they
purchased with the land. Could you comment on that for just a
moment?
Ms. Comer. Yes, I would be more than happy to. In regards
to that particular airport and issue that we are familiar with,
as I mentioned when I described it, these issues are very, very
complex, and I did not specifically point out that in that
particular case, when the airport was purchased, along with the
airport deed came existing through-the-fence access points for
adjacent property owners. Those are deeded and the airport
sponsor has an obligation to honor those access points. So, the
plain and simple, they must honor those agreements, or they
must honor the access.
The difficulty becomes when the proponent or the owner of
the adjacent property and the airport sit down to negotiate a
formal access agreement, and that is where the difficulty comes
in in many cases. But it is just a process that has to be gone
through and developed, and at some point it will be
successfully resolved. And I think we are very close in this
particular issue to coming up with a resolution, but, as I
said, that whole issue is so complicated because of zoning and
jurisdiction. It is kind of one for the record books.
Mr. Westmoreland. No, it certainly is. Trust me, I have
heard a lot about it too. You know, I agree with Mr. Graves,
Congressman Graves in the fact that he has questioned the
personal property rights issue, and I do think that is an issue
that needs to be addressed. We have gotten away from the life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness part of our Bill of
Rights, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the
other things that allowed us the pursuit of happiness with our
personal property. So I do think that is something that I hope
we will all consider when we do this, that some people that
have bought that property, thinking that they had the right to
use it in the manner or for the reasons that they bought it,
you know, we kind of need to let them do that.
Now, anything that the Federal Government wants to do in
the future, I think that those are some of the concerns that
need to be addressed and need to be looked at, and before we do
anything else, because I am sure this one in Georgia is not the
only issue that the FAA has got with through-the-fence
agreements across this Country. But I would hope that we could
come up with some kind of policy just to try to resolve those
things that are already backed up, keeping people and airports
from being able to benefit to the financial rewards that some
of these through-the-gate agreements allow.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Comer, your sweet and gentle southern accent is
comforting to me and reminds me of home, and you know what I am
talking about, Lynn Westmoreland. But, at any rate, I do want
to thank you for being here today, and it is my understanding
that your office has worked hard to dissuade any through-the-
fence agreements in Georgia. Is that correct?
Ms. Comer. Well, I think we have worked very hard to
educate our airport sponsors as to the grant assurances that
are there for them to continue receiving Federal funding and
again ensuring compatible land use adjacent to the airport. So
by doing that the airports make those decisions themselves, and
in the majority of the cases they have chosen not to enter into
residential through-the-fence agreements.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So they pretty much decide whether
or not they want to be in a position for Federal funding for
their airports and then they make the decision.
Ms. Comer. Yes, the decisions are made at the local level.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Now, in the case of any situation
such as Mr. Westmoreland just indicated, where does the power
of eminent domain come into play?
Ms. Comer. Interestingly, in the State of Georgia, we do
not own or operate any airports, so the eminent domain issue is
a local issue with the local government.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Does that ever come in terms of
local governments deciding whether to allow for the through-
the-fence agreements or to mitigate these agreements that may
already be in existence by way of eminent domain so that they
can be eligible for Federal funds?
Ms. Comer. Actually, the acquisition of private property
adjacent to the airport has been a very successful mitigation
measure. For the residential through-the-fence issues we really
haven't had any property acquisition of those parcels because
the proponent of those proposals has changed their plans and
not decided to use it in that manner. But in other commercial
through-the-fence operations airports have chosen to purchase
that property, and certainly in every opportunity our airports
strive not to have to use eminent domain as a means to acquire
that property. Sometimes it takes a little bit longer, but
continued negotiation on those issues typically is pretty
successful. But we have had airports condemn adjacent property
in our State.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Tell me, can you give us a little
insight into how many of these types of agreements have been
proposed in Georgia?
Ms. Comer. Residential through-the-fence access agreements?
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes.
Ms. Comer. We probably see maybe six, seven proposals a
year. And that has been pretty continuous over my 13 years here
in the State of Georgia.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. OK.
Ms. Lang, what is the FAA'S role in reviewing through-the-
fence agreements prior to their being signed?
Ms. Lang. Well, I think part of the issue is the FAA is not
always consulted on these agreements. In fact, we are finding
in many cases their existence after the fact and after changes
have been made to the airport layout plan that would
potentially create problems putting an airport in
noncompliance. And by noncompliance, I really want to stress
what that means. When a local government makes the decision to
take a Federal grant by laws established by this Committee,
they sign up to operate and manage that airport in very
specific and particular ways, including providing to the FAA an
updated airport layout plan, or ALP when they make any changes
on the airport. And on a lot of the things that we are finding,
we were not consulted. Had we been consulted in advance, we
would have been able to work with the communities to deal with
that.
The fact of the matter is the FAA has long discouraged
through-the-fence, whether commercial or residential, in this
Country. The objective is to try to keep as much of the
activity related to those uses, whether they are commercial or
private aviation operators, on airport to generate money for
the airport.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Coyne, would an expanded FAA
role in the drafting of through-the-fence agreements help
prevent an airport from being in noncompliance or are through-
the-fence agreements simply unworkable?
Mr. Coyne. Well, I think the FAA'S role is going to
continue along the way it is now, being part of this equation,
an important part of this equation, setting the national
policy, and that is what this Committee and the FAA work at
doing, is setting the national policy so that we don't have one
small airport in one part of the Country defining what our
national policy is and then having some lawyer in another part
of the Country saying, hey, well, you did it over there, let me
do it here, and all of a sudden the whole national air
transportation policy starts to unravel.
We think the FAA has a very important role but, as she just
said, the local airport sponsor has a responsibility as well to
communicate to the FAA, to communicate with the State and so
forth when they have requests like this. But I think as a
general rule the public use airports should be well advised
that both residential and commercial through-the-fence
agreements are not a constructive part of a national air
transportation policy.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
Guthrie.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will yield my
time to Mr. Graves from Missouri, and at the conclusion of his
remarks yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Graves. My question is for Ms. Lang. Just out of
curiosity, you just said that you want it to be on airport and
to generate revenue for the airport. How did you put that? You
want any activity around the airport to generate revenue for
the airport.
Ms. Lang. Correct. It is a Federal assurance in the law
that airports are to be self-sustaining. Congress, makes money
available to the FAA, to give airports money to build the
infrastructure associated with airport operations, but we also
give land in order to develop the businesses that support
aeronautical activities and in turn produce revenues to make
the airport a financial, healthy operation. I think it was a
very wise law that Congress passed. You want to keep the money
on airport to keep the airport healthy.
Mr. Graves. OK. Well, how does having a residential
through-the-fence agreement, how does it prevent that from
happening?
Ms. Lang. So let's take that apart in a couple of pieces. I
mean, as a general rule, airports have sufficient land and, in
fact, grant funds are eligible for airports to build T hangars
on airport has a way of making money and, at the same time,
accommodating private aircraft owners who would like to base
their aircraft on public use airports. So the number one
objective is for that aviation interest to be accommodated on
airports so the money conveys to the airport.
The other problem, though, with residential through-the-
fence is really fundamentally one of residential encroachment,
and the fact that in providing a through-the-fence access we
have had a couple of major problems come up. Number one, there
isn't always economic parity, and the FAA has received
complaints from on-airport tenants that they are subsidizing
the operation and maintenance of the airport because off-
airport tenants are not required to pay comparable fees. That
is in fact a violation----
Mr. Graves. Well, let's stop right there.
Ms. Lang. That is a violation of a Federal assurance on
economic non-discrimination.
Mr. Graves. Let me ask you that. In fact, I think it would
be a great opportunity because you can still have T hangars.
But you can expand your airport through through-the-fence, but
I certainly wouldn't expect a community or a county to have a
through-the-fence agreement without being compensated for that
access. That person who has a through-the-fence agreement
should pay exactly what the same fee as that person that is
going to rent a T hangar. In many cases, there are airports all
over the Country that the hangars are privately owned, but they
lease the property underneath them. But why not just have them
pay the same access fee? And that is generating income for the
airport and allowing expansion without even using airport
property that is still available for future expansion.
Ms. Lang. Congressman, I think you have raised a very fair
point, but it is much more complicated to actually get those
practices into compliance. I am going to go to my colleague
from the State of Oregon. It took us five years to get the
Independence Airpark, and it really looks like an airpark, to
have the homeowners and off-airport users pay equitably with
the on-airport operators. Five years to correct what was an
economic matter of discrimination.
Mr. Graves. But it was done.
Ms. Lang. You know, it was done, but it was complicated.
Now, we still have what I think really is the fundamental
question before this Committee, which is whether or not we
believe a home--and a hangar home, in the end, it is still a
home--is in any instance compatible with the long-term vision
and look, operation of an airport. That is the fundamental
question.
Mr. Graves. Real quick, and I won't take too much time
because I know other Members have to get going and I will come
back to myself later. Again, just like in Independence, that is
still private property, and if there was no access to the
airport, you could still build a house on that property, could
you not?
Ms. Lang. Congressman, I would like to, if I could, explain
what I think the layers are that we approach. We look at the
development of the airport system in the United States at
federally obligated airports. We give airports the
infrastructure they need to own and operate that facility. But
we also give millions and millions and millions of dollars to
those same communities to develop compatible land uses around
the airport to avoid uses that harm or injure the current or
long-term operation of the airport. Homes, historically and
legally, and I think Mr. Coyne correctly pointed out the case
law, are the most difficult challenge to expanding airports in
the United States and frankly around the world.
Mr. Graves. But does it prevent it? I am running out of
time and I want to be respectful of the other Members, so I
apologize for shutting you off, and we will come back. But does
it prevent it? Does anything prevent somebody from building a
house on that property?
Ms. Lang. Only to the extent that the local zoning
authorities properly zone compatible land uses around the
airports.
Mr. Graves. And we are back to the local issue.
Ms. Lang. So it is in the end a local responsibility to do
appropriate land use planning.
Mr. Graves. Thanks for your question. Again, I want to be
respectful of the other Members.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. DeFazio from Oregon.
Mr. DeFazio. Oregon. Come on now, Leonard, we have been
together many years.
Mr. Boswell. Oregon. Excuse me, sir. I stand corrected.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Thank you.
In answer to Ms. Lang's question which you posed just
before that last exchange about compatibility, I would say
residential development is not always compatible and it is not
always incompatible. I mean, I know that is probably not a
satisfactory clear line answer that satisfies bureaucratic
concerns, but I think there is a way that this can be done and
be done properly.
Let me ask. It took five years in Independence, Oregon to
get what you said was equitable compensation from the
homeowners. What if the regulation just stated before any
further AIP funds are invested in any of these airports, those
airports must negotiate equitable compensation agreements with
beneficial property owners? Would that satisfy the Federal
concern? I mean, I am asking Ms. Lang, but I would be happy to
have Mr.----
Ms. Lang. I would say it satisfies that particular
assurance. There are 39 assurances. When a community accepts a
grant, they sign up to own and to operate the airport in a
manner consistent with those.
Mr. DeFazio. I understand.
Ms. Lang. And to be part of the national system is to have
signed up to keep the surrounding lands available in a way to
keep the airport expandable and adaptable. Putting a
residential community of 200 plus homes adjacent to an airport
would make it very difficult in the event that sometime in the
future that community needs to expand or do something to
enhance the aeronautical operation of the airport. I mean,
history----
Mr. DeFazio. If I could, then, given the fact Oregon has
comprehensive land use planning, given the fact that most
people know it has the largest number of residential through-
the-fence access agreements, as I understand, in the Country,
are there inhibitions for the future of that airport or the
anticipated future of that airport from what we have there? Mr.
Swecker?
Mr. Swecker. Well, I would point out that up until 2009 it
wasn't a violation of a grant assurance in the language of that
5190 document, so Independence, the one we are talking about,
was in place since the 1970's and in harmony with the FAA.
There are others in the State that maybe could use addressing,
that maybe have a safety issue. And I am not going to mention
them by name, but we would agree with the FAA on some
circumstances that there is room for improvement.
So does that answer your question, I hope?
Mr. DeFazio. Yes. I mean, where I am coming from is just
where I started, which is I think there are some places where
this could be appropriate, beneficial, economically beneficial,
could potentially provide benefits for the operation or
continued operation of the airport, because Oregon is kind of
struggling with its general fund money and I would see that in
other States. On the other hand, we want to meaningfully
address the issues of safety. We should never compromise safety
and the FAA does a good job of pushing on those issues.
So I think there is some middle ground here that we are not
contemplating as we move forward. I mean, this is what I call
lowest common denominator regulation, which is there is some
really abusive thing over here, there is something really good
over here, we will draw up the regulations targeted at all the
abuses going on over here, even if that causes extraordinary
problems or difficulties over here with the people who are
doing it right. That is my concern.
One particular question. This is one that is of particular
concern with the letter from the FAA to the residents in
Independence. And, as I understand, the present proposal would
say no new agreements; existing ones could continue. But then
there becomes the issue of is there a property right. Because
those people paid more for that home because it has that
attribute, and if they can't pass that on, and I understand
there have been some problems, then it seems to me we are
getting I don't know that we can say it is a takings issue, but
it is an issue of real concern to me.
Mr. Swecker?
Mr. Swecker. There is concern among realtors, and if people
want to sell their homes, they are very concerned about the
verbiage in even the revised wording that might be subject to
interpretation, and not black and white, that there might be a
potential that houses couldn't be resold or that the terms of
the resale or the access agreement might terminate. In this new
documentation it talks about, under additional new access, the
term might be limited to 20 years. That would be of concern if
additional access and anything in that airpark were determined
to be additional, that it could impact future sales and the
value of those homes.
Mr. DeFazio. I see my time has expired, but we have had a
debate for as long as I have been in Congress over something
that is a little bit of a different twist on this, but it is
residential development on forest service lands where people
have been granted what were renewable leases. But then the
question is whether the Government is getting a fair return,
which we are dealing with, but, secondly, at one point there
was a bad era where the Federal Government just went in and
refused to renew any of those leases and actually went in and
put junk in wells to destroy wells and bulldozed homes and
things like that.
I just think in all of these instances we have to protect
the taxpayers and the public interest, and certainly safety. On
the other hand, we have to be cognizant of some of the
potential benefits that can come from these things. So that is
where I am at.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boswell. I think the gentleman from Oregon. I have to
set it right that way.
Mr. DeFazio. You got it right that time.
Mr. Boswell. I know. I wanted to prove that I could. But I
also wanted to acknowledge that you made some comments that
correlate with what I said earlier, too. We can work this out
if we just make up our minds to do it.
Second round. Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. OK, good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
it.
My question is for Dr. Blue, and it goes back to what I was
talking about with Kate. You have a residential through-the-
fence agreement.
Dr. Blue. That is correct.
Mr. Graves. Do you take a little bit of offense, not a
fence, to somebody saying that a residential through-the-fence
agreement doesn't contribute to the viability of the airport?
Dr. Blue. Well, I moved from on the airport, where we had a
lease of land with our own hangar, to off the airport, where I
own the land underneath the hangar, and I pay more to the City
of Driggs, which is the airport sponsor, than I did when I was
on the airport.
Mr. Graves. So you are contributing to the viability.
Dr. Blue. I am contributing more to the viability.
Mr. Graves. And, again, I think that is important, and it
comes back to--and it is unfortunate and I think, FAA, you are
really, really missing the boat on this when you say no more
new agreements, because I think every airport is different, and
I think we ought to take a look at these. And if it doesn't
work in Georgia, that is fine; that is your decision or the
local community's decision, after you have educated them, to
use your terms, or in the case of Elmira Corning Regional
Airport, that has been your decision and that should be the
case.
I completely disagree with this idea that you can't expand
an airport with through-the-fence because we still come back to
this.
Kate, you used the term buffer zone. Well, where does that
buffer begin and where does that buffer end? All of these
instances, whether we are talking about Independence or we are
talking about Driggs or whatever, there is property private
right up against the fence of that airport, and that private
property could be used for residential land development; it can
be used for anything. And you can't prevent that. There is
nothing that is going to prevent that. So to save it just
because you have an access point at the airport that is
preventing the use of that airport for the public purpose or
preventing the development of that airport is completely false.
Go ahead.
Ms. Lang. So there are a couple of ways that the FAA likes
to work with local communities in thinking about exactly this
issue, because I think it is a totally correct question to ask.
We do it two ways, two principal ways. Number one, we give
airports money to do planning, master planning on their
airports, and we say look at the demand you have today and
anticipate where you think you are going to be 20 years from
now. And in many cases the 20-year vision is something beyond
the current airport boundary of the airport, and in those
cases, where we agree that the future and what they see around
the corner is the right future, we actually work with those
communities to buy the land to create buffers for future
development.
In other cases the boundary of the airport is going to be
pretty much, at least for the foreseeable future, the boundary
of the airport, and it has what it needs to be to meet its
expected growth. Not everyone needs to expand their boundaries.
But in those cases we really urge the community, through grants
from the Federal Government, to work at really thinking about
what are the most compatible best uses around that airport that
keep the development and the operation of the airport
compatible with what is going on with the community.
Historically, the interpretation on that has been that
homes are not compatible with either the current or long-term
uses. And I think that is really the fundamental public policy
question, and I want to really emphasize something here. We
have put out a proposed policy. We have heard you loud and
clear, and I agree with Congressman Westmoreland and
Congressman DeFazio. In instances in which there are existing
legal arrangements, we have to honor those. We recognize that
communities went into those. There are legal liabilities and we
have some culpability in the creation of some of those, and we
have to responsibly manage them going forward.
The real question about the future is what do we do and do
we, in certain instances, say that homes are not, per se, a
violation of compatible use and could enhance an airport. That
is an extremely difficult criteria. We have struggled very hard
with threading the needle for the existing locations. Going
forward, we have not been able to find the right recipe. As we
have advised, we sat down with all of the community, AOPA, EAA
and we have said if you think there is criteria that the
Federal Government should consider, provide it to us during the
comment period. We think it is a high bar, but I think it
remains to be seen whether or not, going forward, it is an
insurmountable one. And, as I said, we are very open-minded to
see what the input of a very passionate community is on this
issue.
Mr. Graves. I think it is important, again, that we just
don't bar permanent from now on. I still think it comes down to
a local decision, and the fact of the matter is very few
communities, particularly small communities with small airports
are going to spend the money, taxpayer dollars, when they are
already short, to fix the road or whatever it is in town, to
spend the money to buy adjacent property around an airport in
the hopes that in 20 years something is going to come around.
Now, having said that, though, I also know a lot of
communities that do buy adjacent property for a potential
business park. They love locating business parks out by the
airport because it is industrial use. They don't care about the
noise. And what is more, I have a lot of communities, and I
know this is different, but it is still talking about hanging
on to that property and holding that property to be used; it is
not residential, but they also like the idea of being able to
offer up as a business incentive to attract Caterpillar, or
whatever the case may be or whoever it is, access to that
airport. That is a huge economic development tool when you can
say, hey, you bring your company in here and we will give you
access.
So I think, again, it comes down to--I just hate the idea
of the FAA just saying from now on none. It still comes down to
a local decision and, again, if the State of Georgia doesn't
want it, then that is the State of Georgia's decision, along
with the local community. A perfect example, local community
has decided that they don't want residential through-the-fence,
or at least your regional airport is, and that has been your
decision, and it should be your decision. Driggs has decided
they want them, and it is working, and they are making more
money from through-the-fence agreements than they were before.
Oregon is a great example of the way it works, but it still
comes down to the local decision, and I hate the idea of a
total prohibition.
Again, I went over again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boswell. OK, Mr. Westmoreland, please.
Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Blue, at some other time, not now, but I would be
interested in trying to figure out how a Democratic coroner
candidate campaigns against a Republican coroner candidate. I
can't imagine what your issues would be, but at some other time
we will discuss that.
Dr. Blue. Well, if I am elected, I hope you never need my
services.
Mr. Westmoreland. I don't know, those would be some
campaign issues. But you made a comment about, I think, a bus
stop at the Federal Government, because part of what I have
heard is that this is Federal money going into these airports
that would enhance the property value of the people that had a
residential through-the-gate. But isn't it true that with some
of the stimulus money that we spent, or other Federal money we
spent, we pave streets, we put in water lines, we do sewer
systems. And if you live on a dirt road and through some type
of Federal money somebody came in and paved the street that you
live in, would that not enhance your property value through a
Federal funding mechanism?
Dr. Blue. It would obviously enhance us. The argument that
we are going to benefit because we have a through-the-fence
agreement is just a silly argument and I really think it is
just a bee in the bonnet in some of the FAA staff members who
don't like that idea.
Mr. Westmoreland. Let me ask you this, and this goes to the
buffer. And I would like to just ask each one of you, if you
could, just tell me what your ideal buffer would be.
Ms. Lang, what would your ideal buffer be, 1,000 feet, 500
feet, half a mile? What would your buffer be?
Ms. Lang. Well, you know, the one thing, Congressman, I
think we all agree on is if you've seen one airport, you have
seen one airport. I think we have unanimity of view at least on
that point.
The answer is different in the facts and circumstances of
every airport we look at. I mean, frankly, you look at the
current operation, the impact on the surrounding community,
but, again, this is a really important part of the American
tradition. We expect airports to look around the corner and say
what are you going to need in 20 years from now. So we design
and do buffers based on the current operation and the projected
operation, and then we layer on that.
You know, I started in local government. I began my
aviation career in local government. Local government does its
job right when it has responsible leadership on local zoning,
and this is really the other thing we provide, the other tool
we give airports is money to come up with ways to make the
airport compatible with the demands of the community. So I
think the answer is it depends on the particular needs of the
airport and the community going forward.
Mr. Westmoreland. So if that is your answer to that, would
it also not depend on local community's need for revenue or
services to be able to allow some of these through-the-fence
agreements?
Ms. Lang. Well, again, I think there are a lot of ways in
which the Congressman and I agree. I mean, I look at industrial
parks. I think industrial parks are a wonderful example of a
compatible collateral development around an airport. And you
know the amazing thing about industrial sites is they don't
complain about noise. I mean, that is a huge benefit to the
system.
So we really like to encourage the kind of development that
adds. And there are properly structured through-the-fence
operations that do support industrial operations. It is a
compatible land use and it is one, when necessary, is also
easier to extinguish than those that convey with a private
property or a home. It is just a fact that homes are just much
more difficult to move.
Mr. Westmoreland. No, I understand.
Ms. Lang. And they are much more willing to move.
Mr. Westmoreland. I know, but you have to some kind of idea
of what you think a good buffer might be. And I agree with
Chairman Oberstar when he said, look, if you build a house next
to an airport, if you don't know there is an airport there, you
have bigger problems than building a house next to an airport.
Ms. Comer, how about you? What would you think a great
buffer would be around an airport?
Ms. Comer. I'm sorry, I think I have to kind of echo Ms.
Lang's remark. I think it really depends on exactly what you
are trying to buffer against. If you were to ask me about
landfills near airports, I would tell you five or six miles.
Just different issues where you are looking at obstructions----
Mr. Westmoreland. It is only a half mile in Georgia, isn't
it?
Ms. Comer. No, sir.
Mr. Westmoreland. It is not more than a mile.
Ms. Comer. Actually, there are no State laws that address
the location of landfills adjacent to airports, except there
are some Federal laws.
Mr. Westmoreland. OK.
Ms. Comer. So that is a good thing.
Mr. Westmoreland. Because we have a landfill that was built
too close to an airport and I will have to call you on that.
Ms. Comer. There are many of those that exist that are
there, and they are going to continue to exist there until they
care closed.
Mr. Westmoreland. Mr. Swecker?
Mr. Swecker. Five miles of farmland in all directions.
Mr. Westmoreland. OK.
Mr. Swecker. Seriously, residential access, residents with
access to an airport aren't going to be the ones that complain;
it is the residential neighborhoods that are encroaching on an
airport that aren't associated with aviation, those are the
ones that complain. I know this from experience.
Mr. Westmoreland. Ms. Crook?
Ms. Crook. Again, I can only echo what Ms. Comer and Ms.
Lang have said, that there are many different types of buffers.
But if you are talking about a buffer for a residential use,
then I would look at the future projected noise footprint.
Mr. Westmoreland. OK.
Mr. Coyne. I would stress the noise footprint too.
Obviously, the approaches coming into the runways, you are
going to have more distance there than on lateral sides. But
generally speaking, 50 or 55 dB level is something where you
want to keep the residents away.
But I do want to emphasize something here. Just because we
believe a current neighbor is going to be friendly to the
airport, you cannot count on that in the future, and I often
use the example of Santa Monica Airport. Santa Monica Airport
was built during the Second World War, and they built hundreds
and hundreds of homes for the workers at that factory that was
right there at the airport, and everyone said, oh, their job is
at the airport; these houses are always going to be proponents
of this airport.
Well, today, as I am sure Ms. Lang and others can tell you,
the people who live in those houses have long since forgot that
that house was part of our Nation's building the B-29s and so
forth that were so critical at that airport, and now many of
them have all turned into, somehow, anti-airport activists. And
I am concerned that this same thing could happen at any
residential location.
Mr. Westmoreland. I understand.
Mr. Blue?
Dr. Blue. I am not sure what that number is, but there are
things that the airports can do to mitigate their impact
related to traffic patterns and noise abatement procedures.
However, in the Driggs setting, where we received $7 million
two years ago to upgrade our runway from a B-2 runway to a C-2
runway, they talked a lot about the residential through-the-
fence access, but they didn't talk about the middle school that
they moved the runway closer to that is adjacent to the airport
on the other side. So, I mean, the FAA can complain about
residential through-the-fence, but they are not looking at the
whole picture.
Mr. Westmoreland. Well, plus, too, if you get into this
buffer situation, you could have 1,000 feet, 2,000 feet around
an airport that is not really guarded, because your fence is
going to be around the airport. I mean, you are talking about
wildlife and other things, people getting close to a plane
taking off or landing. And then if you fence in the outside of
it, now you have an entrapment between the two fences for
things also.
So I just hope that we will study this very carefully and
that the FAA will listen to the input. But, you know, we passed
a law in Georgia that we had people that lived close to Fort
Benning, and they didn't understand they were going to be
shooting guns at Fort Benning. Well, if you live adjacent to a
fort, they are going to shoot guns. So we had to pass some type
of legislation in Georgia that said if you move close to a
fort, this is the buffer you have to have between the fort and
where your house is. And if you do that, then you don't have
any legal ability to file suit against them with the noise.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Boswell. Well, thank you, Mr. Westmoreland, for that
line of discussion.
We are going to move to closing here pretty quickly, but
before I recognize Chairman Oberstar, since he wasn't here, I
made this comment, Mr. Chairman. I want you to hear it from me.
I had made this comment when I took the Chair, that we all
recognize that you are very safety conscious. Nobody questions
it, none. None of us whatsoever. And I recognize that and
always will because I know you believe it and practice. I just
made this comment.
I do have to say, though, that pilots do understand that
they must follow and comply with instructions, whether it is
entering a taxiway or runway or back-taxying or whatever goes
on in what they do. It would seem possible and reasonable to me
that, through education, signage, and firm regulation, that
this question can and, I might add, should be worked out in a
safe and respectful manner.
So I realize this is a hearing and exchange of ideas, and I
think it has been extremely good. I would like to recognize
you, Mr. Chairman, and then Mr. Graves, and then we will be
finished.
Mr. Oberstar. I think Ms. Norton----
Mr. Boswell. No, she said she didn't have any questions.
Mr. Oberstar. No questions. All right.
The safety issue I explored sort of briefly with Ms. Lang.
I think there needs to be a reemphasizing and reenforcing of
the safety practices that pilots must adhere to under any
circumstances, whether it is through-the-fence agreement or on
a major hub airport. We learned long ago, if you are a general
aviation pilot, you do have a right to access MSP or JFK or
LaGuardia, but you then have to have all the proper equipment
to get into that airspace; you have to have a Mode C
transponder, you need a T-cast, you need all the electronics to
be able to operate in that environment. Similarly, on a general
aviation public use airport there are rules, regulations that
have to be adhered to, and pilots, maybe you need a refresher
course for them, but that is certainly the primary concern.
Mr. Westmoreland asked the intriguing question of how much
of a buffer do you want, and I think Ms. Lang said if you have
seen one airport, you have seen one airport. It depends on the
layout of that airport and the location, and depends on whether
you have jet aircraft operating in the proximity of a landfill.
If you do, there is a very specific FAA requirement for
distance between the landfill and the airport operations area.
We saw how important that is with US Airways landing in the
river in New York City. You have a bird strike in a jet
aircraft and it is extraordinarily dangerous.
There was no objection raised at all by the people in
Brainerd in my district when they were extending the runway,
and there was a landfill that had to be removed, and there was
some objection from some of the members of the county board, so
the airport authority asked me to come out and talk with them,
and I laid it out for them. You want to extend the runway? I
want the runway extended? You have to move the landfill. And
they did, to their great credit.
So safety concerns are the first.
But, Ms. Comer, last night, reading your testimony, I was
intrigued by the second page of your testimony. You say one of
our airports, in 2006, original proposal has a substantial
residential component, the water feature, hangars, new fixed
base operation. The water feature would provide a habitat for
birds and wildlife and pose a safety hazard. That is the kind
of thing that you have to pay particular attention to. I can't
imagine anybody wanting a through-the-fence agreement wouldn't
acknowledge that that is an issue.
Is there anyone at the witness table that says we ought to
let that happen?
[No response.]
Mr. Oberstar. Well, I didn't see any hands go up.
But the airport sponsor does not have jurisdiction for
zoning. Now, that is a unique problem. If the zoning authority
resides in another county, you have an airport authority here
and another county over there, there is a conflict of law, a
conflict of jurisdiction. You are still trying to work that
out, apparently.
Ms. Comer. Yes, sir, we are.
Mr. Oberstar. And you have no resolution in sight at the
moment, at least as of your testimony.
Ms. Comer. For the dedicated through-the-fence access
agreement I think there is a resolution in sight that would
contain primarily aeronautical activity and no residential or
water features or anything that would be an attractant to
wildlife. But as far as this airport resides in one county, but
the airport owner is the adjacent county. So they don't have,
obviously, the jurisdiction for right of eminent domain and
zoning around the actual airport property, so it is just a very
difficult issue.
Mr. Oberstar. Left to your own devices, you are going to be
able to work this out, apparently.
Ms. Comer. We have been in there for five years and we are
not giving up.
Mr. Oberstar. Five years? Oh my goodness. That is a long
time.
Ninety-one general aviation airports in Georgia?
Ms. Comer. That are federally obligated and public use.
Mr. Oberstar. Yes. And a statewide plan to place every
Georgian within a 30-minute drive of an airport capable of
accommodating 85 percent of the corporate aircraft line today.
That is an admirable aviation policy. I was really struck by
that. I don't know of another State that has such a--there may
be others who have such a policy, but I think that is very
sensible. Very progressive.
Ms. Comer. We developed those guidelines through a systems
planning grant that FAA provided probably about 20 years ago,
that was the very first one, and we have a tiered system of
airports.
Mr. Oberstar. I was very impressed with that. We in
Minnesota are very proud of our, but we don't have that kind of
policy in our State. I am going to take that up with our
airports director; something we ought to be thinking about. I
always learn something at our hearings.
Now, Ms. Lang, what are the next steps in the rulemaking
process?
Ms. Lang. Chairman Oberstar, it is a policy, so it is not
subject to the same kind of rigor that a rulemaking is, but it
is out for public comment. The docket closes on October 25th
and we are quite anxious. We are trying very hard. I emphasize
the fact that we have tried very much over the last six or
seven months to go out and really have first-person
conversations with the affected communities here. There has
been a lot of energy on this, and when you involve people's
homes, that is a very emotional issue.
We are very interested in getting it right and
understanding the existing situations, and in having what I
think is a very important conversation with the aviation
community and this Committee on how to really advance the
public policy going forward. Are these agreements that are
replicable, duplicable that we can come up with transparent
policies on for the future and still have the long view that
this Committee expects us to have?
So, as I have said, I hope the last seven months show that
we have really approached this with fresh eyes and open minds.
We put it out for comment rather than going final. This is the
second time out with this draft because we really are trying to
hit center line on it. So we are very much looking forward to
the feedback and would be happy to report back to this
Committee on the comments we receive on this second round.
Mr. Oberstar. Is this process covered by ex parte
requirements?
Ms. Lang. I am going to look for one of my lawyers. I don't
think it applies at the same level that rulemaking does. I
mean, it is a policy change.
Mr. Oberstar. Then in that context, let me ask that in the
next couple of weeks, with consultation with Mr. Graves, Mr.
Boswell, and others on the Committee, that we invite you back
to have a briefing on the status before you finalize things.
Ms. Lang. We would absolutely welcome that conversation and
really do appreciate the support of this Committee and your
leadership in advancing these policy discussions.
Mr. Oberstar. Good. On that note I think we have a pass
forward. Thank you.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oberstar. Let me just ask Mr. Graves. I will yield to
him, if you think that would be an acceptable approach.
Mr. Boswell. Yes.
Mr. Graves, he wants to know if you wanted to respond to
his offer.
Mr. Graves. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Oberstar. All right. Good.
Mr. Graves. Listen, Mr. Chairman, and I know you always
want to do the right thing and get this right, and I think we
can get it right. You know, I hate the idea of a blanket policy
that just ends this from now on. I think every airport is
different, and every airport ought to have the opportunity. So,
you know, I very much appreciate being open with this.
And I would like to point out a few things before we finish
up.
Mr. Boswell. Well, you are going to have some time. You are
yielding to him right now.
Mr. Oberstar. No, the gentleman may have his own time.
Mr. Boswell. OK. At this time I would recognize Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Well, I just want us to remember, and I know
everybody in this room obviously is associated with aviation,
but when we are talking about this, let's remember we are
talking about medium and small airports. You get a lot of
confusion out there that what we are talking about in some
cases is airports with commercial service, and that is not the
case. You don't have agreements like this. You may have some
business agreements through-the-fence, but you don't have
residential.
I also think we have to remember, too, we are talking about
access. You know, the two poster childs for residential
through-the-fence agreements are Driggs Airport and
Independence Airport, and nothing is preventing that
development from taking place outside of the airport. We are
talking about access. That is all it is, is access. And I think
people who have that access ought to pay just as much and
contribute to the viability of that airport as anybody that is
leasing a hangar or leasing the property underneath the hangar,
and I think we have to remember that.
But I have heard not one single thing today, not one single
argument that prevents the expansion of an airport that has a
through-the-fence agreement. I haven't heard one single
argument that it prevents the viability of that airport in the
future. In fact, I think it enhances the viability because you
get more people around there, more people paying attention.
And I want to promote aviation, I don't want to scare
people off from it. I want as many people from the community
out there as I can possibly get, because I am scared to death
about the future of aviation and the fact that we just don't
have as many pilots as we used to have, or people that are
interested in it. And there isn't one single argument that I
have heard today that prevents the public use of that airport
when it has a residential through-the-fence agreement, not one
single argument.
I think the worst thing that we can do is have the Federal
Government come in and say that local communities are not going
to be able to do this anymore if you want to receive tax
dollars. Remember, those are tax dollars; they are contributed
by people who buy aviation fuel or people who buy tickets, and
it goes to the aviation trust fund, and that is what is used to
draw AIP funds to develop infrastructure.
The worst thing that we could do is this is another case
where the Federal Government would come in and say you cannot
do this. It still comes down to a community decision, and if
the community decides that they don't want this, then the
community ought to have that choice. If the county decides they
don't want it, then the county ought to have that choice. If
the airport board decides they don't want it, then they ought
to have that choice. Whoever is responsible.
And there is nothing wrong with guidance from the FAA,
because you are there to protect the airspace and to protect
that public use, but let's be reasonable on this. You said it
yourself, every airport is different. So let's not just say
from now on there aren't going to be any more new ones. Let's
look at them on a case-by-case basis.
And I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, again, your willingness to
do this hearing. You are always very gracious in that respect.
And thank you, Leonard, for Chairing today and taking the
time.
And all of our witnesses, thanks for coming out. I know you
came a long way.
Mr. Boswell. Well, thank you, Mr. Graves.
Again, Mr. Chairman, you have suggested a way we can move
forward on this. We appreciate it. I look forward to that and I
think Mr. Graves summed it up very well. You have a big
responsibility. Nobody is doubting that. And I would concur
with what he said in that regard completely, without repeating.
All of you at the panel, you have been pretty good to have
you here today. We have a good discussion going on, and it
would be my hope that we walk before we run and we do this
right. I think we will. I think we can.
So, with that, we will have standard procedure on how we
close out this meeting.
Mr. Oberstar. The meeting is adjourned.
Mr. Boswell. Well said. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.098