55330 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Notices 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 4, 

2013. 

Albert R. Spence, 

FAA Assistant Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business 

Services Division, AES–200. 

[FR Doc. 2013–22035 Filed 9–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Approval of Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) for Murdo 

Municipal Airport, Murdo, SD 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is announcing 

approval of Finding of No Significant 

Impact for proposed development at the 

Murdo Municipal Airport, Murdo, 

South Dakota. The FAA approved the 

FONSI on August 22, 2013. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

FONSI approved the Sponsor’s 

proposed action to extend primary 

Runway 14–32 (approximately 600′ x 

60′) and construct turnaround 

(approximately 200′ x 75′) on Runway 

14 end. Extend graded safety area 

(approximately 200′ x 120′) on Runway 

14 end. Acquire approximately 63.0 

acres of land in fee and acquire 

approximately 2.0 acres of restrictive 

easements. 

The approved action is to enhance the 

safety and utility of the airport in order 

to meet the needs of current and 

projected aviation activity by the design 

family. The need for the action is to 

bring the Murdo Municipal Airport in 

compliance with FAA design standards 

for 95% of A/B–I Small Aircraft (design 

aircraft family), specifically runway 

length. 

The FONSI indicates the project is 

consistent with existing environmental 

policies and objectives as set forth in the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969, as amended and will 

not significantly affect the quality of the 

environment. 

In reaching this decision, the FAA has 

given careful consideration to: (a) The 

role of Murdo plays in the national air 

transportation system, (b) aviation 

safety, and (c) preferences of the airport 

owner/operator, and (d) anticipated 

environmental impact. 

DATES: This notice is effective 

September 10, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lindsay Butler, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Great Lakes Regional 

Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des 

Plaines, IL 60018. Telephone number: 

847–294–7723. 

Issued in Des Plaines, IL: August 26, 2013. 

Jesse Carriger, 

Manager, Planning/Programming Branch, 

FAA Great Lakes Region. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21887 Filed 9–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

RIN 2120–AF90 

Policy Regarding Airport Rates and 

Charges 

AGENCY: Department of Transportation, 

Federal Aviation Administration. 

ACTION: Notice; publication of entire 

policy statement as amended. 

SUMMARY: This action publishes the 

entire Department of Transportation 

(‘‘Department’’), Federal Aviation 

Administration (‘‘FAA’’), ‘‘Policy 

Regarding Airport Rates and Charges’’ 

(‘‘Policy’’) to reflect all deletions from 

and amendments to the policy to date. 

The Policy was originally published in 

the Federal Register on June 21, 1996 

(‘‘1996 Rates and Charges Policy’’). In 

response to a subsequent petition for 

review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit issued a 

decision in 1997 that vacated the 

challenged provisions of the 1996 Rates 

and Charges Policy and the Secretary’s 

supporting discussion in the preamble. 

In 2008, the Department and FAA 

adopted three amendments to the 

Policy, to allow operators of congested 

airports to use landing fees to provide 

incentives to air carriers to use the 

airport at less congested times or to use 

alternate airports to meet regional air 

service needs. The Federal Register 

notice publishing those amendments set 

out the amendments, but did not 

publish an entire version of the policy 

as amended. As a convenience for the 

public and for regulated entities, this 

notice publishes the entire Policy 

Regarding Airport Rates and Charges 

currently in effect in a single document. 

The FAA is not adopting or proposing 

any new amendments to the Policy in 

this notice. 

DATES: This Policy statement reflects the 

most recent amendments to the Policy 

Regarding Airport Rates and Charges, 

which took effect on July 14, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: 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 Management 

Analysis, ACO–1, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 

telephone (202) 267–3085; facsimile 

(202) 267–5769; email Randall.Fiertz@

faa.gov. 

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.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/

aces140.html. 

Authority for This Proceeding 

This notice is published under the 

authority described in Subtitle VII, Part 

B, Chapter 471, § 47129 of Title 49 

United States Code. Under subsection 

(b) of § 47129, the Secretary of 

Transportation is required to publish 

policy statements establishing standards 

or guidelines the Secretary will use in 

determining the reasonableness of 

airport fees charged to airlines under 

§ 47129. 

Background 

The Department of Transportation 

(Department) and the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) published a 

Policy Regarding Airport Rates and 

Charges in the Federal Register on June 

21, 1996 (61 FR 31994). (‘‘1996 Rates 

and Charges Policy’’). The statement of 

policy was required by § 113 of the FAA 

Authorization Act of 1994, Public Law 

103–305 (August 23, 1994), now 

codified at 49 U.S.C., 47129, Specific 

sections of the 1996 Rates and Charges 

Policy (namely, paragraphs 2.4, 2.4.1, 

2.4.1(a), 2.5.1, 2.5.1(a)–(e), 2.5.3(a), 2.6 

and other portions of the Policy 

necessarily implicated by the Court’s 

holding) were subsequently vacated by 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit in Air 

Transport Ass’n of America v. DOT, 119 

F.3d 38, amended by 129 F.3d 625 (D.C. 

Cir. 1997). In July 2008, following notice 

and opportunity for public comment, 

the Department and FAA adopted three 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Notices 55331 

amendments to the Policy (73 FR 40430, 

July 14, 2008). The amendments are 

intended to provide greater flexibility to 

operators of congested airports to use 

landing fees to provide incentives to air 

carriers to use the airport at less 

congested times or to use alternate 

airports to meet regional air service 

needs. The amendments to the Policy 

were affirmed by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit, Air Transport Ass’n v. 

DOT, 613 F.3d 206 (D.C. Cir. 2010). In 

2012, Congress included foreign air 

carriers (in addition to air carriers) 

under § 47129. See, § 148 of the FAA 

Authorization Act of 2012, Public Law 

112–95, 126 Stat. 11 (Feb. 14, 2012) 

The FAA has received requests for a 

complete official version of the Policy, 

as amended since 1996, and FAA 

understands the convenience of a 

complete statement of the policy for 

anyone needing to refer to the contents 

of this Policy. Accordingly, by this 

notice, FAA is publishing an official 

version of the entire Policy Regarding 

Airport Rates and Charges that reflects 

all of the changes to the language of the 

Policy since 1996, and is republished 

solely for the convenience of stating a 

complete version of the Policy in a 

single document. 

Rates and Charges Policy 

The FAA is publishing the full text of 

the current Policy Regarding Airport 

Rates and Charges, which has been in 

effect since the most recent amendment 

of the policy on July 14, 2008, as 

follows: 

Policy Regarding Airport Rates and 

Charges 

Introduction 

It is the fundamental position of the 

Department that the issue of rates and 

charges is best addressed at the local 

level by agreement between users and 

airports. The Department is adopting 

this Policy Statement on the standards 

applicable to airport fees imposed for 

aeronautical use of the airport to 

provide guidance to airport proprietors 

and aeronautical users, to encourage 

direct negotiation between these parties, 

to minimize the need for direct Federal 

intervention to resolve differences over 

airport fees and to establish the 

standards which the Department will 

apply in addressing airport fee disputes 

under 49 U.S.C., 47129 and in 

addressing questions of airport 

proprietors’ compliance with Federal 

requirements governing airport fees. 

Applicability of the Policy 

A. Scope of Policy 

Under the terms of grant agreements 

administered by FAA for airport 

improvement, all aeronautical users are 

entitled to airport access on fair and 

reasonable terms without unjust 

discrimination. Therefore, the 

Department considers that the 

principles and guidance set forth in this 

policy statement apply to all 

aeronautical uses of the airport. The 

Department recognizes, however, that 

airport proprietors may use different 

mechanisms and methodologies to 

establish fees for different facilities, e.g., 

for the airfield and terminal area, and 

for different aeronautical users, e.g., air 

carriers and fixed-base operators. 

Various elements of the policy reflect 

these differences. In addition, the 

Department will take these differences 

into account if we are called upon to 

resolve a dispute over aeronautical fees 

or otherwise consider whether an 

airport sponsor is in compliance with its 

obligation to provide access on fair and 

reasonable terms without unjust 

discrimination. 

B. Aeronautical Use and Users 

The Department considers the 

aeronautical use of an airport to be any 

activity that involves, makes possible, is 

required for the safety of, or is otherwise 

directly related to, the operation of 

aircraft. Aeronautical use includes 

services provided by air carriers related 

directly and substantially to the 

movement of passengers, baggage, mail 

and cargo on the airport. Persons, 

whether individuals or businesses, 

engaged in aeronautical uses involving 

the operation of aircraft, or providing 

flight support directly related to the 

operation of aircraft, are considered to 

be aeronautical users. 

Conversely, the Department considers 

that the operation by U.S. or foreign air 

carriers of facilities such as a 

reservations center, headquarters office, 

or flight kitchen on an airport does not 

constitute an aeronautical use subject to 

the principles and guidance contained 

in this policy statement with respect to 

reasonableness and unjust 

discrimination. Such facilities need not 

be located on an airport. A carrier’s 

decision to locate such facilities is based 

on the negotiation of a lease or sale of 

property. Accordingly, the Department 

relies on the normal forces of 

competition for nonaeronautical 

commercial or industrial property to 

assure that fees for such property are not 

excessive. 

C. Applicability of § 113 of the FAA 

Authorization Act of 1994 

Section 113 of the Federal Aviation 

Authorization Act of 1994 

(‘‘Authorization Act’’), 49 U.S.C. 47129, 

directs the Secretary of Transportation 

to issue a determination on the 

reasonableness of certain fees imposed 

on air carriers and foreign air carriers in 

response to carrier complaints or a 

request for determination by an airport 

proprietor. Section 47129 further directs 

the Secretary to publish final 

regulations, policy statements, or 

guidelines establishing procedures for 

deciding cases under § 47129 and the 

standards to be used by the Secretary in 

determining whether a fee is reasonable. 

Section 47129 also provides for the 

issuance of credits or refunds in the 

event that the Secretary determines a fee 

is unreasonable after a complaint is 

filed. Section 47129(e) excludes from 

the applicability of § 47129 a fee 

imposed pursuant to a written 

agreement with air carriers or foreign air 

carriers, a fee imposed pursuant to a 

financing agreement or covenant 

entered into before the date of 

enactment of the statute (August 23, 

1994), and an existing fee not in dispute 

on August 23, 1994. Section 47129(f) 

further provides that § 47129 shall not 

adversely affect the rights of any party 

under an existing airport agreement 

with an air carrier or foreign air carrier 

or the ability of an airport to meet its 

obligations under a financing agreement 

or covenant that is in effect on August 

23, 1994. 

The Department does not interpret 

§ 47129 to repeal or narrow the scope of 

the basic requirement that fees imposed 

on all aeronautical users be reasonable 

and not unjustly discriminatory or to 

narrow the obligation on the Secretary 

to receive satisfactory assurances that, 

inter alia, airport sponsors will provide 

access on reasonable terms before 

approving Airport Improvement 

Program (‘‘AIP’’) grants. Moreover, the 

Department does not interpret Sections 

47129(e) and (f) to preclude the 

Department from adopting policy 

guidance to carry out the Department’s 

statutory obligation to assure that 

aeronautical fees are being imposed at 

AIP-funded airports in a manner that is 

consistent with the obligation to provide 

airport access on reasonable terms. 

Therefore, the Department will apply 

the policy guidance in all cases in 

which we are called upon to determine 

if an airport sponsor is carrying out its 

obligation to make the airport available 

on reasonable terms. However, a dispute 

that is not subject to processing under 

the expedited procedures mandated by 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
55332 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Notices 

§ 47129, including a dispute over 

matters described by § 47129 (e) and (f), 

will be processed by FAA under 

procedures applicable to airport 

compliance matters in general. In 

considering such a dispute, FAA’s role 

is to determine whether the airport 

proprietor is in compliance with its 

grant obligations and statutory 

obligations relating to airport fees. The 

FAA proceeding is not intended to 

provide a mechanism for adjudicating 

the respective rights of the parties to a 

fee dispute. 

In addition, the Department will not 

entertain a complaint about the 

reasonableness of a fee set by agreement 

filed by a party to the agreement setting 

the disputed fee. In the case of a 

complaint about the reasonableness of a 

fee set by agreement filed by an 

aeronautical user who is not a party to 

the agreement, the Department may take 

into account the existence of an 

agreement between air carriers or 

foreign air carriers, and the airport 

proprietor, in making a determination 

on the complaint. 

Further, FAA will not ordinarily 

investigate the reasonableness of a 

general aviation airport’s fees absent 

evidence of a progressive accumulation 

of surplus aeronautical revenues. 

D. Components of Airfield 

The Department considers the airfield 

assets to consist of ramps or aprons not 

subject to preferential or exclusive lease 

or use agreements, runways, taxiways, 

and land associated with these facilities. 

The Department also considers the 

airfield to include land acquired for the 

purpose of assuring land-use 

compatibility with the airfield, if the 

land is included in the rate base 

associated with the airfield under the 

provisions of this policy. 

Principles Applicable to Airport Rates 

and Charges 

1. In general, the Department relies 

upon airport proprietors, aeronautical 

users, and the market and institutional 

arrangements within which they 

operate, to ensure compliance with 

applicable legal requirements. Direct 

Federal intervention will be available, 

however, where needed. 

2. Rates, fees, rentals, landing fees, 

and other service charges (‘‘fees’’) 

imposed on aeronautical users for 

aeronautical use of airport facilities 

(‘‘aeronautical fees’’) must be fair and 

reasonable. 

3. Aeronautical fees may not unjustly 

discriminate against aeronautical users 

or user groups. 

4. Airport proprietors must maintain 

a fee and rental structure that in the 

circumstances of the airport makes the 

airport as financially self-sustaining as 

possible. 

5. In accordance with relevant Federal 

statutory provisions governing the use 

of airport revenue, airport proprietors 

may expend revenue generated by the 

airport only for statutorily allowable 

purposes. 

6. Fees imposed on international 

operations must also comply with the 

international obligations of the United 

States, which include the requirements 

that the fees be just, reasonable, not 

unjustly discriminatory, equitably 

apportioned among categories of users, 

no less favorable to foreign airlines than 

to U.S. airlines, and not in excess of the 

full cost to the competent charging 

authorities of providing the facilities 

and services efficiently and 

economically at the airport or within the 

airport system. 

Local Negotiation and Resolution 

1. In general, the Department relies 

upon airport proprietors, aeronautical 

users, and the market and institutional 

arrangements within which they 

operate, to ensure compliance with 

applicable legal requirements. Direct 

Federal intervention will be available, 

however, where needed. 

1.1 The Department encourages 

direct resolution of differences at the 

local level between aeronautical users 

and the airport proprietor. Such 

resolution is best achieved through 

adequate and timely consultation 

between the airport proprietor and the 

aeronautical users about airport fees. 

1.1.1 Airport proprietors should 

consult with aeronautical users well in 

advance, if practical, of introducing 

significant changes in charging systems 

and procedures or in the level of 

charges. The proprietor should provide 

adequate information to permit 

aeronautical users to evaluate the 

airport proprietor’s justification for the 

change and to assess the reasonableness 

of the proposal. For consultations to be 

effective, airport proprietors should give 

due regard to the views of aeronautical 

users and to the effect upon them of 

changes in fees. Likewise, aeronautical 

users should give due regard to the 

views of the airport proprietor and the 

financial needs of the airport. 

1.1.2 To further the goal of effective 

consultation, Appendix 1 of this policy 

statement contains a description of 

information that the Department 

considers would be useful to the U.S. 

and foreign air carriers and other 

aeronautical users to permit meaningful 

consultation and evaluation of a 

proposal to modify fees. 

1.1.3 Airport proprietors should 

consider the public interest in 

establishing airport fees, and 

aeronautical users should consider the 

public interest in consulting with 

airports on setting such fees. 

1.1.4 Airport proprietors and 

aeronautical users should consult and 

make a good-faith effort to reach 

agreement. Absent agreement, airport 

proprietors are free to act in accordance 

with their proposals, subject to review 

by the Secretary or the Administrator on 

complaint by the user or, in the case of 

fees subject to 49 U.S.C. 47129, upon 

request by the airport operator, or, in 

unusual circumstances, on the 

Department’s initiative. 

1.1.5 To facilitate local resolution 

and reduce the need for direct Federal 

intervention to resolve differences over 

aeronautical fees, the Department 

encourages airport proprietors and 

aeronautical users to include alternative 

dispute resolution procedures in their 

lease and use agreements. 

1.1.6 Any newly established fee or 

fee increase that is the subject of a 

complaint under 49 U.S.C. 47129 that is 

not dismissed by the Secretary must be 

paid to the airport proprietor under 

protest by the complainant. Unless the 

airport proprietor and complainant 

agree otherwise, the airport proprietor 

will obtain a letter of credit, or surety 

bond, or other suitable credit instrument 

in accordance with the provisions of 49 

U.S.C. 47129(d). Pending issuance of a 

final order determining reasonableness, 

an airport proprietor may not deny a 

complainant currently providing air 

service at the airport reasonable access 

to airport facilities or services, or 

otherwise interfere with that 

complainant’s prices, routes, or services, 

as a means of enforcing the fee, if the 

complainant has complied with the 

requirements for payment under protest. 

1.2 Where airport proprietors and 

aeronautical users have been unable, 

despite all reasonable efforts, to resolve 

disputes between them, the Department 

will act to resolve the issues raised in 

the dispute. 

1.2.1 In the case of a fee imposed on 

one or more U.S. air carriers or foreign 

air carriers, the Department will issue a 

determination on the reasonableness of 

the fee upon the filing of a written 

request for a determination by the 

airport proprietor or, if the Department 

determines that a significant dispute 

exists, upon the filing of a complaint by 

one or more U.S. air carriers or foreign 

air carriers, in accordance with 49 

U.S.C. 47129 and implementing 

regulations. Pursuant to the provisions 

of 49 U.S.C. 47129, the Department may 

only determine whether a fee is 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Notices 55333 

reasonable or unreasonable, and may 

not set the level of the fee. 

1.2.2 The Department will first offer 

its good offices to help parties reach a 

mutually satisfactory outcome in a 

timely manner. Prompt resolution of 

these disputes is always desirable since 

extensive delay can lead to uncertainty 

for the public and a hardening of the 

parties’ positions. U.S. air carriers and 

foreign air carriers may request the 

assistance of the Department in advance 

of or in lieu of the formal complaint 

procedure described in 1.2.1; however, 

the 60-day period for filing a complaint 

under § 47129 shall not be extended or 

tolled by such a request. 

1.2.3 In the case of fees imposed on 

other aeronautical users, where 

negotiations between the parties are 

unsuccessful and a complaint is filed 

alleging that airport fees violate an 

airport proprietor’s Federal grant 

obligations, the Department will, where 

warranted, exercise the agency’s broad 

statutory authority to review the legality 

of those fees and to issue such 

determinations and take such actions as 

are appropriate based on that review. 

Other aeronautical users may also 

request the assistance of the Department 

in advance of, or in lieu of, the filing of 

a formal complaint with FAA. 

1.3 Airport proprietors must retain 

the ability to respond to local conditions 

with flexibility and innovation. An 

airport proprietor is encouraged to 

achieve consensus and agreement with 

its aeronautical users before 

implementing a practice that would 

represent a major departure from this 

guidance. However, the requirements of 

any law, including the requirements for 

the use of airport revenue, may not be 

waived, even by agreement with the 

aeronautical users. 

Fair and Reasonable Fees 

2. Rates, fees, rentals, landing fees, 

and other service charges (‘‘fees’’) 

imposed on aeronautical users for the 

aeronautical use of the airport 

(‘‘aeronautical fees’’) must be fair and 

reasonable. 

2.1 Federal law does not require a 

single approach to airport rate-setting. 

Fees may be set according to a 

‘‘residual’’ or ‘‘compensatory’’ ratesetting methodology, or any 

combination of the two, or according to 

another rate-setting methodology, as 

long as the methodology used is applied 

consistently to similarly situated 

aeronautical users and conforms with 

the requirements of this policy. Airport 

proprietors may set fees for aeronautical 

use of airport facilities by ordinance, 

statute or resolution, regulation, or 

agreement. 

2.1.1 Aeronautical users may receive 

a cross-credit of nonaeronautical 

revenues only if the airport proprietor 

agrees. Agreements providing for such 

cross-crediting are commonly referred to 

as ‘‘residual agreements’’ and generally 

provide a sharing of nonaeronautical 

revenues with aeronautical users. The 

aeronautical users may in turn agree to 

assume part or all of the liability for 

nonaeronautical costs. An airport 

proprietor may cross-credit 

nonaeronautical revenues to 

aeronautical users even in the absence 

of such an agreement, but an airport 

proprietor may not require aeronautical 

users to cover losses generated by 

nonaeronautical facilities except by 

agreement. 

2.1.2 In other situations, an airport 

proprietor assumes all liability for 

airport costs and retains all airport 

revenues for its own use in accordance 

with Federal requirements. This 

approach to airport rate-setting is 

generally referred to as the 

compensatory approach. 

2.1.3 Airports frequently adopt ratesetting systems that employ elements of 

both approaches. 

2.1.4 An airport proprietor may 

impose a two-part landing fee consisting 

of a combination of a per-operation 

charge and a weight-based charge 

provided that (1) the two-part fee 

reasonably allocates costs to users on a 

rational and economically justified 

basis; and (2) the total revenues from the 

two-part landing fee do not exceed the 

allowable costs of the airfield. 

(a) The proportionately higher costs 

per passenger for aircraft with fewer 

seats that will result from the peroperation component of a two-part fee 

may be justified by the effect of the fee 

on congestion and operating delays and 

the total number of passengers 

accommodated during congested hours. 

(b) An airport proprietor may exempt 

flights subsidized under the Essential 

Air Service Program from the general 

application of a 2-part landing fee, and 

instead charge those flights a landing fee 

that would have been charged if a 

conventional weight-based fee was in 

effect. To the extent an exemption 

reduces total airfield fees recovered, the 

difference may not be recovered by 

increasing charges to other operators 

currently operating at the airport. 

2.2 Revenues from fees imposed for 

use of the airfield (‘‘airfield revenues’’) 

may not exceed the costs to the airport 

proprietor of providing airfield services 

and airfield assets currently in 

aeronautical use unless: 

(a) Otherwise agreed to by the affected 

aeronautical users; or 

(b) The fee includes charges in 

accordance with paragraph 2.5.3 or 

paragraph 2.5.4(a), and there is a 

corresponding reduction in fees for 

users that would otherwise have paid 

those charges. 

2.3 The ‘‘rate base’’ is the total of all 

costs of providing airfield facilities and 

services to aeronautical users (which 

may include a share of public-use 

roadway costs allocated to the airfield in 

accordance with this policy) that may be 

recovered from aeronautical users 

through fees charged for providing 

airfield aeronautical services and 

facilities (‘‘airfield fees’’). Airport 

proprietors must employ a reasonable, 

consistent, and ‘‘transparent’’ (i.e., clear 

and fully justified) method of 

establishing the rate base and adjusting 

the rate base on a timely and predictable 

schedule. 

2.4 [Reserved] 

2.4.1 [Reserved] 

2.4.2 Airport proprietors may 

include reasonable environmental costs 

in the rate base to the extent that the 

airport proprietor incurs a 

corresponding actual expense. All 

revenues received based on the 

inclusion of these costs in the rate base 

are subject to Federal requirements on 

the use of airport revenue. Reasonable 

environmental costs include, but are not 

necessarily limited to, the following: 

(a) The costs of investigating and 

remediating environmental 

contamination caused by airfield 

operations at the airport at least to the 

extent that such investigation or 

remediation is required by or consistent 

with local, state or Federal 

environmental law, and to the extent 

such requirements are applied to other 

similarly situated enterprises. 

(b) the cost of mitigating the 

environmental impact of an airport 

development project (if the 

development project is one for which 

costs may be included in the rate base), 

at least to the extent that these costs are 

incurred in order to secure necessary 

approvals for such projects, including 

but not limited to approvals under the 

National Environmental Policy Act and 

similar state statutes; 

(c) the costs of aircraft noise 

abatement and mitigation measures, 

both on and off the airport, including 

but not limited to land acquisition and 

acoustical insulation expenses, to the 

extent that such measures are 

undertaken as part of a comprehensive 

and publicly-disclosed airport noise 

compatibility program; and 

(d) the costs of insuring against future 

liability for environmental 

contamination caused by current 

airfield activities. Under this provision, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
55334 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Notices 

the costs of self-insurance may be 

included in the rate base only to the 

extent that they are incurred pursuant to 

a self-insurance program that conforms 

to applicable standards for selfinsurance practices. 

2.4.3 Airport proprietors are 

encouraged to establish fees with due 

regard for economy and efficiency. 

2.4.4 The airport proprietor may 

include in the rate base amounts needed 

to fund debt service and other reserves 

and to meet cash flow requirements as 

specified in financing agreements or 

covenants (for facilities in use or in 

accordance with paragraph 2.5.3), 

including, but not limited to, reasonable 

amounts to meet debt-service coverage 

requirements; to fund cash reserves to 

protect against the risks of cash-flow 

fluctuations associated with normal 

airfield operations; and to fund 

reasonable cash reserves to protect 

against other contingencies. 

2.4.5 Unless otherwise agreed by 

aeronautical users, the airport proprietor 

must allocate capital and operating costs 

among cost centers in accordance with 

the following guidance, which is based 

on the principle of cost causation: 

(a) Costs of airfield facilities and 

services directly used by the 

aeronautical users may be fully 

included in the rate base, in a manner 

consistent with this policy. For 

example, the capital cost of a runway 

may be included in the rate base used 

to establish landing fees. 

(b) Costs of airport facilities and 

services used for both aeronautical and 

nonaeronautical uses (shared costs) may 

be included in the rate base if the 

facility or service in question supports 

the airfield activity reflected in that rate 

base. The portion of shared costs 

allocated to aeronautical users and 

among aeronautical uses should not 

exceed an amount that reflects the 

respective aeronautical purposes and 

proportionate aeronautical uses of the 

facility in relation to each other and in 

relation to the nonaeronautical use of 

the facility, and must be allocated by a 

reasonable, ‘‘transparent’’ and not 

unjustly discriminatory methodology. 

Aeronautical users may not be allocated 

all costs of facilities or services that are 

used by both aeronautical and 

nonaeronautical users unless they agree 

to that allocation. Likewise, the airfield 

may not be allocated all of the 

aeronautical share of commonly-used 

facilities or services, unless the airfield 

is the only aeronautical use the facility 

or service supports. 

2.5 Airport proprietors must comply 

with the following practices in 

establishing the rate base, provided, 

however, that one or more aeronautical 

users may agree to a rate base that 

deviates from these practices in the 

establishment of those users’ fees. 

2.5.1 [Reserved] 

2.5.2 When assets in the rate-base 

have different costs, the airport 

proprietor may combine the costs of 

comparable assets to develop a single 

cost basis for those assets. 

2.5.3 The proprietor of a congested 

airport may include in the rate-base 

used to determine airfield charges 

during congested hours a portion of the 

costs of an airfield project under 

construction so long as (1) all planning 

and environmental approvals have been 

obtained for the project; (2) the 

proprietor has obtained financing for the 

project; (3) construction has commenced 

on the project; and (4) the added costs 

for current operators would have the 

effect of reducing or preventing 

congestion and operating delays at that 

airport. 

(a) The airport proprietor must deduct 

from the total costs of the projects any 

principal and interest collected during 

the period of construction in 

determining the amount of project costs 

to be capitalized and amortized once the 

project is commissioned and put in 

service. 

(b) The amount of project costs 

included in current charges may not 

exceed an amount corresponding to 

costs actually incurred during the 

construction period, calculated in 

accordance with a commercially 

reasonable amortization period based on 

the expected term for the permanent 

financing of the project. 

2.5.4 The rate base of an airport may 

include costs associated with another 

airport currently in use only if: (1) The 

proprietor of the first airport is also the 

proprietor of the other airport; (2) the 

other airport is currently in use; and (3) 

the costs of the other airport to be 

included in the first airport’s rate base 

are reasonably related to the aviation 

benefits that the other airport provides 

or is expected to provide to the 

aeronautical users of the first airport. 

(a) Element no. 3 above will be 

presumed to be satisfied if: 

(1) The other airport is designated as 

a reliever airport for the first airport in 

the FAA’s National Plan of Integrated 

Airport Systems (‘‘NPIAS’’); or 

(2) The first airport is a congested 

airport; the other airport has been 

designated by FAA as a secondary 

airport serving the community, 

metropolitan area or region served by 

the first airport; and adding airfield 

costs of the second airport to the rate 

base of the first airport during congested 

hours would have the effect of reducing 

or preventing congestion and operating 

delays at that airport in those hours. 

(b) In the case of a methodology of 

charging for a system of airports that is 

in place on the effective date of this 

policy, the Department will consider an 

airport proprietor’s claim that the 

methodology is reasonable, even if all 

three elements are not satisfied. 

(c) If an airport proprietor closes an 

operating airport as part of an approved 

plan for the construction and opening of 

a new airport, reasonable costs of 

disposition of the closed airport facility 

may be included in the rate base of the 

new airport, to the extent that such costs 

exceed the proceeds from the 

disposition. The Department would not 

ordinarily consider redevelopment costs 

to be a reasonable cost of disposition. 

(d) Pending reasonable disposition of 

the closed airport, the airport proprietor 

may charge airfield users at the new 

airport for reasonable maintenance costs 

of the old airport, provided that those 

costs are refunded or credited-back to 

those users upon the receipt of the 

proceeds from a whole or partial 

disposition. 

(e) Costs of the second airport that 

may be included in the rate base of the 

first airport are limited to customary 

airfield cost center charges. The total 

airfield revenue recovered from the 

users of both airports cannot exceed the 

total allowable costs of the two airports 

combined. 

2.6 [Reserved] 

2.6.1 Reasonable methodologies 

may include, but are not limited to, 

historic cost valuation, direct 

negotiation with aeronautical users, or 

objective determinations of fair market 

value. 

2.6.2 If an airport proprietor 

determines fees for such other facilities 

on the basis of HCA costs, the airport 

proprietor must follow the guidance set 

forth in paragraph 2.4.5 for the 

allocation of shared costs. 

2.7 At all times, airport proprietors 

must comply with the following 

practices: 

2.7.1 Indirect costs may not be 

included in the fees charged for 

aeronautical use of the airport unless 

they are based on a reasonable, 

‘‘transparent’’ cost allocation formula 

calculated consistently for other units or 

cost centers within the control of the 

airport sponsor. 

2.7.2 The costs of airport 

development or planning projects paid 

for with Federal Government grants and 

contributions or passenger facility 

charges (PFCs) may not be included in 

the fees charged for aeronautical use of 

the airport. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Notices 55335 

(a) In the case of a PFC-funded project 

for terminal development, for gates and 

related areas, or for a facility that is 

occupied by one or more carriers on an 

exclusive or preferential use basis, the 

fees paid to use those facilities shall be 

no less than the fees charged for similar 

facilities that were not financed with 

PFC revenue. 

Prohibition on Unjust Discrimination 

3. Aeronautical fees may not unjustly 

discriminate against aeronautical users 

or user groups. 

3.1 The airport proprietor must 

apply a consistent methodology in 

establishing fees for comparable 

aeronautical users of the airport. When 

the airport proprietor uses a cost-based 

methodology, aeronautical fees imposed 

on any aeronautical user or group of 

aeronautical users may not exceed the 

costs allocated to that user or user group 

under a cost allocation methodology 

adopted by the airport proprietor that is 

consistent with this guidance, unless 

aeronautical users otherwise agree. 

3.1.1 The prohibition on unjust 

discrimination does not prevent an 

airport proprietor from making 

reasonable distinctions among 

aeronautical users (such as signatory 

and nonsignatory carriers) and assessing 

higher fees on certain categories of 

aeronautical users based on those 

distinctions (such as higher fees for 

nonsignatory carriers, as compared to 

signatory carriers). 

3.2 A properly structured peak 

pricing system that allocates limited 

resources using price during periods of 

congestion will not be considered to be 

unjustly discriminatory. An airport 

proprietor may, consistent with the 

policies expressed in this policy 

statement, establish fees that enhance 

the efficient utilization of the airport. 

3.3 Relevant provisions of the 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation (Chicago Convention) and 

many bilateral aviation agreements 

specify, inter alia, that charges imposed 

on foreign airlines must not be unjustly 

discriminatory, must not be higher than 

those imposed on domestic airlines 

engaged in similar international air 

services and must be equitably 

apportioned among categories of users. 

Charges to foreign air carriers for 

aeronautical use that are inconsistent 

with these principles will be considered 

unjustly discriminatory or unfair and 

unreasonable. 

3.4 Allowable costs—costs properly 

included in the rate base—must be 

allocated to aeronautical users by a 

transparent, reasonable, and not 

unjustly discriminatory rate-setting 

methodology. The methodology must be 

applied consistently and cost 

differences must be determined 

quantitatively, when practical. 

3.4.1 Common costs (costs not 

directly attributable to a specific user 

group or cost center) must be allocated 

according to a reasonable, transparent 

and not unjustly discriminatory cost 

allocation methodology that is applied 

consistently, and does not require any 

aeronautical user or user group to pay 

costs properly allocable to other users or 

user groups. 

Requirement To Be Financially SelfSustaining 

4. Airport proprietors must maintain 

a fee and rental structure that in the 

circumstances of the airport makes the 

airport as financially self-sustaining as 

possible. 

4.1 If market conditions or demand 

for air service do not permit the airport 

to be financially self-sustaining, the 

airport proprietor should establish longterm goals and targets to make the 

airport as financially self-sustaining as 

possible. 

4.1.1 Airport proprietors are 

encouraged, when entering into new or 

revised agreements or otherwise 

establishing rates, charges, and fees, to 

undertake reasonable efforts to make 

their particular airports as self 

sustaining as possible in the 

circumstances existing at such airports. 

(a) Absent agreement with 

aeronautical users, the obligation to 

make the airport as self-sustaining as 

possible does not permit the airport 

proprietor to establish fees for the use of 

the airfield that exceed the airport 

proprietor’s airfield costs. 

(b) For those facilities for which this 

policy permits the use of fair market 

value, the Department does not construe 

the obligation on self-sustainability to 

compel the use of fair market value to 

establish fees. 

4.1.2 At some airports, market 

conditions may not permit an airport 

proprietor to establish fees that are 

sufficiently high to recover aeronautical 

costs and sufficiently low to attract and 

retain commercial aeronautical services. 

In such circumstances, an airport 

proprietor’s decision to charge rates that 

are below those needed to achieve selfsustainability in order to assure that 

services are provided to the public is 

not inherently inconsistent with the 

obligation to make the airport as selfsustaining as possible in the 

circumstances. 

4.2 In establishing new fees, and 

generating revenues from all sources, 

airport owners and operators should not 

seek to create revenue surpluses that 

exceed the amounts to be used for 

airport system purposes and for other 

purposes for which airport revenues 

may be spent under 49 U.S.C. 

47107(b)(1), including reasonable 

reserves and other funds to facilitate 

financing and to cover contingencies. 

While fees charged to nonaeronautical 

users may exceed the costs of service to 

those users, the surplus funds 

accumulated from those fees must be 

used in accordance with § 47107(b). 

4.2.1 The Department assumes that 

the limitation on the use of airport 

revenue and effective market discipline 

for aeronautical services and facilities 

other than the airfield will be effective 

in holding aeronautical revenues, over 

time, to the airport proprietor’s costs of 

providing aeronautical services and 

facilities, including reasonable capital 

costs. However, the progressive 

accumulation of substantial amounts of 

surplus aeronautical revenue may 

warrant an FAA inquiry into whether 

aeronautical fees are consistent with the 

airport proprietor’s obligations to make 

the airport available on fair and 

reasonable terms. 

Requirements Governing Revenue 

Application and Use 

5. In accordance with relevant Federal 

statutory provisions governing the use 

of airport revenue, airport proprietors 

may expend revenue generated by the 

airport only for statutorily allowable 

purposes. 

5.1 Additional information on the 

statutorily allowed uses of airport 

revenue is contained in separate 

guidance published by FAA pursuant to 

§ 112 of the FAA Authorization Act of 

1994, which is codified at 49 U.S.C. 

47107(l). 

5.2 The progressive accumulation of 

substantial amounts of airport revenues 

may warrant an FAA inquiry into the 

airport proprietor’s application of 

revenues to the local airport system. 

Congested Airports 

6. Congested Airports 

(a) The Department considers a 

currently congested airport to be— 

(1) An airport at which the number of 

operating delays is one per cent or more 

of the total operating delays at the 55 

airports with the highest number of 

operating delays; or 

(2) An airport identified as congested 

by FAA listed in table 1 of FAA’s 

Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 

2004, or the most recent version of the 

Airport Capacity Benchmark Report. 

(b) The Department considers an 

airport to be a future congested airport 

if an airport is forecasted to meet a 

defined threshold level of congestion 

reported in the Future Airport Capacity 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
55336 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Notices 

Task 2 study entitled Capacity Needs in 

the National Airspace System 2007– 

2025: An analysis of Airports and 

Metropolitan Area Demand and 

Operational Capacity in the Future 

(FACT 2 Report), or any update to that 

report that FAA may publish from timeto-time. 

(c) A congested hour is an hour 

during which demand exceeds average 

runway capacity resulting in volumerelated delays, or is anticipated to do so. 

6.1 Because charges provided in 

paragraphs 2.1.4, 2.5.3 and 2.5.4 to 

address congestion can result in higher 

fees for some or all operators, it is 

especially important for airport 

operators proposing such charges to 

provide carriers in advance the 

information listed in Appendix 1, with 

special emphasis on data, analysis and 

forecasts used to justify the charges. 

6.2 The proprietor of a future 

congested airport may adopt measures 

to address congestion in accordance 

with paragraphs 2.1.4, 2.5.3 and 2.5.4 of 

this policy, if the measures will not take 

effect or have any effect on airfield 

charges until a time when the airport 

meets the definition of a congested 

airport in paragraph 6(a) or is 

anticipated to do so. This kind of 

measure would typically identify the 

specific condition, e.g., operating delays 

that regularly exceed a certain level at 

the airport that would trigger the 

implementation of the special charges to 

address congestion. 

6.3 An airport proprietor may 

exempt flights subsidized under the 

Essential Air Service Program from 

charges imposed under paragraphs 2.5.3 

and 2.5.4 of this policy. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 23, 

2013. 

Susan L. Kurland, 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs. 

Christa Fornarotto, 

Associate Administrator for Airports, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 

Appendix 1—Information for 

Aeronautical User Charges 

Consultations 

The Department of Transportation 

ordinarily expects the following information 

to be available to aeronautical users in 

connection with consultations over changes 

in airport rates and charges: 

1. Historic Financial Information covering 

two fiscal years prior to the current year 

including, at minimum, a profit and loss 

statement, balance sheet and cash flow 

statement for the airport implementing the 

charges, and any financial reports prepared 

by the airport proprietor to satisfy the 

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(19) and 

47107(k). 

2. Justification. Economic, financial and/or 

legal justification for changes in the charging 

methodology or in the level of aeronautical 

rates and charges at the airport. Airports 

should provide information on the 

aeronautical costs they are including in the 

rate base. 

3. Traffic Information. Annual numbers of 

terminal passengers and aircraft movements 

for each of the two preceding years. 

4. Planning and Forecasting Information. 

(a) To the extent applicable to current or 

proposed fees, the long-term airport strategy 

setting out long-term financial and traffic 

forecasts, major capital projects and capital 

expenditure, and particular areas requiring 

strategic action. This material should include 

any material provided for public or 

government reviews of major airport 

developments, including analyses of demand 

and capacity and expenditure estimates. 

(b) Accurate, complete information specific 

to the airport for the current and the forecast 

year, including the current and proposed 

budgets, forecasts of airport charges revenue, 

the projected number of landings and 

passengers, expected operating and capital 

expenditures, debt service payments, 

contributions to restricted funds, or other 

required accounts or reserves. 

(c) To the extent the airport uses a residual 

or hybrid charging methodology, a 

description of key factors expected to affect 

commercial or other nonaeronautical 

revenues and operating costs in the current 

and following years. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21905 Filed 9–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Membership in the National Parks 

Overflights Advisory Group Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: By Federal Register notice 

(See 78 FR 42997, July 18, 2013) the 

National Park Service (NPS) and the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

invited interested persons to apply to 

fill two upcoming openings on the 

National Parks Overflights Advisory 

Group (NPOAG) Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee (ARC). The notice invited 

interested persons to apply to fill one 

vacancy representing commercial air 

tour operators and one vacancy 

representing environmental concerns. 

This notice informs the public of the 

person selected to fill the vacancy for 

the commercial air tour operator seat. 

No selection has been made for the 

vacancy representing environmental 

concerns. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keith Lusk, Special Programs Staff, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

Western-Pacific Region Headquarters, 

P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 

90009–2007, telephone: (310) 725–3808, 

email: Keith.Lusk@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The National Parks Air Tour 

Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was 

enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 

106–181. The Act required the 

establishment of the advisory group 

within 1 year after its enactment. The 

NPOAG was established in March 2001. 

The advisory group is comprised of a 

balanced group of representatives of 

general aviation, commercial air tour 

operations, environmental concerns, 

and Native American tribes. The 

Administrator of the FAA and the 

Director of NPS (or their designees) 

serve as ex officio members of the 

group. Representatives of the 

Administrator and Director serve 

alternating 1-year terms as chairman of 

the advisory group. 

In accordance with the Act, the 

advisory group provides ‘‘advice, 

information, and recommendations to 

the Administrator and the Director— 

(1) On the implementation of this title 

[the Act] and the amendments made by 

this title; 

(2) On commonly accepted quiet 

aircraft technology for use in 

commercial air tour operations over a 

national park or tribal lands, which will 

receive preferential treatment in a given 

air tour management plan; 

(3) On other measures that might be 

taken to accommodate the interests of 

visitors to national parks; and 

(4) At the request of the Administrator 

and the Director, safety, environmental, 

and other issues related to commercial 

air tour operations over a national park 

or tribal lands.’’ 

Membership 

The current NPOAG ARC is made up 

of one member representing general 

aviation, three members representing 

the commercial air tour industry, four 

members representing environmental 

concerns, and two members 

representing Native American interests. 

Current members of the NPOAG ARC 

are as follows: 

Heidi Williams representing general 

aviation; Alan Stephen and Mark 

Francis representing commercial air 

tour operators with one open seat; Greg 

Miller, Michael Sutton, and Dick 

Hingson representing environmental 

interests with one open seat; and Rory 

Majenty and Martin Begaye representing 

Native American tribes. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES