[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S624-S625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk a little bit about a 
parochial issue that is peculiar to Wyoming, but it is one that is 
troublesome. It has to do with the Jackson Hole Airport. I am rising to 
express my frustration regarding the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) and its lack of action with respect to an environmental 
assessment (EA) regarding safety issues at the Jackson Hole Airport.
  Let me explain why the issue is so important to us in Wyoming. 
Jackson Hole is the busiest airport in Wyoming. It is the only 
commercial service airport in the country that is located within a 
national park, Grand Teton National Park. As a consequence, of course, 
the FAA and the Park Service are very careful about making safety or 
other improvements at this facility. And they should be. As chairman of 
the Senate subcommittee on national parks, I agree that all of the 
proposals for changes at the Jackson Hole Airport ought to be carefully 
examined. You won't find a bigger advocate for our national parks in 
the U.S. Senate than me. However, there are some significant safety 
issues that must be addressed quickly.
  Between 1984 and 1992, the airport had more ``runway excursions,'' 
which is a nice way of saying they ran off the end of the runway, than 
any other airport in the country. This includes a broad range of 
aircraft, from general aviation and small commuters, to large aircraft 
such as 757s.
  Since 1992, there have been seven additional runway ``incidents'' 
that have occurred.
  In response to these problems, the Jackson Hole Airport board began 
an environmental assessment in 1992. All the interested parties, 
including the Park Service and the FAA were at the table. In fact, in 
1993, I wrote Transportation Secretary Pena asking for interagency 
cooperation on this important issue, including the National Park 
Service, the Interior Department, the FAA, and the Department of 
Transportation. I wrote that letter in order to avoid the kind of 
situation that we have now.
  In April of 1997, the airport board finally completed the assessment, 
after 5 years, and submitted it to the FAA. The results of the 
environmental assessment appeared to be very reasonable.
  It would bring the runways into compliance with current FAA runway 
standards. That makes sense.
  It would improve safety without increasing the length of the runways, 
which is very important. There is opposition by some to making the 
runways longer because they are in the park. And there is some 
opposition to making them longer because that could accommodate bigger 
airplanes, and some people are not anxious to see that happen.
  It would not result in any significant noise increase. In fact, I am 
told that the newer airplanes are less intrusive with noise perhaps 
than the older ones.
  If, in fact, these statements are correct--and they appear to be--
then why is the proposal being delayed? The FAA has been unresponsive 
and uncooperative with my office on this matter.
  In December of 1997, 8 months after the completion of the study, the 
FAA still had not acted on the environment assessment. I wrote the 
agency asking it to expedite its consideration of this matter and I ask 
unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter is ordered to be printed in the 
REcord, as follows:

                                                 December 4, 1997.
     Jane F. Garvey,
     Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Administrator Garvey: We write to request that you 
     expedite action on the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) 
     submitted by the Jackson Hole Airport Board in April of this 
     year. Prompt action by the Federal Aviation Administration 
     (FAA) is vital to maintaining safe air travel to and from 
     Jackson Hole Airport.
       As you may know, the Jackson Hole Airport enplanes more 
     passengers than any other in our State and provides an 
     essential transportation link to the northwest area of 
     Wyoming. In addition, between 1984 and 1992, the Jackson Hole 
     Airport had more ``runway excursions'' than any other air 
     carrier airport in the United States. Both you and Secretary 
     of Transportation Slater have emphatically stated that safety 
     is the top priority of this administration. We agree that the 
     traveling public's safety is vital and consequently ask that 
     you expedite the consideration of this plan.
       In the fall of 1993, the Wyoming Congressional Delegation 
     requested inter-agency cooperation in the preparation of an 
     Environmental Assessment of Master Plan Alternatives to 
     enhance the safety and efficiency of the Jackson Hole 
     Airport. The Delegation was assured by then Secretary of 
     Transportation Federico Pena that the FAA would work toward 
     the development of a responsible and ``timely'' airport plan. 
     We are asking you to keep that commitment, particularly 
     because seven months have passed since the Final EA was sent 
     to the FAA for review.
       The EA describes a preferred alternative designed to 
     contain these runway excursions on pavement without actually 
     extending the runway or expanding Airport boundaries. Unless 
     action is taken quickly, runway safety improvements in the 
     preferred alternative will be delayed until 1999. In fact, 
     since the environmental assessment process began in 1992, 
     seven additional runway accidents have occurred.
       The concern the delegation expressed over four years ago 
     remains: that timely action to be taken so that runway safety 
     improvements at the Jackson Hole Airport will not be unduly 
     delayed. If the FAA's record of decision on the Final EA will 
     not be issued by January 1, 1998, we request that you inform 
     us as to the reasons for the delay and when a decision should 
     be expected.
           Sincerely,
     Craig Thomas,
       U.S. Senator.
     Michael Enzi,

[[Page S625]]

       U.S. Senator.
     Barbara Cubin,
     Member of Congress.

  Mr. THOMAS. I still have not received an answer to my letter from the 
FAA. The letter was sent in early December of 1997. All the letter 
asked was for a date by which we could expect a decision. I didn't ask 
for a decision, I didn't urge a certain outcome, just the date.
  I called the FAA Administrator several weeks ago and though she said 
she would check into it I have heard nothing from her or her staff. For 
an agency that claims safety as its No. 1 priority, these delays are 
hard to understand.
  This assessment is not an effort to expand the airport. There won't 
be longer runways, bigger airplanes or more flights. It is about 
safety, safety for everyone flying in and out of this airport. Time is 
of the essence--there is a short construction period, as you might 
imagine, in Jackson Hole, WY. The FAA needs to come to a decision 
quickly or these safety improvements will be delayed for yet another 
year.
  Mr. President, I guess I have to admit that I am simply expressing my 
frustration with this situation. The FAA's primary responsibility is 
safety. The Jackson Hole Airport presents an opportunity to deal with 
an important safety issue and we've received no response from the FAA. 
I, therefore, intend to be rather critical of the FAA until it decides 
to act and comes to a conclusion. This process has gone long enough. 
The FAA needs to move forward now.
  I typically am not anxious to come to the floor of the Senate and 
grumble about a federal agency, but I think this is something that 
needs to be grumbled about, and therefore I am here.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

                          ____________________