Get in those NPRM comments

I am surprised that the FAA's proposal to severely restrict what can be stored in a hangar, even excluding all but "final" assembly of a homebuilt aircraft, does not have more comments. There are 715 right now. EAA has many tens of thousands of members. I think there should be a lot more voices raised about this proposed rulemaking.

This is an fyi that the comment period for the FAA's new Hangar-Use policy is ending on Friday, 05 Sept. If you haven't commented on this yet, please do so. The proposed policy can be found at:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketD...=FAA-2014-0463

Click on the Blue text "Non-aeronautical Use of Airport Hangars" to read the policy, and click "Comment Now!" to add your own comments.

My interpretation of this policy is that it severely restricts and disallows many of the common activities that currently take place in the airport environment, not only from an aircraft building perspective, but they also make implications as to the size of other items that you may commonly have in your hangar. They explicitly mention a "small" refrigerator as an example, but as worded this could easily be interpreted to include the size of your workbench or air compressor, for example.

Many of us have excellent airport managers that are supportive and reasonable to work with, but it is clear from the comments on this proposal that many airport environments are actively hostile towards GA, and EAA activities in particular. I found the comments from the Boulder City Airport Association to be particularly illuminating:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2014-0463-0452

The other related issue to homebuilts is that it could severely restrict certain other "ancillary" aviation uses such as CAF and other museum type operations (either for static display or restoring for flying status).

Brian,

Thank you for your post. The FAA responded favorably to our request for an extension to the comment period, and the period was extended 30 days. Here is the link and full text of our news release:
http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-a...gar-Use_Policy
More Time to Comment on FAA Hangar-Use Policy

Agency grants extension requests from EAA, CAF, others

September 2, 2014 – The Federal Aviation Administration will allow an additional 30 days to comment on its proposed hangar-use policy under an extension granted Tuesday following multiple requests from the GA community.
EAA early last week submitted a request for a 60-day extension to the comment period based on the intense interest the policy had generated in the general aviation community. Other extension requests were submitted by the Commemorative Air Force (CAF) and by U.S. Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO).
"EAA felt that more time should be granted for the public to weigh in on this important issue for those who have hangars on airports that receive federal grant assurances,” said Sean Elliott, EAA’s vice president of advocacy and safety. “Although we had asked for a 60-day extension, we will continue to get the word out to make sure those who want to submit comments do so within the extra 30 days allotted.”
As EAA reported last month, many people thought that FAA already had a comprehensive airport hangar-use policy at facilities that receive FAA airport funding. That is not the case. The proposed policy is intended to prevent non-aeronautical uses that eventually work against airports and hurt their long-term preservation for intended aviation use. A clear policy guides airport managers and users to what is allowed and what isn’t. It also protects activities that some airport managers might choose to attempt to ban or curtail, such as the construction of homebuilt aircraft or restoration projects.
While EAA will submit its official comments near the final deadline, its comments will focus on three areas that need further consideration or redrafting:
1) EAA is urging the FAA to replace the term “final assembly of aircraft” as a protected aeronautical use to “active assembly of aircraft.” Prior to this policy draft, homebuilders had no protection as an allowed aeronautical use, although some builders had “gentlemen’s agreements” with their local airport management. EAA believes this policy is the perfect opportunity to formally recognize — for the first time — all active aircraft building and restoration as a protected aeronautical use of hangars.
2) EAA recommends that the section explaining allowance for incidental non-aeronautical items in hangars be more defined than “an insignificant amount of hangar space.” EAA contends that once an individual hangar reaches its designated capacity of aircraft as a protected aeronautical use, the remainder of the space should be available for non-aeronautical items. This change would prevent overstrict interpretation of any FAA policy by the agency or local airport management.
3) Inclusion of community-based, not-for-profit aviation organizations to own and maintain hangars on airport property. This would continue the status of facilities such as EAA chapter hangars and other aviation-related organizations on airport grounds as an acceptable aeronautical use. These facilities and the sponsoring organizations provide an avenue for building strong local aviation communities, as well as a base for providing aviation safety information and inspiring the growth of aviation for people of all ages.
"We hope the FAA recognizes that this should not be a one-size-fits-all policy, as what may be advisable hangar policy for large metropolitan commercial airports is not practical or desired for smaller airports that are local education and social hubs as well as an air operations facility,” Elliott said. “Certain activities still need to comply with local codes and ordinances such as fire codes and commercial-use restrictions, among others.”
Elliott also noted that FAA’s airport grant assurances are a two-edged sword: Federal funding of local airports and the rules associated with the use of those funds are often are the only thing that keeps local governments from unilaterally closing a local airport on a political whim or curtailing various personal and recreational aviation facilities. However, as with any grant issuer, public or private, the money can come with rules attached as to how the money can be spent and the assets they for can be used. EAA’s goal is to ensure the grant assurance permit the aeronautical activities while protecting airports we need and love.

The FAA web site budgets each commenter 5000 characters. Don't know if you can submit multiple comments. But I second the motion that every EAA member should submit a comment.

As an example you will find my input, repeated below, in the docket. Somehow I wrote exactly 5000 characters.

=========================================

While creating a written policy on the non-aeronautical use of airport hangars is a step forward from the previous situation of no policy, the proposal is flawed in several ways.

1) The proposed requirement that every non-aeronautical use be approved by the FAA is very burdensome if read literally. FAA certainly does not want, nor have the manpower, to process approval requests for every hangar on every airport. This is especially true where low demand has resulted in vacant parking areas and empty hangars. Airport managers have the local knowledge to identify whether non-aviation use of hangars is creating unacceptable wait lists for aviation users desiring hangar space at an airport. The FAA policy should recognize this and provide guidance that specifies a reasonable threshold as to when the FAA should be involved. A zero threshold is impractical and burdensome to both FAA and airport managements.

2) The proposed policy discusses “fair market” value of airport hangars. While the statement is correct, the policy needs additional guidance that recognizes that the value of airplane hangar buildings is often subject to multiple impairments that reduce their fair market value when compared to industrial buildings outside the airport. Airplane hangar buildings often have no access to water, sewer, are not heated or air conditioned, have raw floors, and are inside a security fence with restricted access by owners/users. The proposed policy should explain fair market value to identify that the value of airplane hangar buildings can be equal to, or can be less than, buildings outside the airport and that features and access to facilities have a large impact on market values.

3) The policy attempts to specifically address the amateur building of an aircraft. In doing so the draft offers a threshold for when that building becomes an aeronautical purpose. The FAA offers a large manufacture such as Boeing in comparison. Unfortunately, this comparison makes no sense. FAA should use more appropriate comparable activities, such as a mechanic specializing in cylinder repair. If that mechanic is located in an aircraft hangar, and that mechanic never has an airplane in his or her hangar, but instead accepts work brought in by other mechanics in person or by shipment, would FAA designate that use of the hangar non-aeronautical? If another mechanic only used his or her hangar for repairing aircraft control surfaces that are again received from mechanics in other locations, would the contents of that mechanic’s hangar be non-aeronautical? The policy should recognize that the fabrication and repair of aircraft components in an aircraft hangar, in general, whether by an amateur aircraft builder or by an FAA certificated individual, is an aeronautical use.

FAA appears to object to the time that fabricating an entire aircraft consumes. Where an airport owns or manages a hangar, airport management has the local knowledge to allocate the appropriate space for this activity. If an amateur airplane fabrication activity is an obstacle to other users, local airport management can address that. The policy text should provide for local airport management oversight of this activity in the hangars that they own or manage. The proposed policy is excessively burdensome.

4) The draft policy appears to assume that airports own their land and either build aircraft hangars themselves or enter into agreements that allow third parties to build aircraft hangars. There are many airports that have other situations. An example is where an airport authority is chartered by the state, and that authority owns no land. The authority then enters into a long term land lease with a city. The authority subsequently sub-leases plots of land to condo associations that build a large aircraft hangar building. The building contains multiple units which are then sold as condos. Condos are subject to state real-estate laws. Landlord-tenant relationships are subject to state laws. The airport is limited by those laws as to its relationship with the condo owners, its access to those condos, and any application of FAA policy. The airport does not have the legal standing to control the sale or purchase of this real-estate. The policy should include text that says that it applies to aircraft hangars owned or managed by an airport.

5) The draft policy appears to assume that airports control what airplanes are stored in which hangars. There are many airports when tenants/users own the buildings. Those owners buy and sell their airplanes without the participation of airport management. An owner may sell an large airplane and purchase a smaller one. Airport management has no input or control over this and to have the policy task them with being involved with the size of airplanes in hangar buildings is impractical and burdensome to all. This text should be deleted.

Sincerely,
Weston Liu
105 Mason Rd.
Brookline, NH 03033

The 5000 word limit only applies to the the web form text entry field. Format your document as PDF or something and upload it and it can be as long as you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingRon

The 5000 word limit only applies to the the web form text entry field. Format your document as PDF or something and upload it and it can be as long as you like.

---

This is what we do as an organization. As an example, http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2012-0002-0566 contains EAA's comments on the proposed ECi Cylinder AD.
I am personally a big fan of submitting comments as an attached business-format letter. It's good for many reasons, but here are two big ones: 1) the agency employee reading the comments pays some comments more attention and respect than others, and the formality of a letter commands increased attention from readers and creates a feeling of gravity, and 2) I believe that many people writing comments feel free to write things in an informal-feeling text box that they would never write in a business letter with their signature at the bottom, including accusatory language, profanity, and melodramatic invective--none of which are effective for persuasion.

Thanks for the suggestions Mr. Harger. I'm always looking to refine the strategy. I have filed comments in a number of things including regulation changes as well as AD's. My comments even made it into the preamble of the Final Rule (they dismissed my suggestion but at least they took note of it). I've also submitted two petitions for rulemaking, one which was actually accepted and implemented (the other was denied for bizarre reasons but it was overtaken by a chief counsel ruling in the interim, so I never bothered worrying about responding to their comments).

I sent in my comments and am incredulous of the lack of comments also. Yes, it has been a policy but doesn't anyone see this as a camels nose? If I pay rent or own the hangar, what business is it of anyone what I store in or use for MY hangar. This is government run amok.

A couple of comments:

To begin, I was going to let this pass without comment. I have now changed my mind and will write a letter.

I have been on the government side of rule making. With regard to my department, anyway, we do read and respond to all comments. (We will group similar comments into one and provide one response, but we read and are certain to respond to the concerns.) From my perspective this is a good thing. In some cases it causes us to go back to the original rationale for a proposal or specific language in the proposal and afford us an opportunity to make that reasoning clear to the public. Sometimes, the comment and our research in answering it causes us to amend the rule. We recently proposed a change to the Defense Acquisition Regulation Supplement that was anticipated by industry. We went a little beyond what industry had expected…but there were NO COMMENTS. Motion carries.

I do think that the government has the standing to limit what is in a hangar if the construction of that hangar and or the maintenance of the facility where the hangar resides is paid for by tax dollars allocated for a specific purpose. Nonetheless, I think that construction of EAB aircraft is an aeronautical activity, as are aircraft displays that promote a public understanding of aviation, meetings of associations that promote aviation safety (the FAA mission) such as EAA Chapters and CAP, are all aeronautical activity that should be covered.

Second and third, fourth, fifth order effects are important. At what point is "final assembly?" Will there be a point where repair of a seriously damaged aircraft will not be considered an aeronautical activity? Where will that point be? What is incidental that does not affect the aeronautical use of the hangar? I have tools and paint and parts in mine. Theoretically, with some imagination, a smallish airplane (formula 1 or LSA) could be shoehorned in with mine. Is my use of extra space in my hangar for things that support my airplane (but may not itself comprise aeronautical use) denying someone else hangar space and therefore I could be forced to share the hangar? That last one is admittedly extreme. Like with risk management (and the risks of government always have to be managed in a free society) it is easier to break the chain early than wait until the extreme ideas start to become probable.

Too much. Too long. I should spend this time writing a comment to the proposal…or go out flying. The fog just lifted.