U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

58–459 PDF 2010

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 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

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 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

(II) 

(III) 

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 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 58459.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 58459.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 58459.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 58459.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 58459.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 58459.006
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 58459.007
xi 


Insert offset folio 8 here 58459.008
xii 


Insert offset folio 9 here 58459.009
xiii 


Insert offset folio 10 here 58459.010
xiv 


Insert offset folio 11 here 58459.011
xv 


Insert offset folio 12 here 58459.012
xvi 


Insert offset folio 13 here 58459.013
xvii 


Insert offset folio 14 here 58459.014
xviii 


Insert offset folio 15 here 58459.015
xix 


Insert offset folio 16 here 58459.016
xx 


Insert offset folio 17 here 58459.017
xxi 


Insert offset folio 18 here 58459.018
xxii 


Insert offset folio 19 here 58459.019
xxiii 


Insert offset folio 20 here 58459.020
xxiv 


Insert offset folio 21 here 58459.021
xxv 


Insert offset folio 22 here 58459.022
xxvi 


Insert offset folio 23 here 58459.023
xxvii 


Insert offset folio 24 here 58459.024
xxviii 


Insert offset folio 25 here 58459.025
xxix 


Insert offset folio 26 here 58459.026
xxx 


Insert offset folio 27 here 58459.027
xxxi 


Insert offset folio 28 here 58459.028
(1) 

HEARING ON RESIDENTIAL THROUGH–THEFENCE 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 

2 

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 throughthe-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-thefence 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. 

3 

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 throughthe-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 agreeVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:16 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58459.TXT JEAN
4 

ments, 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:] 

5 


Insert offset folio 29 here 58459.029
6 


Insert offset folio 30 here 58459.030
7 


Insert offset folio 31 here 58459.031
8 


Insert offset folio 32 here 58459.032
9 


Insert offset folio 33 here 58459.033
10 


Insert offset folio 34 here 58459.034
11 


Insert offset folio 35 here 58459.035
12 

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-thefence 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 

13 

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 

14 

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 throughthe-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 

15 

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 

16 

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. 

17 

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 throughthe-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. 

18 

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 backtaxiing. 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 

19 

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 proVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:16 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58459.TXT JEAN
20 

ponent, 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 develVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:16 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58459.TXT JEAN
21 

opment 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-thefence is not, contrary to FAA draft policies, inherently wrong. The 

22 

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-thefence, 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 manVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:16 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58459.TXT JEAN
23 

aging 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. 

24 

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. 

25 

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 reVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:16 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58459.TXT JEAN
26 

sult 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 FedVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:16 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58459.TXT JEAN
27 

eral 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-thefence 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—— 

28 

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 throughthe-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 throughthe-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. 

29 

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 throughthe-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 

30 

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? 

31 

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. 

32 

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 nonaviation-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 

33 

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-thegate 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 beVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:16 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58459.TXT JEAN
34 

cause 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 throughthe-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 

35 

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 throughthe-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 

36 

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 throughthe-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-theVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:16 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58459.TXT JEAN
37 

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. 

38 

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. 

39 

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. 

40 

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 

41 

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 

42 

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 

43 

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 

44 

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. 

45 

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. 

46 

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 

47 

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 

48 

commercial service, and that is not the case. You don’t have agreements like this. You may have some business agreements throughthe-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-thefence 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 throughthe-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-thefence 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 

49 

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.] 

50 


Insert offset folio 36 here 58459.036
51 


Insert offset folio 37 here 58459.037
52 


Insert offset folio 38 here 58459.038
53 


Insert offset folio 39 here 58459.039
54 


Insert offset folio 40 here 58459.040
55 


Insert offset folio 41 here 58459.041
56 


Insert offset folio 42 here 58459.042
57 


Insert offset folio 43 here 58459.043
58 


Insert offset folio 44 here 58459.044
59 


Insert offset folio 45 here 58459.045
60 


Insert offset folio 46 here 58459.046
61 


Insert offset folio 47 here 58459.047
62 


Insert offset folio 48 here 58459.048
63 


Insert offset folio 49 here 58459.049
64 


Insert offset folio 50 here 58459.050
65 


Insert offset folio 51 here 58459.051
66 


Insert offset folio 52 here 58459.052
67 


Insert offset folio 53 here 58459.053
68 


Insert offset folio 54 here 58459.054
69 


Insert offset folio 55 here 58459.055
70 


Insert offset folio 56 here 58459.056
71 


Insert offset folio 57 here 58459.057
72 


Insert offset folio 58 here 58459.058
73 


Insert offset folio 59 here 58459.059
74 


Insert offset folio 60 here 58459.060
75 


Insert offset folio 61 here 58459.061
76 


Insert offset folio 62 here 58459.062
77 


Insert offset folio 63 here 58459.063
78 


Insert offset folio 64 here 58459.064
79 


Insert offset folio 65 here 58459.065
80 


Insert offset folio 66 here 58459.066
81 


Insert offset folio 67 here 58459.067
82 


Insert offset folio 68 here 58459.068
83 


Insert offset folio 69 here 58459.069
84 


Insert offset folio 70 here 58459.070
85 


Insert offset folio 71 here 58459.071
86 


Insert offset folio 72 here 58459.072
87 


Insert offset folio 73 here 58459.073
88 


Insert offset folio 74 here 58459.074
89 


Insert offset folio 75 here 58459.075
90 


Insert offset folio 76 here 58459.076
91 


Insert offset folio 77 here 58459.077
92 


Insert offset folio 78 here 58459.078
93 


Insert offset folio 79 here 58459.079
94 


Insert offset folio 80 here 58459.080
95 


Insert offset folio 81 here 58459.081
96 


Insert offset folio 82 here 58459.082
97 


Insert offset folio 83 here 58459.083
98 


Insert offset folio 84 here 58459.084
99 


Insert offset folio 85 here 58459.085
100 


Insert offset folio 86 here 58459.086
101 


Insert offset folio 87 here 58459.087
102 


Insert offset folio 88 here 58459.088
103 


Insert offset folio 89 here 58459.089
104 


Insert offset folio 90 here 58459.090
105 


Insert offset folio 91 here 58459.091
106 


Insert offset folio 92 here 58459.092
107 


Insert offset folio 93 here 58459.093
108 


Insert offset folio 94 here 58459.094
109 


Insert offset folio 95 here 58459.095
110 


Insert offset folio 96 here 58459.096
111 


Insert offset folio 97 here 58459.097
112 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 98 here 58459.098