[Federal Register: September 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 174)]
[Notices]
[Page 54946-54957]
[DOCID:fr09se10-137]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0831]

Airport Improvement Program (AIP): Policy Regarding Access to
Airports From Residential Property

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy; notice of proposed amendment to
sponsor grant assurance 5; and request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend and clarify FAA policy
concerning through-the-fence access to a Federally obligated airport
from an adjacent or nearby property, when that property is used as a
residence and permits continuation of existing access subject to
certain standards. This action also proposes to modify sponsor grant
assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers, to prohibit new residential
through-the-fence access to a Federally obligated airport. Current FAA
policy discourages through-the-fence access to a Federally obligated
airport from an off-airport residence. Owners of properties used both
as a residence and for the storage of personal aircraft, sometimes
called ``hangar homes,'' have urged the agency to permit an exception
to through-the-fence policy for residents who own aircraft. The FAA
proposes to modify Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant assurance 5,
Preserving Rights and Powers, to clarify that airport sponsors are
prohibited from permitting new through-the-fence access from
residential properties. Pursuant to applicable law, the Secretary of
Transportation is required to provide notice in the Federal Register
and an opportunity for the public to comment upon proposals to modify
or add new AIP assurances. The agency recognizes that there are
airports at which residential through-the-fence access already exists.
The FAA will not consider sponsors of these airports to be in violation
of current grant assurances if the airport sponsor meets certain
standards for control of airport operations and development; self-
sustaining and nondiscriminatory airport rates; and compatible land
use.
    At present, there are 75 airports in the continental U.S. where
residential through-the-fence access is known to exist. This represents
less than 3 percent of the 3,300 airports listed in the FAA's National
Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) and eligible for Federal
investment. While the vast majority of airport sponsors do not have

residential through-the-fence access, due to the increasing number of
requests to establish such access, particularly at general aviation
airports, the agency has revisited the policy in order to establish
clear guidance for the future.

DATES: Send your comments on or before October 25, 2010. The FAA will
consider comments received on the Proposed Policy and the proposed
grant assurance modification. Any necessary or appropriate revision to
the Policy or the grant assurance modification resulting from the
comments received will be adopted as of the date of a subsequent
publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments [identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0831] using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: To Docket Operations, Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    For more information on the notice and comment process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. For more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall S. Fiertz, Director, Office of
Airport Compliance and Field Operations, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of this notice and all other
documents in this docket using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking portal (http://
www.regulations.gov/search);
    (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Compliance and Field
Operations, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice
number, or amendment number of this proceeding.

Authority for the Policy and Grant Assurance Modification

    This notice is published under the authority described in Subtitle
VII, Part B, Chapter 471, sections 47107 and 47122 of Title 49 United
States Code.

Background

    Sponsors of airports that accept planning and development grants
from the FAA under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), 49 U.S.C.
47101 et seq., agree to a list of standard conditions, or grant
assurances. Similar obligations also attach to the transfer of Federal
surplus property to airport sponsors and are often contained in surplus
property deeds. These include responsibilities to retain the rights and
powers necessary to control and operate the airport; to maintain the
airport in a safe condition; to take reasonable steps to restrict land
adjacent to the airport to compatible land uses; to allow access to the
airport on terms that are reasonable, not unjustly discriminatory to
any category of user; and to maintain a rate structure for airport fees
that makes the airport as self-sustaining as possible.
    A complete list of the current grant assurances can be viewed at:
http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/.
    Administration of the AIP, including sponsor compliance with grant
assurances, is the responsibility of the FAA Associate Administrator
for Airports. The FAA developed internal agency Order 5190, commonly
referred to as the Airport Compliance Manual, which is used by agency
employees in the administration of the AIP. On September 30, 2009, the
agency issued FAA Order 5190.6B, Airport Compliance Manual; it
superseded Order 5190.6A, which was in effect from 1989 to 2009. The
new order was updated to reflect new statutory grant assurances and
other pertinent statutory changes as well as changes in and
clarifications of agency policy since 1989.
    Typically, through-the-fence access allows an aircraft owner to
store an aircraft at an off-airport property, and to use the airport by
way of a taxiway that crosses the airport boundary and connects the
owner's property or neighborhood to the airport's runway-taxiway
system. Residential access to airports from residences was only briefly
mentioned in Order 5190.6A. It defined through-the-fence access as
where ``an individual or corporation residing or doing business on an
adjacent tract of land proposes to gain access to the landing area.* *
*'' Order 5190.6A otherwise only dealt with commercial through-the-
fence access, and stated that when this type of arrangement
``circumvents the attainment of the public benefit for which the
airport was developed, the owner of the airport will be notified that
the airport may be in violation of his agreement with the Government.''
Order 5190.6A did not address airparks with multiple residences or the
sponsor's authority to permit establishment of new residences with
through-the-fence access. Order 5190.6A stated a general policy
recommending airport owners refrain from entering into residential
through-the-fence agreements but did not articulate a policy that such
access constituted a per se violation of Federal grant assurance
obligations.
    In the mid-2000s, several issues specifically relating to
residential use of property on or near several Federally obligated
general aviation airports came to the FAA's attention. In one case, the
firm managing the airport established a residential development around
the airport. In another case, a developer marketed hangar homes on the
airport itself, next to a taxiway. In these cases and others, the FAA
advised that the sponsor was precluded by its grant assurance
obligations from permitting new residential development with through-
the-fence access. In so advising, the agency cited violations of the
AIP grant assurances relating to the rights and powers of the airport
sponsor; economic discrimination; safe operation; and compatible land
use. The FAA did not consider this to reflect any change in policy
under Order 5190.6A, but rather an interpretation of that guidance and
underlying grant assurance obligations as it applied to circumstances
not anticipated in 1989.

    The revisions to Order 5190.6B reflected the agency's strong policy
concerns about new trends in residential through-the-fence access,
which had been expressed in letters to sponsors and developers. Order
5190.6B stated that the FAA would not support any through-the-fence
agreement associated with residential use, under any circumstances,
since that action would be inconsistent with the Federal obligation to
ensure compatible land use adjacent to the airport. In response to
requests from numerous airport sponsors, users, and FAA airport
district office staff, the FAA issued draft Compliance Guidance Letter
2009-1--Through-the-Fence and On-Airport Residential Access to
Federally Obligated Airports, on October 13, 2009. The purpose of the
Compliance Guidance Letter was to reiterate the FAA's policy regarding
through-the-fence agreements and outline criteria for FAA personnel's
review of these agreements. This guidance also discussed appropriate
corrective actions that should be developed to prevent future
residential through-the-fence access and limit its expansion. The FAA
circulated the draft Compliance Guidance Letter among aviation user
groups for comments from October 15, 2009 through December 21, 2009.
    There has been no corresponding need for clarification of the
agency's policy on commercial through-the-fence access. Commercial
through-the-fence access has always been discouraged, but is a fact of
life at some airports and a necessity at others where there is not
sufficient land on airport for providers of aeronautical services. The
potential adverse effects of commercial through-the-fence access can be
mitigated by the measures discussed in Order 5190.6B, and the FAA is
not proposing any changes to policy on commercial access.

FAA Review of the New Policy Statement and Public Outreach

    In response to informal comments received on these actions, the FAA
Associate Administrator for Airports directed the Office of Airport
Compliance and Field Operations to review the policy for residential
through-the-fence access as stated in Order 5190.6B. The Office of
Airport Compliance and Field Operations took several steps to obtain
public views on through-the-fence access as part of its policy review.
Between July 2009 and March 2010, the Office of Airport Compliance and
Field Operations:
     Received comments from stakeholders with regard to
residential through-the-fence access at an aviation membership
association's convention.
     Accepted comments from interested aviation associations
and their members on a draft compliance guidance letter on through-the-
fence access.
     Met with aviation membership associations which commented
on the issue.
     Met with airport representatives from Wittman Regional
Airport in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and observed a meeting with
representatives from Sandpoint Airport in Idaho and the FAA's Northwest
Mountain Regional Office staff. Both airports have existing residential
through-the-fence access arrangements.
     Spoke with State aviation officials of States with
residential through-the-fence access.
     Conducted site visits and met with airport sponsors, local
tenants, and residents at several other representative airports with
existing residential through-the-fence access. Locations visited
included airports in Erie, Colorado; Independence, Oregon; Driggs,
Idaho; and Oneida, Tennessee.
    Independent of the specific review of through-the-fence policy, the
Office of Airport Compliance and Field Operations issued new Order
5190.6B for public review and comment. Any necessary corrections will
be included in an update of the Order. A notice requesting public
comment was published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2009 (74
FR 52524). Comments were due on March 31, 2010. Comments on the
provisions of the Order related to residential through-the-fence will
be addressed in finalizing this Policy. We expect to update the Order
to reflect this Policy. Other comments will be dealt with separately in
updating the Order.

Comments Received on Residential Through-the-Fence Access, July 2009-
March 2010

    During its policy review, the Office of Airport Compliance and
Field Operations received comments by written submission, by e-mail,
and verbally in meetings. Commenters included persons with residential
through-the-fence access at a Federally obligated airport; State
aviation officials; airport management; local government officials;
developers; the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA); the
American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE); the Experimental
Aircraft Association (EAA); and the National Air Transportation
Association (NATA). Many commenters took the position that residential
through-the-fence access is actually beneficial for an airport. Some
other commenters recognized potential and actual problems with such
access, but stated that existing access should be allowed to continue
even if new access is not allowed. EAA urged that residential through-
the-fence be allowed, and that new requests for access be approved at
general aviation airports. AOPA would accept a policy against
establishing new residential through-the-fence access arrangements, but
believed that existing locations should be permitted to continue. AAAE
was concerned about requiring sponsors to depict through-the-fence
access on the airport layout plan because the sponsor would not be able
to prevent the property owner from splitting the parcel and
establishing a second access point not depicted on the airport layout
plan. NATA would support a ban on new residential through-the-fence
access and the elimination of existing uses.
    Issues raised by one or more commenters can be summarized as
follows:
    Comment: Residential through-the-fence access provides a supportive
community that likes aviation, will not complain about airport noise,
and protects the airport in local politics.
    Response: Owners of residential lots with through-the-fence access
frequently commented that the airport benefits from such owners,
because they support the airport and would not oppose aircraft
operations like other residents. We agree that this is true up to a
point. We accept that aircraft owners do not object to the presence of
the airport, or to operations by others with similar aircraft. However,
when faced with a change in operations at the airport that may affect
the desirability of a nearby residence, for example operations by
helicopters or larger aircraft types, a through-the-fence owner is just
as likely to oppose the change as support it. It is a guiding principle
of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) that
``[a]irports should be flexible and expandable, and able to meet
increased demand and to accommodate new aircraft types.'' The FAA is
concerned that owners of residential property next to an airport could
attempt to limit the airport sponsor's flexibility to expand an airport
or accommodate new aircraft types.
    Secondly, while through-the-fence communities sometimes attempt to
limit ownership to aircraft owners, there is no effective way to
prevent turnover of these properties to non-aircraft owners at some
point. When that happens, the airport may encounter significant local
opposition from its immediate neighbors.

    Comment: Hangar homes should be considered an exception to the FAA
general policy that residences are an incompatible land use, because
owners of hangar homes accept airport noise. A hangar home should not
be considered a residential use; the need to locate it near an airport
taxiway makes it an aeronautical use.
    Response: It is longstanding congressional and FAA policy that
airports should be operated in a way that minimizes the impact of
aircraft noise on communities. One of the key means of implementing
that policy is to limit land uses around airports to uses compatible
with airport noise and operations. Residential use is not a preferred,
compatible use for properties adjacent to public-use airports. As such,
the FAA has awarded several hundred million dollars in AIP grants in
the past three decades for acquiring noise buffer land, relocating
homes, and insulating homes to achieve compatible land use.
Simultaneously adopting a policy that encourages more homes near
airports is counter to these efforts. Distinguishing between homes
without hangars and homes with hangars does not eliminate the domestic
characteristics that present additional challenges, such as the
proximity of children and pets, to normal airport operations. In
addition, not all residents are aircraft owners, examples being family
members and tenants. Furthermore, it is not possible to guarantee that
a residence owned by an aircraft owner now will continue to be in the
future. Even aircraft owners may be motivated more as homeowners than
as aircraft owners, when faced with a proposed expansion of the airport
or introduction of new aircraft types that might affect living
conditions or residential property values. Finally, once in place, a
residential use is difficult to move or eliminate because homeowners
expect to retain the use and value of their home indefinitely.
    Comment: Residential through-the-fence communities provide valuable
revenue to the airport operator.
    Response: It is true that some residential through-the-fence users
pay the airport for access. In a few cases, the airport operator has
come to depend on that revenue. In cases where residential through-the-
fence access rights already exist, the FAA believes that the airport
should charge for that access, not only to support the airport but also
to fairly distribute the recovery of airport operating and capital
expenses across both tenants and non-tenant users of the airport. So,
if an owner of land next to an airport has through-the-fence access to
an airport, the owner should pay for that access. However, the
potential for additional revenue to the airport does not justify the
establishment of homes next to an airport. Also, the effect on revenue
is not always positive. Storage of aircraft at off-airport lots with
airport access can undermine the market for hangars and tie-downs on
airport property.
    Comment: Residential through-the-fence owners provide additional
security at an airport.
    Response: Residence of persons near the airport does not
automatically translate into full-time surveillance. It is true that
residents may notice suspicious activity, because they are familiar
with the airport and are around more than persons who are just using
the airport when they are flying or working on an aircraft. On the
other hand, the existence of routine traffic through-the-fence from
off-airport locations makes such activity less suspicious because it is
expected. Also, just the existence of additional access points through
the airport boundary tends to make the airport less secure, not more.
The FAA consulted with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
of the Department of Homeland Security to obtain TSA's view of this
particular comment. While TSA does not directly regulate access at
general aviation airports, that agency took the position that access
points to an airport should be limited to the number necessary. TSA
plans to undertake a separate review of this matter and the FAA will
incorporate any recommendations resulting from that review.
    Comment: The FAA hasn't identified any actual problem associated
with the residential use aspect of through-the-fence access. Most
examples of problems cited have been generic through-the-fence issues,
and are not specific to residential use. The FAA's concern about
residential use is not justified by information, noise complaints,
studies or experience.
    Response: It is true that the FAA has cited problems with
residential through-the-fence access that are common to any type of
through-the-fence access, including commercial uses. Problems have
included the sponsor's inability or failure to be reimbursed for the
access; interference with airport operation because of the location of
access points; and impeding optimal airport layout and growth. As with
commercial uses, these problems can be mitigated, and the Policy
proposed would require such mitigation for existing residential
through-the-fence access where possible.
    There are concerns that are particular to residential through-the-
fence access, however. As mentioned previously, owners of hangar homes
are highly tolerant of current aircraft types and operations at the
airport, but can be resistant to change. Residential through-the-fence
communities can have substantial influence on decisions of the airport
sponsor, and over time limit the sponsor's ability to take actions to
accommodate new aviation demand. Commenters pointed to a lack of noise
complaints in FAA files as evidence that current hangar home owners
have not objected to airport operations. Such comments would of course
be made to the airport sponsor or local government, not the FAA. But we
would not expect complaints about current operations anyway. The
problem is complaints about growth and new aircraft types, and
resistance to the sponsor's accommodation of those changes. At airports
where the nearby residents have successfully prevented airport
expansion or access by different aircraft types, e.g. jets or
helicopters, then there will be no complaints, but there will have been
a real and adverse effect on the airport's obligations and role in the
NPIAS.
    Comment: In developing policy toward residential through-the-fence,
the FAA should not apply the same rules to all airports; airports are
different, and the policy should reflect the fact that what is a
problem at one airport will not be at another.
    Response: The FAA agrees that each airport has its own
circumstances, and conditions can vary widely among different airports.
Differences might include, for example, the number of operations and
variety of aircraft types, the number of owners with through-the-fence
privileges, the number and location of access points across the airport
boundary, the nature and duration of the owners' access rights, and the
ability of State and local government to influence land use around the
airport. Notwithstanding the different circumstances at each airport,
however, there are common principles that apply to every sponsor of a
Federally obligated airport. These include the obligations to maintain
the rights and powers necessary to control operation and development of
the airport, to treat similarly situated users in a similar manner, and
to charge airport fees that are nondiscriminatory and that make the
airport as self-sustaining as possible. The revised Policy proposed by
the FAA will apply these general principles to the fact situation at
each airport with existing through-the-fence access.
    Comment: Even if there are potential problems with residential
through-the-

fence access, they can be mitigated just like commercial through-the-
fence uses.
    Response: The FAA agrees that many actual and potential problems
with residential through-the-fence access can be mitigated with the
adoption of certain measures. Mitigation might help assure that the
airport sponsor remains in control of airport access, collects
reasonable fees to cover costs, and operates and maintains the airport
in a safe manner. The revised Policy proposed in this notice will
require sponsors of airports with existing through-the-fence access to
take such measures if they have not already done so.
    However, there are factors with residential use that are different
from commercial uses and that cannot be entirely resolved by
mitigation. Residential owners may resist change at the airport in
order to protect the quality of life in residing next to the airport.
Also, once in place, a residential use is difficult to move or
eliminate because homeowners expect to retain the use and value of
their home indefinitely. Accordingly, while the FAA agrees that there
are mitigation measures that should apply to existing through-the-fence
locations, that mitigation cannot resolve all problems.
    Second, some of the mitigation measures mentioned by commenters are
of limited effect, or may not be available at all airports. For
example, a local government can zone a hangar home community as joint
residential-aviation use, but that zoning would not prevent a non-
aircraft owner from purchasing property there. Moreover, many States
and jurisdictions do not have sufficient zoning power to adopt even
this limited measure. Another example offered by commenters is a
covenant not to complain about aircraft noise. Avigation easements and
covenants can acknowledge the property is subject to airport noise and
emissions, and effectively prevent the property owner from filing suit
against the airport for aviation impact. No easement or covenant can
prevent an owner from taking a position on local policy, however. Even
the most restrictive covenant would not prevent a through-the-fence
owner from working against the expansion of the airport or
accommodation of new aircraft types. While the FAA supports these
mitigation measures where available, they cannot completely eliminate
the potential adverse effects of residential through-the-fence access.
    Comment: If the FAA forces the termination of residential through-
the-fence access by aircraft owners, the properties will be bought by
non-aircraft owners, thereby bringing about the exact result that the
FAA seeks to avoid: general residential use immediately adjacent to the
airport.
    Response: The FAA agrees with the comment. The FAA took this into
consideration in its approach to both existing and new residential
through-the-fence access. For existing access, the FAA will not require
termination of existing arrangements, and will encourage mitigation
measures that keep through-the-fence properties in the hands of
aircraft owners to the extent possible. However, the same consideration
argues against the establishment of any new residential through-the-
fence access. This is because every property with such access can
potentially be acquired in the future by an owner who has no interest
in airport access, whether or not airport access is available.
    Comment: The FAA changed its policy on residential through-the-
fence access after years of not objecting to residential through-the-
fence uses, and after hundreds of homeowners had already invested in
hangar home properties. Even a policy that existing leases may not be
renewed has a substantial adverse effect on the value of the property.
    Response: The FAA would not characterize its approach to
residential through-the-fence access in recent years as a policy
change. Rather, the through-the-fence policy addressed an issue that
was not fully considered in the agency's general compliance policy
statement in 1989. However, we would acknowledge that the lack of clear
guidance on this issue before the mid-2000's resulted in the
inconsistent application of policy in FAA regional offices. Some older
hangar home developments even had regional FAA approval. In visiting
locations with residential through-the-fence access and talking to
property owners, the FAA understands the effect of terminating airport
access on the value and utility of properties that were acquired and
developed to take advantage of airport access. For these reasons, the
FAA is not proposing to require airport sponsors to terminate existing
residential through-the-fence access at their airports. The FAA
recognizes that Order 5190.6B and the draft Compliance Guidance Letter
were not clear on how the FAA expected sponsors to manage existing
residential through-the-fence arrangements. This Policy proposes clear
guidance for these sponsors.
    Comment: The FAA should allow not only through-the-fence access for
hangar homes, but should allow hangar homes on the airport itself.
    Response: The few cases where it may be appropriate to locate a
residence on airport property are already listed in Order 5190.6B,
including crew quarters and housing for key airport personnel in
isolated areas. On-airport homes have the same problems as through-the-
fence uses for airport rights and powers and oftentimes compatible land
use. In addition, on-airport residences raise the additional concerns
of personal safety, with pedestrians and vehicles in the vicinity of
taxiways. In extremely unusual situations such as wilderness areas with
no permanent road access to the airport and local community, the FAA
has the authority to consider circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
Accordingly, the FAA is not proposing any change to its effective
prohibition on hangar homes on airport property.
    Comment: The grant assurances, and the statute on which they are
based, have not changed. The FAA previously interpreted this statute to
allow residential through-the-fence access, and reversed this
interpretation with no change in the underlying law.
    Response: It is true that the grant assurances that affect through-
the-fence access have not substantially changed since enactment of the
Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. It is clear from the FAA's
1989 compliance order, Order 5190.6A, that the agency recommended
against any new through-the-fence access. The discussion in Order
5190.6A also indicates that the agency understood through-the-fence
access to be almost entirely a commercial issue. At the time Order
5190.6A was issued, the agency was not confronted with a proliferation
of residential through-the-fence uses or some of the actual problems
caused by such uses. When those issues did arise, the FAA issued more
specific policy guidance on through-the-fence access on a case-by-case
basis. The agency continues to believe that residential through-the-
fence access is not consistent with the characteristics of a Federally
obligated public-use airport and has the strong potential to create
grant assurance violations which are often difficult for a sponsor to
correct. At the same time, however, the agency recognizes that a number
of residential through-the-fence locations exist. Some of these uses
could have resulted from the lack of specific guidance in FAA
compliance documents, although in some cases the access was established
over the objection of an FAA regional office. In any event the FAA
proposes to accept the existence of these locations, and find the
airport sponsor in compliance when the airport sponsor applies certain
mitigation measures to

make the access consistent with the sponsor's grant assurances.
However, with regard to the establishment of new through-the-fence
arrangements, the FAA proposes amending the sponsor grant assurances to
prohibit this practice in the future.
    Comment: The FAA's policy is not being evenly applied in all
regions. In at least one region, airports appear to be subject to a
zero-tolerance policy on residential through-the-fence access that is
not being applied in other regions.
    Response: The Proposed Policy and amendment to the sponsor grant
assurances will provide clear national guidance for all FAA regional
and field offices and establish a standardized approach to through-the-
fence issues in all regions.
    Comment: The FAA should allow States and local communities to
decide if residential through-the-fence access is appropriate for their
airport.
    Response: Airports become eligible for Federal assistance when the
FAA determines they can provide important benefits to the national
airport system. In turn, the FAA provides financial investments,
through AIP grants, for the capital improvement programs of these
airports. The FAA has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that capital
improvements made with AIP grants will serve their intended purpose for
the useful life of the investment. The FAA believes that impacts
associated with residential through-the-fence access can compromise the
longevity of its investments. Allowing individual States and local
communities to establish a different access policy for each airport
could decrease the overall utility of the national airport system.
Moreover, the FAA has a statutory obligation to enforce the terms of
AIP grants, including the assurances made by airport sponsors.

Discussion of Options Considered

    In reviewing the policy stated in Order 5190.6B, the FAA considered
a range of possible policy approaches, as recommended in one or more
public comments received. The agency considered the following four
general policy approaches, with variations:
     Allow both new and existing residential through-the-fence
access, on certain conditions.
     Prohibit new residential access, but allow existing access
to continue under certain conditions on a case-by-case basis.
     Prohibit new residential through-the-fence access, and
require sponsors to eliminate existing access.
     Allow States or airport sponsors to decide, as a matter of
State and local law, whether to allow residential through-the-fence
access at each airport.
    The agency's review of the policy options listed above can be
summarized as follows:
    Allow both new and existing residential through-the-fence access,
on certain conditions. The threshold issue for review of this policy is
whether residential through-the-fence access is a problem for Federally
obligated airports or not. The FAA has consistently discouraged
through-the-fence access of any kind. In recent years, the FAA has
objected to these arrangements as a result of actual and potential
grant assurance violations. As part of its review, the FAA considered
the potential problems for airports with residential through-the-fence
access, but also the comments from property owners and others favoring
such access for general aviation airports. After carefully balancing
competing considerations of public policy, we have concluded that this
access creates significant operational and land use problems for
airport sponsors and should be banned in the future (at Federally
obligated airports). Even at locations where off-airport property
owners are charged a reasonable fee by the sponsor and the access is
not causing current operational problems for the airport, residential
through-the-fence access potentially diminishes the sponsor's ability
to expand and improve the airport to meet current and future demand.
    The FAA remains concerned that owners of residential property next
to an obligated airport have strong incentives to limit the benefits of
the Federal investments made at the airport, even if they are aircraft
owners, if their residential quality of life or property values would
be adversely affected by proposed airport improvements or increases in
service. While through-the-fence communities sometimes attempt to limit
ownership to aircraft owners, there is no very effective way to prevent
sale or lease of these properties to non-aircraft owners in the future.
If that happens, the airport may encounter significant local opposition
from its immediate neighbors. Finally, once established, these access
rights can be very difficult for a sponsor to change or eliminate.
    No new residential access, but allow existing access to continue on
certain conditions. Even if no new access from residential properties
is created, the FAA believes there are approximately 75 airports in the
continental U.S. with some degree of existing residential through-the-
fence use. As part of this review, FAA staff visited some of these
airports and spoke with affected property owners and airport sponsors.
It is clear that through-the-fence access to residential property has
existed at some locations for many years, and that some property owners
have relied on permission for airfield access in purchasing their
property and building hangar homes. Termination of the access at these
existing locations could substantially reduce the value of the owners'
properties and interfere with the owners' expected use of these
properties in the future. In certain cases FAA regional offices were
notified but took no action to discourage sponsors from permitting such
access. In other instances, the sponsor granted through-the-fence
access rights without addressing the FAA's concerns and objections. At
some airports, access rights are perpetual, while at others the rights
can be terminated only after expiration of a lease.
    Given the potential for hardship and adverse effect on property
values, the FAA does not believe a general policy against residential
through-the-fence access should be applied retroactively to require
sponsors to terminate existing uses. There are various actions that can
be taken by airport sponsors and the property owners with access rights
to help mitigate potential adverse effects. Where access rights could
legally be terminated, but there is no immediate reason for the sponsor
to do so, there would be little adverse impact from permitting those
rights to continue until conditions at the airport change. For these
reasons, the Policy proposed in this notice permits sponsors to
continue existing access subject to standards for compliance.
    The agency's acceptance of existing residential through-the-fence
access does not constitute ``grandfathering'' of access rights at these
airports. Rather, the Proposed Policy defines standards of compliance
for an airport sponsor's control of access from residential property.
Airport sponsors would be required to present the FAA with a plan for
how the airport meets these standards, as a condition of continuing
eligibility for future AIP grants and NPIAS status. The agency is aware
that some sponsors and local governments have more rights and
governmental authority to control activity around and adjacent to the
airport than others. Agency staff would take these differences into
account in reviewing the access plans provided by each sponsor. Where
legal rights to through-the-fence access expire, the sponsor would be
able to extend the rights for fixed periods with FAA concurrence

until there is a reason to terminate or modify the access.
    Once a sponsor's residential through-the fence access plan is
reviewed and accepted by the FAA, the FAA would consider the sponsor to
be in compliance with its grant assurances although the airport has
existing residential through-the-fence access. The FAA would allow
sponsors a reasonable time to submit and obtain FAA acceptance of
access plans, and would not initiate grant enforcement based on
existing residential through-the-fence access per se during the review
period. As proposed, the FAA would require an airport's access plan
before the sponsor notifies the FAA of its intent to apply for an AIP
grant, beginning in Fiscal Year 2013.
    Where an airport sponsor is unable to meet the standards for
existing access, the FAA would consider the future role of the airport
in the NPIAS and the type of AIP investment justified. In the unlikely
event a sponsor refuses to take available actions to meet the basic
compliance standards, the FAA would consider grant enforcement at that
time.
    No new residential through-the-fence access, and eliminate existing
access. For the reasons already discussed, the FAA does not believe
that it is necessary or warranted to require sponsors to eliminate all
existing residential through-the-fence access. Instead, the agency
proposes a Policy that would allow existing access to continue on
certain terms. In cases where an airport sponsor exercises its
proprietary authority to limit or terminate its existing residential
through-the-fence access, the FAA will not consider such action to
violate Federal law. Residential through-the-fence access is not
protected by the Federal grant assurances, and off-airport tenants
would have no recourse under 14 CFR Part 16.
    Allow States or airport sponsors to decide whether to allow
residential through-the-fence access at each airport. Several
commenters urged that the FAA take no position at all on residential
through-the-fence access, at least at airports in the category of
smaller general aviation airports. Instead, commenters urged that the
FAA recognize the authority of each airport, or its State or local
government, to decide as a matter of State and local, rather than
Federal, law whether to allow residential through-the-fence access at
the airport.
    The FAA has a statutory obligation to enforce the terms of AIP
grants, including the assurances made by airport sponsors. The FAA is
ultimately responsible for interpreting and enforcing compliance with
AIP grant assurances. Moreover, the Government Accountability Office's
May 1999 report, General Aviation Airports, Unauthorized Land Use
Highlights Need for Improved Oversight and Enforcement, recommended the
FAA exercise greater oversight with regard to monitoring grant
assurance compliance. Interpreting through-the-fence policy to be a
matter of State and local, rather than Federal, law would likely result
in a less consistent application of the policy. Accordingly, the FAA
will retain responsibility for the establishment and enforcement of
policy on residential through-the-fence access.

Actions Proposed in This Notice

    The FAA proposes to take a two-prong approach to through-the-fence
access to obligated airports from residential property:
    1. The sponsor of an airport where residential through-the-fence
access or access rights already exist will be considered in compliance
with its grant assurances if the airport meets certain minimum
standards for safety, efficiency, ability to generate revenue to
recover airport costs, and minimizes the potential for noncompatible
land uses consistent with standard sponsor grant assurance 21,
Compatible Land Use.
    2. The agency proposes to add a new paragraph to standard sponsor
grant assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers, to prohibit a sponsor
from allowing new through-the-fence access from a residential property.
    In considering policy on through-the-fence access to federally
obligated airports, the FAA's primary goals are to preserve the safety
and efficiency of airports, and to ensure continuing public access to
these airports as part of the national airport system. The viability
and utility of a federally obligated, public use airport are best
preserved by measures that:
     Ensure that airport sponsors retain the powers necessary
to meet their obligations under the grant assurances and are able to
maintain and develop the airport in the future. Also, while an airport
operator is not obligated to expand airport facilities or property, it
is a guiding principle of the National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems (NPIAS) that ``[a]irports should be flexible and expandable,
and able to meet increased demand and to accommodate new aircraft
types.''
     Ensure that airports have sufficient revenue to be as
self-sustaining as possible and meet capital and operating
requirements.
     Minimize encroachment of noncompatible land uses around
the airport. Noncompatible land uses around an airport can increase the
possibility of access restrictions, prevent airport improvement and
expansion in response to aviation demand, and even threaten the
continuing existence of the airport.
    The FAA considers residential use of airport property or of
properties within the airport's 65 DNL dB noise contour to be
incompatible with the operation of a public use airport, whether or not
the residents are aircraft owners. Ultimately, location of any
residences near an airport boundary will increase the potential for
opposition to expansion or increased use of the airport. Also,
regardless of compatibility, the through-the-fence access itself can
cause operational and land use problems for the sponsor and other
airport users.
    At the same time, the FAA recognizes that there are federally
obligated airports where residential through-the-fence access already
exists. In many of these cases the owners have legal rights for
through-the-fence access to the airport.

1. The Proposed Policy on Existing Through-the-Fence Access From a
Residential Property

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to adopt the following Policy on existing
through-the-fence access to a federally obligated airport from
residential property:
Policy on Existing Through-the-Fence Access to Airports From a
Residential Property
Applicability
    This Policy applies to any federally obligated airport with
existing residential through-the-fence access.
    For the purposes of this Policy statement:
    In this sense ``access'' means:
    1. An access point for taxiing aircraft across the airport
boundary; or
    2. The right of the owner of a particular off-airport residential
property to use an airport access point to taxi an aircraft between the
airport and that property.
    ``Existing access'' through the fence is defined as any through-
the-fence access that meets one or more of the following conditions:
    1. There was a legal right of access from the property to the
airport (e.g., by easement or contract) in existence as of the date of
this notice September 9, 2010; or
    2. There was development of the property prior to the date of this
notice

September 9, 2010, in reliance on the airport sponsor's permission for
through-the-fence aircraft access to the airport; or
    3. The through-the-fence access is shown on an FAA-approved airport
layout plan or has otherwise been approved by the FAA in writing, and
the owner of the property has used that access prior to the date of
this notice September 9, 2010.
    ``Development'' is defined as excavation or grading of land or
construction of fixed structures.
    ``Additional through-the-fence access'' is defined as:
    1. Establishment of a new access point to the airport for the
benefit of the holder of a legally enforceable right to access that
cannot be accommodated by an existing access point; or
    2. Extension or renewal of an existing right to access the airport
from residential property or property zoned for residential use.
    ``Transfer of access'' through the fence is defined as one of the
following transactions:
    1. Sale or transfer of a residential property or property zoned for
residential use with existing through-the-fence access; or
    2. Subdivision, development, or sale as individual lots of a
residential property or property zoned for residential use with
existing through-the-fence access.
I. Existing Through-the-Fence Access From Residential Property at
Federally Obligated Airports
Status of Existing Residential Through-the-Fence Access
    The FAA believes there are approximately 75 airports in the
continental U.S. in the NPIAS where some form of through-the-fence
access for taxiing aircraft was permitted prior to the date of this
notice. The details of this access vary widely from location to
location. Differences among particular locations include the number of
persons with access rights; the number of access points across the
airport boundary; the point at which the through-the-fence taxiway
connects with the airport runway-taxiway system; the nature of access
rights, e.g., by easement, contract, or informal permission of the
sponsor; the amount and type of traffic at the airport; and the
sponsor's ability to impose operating rules and charge fees related to
the access. In some locations, the access right is currently held by a
developer that may intend to transfer the right to airport access to a
homeowners association or to individual homeowners.
    Many of these through-the-fence uses have been in effect for years,
sometimes decades. At some locations, property owners have perpetual
rights of access to the airport under an easement that cannot be
extinguished by the airport sponsor except possibly through
condemnation. In other locations, owners have rights of access for a
term of years under contracts that will expire in the future. In both
cases, many individual owners have made a substantial investment in
properties for use jointly as a residence and aircraft hangar. In every
case that the FAA reviewed, owners had the expectation of continued
through-the-fence access to the airport both for their personal
aircraft use and for the maintenance of property values and protection
of their investment.
    Some sponsors and users have taken measures to mitigate potential
problems with residential through-the-fence at their airports. These
measures include:
     Making through-the-fence users subject to airport
operating rules and standards, by regulation or by agreement;
     Collection of fees by the sponsor for airport access from
off-airport properties;
     Through-the-fence owners waiver of rights to bring any
action against the sponsor for aircraft noise and emissions;
     Through-the-fence owners execution of avigation easements
in favor of the airport;
     Conditions, covenants or restrictions that limit ownership
of property with through-the-fence access rights to owners or operators
of aircraft; and
     Zoning that limits the use of properties with through-the-
fence use to a joint aviation-residential use.
    As a result, the actual and potential problems with residential
through-the-fence access to an airport have been mitigated to a greater
degree at some airports than at others.
Policy Toward Sponsors With Existing Residential Through-the-Fence
Access
    The agency understands that it is not practical or even possible to
terminate through-the-fence access at many of those airports where that
access already exists. Where access could be terminated, property
owners have claimed that termination could have substantial adverse
effects on their property value and investment, and airport sponsors
seeking to terminate this access could be exposed to costly lawsuits.
Accordingly, the FAA will not consider the existence of residential
through-the-fence access by itself to be in noncompliance with the
airport sponsor's grant assurances.
    However, where through-the-fence access rights are unrestricted, or
where the airport sponsor has lost powers necessary for the future
operation and growth of the airport, the existing residential through-
the-fence access can interfere with the sponsor's ability to meet its
obligations as sponsor of a federally assisted public use airport. As
discussed above, at some airports the sponsor and through-the-fence
users have made an effort to implement a series of measures to address
potential problems with through-the-fence access, by ensuring
continuing sponsor control of airport access and limiting the effects
of incompatible land use on the airport boundary. The FAA believes such
measures can substantially mitigate the potential problems with
residential through-the-fence access where it exists, and avoid future
grant compliance issues. It is reasonable, therefore, to require
sponsors of airports with existing residential through-the-fence
access, to have certain measures in effect to protect its proprietary
power and limit adverse effects of the through-the-fence access to
facilitate compliance with its grant assurance obligations.
    Accordingly, the sponsor of an airport where residential through-
the-fence access or access rights already exist will be considered in
compliance with its grant assurances if the airport depicts the access
on its airport layout plan and meets certain standards for safety,
efficiency, ability to generate revenue to recover airport costs, and
mitigation of potential noncompatible land uses. Those standards are
listed in section II, Standards for compliance at airports with
existing through-the-fence access. An airport sponsor covered by this
Policy must seek FAA approval before entering into any arrangement
which would establish additional access through-the-fence. Sponsors are
reminded that there is no right to aircraft surface access to the
airport from off-airport locations, and no off-airport property owner
will have standing to file a formal complaint with the FAA to challenge
the sponsor's decision not to permit such access.
    The FAA will review future requests for AIP funds to ensure that
Federal investments are in proportion to the public use of the airport.
Projects designed to exclusively serve residential through-the-fence
users will not be eligible for AIP funding.

II. Standards for Compliance at Airports With Existing Through-the-
Fence Access
    The FAA understands that municipally-owned airports have varying
degrees of zoning authority. For example, one airport may have strong
zoning powers, while another may have none. Also, the nature of
existing through-the-fence rights can greatly affect the sponsor's
ability to implement measures to control access. Accordingly, the FAA
does not expect every airport with existing residential through-the-
fence access to adopt a uniform set of rules and measures to mitigate
that access. However, the FAA does expect each such sponsor to adopt
reasonable rules and implement measures that accomplish the following
standards for compliance, to the fullest extent feasible for that
sponsor. In general, the greater the number of residential through-the-
fence access points and users of the airport and the higher the number
of aircraft operations, the more important it is to have formal
measures in effect to ensure the sponsor retains its proprietary powers
and mitigates adverse effects on the airport.
    The FAA's standards for compliance for any sponsor of an airport
with existing through-the-fence access are as follows:
    1. General authority for control of airport land and access. The
airport sponsor has sufficient control of access points and operations
across airport boundaries to maintain safe operations, and to make
changes in airport land use to meet future needs.
    2. Safety of airport operations. By rule, or by agreement with the
sponsor, through-the-fence users are obligated to comply with the
airport's rules and standards.
    3. Recovery of costs of operating the airport. The airport sponsor
can and does collect fees from through-the-fence users comparable to
those charged to airport tenants, so that through-the-fence users bear
a fair proportion of airport costs.
    4. Protection of airport airspace. Operations at the airport will
not be affected by hangars and residences on the airport boundary, at
present or in the future.
    5. Compatible land uses around the airport. The potential for
noncompatible land use adjacent to the airport boundary is minimized
consistent with grant assurance 21, Compatible Land Use.
    These standards will be applied, on a case-by-case basis, in the
FAA's evaluation of whether each airport with existing residential
through-the-fence access meets the above requirements to the fullest
extent feasible for that airport. In situations when access can be
legally transferred from one owner to another without the airport
sponsor's review, the FAA will treat the access as existing. Because
the ability of some sponsors to control access has been compromised as
a result of legal rights previously granted to through-the-fence users,
existing access locations may be evaluated under the alternative
criteria for some standards as indicated below, if applicable to that
airport.
III. Standards for Compliance at Airports Proposing Additional Through-
the-Fence Access at Airports Covered by This Policy
    Once allowed, residential through-the-fence access is very
difficult to change or eliminate in the future. This is because
residential owners, more so than commercial interests, typically expect
that their residential property will remain suitable for residential
use and protected from adverse effects for a long time. Residential
buyers and their mortgage lenders may ensure that the property is
purchased with rights that guarantee no change in the access to the
airport for decades, or indefinitely. Because each additional
residential through-the-fence access location introduces the potential
for problems for the airport in the future, and because this access is
effectively permanent and resistant to change once permitted, the FAA
believes that additional residential through-the-fence access at public
use airports should be carefully scrutinized.
    The following supplemental standards will be applied to the FAA's
case-by-case review of sponsors proposing additional residential
through-the-fence access at airports with existing access. In
situations when the transfer of access from one owner to another
requires the airport sponsor's concurrence, the FAA will treat the
access as additional. The FAA will not approve requests for additional
access that are inconsistent with the sponsor's grant assurances
(excluding grant assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers, paragraph
``g'' as proposed in this notice). Furthermore, the sponsor will be
required to demonstrate the following standards for compliance:
     The term of the access does not exceed twenty years.
     The sponsor provides a current (developed or revised
within the last five years) airport master plan identifying adequate
areas for growth that are not affected by the existence of through-the-
fence access rights, OR the sponsor has a process for amending or
terminating existing through-the-fence access in order to acquire land
that may be necessary for expansion of the airport in the future.
     The location of the new access point does not prevent
development or changes in use of airport property in the future.
     The location and use of the new access point does not
cause or hold the potential for operational problems or a reduction in
efficiency of ground operations at the airport.
     The sponsor will impose and enforce safety and operating
rules on through-the-fence residents utilizing this access while on the
airport identical to those imposed on airport tenants and transient
users.
     The sponsor will charge through-the-fence residents
utilizing this access fees that recover airport costs and fairly
distribute the burden of airport fees across all airport users, both
tenants and through-the-fence. Rates should increase on the same
schedule as tenant fees. Fees that may be sufficient for this purpose
include, without limitation:
     Tenant tie-down charges.
     Tenant rates for square footage of off-airport hangars.
     Ground leases for dedicated taxiway connections to off-
airport properties.
     Assessment of capital costs for general infrastructure.
     Through-the-fence residents will bear all the costs of
infrastructure related to their access.
     Through-the-fence residents utilizing this access will
grant the sponsor an avigation easement for overflight, including
unobstructed flight through the airspace necessary for takeoff and
landing at the airport.
     Through-the-fence residents utilizing this access, by
avigation easement; deed covenants, conditions or restrictions; or
other agreement, have acknowledged that the property will be affected
by aircraft noise and emissions.
     Through-the-fence residents utilizing this access have
waived any right to bring an action against the airport sponsor for
operations at the airport associated with aircraft noise and emissions.
     The sponsor has a mechanism for ensuring through-the-fence
residents utilizing this access will file FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of
Proposed Construction or Alteration, if necessary.
     Where available, the airport sponsor or other local
government has in effect measures to limit future use and ownership of
the through-the-fence properties to aviation-related uses (in this
case, hangar homes), such as through zoning or mandatory deed
restrictions. The FAA recognizes this

measure may not be available to the airport sponsor in all States and
jurisdictions.
     If the residential community has adopted restrictions on
owners for the benefit of the airport (such as a commitment not to
complain about aircraft noise), those restrictions are enforceable by
the airport sponsor as a third-party beneficiary, and may not be
cancelled without cause by the community association.
     The additional access is consistent with and depicted on
the approved or proposed Airport Layout Plan (ALP).
IV. Process and Documentation
A. Existing Residential Through-the-Fence Access
    1. General. The sponsor of an airport with existing residential
through-the-fence access will be considered in compliance with its
grant assurances, and eligible for future grants, if the FAA determines
that the airport meets the applicable standards listed above under
Standards for compliance at airports with existing residential through-
the-fence access. The sponsor may demonstrate that it meets these
standards by providing the FAA Airports District Office (ADO) or
Regional Airports Division with a written description of the sponsor's
authority and the controls in effect at the airport (``residential
through-the-fence access plan'' or ``access plan''). The regional
division or ADO will review each access plan, on a case-by-case basis,
to confirm that it addresses how the sponsor meets each of these
standards at its airport. The regional division or ADO will forward its
recommendations regarding each access plan to the Manager of Airport
Compliance. Only the Manager may accept an airport sponsor's
residential through-the-fence access plan. In reviewing the access
plan, the Manager may consult with the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA). The FAA will take into account the powers of
local government in each State, and other particular circumstances at
each airport. In every case, however, the access plan must address each
of the basic requirements listed under II of this Policy.
    2. Residential through-the-fence access plan. The FAA will require
evidence of compliance before issuing an AIP grant, beginning in Fiscal
Year 2013. FY 2013 and later grants will include a special grant
condition requiring the ongoing implementation of these access plans.
Generally the FAA will not award discretionary grants to the airport
until the FAA accepts the sponsor's access plan as meeting the
standards to the extent feasible for that airport. Therefore, a
residential through-the-fence access plan should be provided no later
than the October 1st of the fiscal year in which the sponsor will
request an AIP grant (i.e., sponsors that will request an AIP grant in
Fiscal Year 2013 must submit an access plan no later than October 1,
2012; sponsors requesting an AIP grant in Fiscal Year 2014 must submit
no later than October 1, 2013).
    3. Airport Layout Plan. The FAA will require all residential
through-the-fence access points to be identified on the airport's
layout plan. A temporary designation may be added through a pen and ink
change to immediately identify the locations on the airport property
which serve as points of access for off-airport residents. Airport
sponsors which are required to submit access plans will have three
years from the date their access plan is accepted to initiate a formal
ALP revision to fully depict the scope of their existing residential
through-the-fence arrangements. The FAA may decline to provide AIP
funds for costs associated with these formal ALP revisions.
    A sponsor's failure to depict all residential through-the-fence
access points may be considered an apparent violation of the sponsor's
grant assurances, and the agency may consider grant enforcement under
14 CFR Part 16.
    4. FAA review. The FAA's acceptance of the access plan represents
an agency finding that the airport has met the compliance standards for
existing residential through-the-fence access. The FAA will review the
airport sponsor's access plan prior to approving any formal revisions
to the airport's layout plan. An airport sponsor's failure to implement
its access plan could result in a violation of the special grant
condition and potentially lead to a finding of noncompliance.
    5. Airports currently in noncompliance. Airports currently in
noncompliance due to grant assurance violations related to through-the-
fence access, such as grant assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance,
will need to continue to work with ADO and regional division staff to
establish an appropriate corrective action plan. An FAA-approved
corrective action plan, once accepted by the FAA, will serve as the
sponsor's access plan. The decision to restore the sponsor's compliance
status will be made by the Manager of Airport Compliance. In cases
where the airport's safety and utility have been compromised, the
Manager may require the sponsor to take definitive steps to address
those concerns before restoring the sponsor to a compliant status.
    6. Airports with existing residential through-the-fence access that
do not meet the compliance standards. The FAA recognizes that some
airport sponsors will not be able to fully comply with the standards
listed above, due to limits on the powers of the sponsor and/or other
local governments, or on other legal limits on the sponsor's discretion
to adopt certain measures. Other airports have the capability to adopt
measures to satisfy the compliance standards but have not done so. The
FAA will take the following action with respect to any obligated
airport with existing residential through-the-fence access that does
not meet the minimum compliance standards:
    a. Airports that serve a function in the NPIAS but cannot fully
meet the through-the-fence compliance standards. Where the airport
still substantially serves its intended function in the NPIAS, but
residential through-the-fence access at the airport will have an
adverse effect on the airport's operations, its ability to grow, or its
ability to accept new kinds of aviation use, the FAA will consider a
reduced level of future AIP investment in the airport. FAA evaluation
of investment needs will reflect any impairment in the airport's
utility due to residential through-the-fence use. The sponsor will not
lose eligibility for non-primary entitlement grants on the basis of the
through-the-fence access, but will not be able to depend on receiving
future discretionary grants for all eligible projects.
    b. Airports that no longer have significant value in the national
system. Where the residential through-the-fence access cannot be
controlled by the sponsor, and use of that access adversely affects the
airport's availability as a public use airport, the FAA will consider
removal of the airport from the NPIAS consistent with the requirements
of FAA Order 5090.3C Field Formulation of the National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The FAA may either take steps to
recover unamortized grant funds, or may leave grant assurances in
effect for the life of existing grants but award no new grants.
B. Requests for Additional Residential Through-the-Fence Access at
Airports Covered by This Policy
    As of the date of this notice September 9, 2010, a sponsor
proposing additional access must submit a current airport master plan
and a revised residential through-the-fence access

plan as detailed below. A sponsor proposing to establish additional
access points must also submit a revised Airport Layout Plan. The
regional division or ADO will forward its recommendations regarding
each request for additional access to the Manager of Airport
Compliance. Only the Manager may approve an airport sponsor's request
for additional access. In reviewing the proposal, the Manager may
consult with TSA.
    1. Master Plan. A sponsor wishing to permit additional (including
proposals to extend or renew existing access agreements) residential
through-the-fence access must submit a recent airport master plan to
the ADO or Regional Airports Division. The FAA considers a master plan
to be recent if it was developed or updated within the past five years.
The master plan should explain how the sponsor plans to address future
growth, development, and use of the airport property over the next
twenty years.
    2. Residential through-the-fence access plan. The sponsor is
responsible for revising its access plan, as discussed under section
IV.A.2 of this Policy, to reflect how it will meet the standards for
compliance for the additional access. Once accepting the revised access
plan, the FAA will condition future AIP grants upon its ongoing
implementation.
    3. Application to approve revised Airport Layout Plan. A sponsor
wishing to permit additional residential through-the-fence access by
establishing a new access point must submit a proposed ALP revision to
the ADO or Regional Airports Division, depicting the point of access
and associated airport infrastructure required for linking the access
point to the airport runway/taxiway system. The sponsor should also
submit information on the aircraft types and number of aircraft
expected to use the additional access proposed. The FAA will not
approve any change to the airport's ALP that appears inconsistent with
the sponsor's grant assurances or that adversely affects the safety,
efficiency, or utility of the airport. The FAA may decline to provide
AIP funds for costs associated with these formal ALP revisions.
    A sponsor's failure to depict all residential through-the-fence
access points may be considered an apparent violation of the sponsor's
grant assurances, and the agency may consider grant enforcement under
14 CFR Part 16.
    4. Continuing obligations. Once the revised access plan and if
required the revised ALP depicting the new access point are accepted by
the FAA, the additional residential through-the-fence access is
considered existing residential through-the-fence access, and the
sponsor must comply with the continuing obligations for sponsors of
airports with existing residential through-the-fence access, as
described in section IV.A of this Policy.
V. Eligibility for AIP Grants
    A. General. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2013, a sponsor will be
required to submit their residential through-the-fence access plans
prior to notifying the FAA of its intent to apply for an AIP grant.
However, the FAA will review subsequent grant applications from each
such sponsor to ensure that the requested grant of AIP funds would
primarily serve the airport's public function in the national airport
system. The FAA will limit the Federal investment in airport
infrastructure and facilities to an amount related to general public
demand at the airport.
    B. Public infrastructure and facilities with substantial benefit to
private through-the-fence users. Where private residential developments
with through-the-fence access receive value from access to Federally
assisted airport infrastructure and facilities, the FAA will expect the
private users to share in those capital costs.
    C. Exclusive or primary private benefit. On-airport infrastructure
and facilities used exclusively or primarily for accommodation of
through-the-fence users are considered private-use and are ineligible
for AIP grants.

2. The Proposed Amendment to the Standard AIP Sponsor Assurances

    The FAA considers a sponsor's consent to any new permission for
through-the-fence access to the airport from a residential property to
be inconsistent with the sponsor's grant assurances, specifically, the
obligation to maintain rights and powers to control airport development
and operation. Permitting such access to the airport may also result in
violations of the obligation to impose a reasonable, not unjustly rate
structure that makes the airport as self-sustaining as possible, and
the obligation to restrict areas adjacent to the airport to compatible
land uses. While some commenters argued that many existing residential
through-the-fence uses have not caused apparent problems for the
airport, the problems for airports and access to the national airport
system are not always evident or important to the through-the-fence
users themselves. For example, the interests of commercial and
transient users may create a demand for expanded use of the airport or
expansion of airport property, both of which could be adversely
affected by the existence of residential properties on the airport
boundary. This is inconsistent with the expectation that Federally
obligated airports will be able to accommodate new demand.
    Once allowed, residential through-the-fence access is very
difficult to change or eliminate in the future. This is because
residential owners, more so than commercial interests, typically expect
that their residential property will remain suitable for residential
use and protected from adverse effects for a long time. Residential
buyers and their mortgage lenders may ensure that the property is
purchased with rights that guarantee no change in the access to the
airport for decades, or indefinitely. Because each new residential
through-the-fence access location introduces the potential for the
airport sponsor to have problems meeting its obligations under the
sponsor grant assurances in the future, and because this access is
effectively permanent and resistant to change once granted, the FAA
believes that new residential through-the-fence uses at public use
airports should not be established.
    Accordingly, the FAA will consider a new through-the-fence access
arrangement from a property used as a residence or zoned for
residential use to be an apparent violation of the sponsor's grant
assurances, and the agency may investigate any report of such action
for possible enforcement under 14 CFR Part 16. Any action taken to
strengthen, memorialize, or codify existing access in perpetuity beyond
that described in an FAA approved residential through-the-fence access
plan at an airport with existing access will also be considered a new
grant of through-the-fence access. The sponsor will of course have the
opportunity to present information and arguments to the FAA during the
Part 16 process.
    In consideration of the above, the FAA proposes to add new
paragraph g. to standard AIP sponsor assurance 5, to read as follows:

    C. Sponsor Certification. The sponsor hereby assures and
certifies, with respect to this grant that:
* * * * *
    5. Preserving Rights and Powers.
* * * * *
    g. It will not permit or enter into any arrangement that results
in permission for the owner or tenant of a property used as a
residence, or zoned for residential use, to taxi an aircraft between
that property and any location on airport.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 27, 2010.
Randall Fiertz,
Director, Airport Compliance and Field Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-22095 Filed 9-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 228)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68740-68743]
[DOCID:fr28no06-5]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0577-200624(a); FRL-8248-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia:
Removal of Douglas County Transportation Control Measure

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On September 19, 2006, the State of Georgia's Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), through the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division (GA EPD), submitted a final State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision to remove the transportation control measure (TCM) related to
a compressed natural gas (CNG) refueling station/park and ride
transportation center project in Douglas County, Georgia. This TCM was
originally submitted by GA EPD for inclusion into the Atlanta portion
of the Georgia SIP on August 29, 1997. EPA approved this TCM into the
Georgia SIP through direct final rulemaking published in the Federal
Register on June 24, 1998 (effective on August 10, 1998). Subsequently,
the project sponsor determined that the equipment necessary to
implement this project is no longer available, and thus this TCM cannot
be implemented as originally anticipated. No SIP credit was claimed for
this program, nor were emissions benefits ever realized for this TCM
because it was never implemented. Through this rulemaking, EPA is
approving the removal of this TCM from the Atlanta portion of the
Georgia SIP because this SIP revision meets Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective January 29, 2007 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 28,
2006. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
2006-0577, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov.: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0577,'' Air Quality Modeling and
Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Air Quality Modeling
and Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2006-0577.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Quality Modeling and

Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynorae Benjamin, Air Quality Modeling
and Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Benjamin can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for EPA's Action?
III. What Is a TCM?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Action?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
VII. Final Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving the removal of the TCM (related to a CNG refueling
station in Douglas County, Georgia) from the Atlanta portion of the
Georgia SIP. This station would have provided a centralized fueling
site for CNG-powered county fleet vehicles, transit vans, and buses for
Douglas County.

II. What Is the Background for EPA's Action?

    On August 29, 1997, the State of Georgia's DNR, through the GA EPD,
submitted a SIP revision to include the TCM related to a CNG refueling
station/park and ride transportation center project in Douglas County,
Georgia. EPA evaluated this SIP revision and determined that it met the
criteria for a TCM and all other SIP requirements. Consequently, EPA
approved this TCM into the Atlanta portion of the Georgia SIP through
direct final rulemaking on June 24, 1998, effective August 10, 1998
(see 63 FR 34300). This project has been referenced as DO-AR 211 in the
Atlanta Regional Commission's (ARC) Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) and Regional Transportation Plan.
    Project DO-AR 211 was a planned CNG refueling station that would
have been located at the site of the Douglas County multimodal
transportation center. This station would have provided a centralized
fueling site for CNG-powered county fleet vehicles, transit vans, and
buses. The project experienced delays in implementation that were
addressed through the interagency consultation process. By the time
these issues were fully resolved, production of 12- and 15-passenger
CNG vans was being discontinued by Ford and General Motors; thus,
Douglas County no longer considered the project viable. Project
sponsors were informed through interagency consultation that until (or
unless) the project was removed from the SIP, they needed to continue
to show progress towards implementing the project.
    In a letter dated March 28, 2006, from Mr. Tom Worthan of Douglas
County to Mr. Charles ``Chick'' Krautler of ARC, Douglas County
formally notified ARC of their complications for implementing this TCM.
Additionally, this letter requested that ARC initiate the process to
remove this TCM from the SIP. Based on the March 28, 2006, letter, ARC
contacted the GA EPD and requested that a SIP revision be developed,
for submittal to EPA, to remove this TCM from the Atlanta portion of
the Georgia SIP.

III. What Is a TCM?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.101 (the Transportation Conformity Rule), a
TCM is ``any measure that is specifically identified and committed to
in the applicable implementation plan (SIP) that is either one of the
types listed in section 108 of the CAA, or any other measure for the
purposes of reducing emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from
transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow
or congestion conditions.'' Section 108(3) of the CAA provides air
quality planning guidance for the development and implementation of
transportation and other measures necessary to demonstrate and maintain
attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
Section 108(f)(1)(A) of the CAA lists sixteen TCMs for consideration by
states and planning agencies to reduce emissions and maintain the
NAAQS. Programs to reduce motor vehicle emissions consistent with title
II of the CAA are listed in section 108(f)(1)(A)(xii).
    TCMs are included in the SIP to help reduce emissions from on-road
mobile sources. If EPA approves a TCM into an area's SIP, the
transportation partners must show as part of the conformity
determination, that these measures are being implemented on schedule
and given priority for Federal funding. SIPs must be revised to remove
any TCMs that the sponsor cannot implement so that failure to implement
them does not prohibit conformity determinations.

IV. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

    EPA is taking this action because the GA EPD's September 19, 2006,
SIP submittal requests that we take this action, and because we believe
that this SIP revision is consistent with the CAA. More explanation is
provided later in this rulemaking in Section VI, entitled ``What is
EPA's Analysis of the Request?''

V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Action?

    Upon the effective date of this action, the transportation partners
in the Atlanta area will no longer be required to evaluate the progress
of this TCM for the purposes of implementing the transportation
conformity requirements. The Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR
part 93) requires that the status of TCMs be documented as one of the
criteria for an area to successfully demonstrate conformity.

VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?

    EPA has reviewed the SIP submission, provided by the GA EPD on
September 19, 2006, to remove the TCM related to a CNG refueling
station/park and ride transportation center project in Douglas County,
Georgia, and has determined that this SIP revision request is
consistent with the CAA. This SIP revision was prompted by a March 28,
2006, letter, from Mr. Tom Worthan of Douglas County to Mr. Charles
``Chick'' Krautler of ARC, by which Douglas County formally informed
ARC of their complications for implementing this TCM. As a result of
the letter from Douglas County, ARC contacted the GA EPD and requested
that a SIP revision be developed, for submittal to EPA, to remove this
TCM from the Atlanta portion of the Georgia SIP.
    This TCM, which is described in detail in Section I of this
rulemaking, could not be implemented as originally envisioned because
of the project sponsor's inability to acquire the necessary equipment.
Although the GA EPD requested on August 1997 that the TCM be approved
in the Georgia SIP, no

emissions credit was claimed in the SIP for the measure. In fact, the
emissions analysis was reviewed only to determine that no further air
quality degradation would result from the implementation of this TCM.
EPA documented this fact in the rulemaking approving the TCM in the
Georgia SIP (see 63 FR 34300).
    Since the project was not implemented, it did not result in
emission reductions, and removing it from the SIP will cause no
degradation of air quality. Thus this revision is consistent with the
CAA, specifically section 110(l) which states the following:

    Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State
under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable
notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a
revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of the Act.

After full analysis of the State's submittal, EPA is approving this SIP
revision because it is consistent with the CAA.

VII. Final Action

    Through this rulemaking, EPA is approving the removal of the TCM
(related to a CNG refueling station in Douglas County, Georgia) from
the Atlanta portion of the Georgia SIP. This SIP revision is consistent
with CAA requirements. EPA is publishing this rule without prior
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal
and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules
section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a
separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP
revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective
January 29, 2007 without further notice unless the Agency receives
adverse comments by December 28, 2006.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on January 29, 2007 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule removes a TCM under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely removes a TCM under
state law, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe that the rule concerns an
environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately
affect children.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 29, 2007. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: November 13, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570(e) is amended by adding a entry at the end of the
table for ``Douglas County, GA'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                  EPA Approved Georgia Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           State
   Name of nonregulatory SIP provision     Applicable geographic or   submittal date/      EPA approval date
                                              nonattainment area      effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/Park   Douglas County, GA........        09/19/06  11/28/06 [Insert citation
 and Ride Transportation Center, Project                                               of publication].
 DO-AR-211 is removed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E6-20141 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P