Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 17381 

2003; or Revision 3, dated July 23, 2004, 

comply with the requirements specified in 

this AD. 

Definition of Engine or Hot Section Module 

Shop Visit 

(j) For the purposes of this AD, an engine 

or hot section module shop visit is defined 

as the introduction of the engine or hot 

section module into a shop that includes 

separating major case flanges. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(k) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, has the authority to approve 

alternative methods of compliance for this 

AD if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(l) Contact Mark Bouyer, Engine 

Certification Office, FAA, Engine and 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; email: mark.bouyer@faa.gov; telephone (781) 

238–7755; fax (781) 238–7199, for more 

information about this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(m) You must use General Electric Alert 

Service Bulletin No. CT7–TP S/B 72–A0464, 

Revision 04, dated December 12, 2005, to 

perform the actions required by this AD. The 

Director of the Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of this service 

bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 

and 1 CFR part 51. Contact General Electric 

Aircraft Engines CT7 Series Turboprop 

Engines, 1000 Western Ave, Lynn, MA 

01910; telephone (781) 594–3140; fax (781) 

594–4805 for a copy of this service 

information. You may review copies at the 

FAA, New England Region, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive 

Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the availability 

of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

April 2, 2007. 

Peter A. White, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6446 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 331 

[Docket OST–2006–25906] 

RIN 2105–AD61 

Procedures for Reimbursement of 

General Aviation Operators and 

Service Providers in the Washington, 

DC Area 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule provides 

reimbursement to fixed-base general 

aviation operators and providers of 

general aviation ground support services 

at five metropolitan Washington, DC 

area airports, for the direct and 

incremental financial losses they 

incurred while the airports were closed 

due to Federal government actions taken 

after the terrorist attacks on September 

11, 2001. The airports are: Ronald 

Reagan Washington National Airport; 

College Park Airport in College Park, 

Maryland; Potomac Airfield in Fort 

Washington, Maryland; Washington 

Executive/Hyde Field in Clinton, 

Maryland; and Washington South 

Capitol Street Heliport in Washington, 

DC. 

DATES: This rule is effective May 9, 

2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Interested persons with questions about 

this regulation should contact James R. 

Dann, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Office of General 

Counsel, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 

10102, Washington, DC 20590; 

telephone 202–366–9154. Interested 

persons with questions about how to 

apply for assistance, the status of 

application reviews, etc. should contact 

Tim Carmody, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Office of Aviation 

Analysis, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 

6417, Washington, DC 20590; telephone 

202–366–2348. Application materials 

and data sources that may assist 

applicants in preparing applications are 

available at the Department of 

Transportation, Office of the Secretary’s 

Web site at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/ 

aviation/index.html under ‘‘Programs,’’

and then ‘‘General Aviation Operator 

and Services Reimbursement: 

Procedures for Reimbursement of 

General Aviation Operators and Service 

Providers in the Washington, DC Area.’’

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following 

the terrorist attacks on the United States 

on September 11, 2001, general aviation 

activity in the Washington, DC 

metropolitan area was suspended. Five 

airports were most affected: Ronald 

Reagan Washington National Airport 

(DCA); College Park Airport in College 

Park, Maryland; Potomac Airfield in 

Fort Washington, Maryland; 

Washington Executive/Hyde Field in 

Clinton, Maryland; and Washington 

South Capitol Street Heliport in 

Washington, DC. While DCA and the 

three Maryland airports have since been 

reopened to transient general aviation 

traffic, the volume of general aviation 

activity has not returned to 

pre-September 11, 2001 levels due to 

continuing security restrictions, and the 

South Capitol Street Heliport was not 

reopened to general aviation traffic and 

is now used exclusively by the 

Washington DC Metropolitan Police. 

Because of the reduction in general 

aviation activity at these locations, the 

fixed-base operators and service 

providers that supported general 

aviation were also affected, with many 

claiming that they were incurring 

sustained and significant financial 

losses due to the closures. 

These fixed-base operators and 

service providers were not eligible for 

either compensation or loan guarantees 

under the Air Transportation Safety and 

System Stabilization Act, Pub. L. 107–

42 (Sept. 22, 2001), which had been 

enacted to provide compensation to ‘‘air 

carriers’’ who had incurred financial 

losses due to the terrorist attacks. Under 

that program, approximately $4.6 billion 

has been paid to qualifying air carriers. 

In 2003, the United States House of 

Representatives Committee on 

Appropriations requested that the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

prepare a report detailing the 

documented financial losses by holders 

of real property leases at the five 

affected airports that were attributable 

to the Federal actions since September 

11, 2001. (House Report 108–243, July 

30, 2003, p. 8.) The Committee stated 

that such a report would assist the 

Congress in considering ‘‘potential 

federal reimbursement for a portion of 

these unusual financial losses.’’ In 

October 2005, the Secretary of 

Transportation submitted to the 

Committee the requested report, which 

was entitled: Estimated Financial Losses 

to Selected General Aviation Entities in 

the Washington, DC Area Final Report 

(October 2005 DOT study). A copy of 

this Report has been placed onto the 

Office of the Secretary’s Web site, at the 

address noted above. (See FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

The October 2005 DOT study 

identified sixteen general aviation 

leaseholders at the five airports, and 

estimated the financial losses that each 

incurred during its study period (which 

ran from September 11, 2001 to January 

23, 2004) due to the Federal actions 

taken after the terrorist attacks. The 

estimates reflected the difference in net 

income stated on a pre-tax basis 

between what the companies projected 

for the study period and the actual pretax net income for that period, and 

included both losses in pre-tax net 

income and one-time costs attributable 

directly to compliance with new 

restrictions or regulations resulting from 

the terrorist attacks. In formulating its 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
17382 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

estimates, the Department’s consultant 

relied primarily on voluntary 

information provided by each entity, 

and while interviews were conducted to 

confirm the general reasonableness and 

consistency of the numbers provided, 

no independent analysis, audit or 

certification was conducted. Therefore, 

the October 2005 DOT study advised 

that these estimates were merely 

preliminary and meant solely to inform 

Congress in determining whether and in 

what amount to appropriate funds to 

reimburse these general aviation 

entities. The October 2005 DOT study 

also indicated that, if compensation 

were to be made available, ‘‘the 

financial data establishing the basis for 

any payment, especially forecast 

revenue, cost and net income, should 

* * * be subject to a more rigorous 

verification regime.’’ (Estimated 

Financial Losses to Selected General 

Aviation Entities in the Washington, DC 

Area Final Report, at fn. 3.) 

The total estimated financial losses 

for the period reviewed were 

$10,443,936, with more than half of that 

amount being reported for one firm, 

Signature Flight Support. The estimates 

were in current dollars and reflected no 

consideration for the time value of 

money. 

On November 30, 2005, the 

Transportation, Treasury, Housing and 

Urban Development, the Judiciary, the 

District of Columbia, and Independent 

Agencies Appropriation Act, 2006, 

became law. Section 185 of the Act 

provides for the reimbursement of 

‘‘fixed-base general aviation operators 

and the providers of general aviation 

ground support services’’ at the five 

cited airports for the ‘‘direct and 

incremental financial losses incurred 

while such airports were closed to 

general aviation operations, or as of the 

date of enactment of this provision in 

the case of airports that have not 

reopened to such operations, by these 

operators and service providers solely 

due to actions of the Federal 

government following the terrorist 

attacks on the United States that 

occurred on September 11, 2001.’’ The 

Act provides up to $17 million to 

reimburse these general aviation 

entities; however, it states that, of the 

$17 million provided, an amount not to 

exceed $5 million, if necessary, is to be 

available on a pro rata basis to fixedbase general aviation operators and the 

providers of general aviation ground 

support services located at the three 

Maryland airports: College Park Airport 

in College Park, Maryland; Potomac 

Airfield in Fort Washington, Maryland; 

and Washington Executive/Hyde Field 

in Clinton, Maryland. 

Section 185 further states that the 

appropriated funds included the cost of 

‘‘an independent verification regime’’; 

that no funds shall be obligated or 

distributed to such general aviation 

entities until an independent audit is 

completed; that losses incurred as the 

result of violations of law, or through 

fault or negligence of such entities or of 

third parties (including airports) are not 

eligible for reimbursement; and that the 

obligation and expenditure of funds are 

conditional upon full release of the 

United States Government for all claims 

for financial losses resulting from such 

actions. 

On October 4, 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

in order to implement this Act (71 FR 

58546 et seq.). There, the Department 

proposed definitions of various terms 

found in the Act; the eligibility 

requirements for applicants; the 

methodology for determining the losses 

to be reimbursed, including the forms 

by which applications would be made; 

the time periods at each airport for 

which reimbursement of losses would 

be made; the procedures for verifying 

and auditing claims; and various other 

matters. The Department invited 

comments on its proposals, and 16 

responsive comments were received. 

Below, we summarize the comments 

that we received and describe our 

response to those comments, including, 

where appropriate, the modifications we 

are making based upon those comments. 

Eligibility of Airports Per Se To Apply 

for Reimbursement 

One commenter, a small airport, 

contended that airports should be 

eligible for reimbursement for their 

losses under the Rule, because they 

‘‘provide leaseholds to those who 

operate, service, and otherwise support 

general aviation aircraft,’’ and simply by 

doing so provide ‘‘general aviation 

ground support services.’’

DOT Response: DOT believes that 

Section 185 should not be read, and was 

not meant to be read, to include airports 

per se as ‘‘providers of general aviation 

ground support services’’ eligible for 

reimbursement under this program. 

First, providing a facility that others 

may use for general aviation support is 

not the same as itself providing 

‘‘services’’ to general aviation, and the 

latter formulation represents an 

interpretation that is more faithful to the 

language Congress actually used. 

Second, Congress clearly knows what an 

‘‘airport’’ is, and if it intended that 

airports ‘‘as airports’’ be reimbursed for 

losses it surely would have plainly 

provided for that in Section 185, rather 

than using the less direct ‘‘providers of 

general aviation services’’ language it 

chose. Finally, Congress, DOT, and 

other public authorities have used other 

vehicles to provide financial assistance 

to airports to reflect increased security 

and other requirements after the 

September 11 terrorist attacks, under 

which we understand various airports 

here recovered at least some elements of 

their added costs. The history of this 

legislation indicates that it was designed 

to assist those general aviation entities 

who were not eligible under other 

programs to recover their losses after 9/ 

11. 

Of course, if an airport here can show 

that it served as a fixed-base operator, or 

provider of general aviation ground 

support services as those terms are 

defined in Section 331.3 of the Rule, 

then it would qualify in that capacity for 

reimbursement under this program. 

Eligibility of General Aviation Entities 

That Did Not Operate at One of the Five 

Airports on September 11, 2001 

Glenwood Aviation, a leaseholder and 

fixed-base general aviation operator at 

the South Capitol Street Heliport who 

initiated operations there after the 

September 11 attacks (specifically, on 

October 1, 2002), expressed concern that 

certain language in the NPRM preamble, 

proposed rule, and application forms 

could be construed as precluding it from 

qualifying for reimbursement. DOT’s 

language causing this concern generally 

referenced eligible applicants as limited 

to those that had operations at one or 

more of the five airports on September 

11, 2001. The commenter stated that, in 

fact, Section 185 imposes no such 

restriction, and should be read more 

broadly to include the commenter 

within the class eligible for 

reimbursement. 

DOT Response: The relevant language 

of Section 185 appropriates funds to 

reimburse general aviation operators 

and the providers of general aviation 

ground support services ‘‘at’’ the five 

airports for direct and incremental 

financial losses, incurred while the 

airports were closed solely due to the 

actions of the Federal government after 

the terrorist attacks of September 11, 

2001. Thus, the commenter is correct in 

asserting that the legislative language 

does not limit general aviation entities 

eligible for reimbursement to those 

operating at one or more of the airports 

on September 11, 2001. 

The commenter does not disclose, in 

its comment, how it became the fixedbase operator at South Capitol Street, 

and in particular, whether it has any 

contractual relationship with its 

predecessor, Air Pegasus. Air Pegasus 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 17383 

abandoned its lease to operate at that 

facility on September 30, 2002, and 

Glenwood Aviation states that it began 

its operations on October 1, 2002, the 

following day. If Glenwood is simply 

asserting rights to reimbursement based 

on an assignment of these rights to it by 

Air Pegasus, the Department would 

consider its application so long as there 

is a full disclosure of this basis for doing 

so, the necessary information from Air 

Pegasus was supplied, and copies of the 

contractual documents are attached. 

However, if the commenter’s theory of 

recovery is not as an assignee, there is 

a further issue: Section 185 limits 

reimbursement to those losses that were 

incurred ‘‘solely due to the actions of 

the Federal government following the 

terrorist attacks on the United States 

that occurred on September 11, 2001’’

(emphasis supplied). On October 1, 

2002, when the commenter began its 

operations at South Capitol Street, the 

Federal government had already taken 

its actions to close that facility to 

general aviation operations. The 

commenter knew or had constructive 

knowledge of that closure, and 

presumptively assumed the risk when it 

negotiated the lease and began its 

operations that security or other 

considerations could require that the 

facility remain closed for some time, 

and perhaps never be reopened at all. 

Further, the status and uncertain future 

of the heliport should have permitted 

one then negotiating for a lease to obtain 

terms reflecting this risk-laden situation. 

Thus, in these instances, the notion that 

a ‘‘loss’’ was incurred ‘‘solely’’ due to 

actions taken by the Federal government 

following the attacks—and not due at 

least in part to miscalculation of risk or 

failure to adequately provide for it—is 

difficult to envision. 

Nonetheless, because the statute itself 

does not foreclose reimbursement to 

applicants that were not operating at 

one of the airports on September 11, we 

will not foreclose reimbursement to this 

or other similarly-situated parties 

without affording them an opportunity 

to demonstrate, to DOT’s satisfaction, 

that they can meet the other 

requirements of the statute and 

regulation. To meet those requirements, 

they would still need to supply an 

actual or, if none exists, a reasonable 

forecast showing post-9/11 business 

expectations absent the actions of the 

Federal government following the 

September 11 terrorist attacks, and show 

further that any claimed losses were 

solely due to those actions. 

DOT will therefore modify § 331.5 to 

read as follows: ‘‘If you are or were a 

fixed-base general aviation operator or 

provider of general aviation ground 

support services (collectively ‘‘operators 

or providers’’) at an eligible airport or 

airports in the Washington, DC area, and 

incurred direct or incremental losses 

during the applicable reimbursement 

periods stated at § 331.13 that were 

solely due to the actions of the Federal 

government following the terrorist 

attacks on the United States on 

September 11, 2001, you may apply for 

reimbursement under this part * * *. ’’

DOT will also modify the application 

form item 3 on Appendix A to read ‘‘At 

which of the following airports did the 

applicant operate as a fixed-base 

operator or provider of general aviation 

ground support services during the 

eligible period for reimbursement?’’

These modifications do not reflect any 

change to the reimbursement 

methodology that will be employed, or 

to the showing of loss and sole cause for 

loss that will be necessary to have an 

application approved. 

Reimbursement Methodology 

A number of commenters raised 

concerns about the inclusiveness of the 

rule’s methodology for determining the 

eligibility of losses. They maintained 

that losses due to foreclosure on homes, 

loss in value of real property, the 

adverse effect on their credit, fixed 

expenses, required maintenance, the 

cost of loans, personal savings invested 

in the business, and debts and wages 

that had gone unpaid should constitute 

eligible losses for which there would be 

reimbursement. Several also indicated 

that DOT’s ‘‘lost profits’’ approach 

failed to recognize that some GA entities 

were small businesses, which tended to 

reinvest in the business rather than 

‘‘take profits.’’

DOT Response: As background, the 

reimbursement methodology proposed 

by DOT in the NPRM relied on an 

applicant’s forecast of revenues and 

expenses had the 9/11 attacks not 

occurred, which would then be 

compared with the actual revenues and 

expenses that occurred for the period of 

eligibility. As proposed, the claimant 

would generally be reimbursed for the 

difference in forecast revenues and 

expenses and actual revenues and 

expenses for the period. 

Some of the loss items asked about by 

commenters would be addressed within 

this reimbursement scheme. For 

example, their forecasts would 

presumably itemize their projected 

‘‘fixed expenses,’’ ‘‘maintenance,’’

‘‘wages,’’ etc., and their actual expenses 

for those same items over the 

reimbursement period would be tallied. 

However, personal (as opposed to 

business) losses are not compensable 

under Section 185, nor can DOT 

reimburse for speculative losses or for 

losses that were not fully borne, in the 

normal course of business, during the 

allowable eligibility period. 

As to debt and equity investment 

represented by loans and use of 

personal funds, these would normally 

be reported as ‘‘debt and equity 

investment’’ on the balance sheet of the 

business as offsets to increased cash in 

compliance with accounting principles. 

The reimbursement methodology 

proposed by DOT would permit 

carrying the interest on the loan as a 

non-operating business expense on the 

income statement. This expense, along 

with other non-operating expenses and 

operating expenses would be, in 

essence, subtracted from forecast 

revenues to produce an adjusted 

income, to be compared against forecast 

income in determining the amount of 

any loss. Funds ‘‘reinvested’’ back into 

a company constitute an investment that 

would be carried as additional capital 

invested (an increase in equity), or 

retained earnings, on the balance sheet. 

These retained earnings or additional 

invested capital increase the value of 

the firm that inures to the benefit of 

equity holders on a continuing basis, 

and so would not be reimbursed as a 

loss within the proposed methodology. 

DOT believes its methodology for 

determining loss is appropriately 

comprehensive and fully satisfies the 

intent of Congress. We therefore are not 

proposing any modifications to it as a 

result of the comment process. 

Tax Treatment Issues 

One commenter questioned whether 

the intent of the legislation is to 

reimburse for damages rather than 

replacement of income, in which case 

the Rule should specify that any 

reimbursements should be tax-free. 

Another commenter urged that the 

Department’s reference to net income be 

clarified to specify income before taxes, 

and that any other calculations of 

amount should be based on income 

before tax. 

DOT Response: DOT does not view 

the language or intent of the legislation 

as providing reimbursement for 

damages, and disagrees that payments 

under the reimbursement program 

should be tax-free. DOT agrees with the 

second comment, viewing Section 185 

as providing for reimbursement of losses 

through payments that essentially serve 

as replacement revenues to offset the 

losses incurred while the airports were 

closed due to Federal government 

actions. These replacement revenues, 

like normal business revenues, would 

be subject to taxes. Since the 

reimbursements granted here would be 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
17384 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

subject to taxation, they should not be 

calculated on the basis of taxes that 

have already been paid. For 

clarification, we are therefore revising 

§ 331.7 to change four references to ‘‘net 

income’’ to read ‘‘net income before 

taxes’’ instead, and, in the application 

form, modifying the reimbursement 

claim form by using the term ‘‘adjusted 

income,’’ which reflects the net of 

operating revenues and expenses and 

certain prescribed non-operating 

expenses and revenues upon which 

taxes are calculated. 

Mitigation of Losses 

One commenter, who had been able to 

recapture some losses by moving 

operations to another, non-impacted 

airport, argued that ‘‘although it is 

possible to estimate, it would be 

complex and somewhat judgmental for 

[it] to attempt to measure secondary 

effects at other locations, not reflected 

in any financial documents, that may be 

attributable in part to the closure by the 

government of operations at DCA and to 

determine how this may or may not 

have affected [its] DCA’s losses.’’ It 

further asserted that, as a company with 

operations around the world, it engaged 

in many aviation and non-aviation 

income-producing activities before and 

after September 11, 2001, which have 

no relationship with the shutdown of 

DCA and should not be a factor relating 

to its reimbursement. 

DOT Response: DOT is proposing no 

change to the Rule in this regard. If an 

applicant was able to derive increased 

profits at another airport or airports as 

a result of diversion of traffic due to 

closure of one or more of the eligible 

airports, then those increases should 

serve to offset its reimbursable losses. 

While quantifying that offset amount 

may be ‘‘complex and somewhat 

judgmental,’’ the commenter conceded 

that it was possible to estimate, and 

DOT staff and, if necessary, an 

independent audit can help to ensure 

that an appropriate adjustment is made. 

If a narrower methodology were 

adopted, focusing only on an entity’s 

revenues and expenses associated with 

an eligible airport and ignoring the fact 

that some operations had migrated to 

another airport and produced income 

there, it could produce a windfall profit 

for the entity that DOT believes was not 

intended by Congress. 

Time Value of Money 

The intent of Congress was to 

reimburse eligible claimants for ‘‘the 

direct and incremental financial losses 

incurred.’’ In the NPRM, we proposed 

that applicants would report forecasted 

net income for the applicable 

reimbursement period and actual net 

income earned for that period. We 

explicitly excluded from the 

reimbursement the time value of money 

through the payment of interest on lost 

profits for the period of time the funds 

were available for use, tentatively 

determining that, as a legal matter, the 

Department is precluded from payment 

of interest under the circumstances 

present here. See, e.g., United States v. 

Alcea Bank of Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48, 

49 (1951). While several commentators 

asserted that interest should be 

reimbursable in the context of 

compensation paid pursuant to a 

governmental taking, such as the closure 

of airports, we do not believe that this 

comparison is valid. As noted below, 

the analogy to a governmental taking is 

inapt. A closer analogy is to the 

compensation paid under the Air 

Transportation Safety and System 

Stabilization Act, Pub. Law 107–42. 

That compensation, which was 

distributed in up to three tranches over 

time, did not include interest payments 

in any of the three distributions, 

including payments made even into 

2004 and 2005. While the time period 

for applicants under Section 185 does 

differ from the time periods for 

applicants under the Stabilization Act, 

we believe that the payment of interest 

should be excluded here as it was there. 

One commenter asserted that, 

however the Department must treat 

interest, ‘‘time value of money’’

represents a different concept and may 

and should be paid. In its view, the time 

value of money reflects the erosion in 

the value of money due to inflation, as 

well as the fact that funds available for 

use today can be put to productive use 

that will increase returns in the future. 

However, the erosion in the value of 

money is compensated for by paying 

interest, and, as explained, DOT is 

precluded by law from paying interest. 

However, as to lost capital earnings, the 

reimbursement calculus does permit an 

applicant to receive compensation if it 

can successfully demonstrate that its 

forecast showed a likely increase in net 

income that was planned for further 

investment at a reasonable rate, which 

increase and investment did not occur 

due to Federal government actions after 

September 11. In doing so, applicants 

must provide suitable supporting 

documentation for their specific claims 

because it would be highly speculative 

to hypothesize as to how earnings 

would have been reinvested and how 

those investments would fare, especially 

in the volatile economic climate after 

September 11. DOT will not simply 

provide a generalized ‘‘time value’’

percentage to all claims, which would 

effectively be a payment in lieu of 

interest. 

Fifth Amendment Taking 

A large fixed-base operator argued 

that reimbursement under this program 

should follow just compensation 

principles of the Fifth Amendment, 

specifically in the payment of interest. 

This commenter asserted that the intent 

of Section 185 was to reimburse 

claimants for the effective taking of their 

property, in accordance with the Fifth 

Amendment to the Constitution. 

DOT Response: DOT has not used a 

Fifth Amendment takings approach in 

proposing its methodology for 

reimbursing eligible GA entities. This 

action is consistent with and follows 

from the decision of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 

in Air Pegasus of DC, Inc. v. United 

States, 424 F. 3d 1206 (2005). In 

affirming a decision by the United 

States Court of Federal Claims, the 

Federal Circuit there found that the 

Federal regulations restricting aviation 

activity in the District of Columbia area 

did not effect a taking of the private 

property of Air Pegasus, a lessee of real 

property at the South Capitol Street 

Heliport. Fifth Amendment takings 

precedents are thus not applicable to 

our Rulemaking here. 

Lobbying Expenses 

One commenter questioned the 

NPRM’s general preclusion of legal and 

lobbying expenses as eligible for 

reimbursement. The commenter argued 

that general lobbying and legal expenses 

are reasonable expenses, and a 

necessary cost of doing business. 

However, it allowed that lobbying 

expenses specifically incurred in an 

effort to ‘‘obtain funding for the 

shutdown’’ may be excluded by law. 

DOT Response: The Department 

believes this comment has merit, and 

accordingly will modify § 331.7(g) of the 

Rule to read: ‘‘Lobbying and attorneys’’

fees incurred to promote reimbursement 

for losses resulting from the terrorist 

attacks or enact Section 185 of Pub. L. 

109–115 are not eligible for 

reimbursement.’’ The Department will 

also modify § 331.21(i) of the Rule to 

change ‘‘lobbying expenses’’ to 

‘‘lobbying expenses incurred to promote 

reimbursement for losses resulting from 

the terrorist attacks or enact Section 185 

of Pub. L. 109–115.’’

Eligible Reimbursement Period 

Section 185 provides reimbursement 

for losses incurred while the five 

airports ‘‘were closed to general aviation 

operations, or [up to] the date of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 17385 

enactment of this provision [i.e., 

November 30, 2005] in the case of 

airports that have not reopened to such 

operations. * * * ’’ Only one airport, 

the South Capitol Street Heliport, 

remained closed to general aviation 

traffic through November 30, 2005. The 

other four airports were reopened to 

general aviation in stages: (1) First, after 

September 11, 2001, but only via special 

waiver, (2) then, opened to limited 

general aviation operations for based 

aircraft, (3) and then, opened to include 

transient traffic. Due to continuing 

security restrictions, in no case has 

general aviation activity reached the 

same level as it had before September 

11, 2001. Because the statute speaks in 

terms of binary ‘‘closed’’ and 

‘‘reopened’’ airports, admitting of no 

intermediate stages, the issue arises as 

to what point during the reopening 

process the airports ceased to be 

‘‘closed’’ and should be considered 

‘‘reopened’’ for purposes of determining 

the ending date for any reimbursement 

payments. 

The NPRM addressed the issue at 

length. It proposed that the airports be 

considered reopened for purposes of the 

statute as of the date that transient 

traffic was permitted back. Under that 

proposal, the ending date for eligibility 

for reimbursement at Ronald Reagan 

Washington National Airport would be 

October 18, 2005; for College Park, 

Potomac, and Washington Executive/ 

Hyde Field would be February 13, 2005; 

and for the South Capitol Street 

Heliport, since it was never reopened to 

transient general aviation traffic, the 

date of enactment of the Act, or 

November 30, 2005. 

Three commenters with interests at 

one of the Maryland airports, and one 

national association on behalf of Ronald 

Reagan Washington National Airport, 

argued that general aviation activity at 

these airports remains subject to 

security restrictions and that the 

airports are not operating at their pre-9/ 

11 levels. While not contesting the fact 

that the four airports allow transient 

traffic to land, these commenters urged 

that the eligibility period be extended to 

the latest possible ending date in 

recognition of the fact general aviation 

aircraft do not have the same practical 

access to these airports as they did 

before September 11, 2001. 

DOT Response: DOT agrees that the 

levels of general aviation activity at 

none of the five airports have returned 

to those experienced prior to September 

11, 2001. However, it is clear that, aside 

from the South Capitol Street heliport, 

the airports are no longer closed to 

general aviation traffic and have 

reopened to some degree; the question 

is whether they have ‘‘reopened’’ in the 

sense that Congress provided in the Act. 

The commenters did not address the 

Department’s reasoning, in the NPRM, 

that Congress must not have considered 

all five airports to be ‘‘closed’’ at the 

time it passed the statute. Had it done 

so, Congress would have simply 

provided for reimbursement through the 

date of enactment of the Act for each of 

the airports, and not provided for a caseby-case determination as to when each 

‘‘reopened.’’ Congress of course was 

aware of the continuing security 

requirements and operational 

restrictions at the airports, and nothing 

in relevant legislative history indicates 

any basis other than airport ‘‘reopening’’

as the point at which eligibility for 

reimbursement was to terminate. The 

Department believes that the 

interpretation it proposed in the NPRM 

is the one most consistent with the Act’s 

language, and provides for a reasonably 

generous and consistent treatment 

among the airports. As a result, we have 

not modified the ending dates for the 

reimbursement periods in this Final 

Rule. 

Hyde Field Closure 

A number of commenters having their 

businesses or interests at Hyde Field 

argued that excluding any 

reimbursements for the period that 

airport was closed for the second time 

due to a security violation is not in 

keeping with the intent of the legislation 

and would create an undue hardship for 

them. Typically, they further asserted 

that they were not responsible for any 

violations, that the closure was for a 

minor security violation that should 

have taken but a few days to resolve, 

and that the length of the closure was 

due to government delay. 

DOT Response: Section 185 states, 

‘‘That losses incurred as a result of 

violations of law, or through fault or 

negligence, of such operators and 

service providers or of third parties 

(including airports) are not eligible for 

reimbursements.’’ While the 

commenters may be correct that they 

themselves may not have been at fault 

or otherwise responsible for the security 

violation that closed the airport, neither 

was the United States, and the statute 

authorizes reimbursement only for 

losses that were ‘‘solely due to the 

actions of the Federal government 

following the terrorist attacks on the 

United States that occurred on 

September 11, 2001.’’ Moreover, the 

exclusionary language is directed at a 

situation like the one at Hyde Field, and 

the legislative intent is clear that 

reimbursements not be available if the 

losses were proximately caused by third 

parties and not the United States. As a 

consequence, the Department 

determines that Hyde Field and its 

general aviation service providers will 

not be eligible for reimbursement during 

the period that the airport was closed as 

a result of violations of the law. 

Washington, DC Air Defense 

Identification Zone (ADIZ) 

One comment raised concerns about 

the economic impact of the Washington, 

DC Air Defense Zone (ADIZ) on other 

airports and businesses in the 

Washington, DC metropolitan area. The 

comment further proposed that the 

ADIZ should be rescinded or modified 

to reduce the economic impact on 

airports. 

DOT Response: Any losses that are 

not covered by Section 185 of the 2006 

Appropriations Act are outside the 

scope of this rule and compensation for 

such losses is beyond the authority of 

the Department. Modifications to the 

ADIZ, the flight restrictions and 

maintenance of the ADIZ security zone 

are also not within the scope of this 

Rule. 

Independent Audit Costs 

The NPRM preamble stated that 

‘‘larger claims, and any questioned 

claims, would be subject to audit,’’ and 

that the Department is ‘‘proposing to 

retain the flexibility to recover the costs 

of the audit from the amount of 

reimbursement.’’ While the NPRM did 

not go on to explain the reasoning 

behind the latter proposal, it was 

intended to provide an incentive for 

applicants to resolve their 

reimbursement claims short of an audit. 

It would also prevent audit costs from 

always being spread as overhead across 

the entire program, which could 

unfairly reduce reimbursements on a 

pro rata basis for small entities whose 

applications did not give rise to any 

issues on review. 

One commenter, a large entity, 

asserted that the large size of a claim 

should not dictate that it must be 

audited, and that audits should only 

occur where claims are unresolved after 

DOT consultation. It also argued that 

Section 185 provides funding for both 

audits and reimbursement of all eligible 

losses up to the $17 million ceiling. 

Thus, in its view, ‘‘Full reimbursement 

should be made for any accepted claim 

unless all the funds available have been 

expended and the Department has no 

choice but to reimburse an applicant for 

less than its accepted claim for losses.’’

Several other commenters asserted that 

Section 185 does not provide for any 

reductions in reimbursement for audit 

costs, one adding that the costs of an 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
17386 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

audit can be substantial, and if this 

offset principle were effectuated it could 

swallow up the entire amount of a 

claim. 

DOT Response: While larger claims 

are more likely to involve significant 

issues and to require an audit, the 

decision to audit a claim will be based 

on the Department’s evaluation of the 

completeness and reasonableness of a 

claimant’s entire application. While 

DOT has the flexibility to offset the cost 

of an audit against the reimbursement 

amount, it will do so only when 

reimbursements would need to be 

reduced because ceiling amounts have 

been reached, and where the reason for 

the audit involved questioned amounts 

that could not be resolved informally. 

Moreover, the maximum offset would be 

one-third of the total audit cost incurred 

by the Department. A reduction by onethird is considered sufficient to achieve 

the aims of dissuading unsupported 

claims and encouraging cooperation 

during the resolution process. 

It is, of course, entirely possible that 

an audit would sustain the full amount 

of an applicant’s claim, in which case 

the claim would be paid in full (subject 

of course to the overall $17 million 

ceiling). Only applicants whose claims 

are not supported by audits would have 

their verified reimbursement allocations 

reduced, by a maximum of one-third of 

their total Departmental audit costs. 

Reimbursement for Professional Fees 

Used in the Application Process 

A trade association argued that fees 

for professional service used in the 

application process for reimbursement 

should be eligible for repayment by the 

Federal government. The association 

stated that many of the applicants are 

small businesses that do not have the 

resources to outsource attorney or 

accountant services to assist in the 

application process, and that the 

application process required activities 

that would not be necessary absent the 

events of September 11 and the 

subsequent airport closures. 

DOT Response: Upon review, DOT 

agrees that the application process 

would benefit, overall, if claimants were 

able to utilize the services of 

professionals familiar with accounting 

standards and rules in submitting their 

applications. Particularly where 

applicants are subject to audit and, 

potentially, to have to pay the costs of 

that audit if any part of their claim is 

rejected, DOT believes they should have 

professionals available to them to help 

ensure that their applications comply 

with generally accepted accounting 

standards and thereby meet the 

Department’s requirements. 

Accordingly, we are amending the 

application form to include a separate 

line item for professional accounting 

services required in the submission of 

the application, which DOT may 

reimburse at 80%. (A sharing of cost 

will reduce the prospect for the 

provision of unnecessary services.) No 

reimbursements will be made for more 

general accounting or other legal or 

professional services, and all claims will 

be subject to a review for 

reasonableness. Invoices for services 

rendered must be attached to the 

application form to allow for prompt 

determinations to be made on 

allowability. The reimbursement would 

also be capped at a maximum amount 

of $2,000, which should be more than 

sufficient in at least the great majority 

of cases for an accountant to provide the 

services needed. 

Submission Period 

Several commenters requested an 

extension of our proposed submission 

deadline of 30 calendar days from the 

effective date of the Final Rule. Two 

suggested a minimum submission 

period of 90 days. We recognize that 

some small claimants may need 

additional time to compile their 

supporting data; however, consideration 

of giving extra time must also factor in 

other concerns that potential applicants 

are interested in receiving their 

reimbursement as soon as possible. On 

this point, a trade association had 

complained that DOT had already taken 

considerable time to publish the NPRM, 

and called for the remainder of the 

process to be ‘‘clear, concise, and 

timely.’’ In order to balance these 

competing concerns, and also to provide 

sufficient time for accounting 

professionals to assist applicants, we are 

establishing a submission period of 60 

calendar days from the effective date of 

the final rule. We believe that this 

extension will benefit potential 

applicants that require additional time 

without burdening all applications with 

90-day waits. 

Funds Available if Set-Aside 

Reimbursements Underrun $5 Million 

Section 185 requires at least $5 

million to be set aside for claims 

originating from College Park Airport, 

Potomac Airpark, and Washington 

Executive/Hyde Field. One commenter 

requested that DOT clarify what it will 

do with any funds remaining after all 

claims are processed from these three 

airports. 

DOT Response: Under the statutory 

language, after the claims from these 

designated airports are processed, if 

there are any funds remaining from the 

$5 million set-aside, then that money 

will be available to reimburse valid 

claims originating from other airports. 

To clarify this point in the Rule, DOT 

will add a Section 331.37, to read as 

follows: 

§ 331.37. What will happen to any remaining 

funds if operators and providers at the 

three Maryland airports make reimbursable 

claims totaling less than $5 million? 

If the operators and providers who are 

eligible for the $5 million set-aside do not 

exhaust the funds designated under the setaside, then any remaining money from the 

set-aside will be made available for other 

valid claims made under this Part. 

Assistance Available During the 

Application Process 

A trade association commented that 

many of the applicants eligible for 

reimbursement are small businesses and 

do not regularly develop full financial 

statements and forecasts. The 

association therefore requested that 

Departmental staff be flexible and 

provide as much assistance as possible 

to the applicants that need help. 

DOT Response: As discussed above, 

DOT will provide fee reimbursements, 

to a limited degree, to enable small 

businesses to obtain professional 

assistance in preparing their 

applications. We have also posted other 

potentially useful information on DOT’s 

Web site. DOT personnel will, to the 

extent resources permit, answer general 

questions and provide information on 

such matters as reimbursement 

eligibility and processing status. 

However, DOT staff will not be able to 

assist in the actual preparation of the 

applications, or provide tax or 

accounting advice or interpretations. 

Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rule is nonsignificant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and 

the Department of Transportation’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The 

rule establishes procedures to provide 

reimbursement to eligible applicants 

from funds appropriated by Congress. 

The Department administers a number 

of programs entailing similar 

procedures. This rule therefore does not 

represent a significant departure from 

existing regulations and policy. 

Furthermore, once implemented, this 

rule would have only minimal cost 

impacts on regulated parties. 

Federalism 

This rule does not directly affect the 

States, the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

the distribution of power among the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 17387 

national government and the States, 

such that consultation with the States 

and local governments is required under 

Executive Order 13132. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department certifies that this rule 

would not have significant economic 

effects on a substantial number of small 

entities. Many of the applicants for 

reimbursements are likely to be small 

entities. However, the overall benefits to 

be provided to applicants are modest in 

size and application costs themselves 

are likely to be low. In the aggregate, the 

cost among all applicants for gathering 

information and submitting an 

application should range from $2,501 to 

$5,003. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

specifically the application documents 

that fixed-base general aviation 

operators and providers of general 

aviation ground support services must 

submit to the Department to obtain 

compensation. The title, description, 

and respondent description of the 

information collections are shown 

below as well as an estimate of the 

annual recordkeeping and periodic 

reporting burden. Included in the 

estimate is the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Title: Procedures (and Form) for 

Reimbursement of General Aviation 

Operators and Service Providers in 

Washington, DC Area. 

Need for Information: The 

information is required to administer 

the requirements of the Act. 

Use of Information: The Department 

of Transportation will use the data 

submitted by the fixed-base general 

aviation operators and providers of 

general aviation ground support services 

to determine their reimbursement for 

direct and incremental financial losses 

incurred while the airports were closed 

due to Federal government actions taken 

after the terrorist attacks on September 

11, 2001. 

Frequency: For this final rule, the 

Department will collect the information 

once from fixed-base general aviation 

operators and providers of general 

aviation ground support services. 

Respondents: The respondents 

include an estimated 24 fixed-base 

general aviation operators and providers 

of general aviation ground support 

service. This estimate is based on the 

number of fixed-base general aviation 

operators and providers of general 

aviation ground support services 

identified in the October 2005 DOT 

study. 

Burden Estimate: Total applicant 

burden of between $2,501 and $5,003 

based on a burden of between three (3) 

and six (6) hours per applicant and a 

weighted average cost per hour of 

$34.74. 

Form(s): The data will be collected on 

the Form entitled, ‘‘Application Form 

for Reimbursement Under Section 185 

of Public Law 109–115,’’ and referenced 

in this part. 

Average Burden Hours per 

Respondent: A weighted average of four 

(4) hours per application. The 

Department has requested approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget for this information collection. 

Other Statutes and Executive Orders 

There are a number of other statutes 

and Executive Orders that apply to the 

rulemaking process that the Department 

must consider in all rulemakings, but 

which the Department has determined 

are not sufficiently implicated by this 

rule to require further action. 

Specifically, this rule does not impact 

the human environment under the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 

does not concern constitutionally 

protected property rights such that 

Executive Order 12630 is implicated, 

does not involve policies with tribal 

implications such that Executive Order 

13175 is invoked, does not concern civil 

justice reform under Executive Order 

12988, does not involve the protection 

of children from environmental risks 

under Executive Order 13045, and will 

not result in expenditures by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 331 

Air Transportation, Airports, 

Airspace, Claims, Grant programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued this 28th day of March, 2007, at 

Washington DC. 

Mary E. Peters, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department adds 14 CFR 

part 331 to read as follows: 

PART 331—PROCEDURES FOR 

REIMBURSEMENT OF GENERAL 

AVIATION OPERATORS AND SERVICE 

PROVIDERS IN THE WASHINGTON, DC 

AREA 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

Sec. 

331.1 What is the purpose of this part? 

331.3 What do the terms used in this part 

mean? 

331.5 Who may apply for reimbursement 

under this part? 

331.7 What losses will be reimbursed? 

331.9 What funds will the Department 

distribute under this part? 

331.11 What are the limits on 

reimbursement to operators or providers? 

331.13 What is the eligible reimbursement 

period under this part? 

331.15 How will other grants, subsidies, or 

incentives be treated by the Department? 

331.17 How will the Department verify and 

audit claims under this part? 

331.19 Who is the final decision maker on 

eligibility for, and amounts of 

reimbursement? 

Subpart B—Application Procedures 

331.21 What information must operators or 

providers submit in their applications for 

reimbursement? 

331.23 In what format must applications be 

submitted? 

331.25 To what address must operators or 

providers send their applications? 

331.27 When are applications due under 

this part? 

Subpart C—Set-Aside for Operators and 

Providers at Certain Airports 

331.31 What funds are available to 

applicants under this subpart? 

331.33 Which operators and providers are 

eligible for the set-aside under this 

subpart? 

331.35 What is the basis upon which 

operators and providers will be 

reimbursed through the set-aside under 

this subpart? 

331.37 What will happen to any remaining 

funds if operators and providers at the 

three Maryland airports make 

reimbursable claims totaling less than $5 

million? 

Appendix to Part 331—Application Form for 

Reimbursement Under Section 185 of Public 

Law 109–115 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322(a). 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

§ 331.1 What is the purpose of this part? 

The purpose of this part is to establish 

procedures to implement section 185 of 

the Transportation, Treasury, Housing 

and Urban Development, the Judiciary, 

the District of Columbia, and 

Independent Agencies Appropriation 

Act, 2006 (‘‘the Act’’ or ‘‘the 2006 

Appropriation Act’’), Public Law 109–

115, 119 Stat. 2396. Section 185 is 

intended to reimburse certain fixed-base 

general aviation operators or providers 

of general aviation ground support 

services at five airports in the 

Washington, DC metropolitan area for 

direct and incremental losses due to the 

actions of the Federal government to 

close airports to general aviation 

operations following the terrorist attacks 

of September 11, 2001. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
17388 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 331.3 What do the terms used in this part 

mean? 

The following terms apply to this 

part: 

Airport means Ronald Reagan 

Washington National Airport; College 

Park Airport in College Park, Maryland; 

Potomac Airfield in Fort Washington, 

Maryland; Washington Executive/Hyde 

Field in Clinton, Maryland; or 

Washington South Capitol Street 

Heliport in Washington, DC. 

Closed or closure means the period of 

time until the first general aviation 

operations were generally permitted at 

Ronald Reagan Washington National 

Airport; until November 30, 2005 at 

Washington South Capitol Street 

Heliport; or the earliest that transient 

traffic was generally permitted to return 

to the three Maryland airports. 

Department means the U.S. 

Department of Transportation and all its 

components, including the Office of the 

Secretary (OST) and the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA). 

Direct and incremental losses means 

losses incurred by a fixed-base general 

aviation operator or a provider of 

general aviation ground support services 

as a result of the Federal government’s 

closure of an airport following the 

terrorist attacks against the United 

States on September 11, 2001. These 

losses do not include any losses that 

would have been incurred had the 

terrorist attacks on the United States of 

September 11, 2001 not occurred. 

Fixed-base general aviation operator 

means an entity based at a particular 

airport that provides services to and 

support for general aviation activities, 

including the provision of fuel and oil, 

aircraft storage and tie-down, airframe 

and engine maintenance, avionics 

repair, baggage handling, deicing, and 

the provision of air charter services. The 

term does not include an entity that 

exclusively provides products for 

general aviation activities (e.g. a parts 

supplier). 

Forecast or forecast data means a 

projection of revenue and expenses 

during the eligible reimbursement 

period had the attacks of September 11, 

2001 not occurred. 

Incurred means to become liable or 

subject to (as in ‘‘to incur a debt’’). 

Loss means something that is gone 

and cannot be recovered. 

Provider of general aviation ground 

support services means an entity that 

does not qualify as a fixed-base general 

aviation operator but operates at a 

particular airport and supplies services, 

either exclusively or predominantly, to 

support general aviation activities, 

including flight schools or security 

services. The term does not include an 

entity that exclusively provides 

products for general aviation activities 

(e.g. a parts or equipment supplier). 

You means fixed-base general aviation 

operators or providers of general 

aviation ground support services. 

§ 331.5 Who may apply for reimbursement 

under this part? 

If you are or were an eligible fixedbase general aviation operator or 

provider of general aviation ground 

support services (collectively ‘‘operators 

or providers’’) at an eligible airport or 

airports in the Washington, DC area, and 

incurred direct or incremental losses 

during the applicable reimbursement 

periods stated at § 331.13 that were 

solely due to the actions of the Federal 

government following the terrorist 

attacks on the United States on 

September 11, 2001, you may apply for 

reimbursement under this part. If you 

are applying for reimbursement based 

on losses at more than one airport, then 

you must submit separate applications 

for each airport. For example, if you are 

a provider of general aviation ground 

support services at Ronald Reagan 

Washington National Airport and 

Potomac Airfield in Fort Washington, 

Maryland, you must submit two 

separate applications. 

§ 331.7 What losses will be reimbursed? 

(a) You may be reimbursed an amount 

up to the difference between the 

adjusted income you actually or 

reasonably forecasted for the eligible 

reimbursement period and the actual 

adjusted income you earned during the 

eligible reimbursement period. If you 

did not forecast for the eligible 

reimbursement period or any part of the 

eligible reimbursement period, you may 

be reimbursed for the difference 

between what you can show you would 

have reasonably expected to earn as 

adjusted income during that period had 

the airport at which you are or were an 

operator or provider not been closed as 

the result of Federal government 

actions, and the actual adjusted income 

you earned during the eligible 

reimbursement period. Adjusted income 

is calculated on a pretax basis. It is the 

total of Operating Profit or Loss (i.e., 

Total Operating Revenues minus Total 

Operating Expenses) and Nonoperating 

Income (Loss); however, it excludes 

certain expenses, including lobbying 

expenses that were incurred to promote 

reimbursement for losses after the 

terrorist attacks or enact what became 

Section 185 of Pub. L. 109–115. 

Extraordinary, non-recurring, or 

unusual adjustments, and capital losses 

are normally ineligible for 

reimbursement. If you wish to claim for 

such an adjustment or loss, you must 

demonstrate that such adjustments were 

solely attributable to the Federal 

government’s closure of the five 

Washington-area airports, are in 

conformity with Generally Accepted 

Accounting Principles, were fully borne 

within the statutory reimbursement 

period, that the loss was not 

discretionary in nature, and that 

reimbursement would not be 

duplicative of other relief. 

(b) A temporary loss that you 

recovered after the attacks of September 

11, 2001, or that you expect to recover, 

is not eligible for reimbursement under 

this part. You will not be reimbursed for 

those losses incurred through your own 

fault, negligence, or violation of law, or 

because of the actions of a third party 

(e.g. an airport). 

(c) If you engaged in any non-aviation 

income-producing activities after 

September 11, 2001, such income must 

be reported under question number 5 in 

the appendix to this part. 

(d) So called ‘‘cost savings’’ claims 

(i.e. increasing the claimed amount of 

reimbursement by reducing actual 

expenses to ‘‘adjust’’ for savings in 

expense categories asserted not to have 

been affected by the terrorist attacks) are 

not eligible for reimbursement. 

(e) You cannot claim reimbursement 

for the lost time value of money (i.e. 

interest on lost profits for the period of 

time the funds were not available for 

your use). 

(f) Lobbying fees and attorneys’ fees 

incurred to promote reimbursement for 

losses after the terrorist attacks or enact 

Section 185 of Pub. L. 109–115 are not 

eligible for reimbursement. 

(g) Your calculation of revenues, 

expenses and income must be based on 

financial documents maintained in the 

ordinary course of business that were 

prepared for the eligible reimbursement 

period, such as income statements, 

statements of operations, profit-and-loss 

statements, operating forecasts, budget 

documents or other similar documents. 

§ 331.9 What funds will the Department 

distribute under this part? 

The Department will distribute the 

full amount of reimbursement it 

determines is payable to you under 

section 185 of the Act. Payment may be 

made in one or more installments. 

§ 331.11 What are the limits on 

reimbursement to operators or providers? 

(a) You are eligible to receive 

reimbursement subject to the set-aside 

(subpart C of this part) for eligible 

operators or providers at College Park 

Airport in College Park, Maryland; 

Potomac Airfield in Fort Washington, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 17389 

Maryland; and Washington Executive/ 

Hyde Field in Clinton, Maryland. The 

amount available to you as 

reimbursement may be reduced to cover 

the cost of independent verification and 

auditing, as set forth in § 331.17. 

(b) If you receive more reimbursement 

than the amount to which you are 

entitled under section 185 of the Act or 

the subpart C set-aside, the Department 

will notify you of the basis for the 

determination and the amount that you 

must repay to the Department. The 

Department will follow collection 

procedures under the Federal Claims 

Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701 

et seq.) to the extent required by law, in 

recovering such overpayments. 

(c) Payment will not be made to you 

until you have agreed to release the 

United States Government for all claims 

for financial losses resulting from the 

closure of the five airports in the 

Washington, DC area. The Department 

will provide a release form to applicants 

that must be completed before any 

payment is made under Section 185 of 

the Act. 

§ 331.13 What is the eligible 

reimbursement period under this part? 

The eligible reimbursement period for 

direct and incremental losses differs by 

airport: 

(a) For Ronald Reagan Washington 

National Airport the eligibility period 

for reimbursement is from September 

11, 2001 until October 18, 2005. 

(b) For College Park Airport in College 

Park, Maryland, the eligibility period for 

reimbursement is from September 11, 

2001 until February 13, 2005. 

(c) For Potomac Airfield in Fort 

Washington, Maryland, the eligibility 

period for reimbursement is from 

September 11, 2001 until February 13, 

2005. 

(d) For the Washington South Capitol 

Street Heliport in Washington, DC, the 

eligibility period for reimbursement is 

from September 11, 2001 to November 

30, 2005. 

(e) For Washington Executive/Hyde 

Field in Clinton, Maryland, there are 

two eligibility periods for 

reimbursement. The first period is from 

September 11, 2001 until May 16, 2002. 

The second period is from September 

29, 2002 until February 13, 2005. 

§ 331.15 How will other grants, subsidies, 

or incentives be treated by the Department? 

Grants, subsidies, or incentives that 

you have received during the eligible 

reimbursement period, either directly or 

indirectly, from Federal, State, and local 

entities, to reimburse you for the cost of 

operations and capital improvements 

associated with implementing security 

programs, or maintaining or providing 

general aviation services and facilities, 

will be considered revenues and should 

be reported as such on your application. 

§ 331.17 How will the Department verify 

and audit claims under this part? 

Departmental staff will initially 

review each claim in detail, and contact 

you should questions arise. If they are 

unable to satisfactorily resolve the 

matter following consultation with you, 

your claim will be forwarded to the 

Office of the Inspector General, or 

another independent auditor, for 

verification and, if necessary, an audit. 

In addition, the Department may consult 

with, or make referrals to, other 

government agencies, including the 

Department of Justice. If an audit is 

necessary, a ceiling amount reached, 

and the audit does not support the 

claimed amount, your reimbursement 

may be reduced to cover one-third the 

cost of the audit. 

§ 331.19 Who is the final decision maker 

on eligibility for, and amounts of 

reimbursement? 

The Assistant Secretary of Aviation 

and International Affairs will make a 

final determination of your eligibility 

and the amount of reimbursement you 

will receive. 

Subpart B—Application Procedures 

§ 331.21 What information must operators 

or providers submit in their applications for 

reimbursement? 

(a) You must submit the Application 

Form for Reimbursement under Section 

185 of Public Law 109–115 

(‘‘Application Form’’), located in the 

appendix to this part, along with the 

profit and loss statements, forecasts, or 

other financial documents (collectively 

‘‘supporting financial documents’’) 

generated as a routine matter for the 

purposes of managing your business, 

and relied upon in completing your 

application. 

(b) To the extent that your calculation 

of revenues, expenses and incomes are 

based on monthly records, you must 

adjust your calculation, on a pro-rata 

basis, to conform to the eligibility 

period. For example, if you utilize a 

monthly financial record to prepare a 

calculation of your September 2001 

revenues, you should apportion your 

results for the period between 

September 11 and September 30, 2001. 

(c) If multiple forecasts were prepared 

for the same period, you must utilize the 

one most recently approved, prior to 

September 11, 2001, so long as it is 

otherwise objective and reliable. 

(d) If you provided information to the 

Department as part of its study entitled 

Estimated Financial Losses to Selected 

General Aviation Entities in the 

Washington, DC Area (Oct. 2005) (‘‘2005 

General Aviation Study’’), you should 

not simply reiterate the same data 

provided to the Department at that time; 

you must provide the most current 

information that is available to you. If 

you do reiterate that same data provided 

to the Department for the 2005 General 

Aviation Study, the basis for your 

estimates must be verifiable from the 

supporting financial documents that 

you submit with your application. 

(e) Failure to include all required 

information will delay consideration of 

your application by the Department and 

may result in a rejection. You have the 

burden to document and substantiate 

your claim; the Department will provide 

reimbursement only if it is satisfied that 

payment is fully supported. 

(f) If, prior to September 11, 2001, you 

did not prepare a forecast covering the 

entire eligible reimbursement period, or 

if the forecast you completed is not 

relevant to the information required by 

this part, you may submit an ‘‘after-thefact’’ estimate of the amount that you 

would have reasonably expected to 

accrue as adjusted income had the 

airport at which you are or were an 

operator or provider not closed. ‘‘Afterthe-fact’’ estimates must consider items 

particular to your business, including 

labor agreements and the terms of 

contracts in place at the time of the 

eligible reimbursement period, shortterm or long-term budget documents, 

documents submitted in support of 

applications for loans or lines-of-credit, 

and other similar documents. You must 

explain the methodology that you used 

when preparing your reconstructed 

forecast. 

(g) You must certify that the 

information on the application in the 

appendix to this part and all of the 

supporting financial documents that 

you are submitting is true and accurate 

under penalty of law and that you 

acknowledge that falsification of 

information may result in prosecution 

and the imposition of a fine and/or 

imprisonment. 

(h) You must retain all materials you 

relied upon to establish your claim for 

losses. 

(i) You must provide mitigating 

expenses, lobbying expenses incurred to 

promote reimbursement for losses after 

the terrorist attacks or enact Section 185 

of the Act, and special expenses, as well 

as extraordinary adjustments, as 

instructed in the appendix to this part. 

(j) If you need professional accounting 

services to assist in the preparation of 

your application, you may claim 

reimbursement for 80% of the actual 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
17390 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

amount you paid for such services, up 

to a maximum reimbursement of $2,000. 

You may claim reimbursement only for 

professional services; your own time in 

applying for reimbursement is not 

reimbursable. Any claim for 

professional accounting services must 

be accompanied with appropriate 

documentation as to the nature and 

extent of services performed, the 

amount billed, and payment. 

Employment or use of such professional 

services does not relieve you of the 

responsibility for the accuracy and 

completeness of the application. 

(k) If you believe that the release of 

financial information provided to the 

Department in support of your 

application would cause you substantial 

harm if released by the Department to 

the public upon an appropriately made 

request, you may request that the 

Department hold portions of your 

application as confidential. Your 

request must specify the portions of 

your application that should be held by 

the Department as confidential, and you 

must provide an explanation as to how 

the release of such information would 

cause you substantial harm. 

§ 331.23 In what format must applications 

be submitted? 

(a) The Application Form, located in 

the appendix to this part, must be 

submitted in hardcopy format and, if 

possible, in electronic format. The 

Department has made available an 

electronic version of this form at the 

following Web site: http:// 

ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/index.html. 

(Click on ‘‘Programs’’ and scroll to 

‘‘General Aviation Operator and Service 

Provider Reimbursement.’’

(b) All supporting financial 

documents must be submitted in hard 

copy. In addition, you may submit 

financial and accounting tabular data in 

Excel spreadsheet format, utilizing a 

3.5′′ floppy disk, compact disk, or flash 

memory device, and doing so may 

expedite the processing of your claim. 

(c) Faxed and e-mailed applications 

are not acceptable and will not be 

considered. 

§ 331.25 To what address must operators 

or providers send their applications? 

(a) You must submit your application 

and all required supporting information, 

to the following address: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Office of 

Aviation Analysis (X–50)Aviation Relief 

Desk, Room 6401, 400 7th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

(b) Your application must be 

submitted via courier or an express 

package service, such as registered U.S. 

Postal Service, Federal Express, UPS, or 

DHL. 

(c) If complete applications are not 

submitted to the address in paragraph 

(a) of this section, they will not be 

accepted by the Department. 

§ 331.27 When are applications due under 

this part? 

You must submit your application by 

June 8, 2007. 

Subpart C—Set-Aside for Operators or 

Providers at Certain Airports 

§ 331.31 What funds are available to 

applicants under this subpart? 

The Department is setting aside a sum 

of $5 million to reimburse eligible 

operators or providers, as set forth in 

section 185 of the Act. 

§ 331.33 Which operators and providers 

are eligible for the set-aside under this 

subpart? 

Operators or providers at the 

following three airports during the 

eligible reimbursement periods are 

eligible for the set-aside: 

(a) College Park Airport in College 

Park, Maryland; 

(b) Potomac Airfield in Fort 

Washington, Maryland; and 

(c) Washington Executive/Hyde Field 

in Clinton, Maryland. 

§ 331.35 What is the basis upon which 

operators or providers will be reimbursed 

through the set-aside under this subpart? 

Operators or providers eligible under 

this subpart will be reimbursed 

pursuant to the same procedures set 

forth in subpart B of this part. If total 

losses for all eligible claims at the three 

airports set forth in § 331.31 of this part 

are less than $5 million, then such 

claims will be paid in full. If the total 

losses for all eligible claims at the three 

airports set forth in § 331.31 of this part 

exceed $5 million, then the total losses 

will be divided on a pro rata basis, and 

a proportionate amount for each claim 

will be distributed to applicants. 

§ 331.37 What will happen to any 

remaining funds if operators and providers 

at the three Maryland airports make 

reimbursable claims totaling less than $5 

million? 

If the operators and providers who are 

eligible for the $5 million set-aside do 

not exhaust the funds designated under 

the set-aside, then any remaining money 

from the set-aside will be made 

available for other valid claims made 

under this part. 

Appendix to Part 331—Application 

Form for Reimbursement Under Section 

185 of Public Law 109–115 

1. Applicant name:lllllllllll 

2. Applicant address: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

3. At which of the following airports did 

the applicant operate as a fixed-base operator 

or provider of general aviation ground 

support services during the eligible period 

for reimbursement? 

• Ronald Reagan Washington National 

Airport 

b 

• College Park Airport in College Park, 

Maryland 

b 

• Potomac Airfield in Fort Washington, Maryland b 

• Washington Executive/Hyde Field in 

Clinton, Maryland 

b 

• Washington South Capitol St. Heliport, Washington, DC b 

4. Briefly describe the nature of the 

applicant’s operations as a fixed-base general 

aviation operator or a provider of general 

aviation ground support services at each 

airport during the eligible period for 

reimbursement. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

5. Did the applicant or any part of it 

conduct non-fixed-base general aviation 

activities or provide non-aviation ground 

support services during the 2001 through 

2005 period? 

b Yes. Briefly describe the non-fixed-base 

general aviation activities and nonaviation ground support services. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

b No. 

6. Briefly describe how the events of 

September 11, 2001 affected the applicant’s 

operations as a fixed-base general aviation 

operator or a provider of general aviation 

ground support services. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

7. In response to the events of September 

11, 2001, did the applicant take any action 

to lessen or offset the impact of those events? 

b Yes. Briefly describe those actions and 

the effect they had on the applicant. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

b No. 

8. Has the applicant filed income taxes for 

any period between 1999 and 2005? 

b Yes. Specify the filing status under 

which the applicant filed (corporation, 

partnership, sole proprietorship, etc.) 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

b No. 

9. Baseline Financial Data and Forecasts. 

Attach to this Appendix copies of your profit 

and loss statements, or such financial records 

as you generated as a routine matter for the 

use of management, for the periods 1999 

through 2005, that show your actual financial 

results. Similarly, attach copies of any actual 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 17391 

forecasts that you prepared for both these 

baseline periods and for any part of the 

reimbursement periods that were prepared 

prior to September 11, 2001. 

10. The requested amount of 

reimbursement claimed below must be based 

on a comparison of actual operating results 

(revenues, expenses and profits or losses), 

adjusted as indicated, with a similarly 

adjusted company forecast/budget of 

operating results that existed prior to 

September 11, 2001 if such a forecast/budget 

was actually prepared. If the applicant did 

not prepare any such pre-September 11 

forecasts, or prepared them for less than the 

full reimbursement period, an after-the-fact 

estimate of what the applicant can document 

can reasonably be expected to earn during 

the remaining eligible period may be 

submitted. If such an after-the-fact estimate is 

used, describe below the period for which it 

applies and the methodology that was used 

to determine it. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

11. Reimbursement Claim 

Financial Data 

Column A Column B Column C 

Pre 9–11–01 Forecast or afterthe-fact estimate for the eligible period*.Actual results for the eligible 

period*.

Column A minus Column B 

Line 1—Total Operating Revenues 

Line 2—Total Operating Expenses 

Line 3—Operating Profit or (Loss) 

Line 4—Nonoperating Revenue 

Line 5—Nonoperating Expenses.

Line 6—Nonoperating income (loss) 

before taxes.

Line 7—Professional Application Fee 

(@80%, max. $2000).

Total—Adjusted Income Line 3 

plus line 6 and line 7 in the last 

column.

The table above applies to the period 9–

11–01 through 2–13–05 for the three 

Maryland airports, including Washington 

Executive/Hyde Field. However, for Hyde 

Field please prepare separate claims for the 

periods before, during and after the ineligible 

period, 5–17–02 through 9–28–02. For 

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, 

the eligible period is from 9–11–02 through 

10–18–05 and for Washington South Capitol 

Street Heliport, the period is from 9–11–01 

through 11–30–05. 

Lobbying expenses incurred to promote 

reimbursement for losses after the terrorist 

attacks or enact Section 185 of Public Law 

109–115 are to be excluded from both 

Columns A and B. 

12. Has the applicant or any of its 

subsidiaries or affiliates received grants, 

subsidies, incentives or similar payments 

from local, state, or Federal governmental 

entities in support of the security, 

maintenance and provision of general 

aviation services and facilities furnished in 

response to the events of September 11, 

2001? (This includes payments under the 

Aviation Transportation Security Act (ATSA) 

Public Law 107–71 November 19, 2001, and 

the Airport Improvement Program (AIP)). 

b Yes. Enter amount = $llllll. 

b No. 

13. Has the applicant or any of its 

subsidiaries or affiliates incurred lobbying 

expenses, mitigating expenses, or special 

expenses (as described in the section 

captioned ‘‘What information must operators 

or providers submit in their applications for 

reimbursement?’’), or extraordinary, nonrecurring, or unusual adjustments? 

b Yes. Briefly describe these expenses and 

the amount of each, and state if they 

have been included in or excluded from 

the totals in the table at item number 11. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

b No. 

14. Certification. I certify the above 

information and all attached documents as 

true and accurate under penalty of law, and 

acknowledge that falsification of information 

may result in prosecution and imposition of 

a fine and/or imprisonment. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Signature of Company Official (must be 

President, CEO, COO, or CFO) 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Printed Name of Company Official 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Position (President, CEO, COO, or CFO) of 

Company Official 

Phone Number of Company Official: 

(voice) llllllllllllll

(fax) lllllllllllllll

Date llllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Name of Contact Person (if different from 

above) 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Position of Contact Person (if different from 

above) 

Phone Number of Contact Person: 

(voice) llllllllllllll

(fax) lllllllllllllll

E-mail Address of Contact Person: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Instructions for Completing Application 

Form for Reimbursement Under Section 185 

of Public Law 109–115 

1. Applicant name. 

This is the person or legal entity who 

undertakes to act as a fixed-base general 

aviation operator or who provides general 

aviation ground support services, directly or 

by a lease or any other arrangement. 

2. Applicant address. 

The applicant address is that location 

within the local tax authority jurisdiction 

that is held out to the public as the business 

or airport address. 

3. Airport of operation on September 11, 

2001. 

This question asks the applicant to identify 

those airports in the Washington, DC area 

where it provided either fixed-base general 

aviation services or general aviation ground 

support services on September 11, 2001. 

Check as many airports as you served on 

September 11, 2001. 

4. Briefly describe the nature of the 

applicant’s operations as a fixed-base general 

aviation operator or a provider of general 

aviation ground support services at each 

airport during the eligible period for 

reimbursement. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
17392 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

You should describe the specific fixed-base 

general aviation services or general aviation 

ground support services that you provided at 

each of the airports. 

5. Did the applicant or any part of it 

conduct non-fixed-base general aviation 

activities or provide non-aviation ground 

support services during the 2001 through 

2005 period? 

Check ‘‘Yes’’ if you conducted any nonfixed-base general aviation activities or 

provided non-aviation ground support 

services during the 2001 through 2005 

period. Describe the activities that you 

undertook during this period that did not 

directly support general aviation at the 

airport. 

6. Briefly describe how the events of 

September 11, 2001 affected the applicant’s 

operations as a fixed-base general aviation 

operator or a provider of general aviation 

ground support services. 

You should describe how the level and 

conduct of your operations as a fixed-base 

general aviation operator or your operations 

as a provider of general aviation ground 

support services were changed as a result of 

September 11, 2001 and the ensuing security 

restrictions that were imposed by the Federal 

government. 

7. Did the applicant undertake any actions 

to lessen or offset the impact of the Federal 

government’s closure of airports in the 

Washington, DC area following the attacks of 

September 11, 2001? 

Check ‘‘Yes’’ if you attempted to minimize 

the impact that the terrorist attacks of 

September 11, 2001 had on your business. 

Briefly describe your actions and the effect 

that they had on you. Include any activities 

or services undertaken after September 11, 

2001 that did not provide support for general 

aviation but that did provide revenues to 

sustain your business. 

8. Has the applicant filed income taxes for 

any period between 1999 and 2005? 

Check ‘‘Yes’’ if you filed income taxes 

during this period, and indicate the filing 

status under which you filed your income tax 

returns. 

9. Baseline Financial Data and Forecasts. 

Attach to this Appendix copies of your profit 

and loss statements, or such financial records 

as you generated as a routine matter for the 

use of management, for the periods 1999 

through 2005, that show your actual financial 

results. Similarly, attach copies of any actual 

forecasts that you prepared for both these 

baseline periods and for any part of the 

reimbursement periods that were prepared 

prior to September 11, 2001. 

This question directs applicants to provide 

the Department with certain financial 

documents in order to verify and substantiate 

their claims. Documents that you have 

already prepared should be sufficient. When 

necessary, you should supplement these 

documents with footnotes or explanations 

that are pertinent to your reimbursement 

claim. The financial data may include such 

documents as income statements, statements 

of operations, forecasts of operating results, 

income projections, pro forma budget 

projections, budget documents, tax 

preparation support material, information 

presented in investment perspectives and 

registrations, or other similar information 

that in whole or in part cover the period from 

1999 through 2005. 

10. The requested amount of 

reimbursement claimed below must be based 

on a comparison of actual operating results 

(revenues, expenses and profits or losses) 

(adjusted as shown), with a similarly 

adjusted company forecast of operating 

results that existed prior to September 11, 

2001 if such a forecast was actually prepared. 

If the applicant did not prepare any such preSeptember 11 forecasts, or prepared them for 

less than the full reimbursement period, an 

after-the-fact estimate of what the applicant 

can document that it reasonably expected to 

earn during the remaining eligible period 

may be submitted. If such an after-the-fact 

estimate is used, describe below the period 

for which it applies and the methodology 

that was used to determine it. 

Indicate here whether an ‘‘after-the-fact’’

forecast was prepared, and briefly describe 

the methodology used in preparing the 

forecast. Your methodology must take into 

account items relevant to your businesses, 

such as the terms of existing contracts, shortterm or long-term budget documents, 

documents submitted in support of 

applications for loans or lines-of-credit, 

existing labor agreements and leasing 

agreements, and other similar types of 

documents. 

In preparing your ‘‘after-the-fact’’ forecast, 

you may wish to consult a July 2001 report 

prepared for the FAA, entitled Forecasting 

Aviation Activity by Airport. This report was 

prepared by GRA, Incorporated (GRA), for 

the FAA’s Office of Aviation Policy Plans 

Statistical and Forecast Branch (APO–110). 

While the Department recognizes that fixedbase general aviation operators and providers 

of general aviation ground support services 

are different entities than larger airports at 

which scheduled service is provided, the 

Department believes that this document 

offers relevant guidance to applicants who do 

not prepare forecasts as part of regular 

business operations. This July 2001 report 

may be accessed at: http://www.faa.gov/ 

data_statistics/aviation_data_statistics/ 

forecasting/media/AF1.doc. 

The July 2001 report explains the basic 

steps usually utilized in preparing forecasts, 

including: Identifying parameters and 

measures to forecast; collecting forecast 

information of expected revenues or 

expenses, including budgets; gathering and 

evaluating data; selecting a forecast method 

(such as regression and trend analysis, share 

analysis, or exponential smoothing); applying 

methods and evaluating results; and 

summarizing and documenting the results. 

Additionally, data sources to assist you in 

making adjustments to your forecast are 

available from the Department’s Web site at 

http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/index.html 

(Click on ‘‘Programs’’ and scroll down to 

‘‘General Aviation Operator and Service 

Provider Reimbursement’’). The Department 

notes that, while it can answer questions for 

applicants that might arise while applicants 

develop forecasts, the Department is not in a 

position to propose or develop projections for 

applicants. 

11. Reimbursement Claim. 

For purposes of completing the 

information in the reimbursement claim 

table, total operating revenues (line 1) 

include the inflow of funds to the applicant 

resulting from the sale of goods and services 

related to the activities of a fixed-base 

operator or a provider of general aviation 

services. Examples include, but are not 

limited to, monetary amounts or value 

received for providing: aircraft fuel or oil; 

delivery of aircraft fuel or oil; transient and 

long-term storing, tie down parking and 

sheltering of aircraft; maintenance, 

inspection, checking, upgrading of aircraft 

and aircraft related equipment and for 

polishing and cleaning property and 

equipment; providing flight instruction 

services and materials; and miscellaneous 

items for purchase such as maps, books, 

flight clothing, sectional charts, devices and 

parts for aircraft, food services, hospitality 

services, auto rentals, aircraft custodial and 

sanitation services, assistance grants from 

state and Federal government agencies, 

insurance payments, and revenues derived 

from the business activities conducted at 

alternative airports to those that were closed. 

Total operating expenses (line 2) include 

the cost to the applicant of providing the 

goods and services related to the activities of 

a fixed-base operator or a provider of general 

aviation services. Examples include, but are 

not limited to: Labor costs for all categories 

of employees (including compensation, 

vacation and sick leave pay, medical benefits, 

workmen’s compensation contributions, 

accruals or annuity payments to pension 

funds, training reimbursements, professional 

fees, licensing fees, educational or 

recreational activities for the benefit of the 

employee, stock incentives, etc.); the cost of 

fuel and oil including nonrefundable aircraft 

fuel and oil taxes; insurance; flight and 

ground equipment parts; general services 

purchased for flight or ground equipment 

maintenance; depreciation of flight and 

ground equipment; amortization of 

capitalized leases for flight and ground 

equipment; provisions for obsolescence and 

deterioration of spare parts; insurance 

premiums; and rental expenses of flight and 

ground equipment expenses associated with 

business activities conducted at alternative 

airports to those that were closed. 

Advertising, promotion and publicity 

expenses, landing fees, clearance, customs 

and duties, utilities, bookkeeping, 

accounting, recordkeeping and legal services 

are also part of the total operating expenses. 

Operating profit or loss is calculated by 

subtracting the total operating expenses from 

the total operating revenues. If the total 

operating revenues exceed the total operating 

expenses, the calculation results in an 

operating profit. If the total operating 

expenses exceed the total operating revenues, 

the calculation results in an operating loss. 

Nonoperating income and expenses 

include: income and loss incident to 

commercial ventures not inherently related 

to the direct provision of fixed-base operator 

services or general aviation ground support 

services; other revenues and expenses 

attributable to financing or other activities 

that are extraneous to and not an integral part 

of general aviation services; and special 

recurrent items of a nonperiod nature. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 17393 

Examples of non-operating income 

include, but are not limited to: Interest 

income; foreign exchange gains; equity 

investment in an investor controlled 

company; intercompany transactions; 

dividend income; and net unrealized gains 

on marketable equity securities. 

Examples of non-operating expenses 

include, but are not limited to: Interest on 

long-term debt and capital leases; interest on 

short-term debt; imputed interest capitalized; 

amortization of discount and expense on 

debt; foreign exchange losses; fines or 

penalties imposed by governmental 

authorities; costs related to property held for 

future use; donations to charities, social and 

community welfare purposes; losses on 

reacquired and retired or resold debt 

securities; and losses on uncollectible nonoperating receivables. 

For reasons set forth elsewhere in § 331.7 

of this part, you may not include lobbying 

expenses that were incurred to promote 

reimbursement for losses after the terrorist 

attacks or enact Section 185 of Pub. L. 109–

115. Non-operating income is the result of 

subtracting the non-operating expenses from 

the non-operating revenues. Professional 

application fees provide for reimbursement 

of 80 percent of the cost of professional 

accounting services required in the 

preparation and submission of the 

application. Adjusted Income for each of the 

Columns A and B is the sum of the Operating 

profit (or loss) (line 3) plus line 6, Nonoperating income (loss). Each line of Column 

C is the result of subtracting Column B from 

Column A, except on line 7, Professional 

Application Fees, where the claimant may 

enter 80 percent of professional application 

fees (up to a maximum of $2,000). The 

Adjusted Income figure on the Total line of 

Column C represents the amount claimed as 

total reimbursement; it may of course be 

adjusted as the result of Department review. 

All Adjusted Income figures do not reflect 

taxes due in the current period, as a 

consequence, reimbursements will be pre-tax 

and income taxes may be due on reimbursed 

funds. 

The difference between column A and B is 

the basis for column C. This constitutes the 

total amount of your claim for 

reimbursement. As the eligibility periods, for 

the most part, begin and end on days other 

than the first or last days of the month, 

quarter or year, data from already existing 

financial statements must be adjusted, on a 

pro rata basis, to reflect the eligibility 

periods. For example, the period of eligibility 

for all applicants begins on September 11, 

2001 and therefore, the only time period 

during the month of September that is 

eligible for reimbursement is September 11 

through September 30, a period of 20 days. 

Applicants should be prepared to show both 

how they apportioned such financial data 

into the reimbursement periods, and why 

they chose the apportionment approach used. 

Applicants can then use these estimates for 

the specified periods at the beginning and 

end of the eligible period to add to the 

financial amounts for 2002, 2003, and 2004 

to calculate the total amounts sought in 

Appendix A. 

12. Has the applicant or any of its 

subsidiaries or affiliates received grants, 

subsidies, incentives or similar payments 

from local, state, or Federal governmental 

entities in support of the security, 

maintenance and provision of general 

aviation services and facilities furnished in 

response to the events of September 11, 

2001? (This includes payments under the 

Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 

2001 (Public Law 107–38) and the Airport 

Improvement Program under the Airport and 

Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (Public 

Law 97–248).) 

This question requires that you disclose all 

grants, subsidies, or incentives that you 

received during the eligible reimbursement 

period, either directly or indirectly, from 

Federal, State, and local entities, to 

reimburse you for the cost of operations and 

capital improvements associated with 

implementing security programs, or 

maintaining or providing general aviation 

services and facilities. 

13. Has the applicant or any of its 

subsidiaries or affiliates incurred lobbying 

expenses, mitigating expenses, or special 

expenses (as described in the section 

captioned ‘‘What information must operators 

or providers submit in their applications for 

reimbursement?’’), or extraordinary 

adjustments? 

Check ‘‘Yes’’ if you incurred any such 

expenses or experienced any such 

adjustments. You must briefly describe the 

nature of such expenses and adjustments, 

including the amounts. Additionally, you 

must indicate whether or not such expenses 

or adjustments have been included in or 

excluded from the totals in the table at item 

number 11. 

Lobbying includes any amount paid to any 

person for influencing or attempting to 

influence an officer or employee of any 

agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or 

employee of Congress, or an employee of a 

Member of Congress. 

Mitigating expenses include the utilization 

of property, the provision of services and the 

sale of goods that were undertaken to 

mitigate losses arising from the Federal 

government’s closure of airports attendant to 

the September 11, 2001 attack. These could 

include expenses incurred for the provision 

of services and sale of goods moved from 

restricted airports to unrestricted airports or 

compensation for non-aviation oriented 

goods and services provided at restricted 

airports. Mitigating expenses may also 

include operating expenses for aviationrelated fixed assets or capital utilized outside 

of the restricted airport. 

Special expenses include, but are not 

limited to, moving expenses, additional 

security equipment and facilities, and loss on 

sales of assets that arose from the direct 

imposition of restrictions during the period 

September 11, 2001 through the applicable 

eligible date. Any item reported under 

Special Expenses shall not also be expensed 

in other expense categories that are reflected 

in the calculation of the reimbursement 

claim. Details regarding special expenses 

should be noted in footnotes. 

Extraordinary adjustments are events or 

transactions that are material to your 

business and unusual in nature and 

infrequent in occurrence. 

14. Certification. 

You must certify that all information 

contained on the Background and Eligibility 

Form and the documents submitted in 

support of your application (e.g., profit and 

loss statements, actual forecasts, after-the-fact 

forecasts, etc.) are accurate. This certification 

is made under penalty of law. Falsification 

may be grounds for monetary and/or criminal 

sanctions. This certification must be made by 

a company President, CEO, COO, or CFO. 

[FR Doc. E7–6350 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 101 

[Docket No. RM04–12–000] 

Accounting and Financial Reporting 

for Public Utilities Including RTOs; 

Notice of Extension of Time 

April 2, 2007. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE. 

ACTION: Final rule: notice of extension of 

time. 

SUMMARY: On December 16, 2005, the 

Commission issued Order No. 668, a 

Final Rule amending the Commission’s 

regulations to update the accounting 

and reporting requirements for public 

utilities and licensees, including 

independent system operators and 

RTOs. Because the Commission has 

updated the submission software used 

to file FERC Form Nos. 1 and 1–F, the 

Commission is issuing a notice 

extending the filing deadline for the 

filing of 2006 FERC Form Nos. 1 and 1–

F. 

DATES: The filing deadline for 2006 

FERC Form Nos. 1 and 1–F is extended 

to May 18, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brenda D. Devine, Division of Financial 

Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8522. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Notice Granting Extension of Time for 

Filing FERC Form Nos. 1 and 1–F 

On December 16, 2005, the 

Commission issued Order No. 668, a 

Final Rule amending the Commission’s 

regulations to update the accounting 

and reporting requirements for public 

utilities and licensees, including 

independent system operators and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES