Guidebook for Through-the-Fence Operations (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

2 ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 What Are Through-The-Fence (TTF) Operations? 1.2 Purpose of this Guidebook 1.3 Overview of this Guidebook 1.4 Key TTF Terms 1.5 Parties Having Direct Interest in TTF Operations 1.6 Background on the Types of TTF Activities 1.7 Wrap-Up 1.1 WHAT ARE THROUGH-THE-FENCE (TTF) OPERATIONS? In general, TTF operations encompass the ground movement of aircraft to/from land adjacent to, but not part of, airport property to/from the airport’s airside infrastructure (e.g., runways and taxiways). More specifically, based on research conducted for this guidebook and consistent with the FAA definition provided in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5190-7, Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities (AC 150/5190-7), TTF operations occur when an airport sponsor grants an entity ground access by an aircraft across the airport’s property boundary to the airport’s airside infrastructure (commonly through-the- fence) and permission to engage in associated activities from property adjacent to the airport. Activities commonly associated with TTF operations include residential, commercial aeronautical, non- commercial aeronautical, non-aeronautical, and governmental/military. Each of these are defined and discussed in this guidebook. Of the 44 (out of 159) airport sponsors who responded to the research team’s survey on TTF operations, approximately 30% of the airport sponsors with existing TTF operations do not have a TTF agreement in place with the TTF entity. This can be problematic for the airport sponsor and the TTF entity. The ramifications of not having a TTF agreement will be discussed in this guidebook. While TTF operations primarily involve TTF access by aircraft, airport sponsors may also need to address use of TTF access points by vehicles and pedestrians. Of the surveyed airports, 39% had vehicles and 28% had pedestrians utilizing TTF access points. As such, this guidebook will address TTF access by aircraft, vehicles, and pedestrians. It is important to understand the difference between an independent operator and a TTF operation. An independent operator is commonly defined in the industry as an entity who engages in commercial aeronautical activities at an airport without a physical place of business at the airport. This includes the provisions of airframe and powerplant maintenance and repair and flight instruction by independent operators. Conversely, TTF operations pertain to having ground access by an aircraft to the airport and engaging in activities on property located adjacent to the airport. Guidance for independent operators engaging in commercial aeronautical activities is provided in AC 150/5190-7.

ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 3 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDEBOOK This guidebook and accompanying resources and tools are designed to help airport management and policymakers of federally obligated airports assess, structure, and manage existing, proposed, and future TTF operations. Additionally, this guidebook can be beneficial to other parties who want to gain a better understanding of how an airport sponsor may assess, structure, and manage TTF operations. Based on research conducted for this guidebook and the survey responses, TTF operations occur at airports for a variety of reasons, some of which include: economic benefit to the community and/or the airport (40% of surveyed airports); political pressure (30% of surveyed airports); inability to accommodate further development of aviation products, services, and facilities on the airport due to land or physical constraints (15% of surveyed airports); desire to accommodate adjacent property owners that own and operate aircraft (7.5% of surveyed airports); adjacent property owner had deeded access to the airport (7.5% of surveyed airports); and for unknown reasons – as the TTF operation was created many years ago, before existing management and/or there is no agreement in place stipulating the purpose, terms, and/or conditions of the TTF operation (10% of surveyed airports). TTF operations have created opportunities and issues for airport sponsors of federally obligated airports. As airport sponsors look for more creative ways to fund the planning, development, operation, and management of airports while also striving to meet the needs of operators, tenants, and users, it is expected that these opportunities and issues will continue. With TTF operations, as with many other opportunities and issues associated with a federally obligated airport, it is critical to find the right balance of costs and benefits against risks and rewards while maintaining compliance with the airport sponsor’s obligations—including being as self-sufficient as possible given the circumstances that exist—and ensuring the safety, utility, and efficiency of the airport for the benefit of the public (including the security and compatibility of the airport). For purposes of brevity and consistency with the FAA, throughout this guidebook the words safety, utility, and efficiency will be utilized to encapsulate these elements. This guidebook is based on the following research: a comprehensive review of industry literature on TTF operations; identification of approximately 190 airports in 43 states with existing TTF operations; interviews of airport stakeholders (at 15 airports with existing TTF operations) and industry practitioners (from 9 governmental agencies and industry associations having an interest in TTF operations); and a survey of airport management at 159 airports with existing TTF operations (with 44 responses which represents a response rate of 28%). This research revealed that diverse views and practices exist with regard to assessing, structuring, and managing TTF operations. Based on the research findings, this guidebook outlines compliance requirements and best practices for assessing, structuring, and managing TTF operations and describes each of the TTF activities commonly associated with TTF operations, including residential, commercial aeronautical, non-commercial aeronautical, non-aeronautical, and governmental/military.

4 ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations More specifically, this guidebook: reviews the relevance and impact of an airport sponsor’s obligations (including federal and state statutes, assurances, policies, and guidance) relating to TTF operations; discusses legal interests and principles related to TTF operations; identifies airport planning, development, operation, management, and compliance tools that can be used to assess, structure, and manage TTF operations; outlines the process for assessing the advantages, disadvantages, and impacts associated with TTF operations; discusses specific airport policies, standards, rules, regulations, and agreements that can be used to structure and manage TTF operations; and conveys best practices for assessing, structuring, and managing TTF operations. To help facilitate navigation of this guidebook, airport sponsor federal obligations and best practices discussed in this guidebook will be identified by the icons depicted in Figure 1-1. FIGURE 1-1: Guidebook Icons 1.3 OVERVIEW OF THIS GUIDEBOOK This guidebook is organized from an educational standpoint (i.e., foundational and background information that will be helpful in assessing, structuring, and managing TTF operations) and an implementation standpoint (i.e., what actions can and should be taken to assess, structure, and manage TTF operations). As depicted in Figure 1-2, this guidebook consists of seven chapters (four educational chapters and three implementation chapters). FIGURE 1-2: Educational and Implementation Chapters

ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 5 EDUCATIONAL CHAPTERS The educational chapters provide foundational information that will be helpful for assessing, structuring, and managing TTF operations. An overview of each educational chapter follows: Chapter 1: Introduction defines TTF operations and other key TTF terms; identifies the purpose of this guidebook; provides an overview of this guidebook; identifies and discusses the parties having direct interest in TTF operations; and describes the different types of TTF activities. Chapter 2: Airport Sponsor Obligations provides an overview of federal and state obligations of an airport sponsor relating specifically to TTF operations including statutes, assurances, policies, and guidance. Chapter 3: Legal Interests and Principles discusses the legal interests of the airport sponsor and the TTF entity as property owners and summarizes the legal principles established through FAA decisions and court rulings. Chapter 4: Airport Planning, Management, and Compliance Tools provides an overview of the tools that can be used to plan, develop, operate, and manage an airport to ensure the safety, utility, and efficiency of the airport for the benefit of the public; maintain compliance with airport sponsor obligations; and remain consistent with established legal principles. These airport planning, management, and compliance tools include primary planning documents (e.g., strategic business plan, master plan, and airport layout plan), airport sponsor regulatory measures (e.g., ordinances, zoning codes, and building codes), and primary management and compliance documents (e.g., leasing/rents and fees policy, minimum standards, rules and regulations, and development standards). IMPLEMENTATION CHAPTERS The implementation chapters provide the framework, from a best practices perspective, for assessing, structuring, and managing TTF operations. An overview of each implementation chapter follows: Chapter 5: Assessing TTF Operations identifies and discusses the process associated with assessing TTF operations and introduces various resources and tools that can be used during the assessment. This chapter also introduces the advantages, disadvantages, and impacts associated with TTF operations in each of the following areas: alternatives to TTF operations; airport sponsor obligations; primary planning documents; airport sponsor regulatory measures; primary management and compliance documents; land, infrastructure, and improvements; activities; and interested parties. Chapter 6: Structuring TTF Operations discusses airport sponsor policies relating specifically to TTF operations that can be developed and implemented utilizing the airport planning, management, and compliance tools discussed in Chapter 4 to provide the framework for structuring a TTF operation. Additionally, this chapter introduces the various rents and fees commonly associated with TTF operations; discusses the different types of TTF agreements that can be utilized to govern TTF operations; and provides an annotated outline of the recommended terms and conditions that should be included in a TTF agreement. Chapter 7: Managing TTF Operations discusses how airport management and policymakers can utilize the airport planning, management, and compliance tools discussed in Chapter 4 to formulate and deploy best practices for managing TTF operations. Additionally, this chapter identifies the most common safety, utility, and efficiency issues associated with the management of TTF operations and discusses educational and enforcement methodologies.

6 ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations RESOURCES AND TOOLS Resources and tools are identified, discussed, and provided throughout this guidebook for assessing, structuring, and managing TTF operations. Specific resources and tools are as follows: Appendix contains the Airport Sponsor Assurances, relevant case studies of TTF operations, and other resources for assessing, structuring, and managing TTF operations. Additional resources and tools are available at http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/170955.aspx: • Worksheets – The worksheets for assessing TTF operations that are provided at the end of Chapter 5: Assessing TTF Operations and included as digital files. • Presentation – This part includes a presentation template, once customized for the airport and the TTF operation, that can be used by airport management and policymakers for educating TTF entities and airport stakeholders on the advantages, disadvantages, and impacts associated with TTF operations (in general) and the opportunities and issues of existing, proposed, or future TTF operations (specifically) is provided in the digital files. To help facilitate navigation of this guidebook, the resources and tools will be identified by the icons depicted in Figure 1-3. FIGURE 1-3: Resource and Tool Icons It is recommended that the remainder of Chapter 1 and all of Chapters 2, 3, and 4 be read before reading the implementation chapters. In addition to providing the educational and background information for assessing, structuring, and managing TTF operations and defining key terms, these chapters provide an overview of statutes, assurances, policies, and guidance relating specifically to TTF operations; legal interests and principles associated with TTF operations; and airport planning, management, and compliance tools that can be used to assess, structure, and manage TTF operations. Once the educational chapters have been read, Figure 1-4 shows which of the remaining chapters should be read to obtain additional guidance for the specific situation and/or circumstance. FIGURE 1-4: Using this Guidebook

ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 7 1.4 KEY TTF TERMS To assist the reader, the key terms commonly associated with TTF operations have been identified and defined in this section. TTF PROPERTY TTF property is land (and associated infrastructure and improvements) located adjacent to a federally obligated airport that is owned, leased, or under the full and exclusive control of an entity other than the airport sponsor having ground access for aircraft across the airport’s property boundary to the airport’s airside infrastructure. It is important to note that while TTF property is most commonly “contiguous” with airport property, in some cases, a TTF property may have ground access to airport property through another off-airport property, easement, public roadway, or other means. However, the word “adjacent” is commonly utilized in federal statutes, assurances, policies, and guidance to describe a TTF property. Additionally, the use of the term “TTF” does not imply that a fence and/or gate exists between the adjacent property and airport property to be considered TTF property. TTF ACCESS TTF access means the right or privilege of being granted ground access for aircraft across the airport’s property boundary to the airport’s airside infrastructure. In certain situations, TTF access may be granted to vehicles and pedestrians as well. TTF ACTIVITIES TTF activities occur on TTF property and require ground access for aircraft across the airport’s property boundary to the airport’s airside infrastructure. The specific types of activities associated with TTF operations include: residential, commercial aeronautical, non-commercial aeronautical, non-aeronautical, and governmental/military. Each type of TTF activity is defined and discussed in this chapter. In addition, sections of this guidebook that are related to or impact specific TTF activities will be identified by the icons depicted in Figure 1-5. FIGURE 1-5: TTF Activity Icons TTF AGREEMENT A TTF agreement is a written contract or instrument (e.g., agreement, permit, easement, deed, etc.), enforceable by law, executed by an airport sponsor and TTF entity, permitting TTF operations.

8 1.5 PARTIES HAVING DIRECT INTEREST IN TTF OPERATIONS This section identifies and discusses the parties having direct interest in TTF operations. It is significant to note that there are several parties who may have indirect interest in TTF operations including adjacent property owners; on-airport operators and tenants; other users of the airport; and the surrounding community. The interests of each party (and the impact of each party’s interests on the assessment process) will be discussed in Chapter 5: Assessing TTF Operations. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION The FAA is the agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation responsible for regulating aeronautical activities. Further, the FAA administers the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) which provides funding for the planning and development (including noise mitigation) of federally obligated airports included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Airports that receive AIP funds must agree to certain federal obligations (discussed in Chapter 2: Airport Sponsor Obligations) including the Airport Sponsor Assurances (provided in Appendix A: Airport Sponsor Assurances or on the FAA website – www.faa.gov). One of the key aspects of the assurances is to ensure that federally obligated airports are planned, developed, operated, and managed for the benefit of the public in a way that will not adversely affect the safety, utility, or efficiency of the airport. As it relates specifically to TTF operations, the FAA is primarily interested in an airport sponsor’s ability to comply with its federal obligations. As such, the FAA may review the results of a TTF operation assessment conducted by airport sponsors, the structure established by airport sponsors to govern TTF operations, and the way airport sponsors manage TTF operations to ensure that the airport sponsor is complying with its federal obligations. It is important to note that the FAA discourages TTF operations in order for airport sponsors to maintain compliance. Recently, the FAA took steps to prohibit residential TTF activities at all federally obligated airports, but has since revised its policy based on congressional action (discussed in Chapter 2: Airport Sponsor Obligations). Further, the FAA will review the results of a TTF operation assessment as it relates to residential TTF activities. While current federal obligations do not prohibit TTF operations at federally obligated general aviation airports, recent revisions to federal obligations prohibit new residential TTF activities at federally obligated commercial service and private reliever airports. STATE AVIATION ORGANIZATION Most of the 50 states (along with the U.S. territories) have a state aviation organization (SAO), typically associated with the state’s department of transportation, which promotes and funds airports and aviation programs. Each state, either individually or in conjunction with the FAA (as a block grant state), invests funds in the development of a statewide aviation system and issues grant funds for the planning, development, operation, and/or management of public use airports. Some states also own and operate public use airports directly. Other than SAOs that own and operate airports with TTF operations, a SAO’s interest in TTF operations is related aviation in the state, and that the role of an airport within the state’s system plan is preserved. As such, SAOs may review the results of the assessment conducted by airport sponsors of TTF operations, the structure established by airport sponsors to govern TTF operations, and the way airport sponsors manage TTF operations to ensure that the airport sponsor is complying with its state obligations and maintaining consistency with the state’s aviation or airport system plan. ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations to ensuring that airport sponsors maintain compliance with state obligations, that airports continue to serve

ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 9 AIRPORT SPONSOR An airport sponsor is a federal agency, state agency, county, municipality (e.g., city, town, township, village, etc.), state enabled political subdivisions (e.g., authority, district, etc.), private entity, or combinations thereof that is authorized to own, plan, develop, operate, and manage a federally obligated airport. For brevity purposes, “county and municipality” will be utilized throughout this guidebook when discussing airport sponsors as this is the most common type of entity that owns a federally obligated airport. This is not designed to exclude the other types of airport sponsors from the guidance provided by this guidebook. An airport sponsor’s interest in TTF operations is typically twofold. First, the airport sponsor must plan, develop, operate, and manage the airport to ensure the safety, utility, and efficiency of the airport for the benefit of the public, in compliance with applicable federal and state obligations. Therefore, the airport sponsor must ensure that a TTF operation will not negatively impact the airport sponsor’s ability to maintain compliance. Second, if an airport sponsor is also the county or municipality of the surrounding community, the potential financial, economic, environmental, and administrative impacts of a TTF operation (on the community) typically require that the county or municipality take a significant interest in TTF operations. As such, an airport sponsor should oversee the assessing, structuring, and managing of TTF operations. It is the responsibility of an airport sponsor of a federally obligated airport to maximize the benefits associated with the use of land, infrastructure, and improvements located on-airport. Therefore, the guidance provided throughout this guidebook is based, in large part, on the premise that TTF operations should be being treated as if located on-airport. Therefore, the policies, standards, rules, and regulations adopted by the airport sponsor for TTF operations (discussed in Chapter 4: Airport Planning, Management, and Compliance Tools, Chapter 6: Structuring TTF Operations, and Chapter 7: Managing TTF Operations); the rents and fees for TTF operations (discussed in Chapter 6: Structuring TTF Operations), and the terms and conditions stipulated in a TTF agreement (discussed in Chapter 6: Structuring TTF Operations) should be consistent with the policies, standards, rules, and regulations; rents and fees; and terms and conditions stipulated in agreements for similar on-airport land, infrastructure, improvements, and activities. TTF ENTITY A TTF entity (a person, partnership, organization, or business that has a legal and separately identifiable existence, excluding the airport sponsor) owns, leases, or has the full and exclusive control of TTF property. Additionally, a TTF entity has an agreement with an airport sponsor granting ground access for an aircraft across the airport’s property boundary to the airport’s airside infrastructure for engaging in TTF activities. While best practices dictate that a written document should be utilized to stipulate the terms and conditions of TTF operations, existing TTF operations may not have a written agreement with the airport sponsor. In such cases, the modification or termination of “rights” associated with the TTF operation can be problematic from multiple perspectives (e.g., political, legal, financial, etc.). 1.6 BACKGROUND ON THE TYPES OF TTF ACTIVITIES While the types of TTF activities that take place at airports can vary widely and overlap, for purposes of this guidebook, five TTF activity categories have been identified and discussed. These include residential, commercial aeronautical, non-commercial aeronautical, non-aeronautical, and governmental/military activities. The common opportunities and issues; identification of examples; and introduction of the case study. The five categories were created based on the commonality of the opportunities and issues associated with each type of TTF activity. background on each type of TTF activity is provided in this section including the definition; discussion of the

10 RESIDENTIAL TTF ACTIVITIES DEFINITION a residential TTF activity as well. COMMON OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES The complexity of residential TTF activities varies from airports with a single residential user (with a hangar) that utilizes a single TTF access point to airports with a large number of residential users that utilize multiple TTF access points. As a result, airport management and policymakers may interact with a single residential TTF entity, multiple residential TTF entities, or a homeowners association (HOA) that represents a large number of TTF entities engaged in residential TTF activities. The unique situation and/or circumstances at the airport need to be taken into account to properly assess, structure, and manage residential TTF activities. Residential TTF activities have created opportunities for airports and local communities including increased utilization of the airport (and enhanced revenues for the airport sponsor); increasing the customer base for on- airport fixed base operators (FBOs) and specialized aviation service operators (SASOs) resulting in increased revenues for and economic viability of the FBOs and SASOs; and increased property tax base for the community. Common issues relating to residential TTF activities include non-compatible land uses adjacent to the airport and non-aviation activities that may have an adverse impact on airport operations (e.g., playgrounds; vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian activities; landscaping that attracts wildlife, etc.). Additionally, the logistics associated with the delivery of commercial aeronautical products and services to aircraft located on residential TTF property (e.g., fuel, aircraft maintenance, flight training, etc.) can be problematic without dedicated roadways (other than the taxiways facilitating TTF access) that can be utilized for refueling vehicles and other aviation ground support vehicles and equipment. Airport management and policymakers may encounter issues with on-airport hangar lessees who take a position of “my hangar is my castle” and attempt to defend the “rights of the castle owner.” When a residence on TTF property is added to the equation, which many times is the single largest lifetime investment an individual or a family makes, the challenge of enforcing airport sponsor policies, standards, rules, regulations, and agreements can be exacerbated. It is important to note that recent federal obligations relating to residential TTF activities, among other prohibitions, restrictions, and guidance (discussed in Chapter 2: Airport Sponsor Obligations), prohibit new residential TTF activities at federally obligated commercial service and private reliever airports. EXAMPLES Examples of airports with residential TTF activities include Wittman Regional Airport (OSH) in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, which has one single-family residence with a single TTF access point and Erie Municipal Airport (EIK) in Erie, Colorado, which has approximately 110 single-family residences with multiple TTF access points. Additional examples of airports with residential TTF activities are provided in the following case study and in Appendix B: Airports with TTF Operations. The federally obligated airports with TTF operations identified in Appendix B were identified by the research team. The list is not intended to be a complete list of airports with TTF operations. ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations Residential TTF activities encompass TTF entities with single and multi-unit (user) residences (e.g., homes, duplexes, apartments, etc.) located on TTF property with an attached or detached hangar. A hangar on TTF property that incorporates living quarters for permanent or long-term use is considered

ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 11 CASE STUDY Independence State Airport – 7S5 (Airport) is a federally obligated airport located in the City of Independence, Oregon. The Airport is owned and operated by the State of Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) and hosts one of the largest residential airparks in the United States consisting of approximately 200 homes (see Figure 1-6). ODA has TTF agreements with two separate HOAs. One HOA, Independence Airpark, received its first TTF agreement (in the form of a TTF access permit) in 1974. The other HOA, Independence North Park Annex Airpark, was permitted TTF access in the early 1990s. Each residence is a member of one of the two HOAs. These HOAs, not the individual residents, have TTF agreements in place with the ODA. Currently, the revenues generated by TTF access fees, which are equivalent to the on-airport tiedown fees, are greater than all on-airport generated revenues for the ODA. Additionally, the aircraft located within the airpark help support several businesses located on-airport including two FBOs and a restaurant. The design of the airpark is optimal in that vehicle traffic enters at the front of the residence via public roads and only aircraft can access the taxilanes/taxiways located at the rear of the residence, ensuring that aircraft, vehicles, and pedestrians do not mix. ODA noted that the airpark positively impacts the community by providing an increased property tax base. It is estimated that approximately 75% of the property taxes generated for the City of Independence originate from the airpark. The residences are typically larger (3,000 to 6,000 square feet, excluding hangar space) than the residences located in the surrounding community. The residential TTF activities at the Airport represent a cooperative approach between the State, Polk County, City of Independence, the HOAs, airpark residents, on-airport businesses, and other users of the Airport to help ensure the Airport operates in a manner that protects the safety, utility, and efficiency of the Airport for the benefit of the public. The complete case study on residential TTF activities at Independence State Airport is provided in Appendix C: TTF Operation Case Studies. FIGURE 1-6: Independence State Airport

12 ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations COMMERCIAL AERONAUTICAL TTF ACTIVITIES DEFINITION commonly referred to as FBOs or SASOs. Activities commonly associated with commercial aeronautical TTF activities include: fueling products and services (e.g., full-service and/or self-serve aviation fuels – Jet A, Avgas, Mogas, etc.); aircraft storage facilities (e.g., apron, t-hangars, shade ports, executive hangars, community hangars, etc.); location based services (e.g., aircraft ground handling, passenger and crew services, etc.); technical products and services (e.g., inspection, repair, overhaul, refurbishment, and modification of airframes, powerplants, avionics, instruments, accessories, and propellers; sale of associated parts, etc.); flight services (e.g., flight instruction, aircraft rental/leasing, aircraft charter/management, air cargo, etc.); aircraft sales (e.g., new, used, brokered, etc.); and other specialized products and services (e.g., aircraft cleaning, painting, and upholstery; sightseeing; aerial photography; crop dusting; etc.). COMMON OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES The FAA’s official position to “discourage” rather than “prohibit” commercial aeronautical TTF activities (except in the case of commercial aeronautical TTF activities associated with residential TTF properties) has caused some industry observers to argue that this reflects the FAA’s tacit support for such TTF activities. Based on FAA guidance and decisions, it can be argued that the FAA does more than “discourage” commercial aeronautical TTF activities; the FAA is strongly opposed to commercial aeronautical TTF activities. However, it is important to note that the FAA does recognize that, in some circumstances, TTF operations may be the only viable alternative to accommodate certain types of TTF activities when an airport is fully developed and no remaining land exists on-airport to accommodate such activities. Regardless of the position, there is no argument regarding the FAA’s concern about airport sponsors maintaining compliance with the federal obligations that serve to protect the public investment in airports and ensure public access to and use of an airport. The opportunities associated with commercial aeronautical TTF activities for airports and local communities include increased capacity relating to commercial aeronautical products, services, and facilities; increased property taxes from associated TTF property infrastructure and improvements; and additional jobs for the airport and the community. This is especially true at airports where sufficient land is not available to accommodate commercial aeronautical activities. The primary issue related to commercial aeronautical TTF activities is protecting on-airport FBOs and SASOs, if present, by ensuring that economic parity exists (i.e., rents and fees and minimum standards for commercial aeronautical TTF activities are equal to or greater than those for on-airport FBOs and SASOs). Since TTF FBOs and SASOs are located on fee-simple property, these TTF entities may have an economic advantage over on- airport FBOs and SASOs. Best practice approaches for addressing the issue of economic parity between TTF and on-airport FBOs and SASOs are discussed in Chapter 6: Structuring TTF Operations. Commercial aeronautical TTF activities include any commercial activity, located on TTF property, that involves, makes possible, or is required for the operation of an aircraft, or which contributes to, or is required for conducting aircraft operations. Entities providing commercial aeronautical activities are

ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 13 As with residential TTF activities, the logistics associated with on-airport FBOs and SASOs providing commercial aeronautical products and services (e.g., fuel, aircraft maintenance, flight training, etc.) to aircraft located on commercial aeronautical TTF property can be an issue and needs to be addressed as a result. However, the opposite issue (i.e., TTF FBOs and SASOs providing commercial aeronautical products and services to on-airport aircraft) must also be addressed. An additional issue associated with commercial aeronautical TTF activities is the provision of commercial aeronautical activities to transient aircraft by TTF FBOs and SASOs and the collection of appropriate fees (including TTF access fees) from transient aircraft owners and operators. Some of these issues can be addressed by developing and implementing policies, standards, rules, and regulations and managing TTF operations accordingly (as discussed further in this guidebook). EXAMPLES Examples of commercial aeronautical TTF activities include FBOs at Port Columbus International Airport (CMH) (i.e., United Parcel Service, an air cargo company). Additional examples of airports with commercial aeronautical TTF activities are provided in the following case study and Appendix B: Airports with TTF Operations. The federally obligated airports with TTF operations identified in Appendix B were identified by the research team. The list is not intended to be a complete list of airports with TTF operations. CASE STUDY St. Louis Regional Airport – ALN (Airport), located in Alton, Illinois, is a federally obligated airport owned and operated by the St. Louis Regional Airport Authority (Authority). The TTF property at the Airport (see Figure 1-7) was purchased and developed in the late 1970s and consists of approximately 20 acres of land and 300,000 square feet of facilities – primarily hangar, office, and shop. The hangar was constructed adjacent to the Airport property line and has direct TTF access to an Airport owned/operated apron and the Airport’s airside infrastructure. Before West Star Aviation purchased the TTF property in the 2004/2005 timeframe, the Authority desired to purchase the property but could not obtain the necessary AIP funding. The current TTF agreement provides an opportunity for the Authority to acquire the TTF property should AIP funding become available. The complete case study on commercial aeronautical TTF activities at St. Louis Regional Airport is provided in Appendix C: TTF Operation Case Studies. FIGURE 1-7: St. Louis Regional Airport in Columbus, Ohio (i.e., Landmark Aviation), and Ogden-Hinckley Airport (OGD) in Ogden, Utah (i.e., Kemp Jet Services), and SASOs at Wittman Regional Airport (OSH), in Oshkosh, Wisconsin (i.e., Basler Turbo Conversions, an aircraft maintenance company), and Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

14 ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations NON-COMMERCIAL AERONAUTICAL TTF ACTIVITIES DEFINITION companies (who utilize aircraft for purposes that are incidental or ancillary to a business such as providing transportation to company employees, customers, and others). Non-commercial aeronautical TTF activities are typically represented by non-commercial aircraft storage facilities located on TTF property. Such aircraft storage facilities commonly range from a single hangar to multiple hangar developments and may include office and shop space to accommodate aircraft owner/operator flight department activities including non-commercial flight training of flight department personnel and non- commercial aircraft maintenance and repair activities of the TTF entity’s aircraft. Further, such aircraft storage facilities may also include non-aeronautical office and customer space to accommodate the employees and customers associated with the commercial non-aeronautical activities of the TTF entity. COMMON OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES As with commercial aeronautical TTF activities, non-commercial aeronautical TTF activities can increase the capacity of an airport and increase property taxes for the community. Additionally, an existing or prospective employer in the area may make the development of TTF property for non-commercial aeronautical activities conditional on the development or expansion of facilities and/or creation of jobs in the community. A non-commercial aeronautical TTF development being utilized strictly for aeronautical activities typically creates minimal operational issues. The primary issue arises when a non-commercial aeronautical TTF entity engages in commercial non-aeronautical activities on the TTF property (e.g., non-aeronautical office and customer space, etc.) as the employees and customers of the TTF entity are typically unfamiliar with airport and aircraft operations which, in turn, can create safety, utility, and efficiency issues for the airport—much like the guests of homeowners at a residential TTF property. Another potential issue is the desire of a non-commercial aeronautical TTF entity to migrate into commercial aeronautical activities (i.e., lease a portion or all of the aircraft storage space to a third party). When aircraft storage is constructed on TTF property that can accommodate multiple aircraft or a TTF entity no longer owns or operates an aircraft, the TTF entity may desire to “recover costs” and lease “excess space” to third parties. While the TTF entity may not originally intend to commercially lease aircraft storage space, the presence of aircraft storage facilities on TTF property creates this opportunity, even if this commercial aeronautical activity is prohibited under a TTF agreement. If aircraft storage space is available on-airport, the TTF entity would be competing directly with the airport sponsor or on-airport FBOs or SASOs providing aircraft storage space. The development and sale of aircraft hangar “condominiums” is another opportunity that can create an issue. With on-airport hangar development, the FBO or SASO is typically required to develop and maintain the infrastructure, improvements, and the facilities located on the leased premises and provide a minimum level of service to based customers. Conversely, the developer of TTF hangar facilities is typically in the business of developing facilities – much like the developer of a residential subdivision. Once most of the units are sold, the developer would typically prefer to transfer the management of the subdivision to an association. This “build and leave” approach shifts the burden of management to someone else, which, if not properly structured and managed, can create a variety of issues for airport management and policymakers. Non-commercial aeronautical TTF activities encompass TTF entities owning, leasing, or having the full and exclusive control of aircraft—for non-commercial purposes—located on and operated from TTF property. This includes individuals (who utilize aircraft for personal/recreational purposes) and

ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 15 FIGURE 1-8: Scottsdale Airport EXAMPLES CASE STUDY While the vision for the Airpark was originally focused on accommodating only non-commercial aeronautical TTF activities (dating back to 1968), due to limited on-airport development opportunities and economic and political pressures, the City allowed certain types of commercial aeronautical activities to occur in the Airpark. Additionally, the Airport is one of the few airports with TTF operations that permit self- fueling of aircraft on TTF property, rather than requiring all fueling services to be provided by an on-airport FBO. The push to convert non-commercial aeronautical TTF facilities to commercial aeronautical TTF facilities began to occur when hangars were built with “excess” capacity and the TTF entity desired to lease out the “excess” hangar capacity to offset capital and operating costs. Other early operational issues occurred when TTF hangar facilities with hangar doors opening directly onto a taxiway were developed, essentially guaranteeing that “staged” aircraft would block the taxilane/taxiway to the Airport. As the economy ebbed and flowed and the need for non-aeronautical manufacturing or warehouse facilities increased, aircraft hangars that once accommodated aircraft storage became non-aeronautical manufacturing or warehouse facilities. Some facilities generated a substantial number of daily deliveries with large trucks which, because of the lack of cargo staging/handling areas, would take place on taxilanes/taxiways, blocking aircraft movement. One such facility became an assembly facility with many manual laborers who, on breaks, would stage “pickup” soccer games on the taxilane/taxiway and invariably delay aircraft movement from time to time. Scottsdale Airport – SDL (Airport), located in Scottsdale, Arizona, is a federally obligated airport owned and operated by the City of Scottsdale (City). The Scottsdale Airpark (Airpark), which is located adjacent to the Airport, consists of 119 privately owned commercial and non-commercial parcels (see Figure 1-8), most of which have TTF access to the Airport through six different TTF access points. Non-gated direct access to the Airport is also available, with the permission of the City, to seven additional parcels. Examples of non-commercial aeronautical TTF activities include a multiple hangar development for private entities at Driggs-Reed Memorial Airport (DIJ), in Driggs, Idaho; aviation facilities for a news station helicopter fleet (i.e., Channel 9 News) at Traverse City Airport (TVC), in Traverse City, Michigan; and multiple corporate flight department facilities at Centennial Airport (APA), in the Denver Metro Area, Colorado. Additional examples of airports with non-commercial aeronautical TTF activities are provided in the following case study and Appendix B: Airports with TTF Operations. The federally obligated airports with TTF operations identified in Appendix B were identified by the research team. The list is not intended to be a complete list of airports with TTF operations.

16 ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations Most airports do not have the history and/or the variety of TTF activities and the associated opportunities and issues as the Scottsdale Airport. Airport management and policymakers learned from past experiences and over the years, significant changes have been made to the City’s (airport sponsor) regulatory measures and the TTF activities that have been permitted. In many respects, the City’s current ordinances, plans, and codes and the Airport’s policies, standards, rules, and regulations have served to establish what could be considered best practices – particularly in the area of structuring and managing TTF operations. As the Airport’s TTF operations have evolved over time, stakeholder involvement—from an on-airport (commercial operator) and off-airport (TTF entities) perspective—has increased as well. While the Airport has commercial and non-commercial aeronautical TTF activities, the complete case study on non- commercial aeronautical TTF activities at Scottsdale Airport is provided in Appendix C: TTF Operation Case Studies. NON-AERONAUTICAL TTF ACTIVITIES DEFINITION aircraft, aircraft parts, components, and accessories; ground based aviation training/education (excluding flight training in aircraft); and non-flying aircraft museums (excluding aircraft that are flown as part of museum activities). While some or all of these non-aeronautical TTF activities may require TTF access to an airport’s airside infrastructure, the TTF access is secondary to the entity’s primary activity and the FAA’s investment in the airport’s airside infrastructure to support aeronautical activities for the benefit of the public. For an aircraft manufacturer, TTF access facilitates the delivery of aircraft parts for the manufacturing process, flight testing of experimental aircraft, and movement of completed aircraft for customer delivery. Aviation training/education facilities commonly utilize non-airworthy aircraft for ground based training/education purposes. Such aircraft are commonly flown into an airport and moved to the aviation training/education facility and dismantled, inspected, and/or utilized for demonstration purposes. Non-flying aircraft museums benefit from TTF access by allowing aircraft to be flown into an airport and taxied or towed to the museum’s grounds and/or facilities for display. COMMON OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES Typically, the development of non-commercial aeronautical TTF activities is driven by the type and number of jobs that may be created at the airport and in the community as well as the property taxes that may be generated through the development of such TTF properties. As with non-commercial aeronautical TTF activities, while the original intent of a non-aeronautical facility constructed on TTF property may have been for non-aeronautical activities, by combining excess capacity and TTF access to the airport, non-commercial aeronautical TTF entities may migrate toward other types of TTF activities, especially commercial aeronautical TTF activities. For instance, while a manufacturer may focus primarily on the manufacturing of aircraft and/or parts, the support of aircraft owners through the provision of aircraft maintenance may be a natural next step. Additionally, non-aeronautical aviation training/education facilities may migrate toward the provision of flight training in aircraft and non-aeronautical museums may migrate toward commercial aircraft storage. To eliminate migration and associated issues, language prohibiting specific types of TTF activities should be included in the TTF agreement. Non-aeronautical TTF activities encompass activities that do not involve, make possible, and/or are not required for the operation of aircraft or do not contribute to or are not required for the safety of aircraft operations. According to the FAA, non-aeronautical activities include the manufacturing of

ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 17 EXAMPLES Examples of non-aeronautical TTF activities include an aircraft manufacturer (i.e., Boeing) at King County International Airport (BFI), in Seattle, Washington, Renton Municipal Airport (RNT), in Renton, Washington, and Snohomish County Airport (PAE), in Everett Washington. Additional examples of airports with non-aeronautical TTF activities are provided in the following case study and Appendix B: Airports with TTF Operations. The federally obligated airports with TTF operations identified in Appendix B were identified by the research team. The list is not intended to be a complete list of airports with TTF operations. CASE STUDY Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport–SAV (Airport), located in Savannah, Georgia, is a federally obligated airport owned and operated by the Savannah Airport Commission (Commission). In 1967, the Commission sold 110 acres of airport land to Grumman Aircraft Engineering Company (now known as Gulfstream Aerospace) to attract jobs and investment associated with the company’s civil aircraft production (see Figure 1-9). The original workforce grew from 100 to over 1,700 employees within a few years. Gulfstream Aerospace now employs more than 5,000 employees on the TTF property. In addition to the TTF property owned by Gulfstream Aerospace, the company has leased over 300 additional acres of land on the Airport and has invested millions of dollars into Airport infrastructure and improvements to expand the company’s manufacturing; maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO); and completion capabilities. In total, Gulfstream Aerospace employs over 11,000 employees on and off the Airport. Gulfstream also has a lease with FlightSafety International for land on the TTF property for a training facility for Gulfstream’s customers. This facility alone generates approximately 50,000 annual room nights at hotels located on the Airport. The complete case study on non-aeronautical TTF activities at Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport is provided in Appendix C: TTF Operation Case Studies. GOVERNMENTAL/MILITARY TTF ACTIVITIES DEFINITION FIGURE 1-9: Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport Governmental/military TTF activities typically encompass federal and state government and military agencies and institutions occupying TTF property to engage in aeronautical and non-aeronautical activities which primarily benefit the airport, the community, and/or national defense. These agencies

18 ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations COMMON OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES Governmental/military TTF operations can be an asset for an airport and local community for many reasons. For example, these types of TTF operations are usually monitored closely by the governmental/military entity, often with internal security measures and personnel, which can enhance the level of safety and security for the TTF operations, the airport, and the community. Additionally, these entities can complement the existing safety and security measures of an airport and provide support in the event of an emergency such as a security breach or aircraft accident or incident. Governmental/military entities with TTF operations are usually associated with a public service (e.g., the U.S. Forest Service suppressing fires, the U.S. Coast Guard conducting search and rescue missions, etc.) and the presence of these types of entities can enhance the safety of the community and the region. Further, governmental/military entities associated with TTF operations commonly employ (directly) large numbers of community residents and/or create (indirectly) ancillary jobs in the community. While these types of TTF operations usually bring great benefits to the airport and the community, such operations may not enter into TTF agreements with an airport sponsor or pay TTF access fees, thereby providing minimal or no monetary benefit to the airport sponsor. These types of TTF operations may have been established many years ago and may continue to exist today based on verbal TTF agreements. Although the majority of these types of TTF operations may not support the airport financially, governmental/military entities are generally welcome based on the benefits such entities provide and/or the contribution such entities make to the airport and the community. EXAMPLES CASE STUDY The Cherry Capital Airport (TVC), located in Traverse City, Michigan, is a federally obligated airport which is owned and operated by the Northwestern Regional Airport Commission. FIGURE 1-10: Cherry Capital Airport and institutions include the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. National Guard, U.S. military branches (e.g., Navy, Air Force, Marines, Army, etc.), public service agencies, and public educational institutions. Examples of governmental/military activities include a U.S. Coast Guard base located at the Traverse City Airport (TVC) in Traverse City, Michigan, and a U.S. Forest Service base located at the Redding Municipal Airport (RDD) in Redding, California. Additional examples of airports with governmental/military TTF activities are provided in the following case study and Appendix B: Airports with TTF Operations. The federally obligated airports with TTF operations identified in Appendix B were identified by the research team. The list is not intended to be a complete list of airports with TTF operations.

ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 19 The Airport has three TTF operations (see Figure 1-10), two of which are governmental/military TTF activities: the U.S. Coast Guard operates an Air Station for helicopters to conduct search and rescue missions for marine traffic on Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and Lake Huron and the Northwestern Michigan College Aviation Program conducts student pilot training at the Airport. The third is a non-commercial aeronautical TTF activity, a local television station (i.e., Channel 9 News). A more detailed case study on governmental/military TTF activities at Cherry Capital Airport is provided in Appendix C. 1.7 WRAP-UP As an introduction to this guidebook, this chapter has provided airport management and policymakers with background information on TTF operations, including: Purpose of this guidebook – This guidebook and accompanying resources and tools are designed to help airport management and policymakers of federally obligated airports assess, structure, and manage existing, proposed, and future TTF operations. Additionally, this guidebook can be beneficial to other parties who want to gain a better understanding of how an airport sponsor may assess, structure, and manage TTF operations. Definition of TTF operations – TTF operations occur when an airport sponsor grants an entity ground access by an aircraft across the airport’s property boundary to the airport’s airside infrastructure (commonly through-the-fence) and permission to engage in associated activities from property adjacent to the airport. Parties having a direct interest in TTF operations – includes FAA, SAO, airport sponsor, and TTF entity. Types of TTF activities – includes residential, commercial aeronautical, non-commercial aeronautical, non-aeronautical, and governmental/military activities. Additionally, this chapter defined other key TTF terms (e.g., TTF property, TTF access, TTF activities, TTF entity, and TTF agreement), provided an overview of this guidebook and each chapter, discussed how to use this guidebook, identified examples of each type of TTF activity, and introduced case studies for each type of TTF activity.