Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2016 / Notices 26611 

1 69 FR 6366 (Feb. 10, 2004). 

2 69 FR 6367. 

3 Id. 

4 Id. 

5 Id. at 6367. 

6 Id. at 6368. 

7 Id. 

Frequency: Information is collected 

on occasion. 

Estimated Average Burden per 

Response: 3 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 75 

hours. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 27, 

2016. 

Ronda Thompson, 

FAA Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, Performance, Policy, and Records 

Management Branch, ASP–110. 

[FR Doc. 2016–10346 Filed 5–2–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) 

Program: Eligibility of Ground Access 

Projects Meeting Certain Criteria 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA); DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Policy 

Amendment and Request for Comments 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend 

its ‘‘Notice of Policy Regarding the 

Eligibility of Airport Ground Access 

Transportation Projects for Funding 

Under the Passenger Facility Charge 

(PFC) Program,’’ 1 regarding the 

requirements for PFC funding of onairport, rail access projects. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 2, 2016. Comments that 

are received after that date will be 

considered only to the extent practical. 

ADDRESSES: You may send written 

comments by any of the following 

methods. Identify all transmissions with 

‘‘Docket Number FAA 2016–XXXX’’ at 

the beginning of the document. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver comments to 

Docket Operations in Room W12–140 of 

the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

To read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov at any time or to 

Room W12–140 on the ground floor of 

the DOT West Building, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 

267–3831; facsimile (202) 267–5302. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

123(e) of Public Law 108–176, Vision 

100-Century of Aviation 

Reauthorization Act (December 12, 

2003) directed the FAA to publish a 

policy on the eligibility of ground access 

projects for PFC funding. The FAA’s 

Notice of Policy Regarding Eligibility of 

Ground Access Transportation Projects 

for Funding Under the Passenger 

Facility Charge Program (2004 Notice), 

69 FR 6366, was published on February 

10, 2004. The 2004 Notice presented the 

relevant statutory requirements as well 

as FAA’s regulations and guidance on 

PFC-funded ground access 

transportation projects in a consolidated 

form.2 As stated in the 2004 Notice, the 

statutory requirements include the 

significant contribution test for PFC 

contributions higher than $3 per 

passenger (49 U.S.C. 40117(d)(3)); the 

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 

funding test (49 U.S.C. 40117(b)(4)(B); 

14 CFR 158.17(a)(2)) and the airside 

needs test (49 U.S.C. 40117(d)(4); 14 

CFR 158.17(a)(3)).3 Other requirements 

can be found in 14 CFR part 158; FAA 

Order 5500.1, ‘‘Passenger Facility 

Charge’’ (August 9, 2001); ‘‘The AIP 

Handbook,’’ FAA Order 5100.38D 

(September 30, 2014); and FAA PFC 

records of decision and final agency 

decisions on about the use of PFC 

revenue to finance airport ground access 

transportation projects.4

For purposes of the policy, airport 

ground access includes all potential 

surface transportation modes (i.e., road, 

light and heavy rail, and water). 

The 2004 Notice restated the agency’s 

longstanding policy requirement from 

the AIP Handbook, FAA Order 5100.38, 

that to be AIP and/or PFC eligible, an 

airport ground access transportation 

project must meet the following 

conditions: 

(1) The road or facility may only 

extend to the nearest public highway or 

facility of sufficient capacity to 

accommodate airport traffic; 

(2) the access road or facility must be 

located on the airport or within a rightof-way acquired by the public agency; 

and 

(3) the access road or facility must 

exclusively serve airport traffic.5

The first and second of these 

requirements are relatively 

straightforward to apply and evaluate. 

The third requirement (exclusive use) 

requires more explanation. The 2004 

Notice stated that ‘‘exclusive use of 

airport patrons and employees means 

that the facility can experience no more 

than incidental use by non-airport 

users.’’ 6 By incidental use, the 2004 

Notice explains, routine use of the rail 

ground access transportation facility by 

non-airport users must ‘‘be unattractive 

and non-airport users in fact constitute 

only a minor percentage of total system 

ridership.’’ However, the 2004 Notice 

also stated that ‘‘Exclusive airport use 

does not mean that any non-airport use 

must be prevented at all costs.’’ 7

The 2004 Notice also stated that 

related facilities, such as acceleration 

and deceleration lanes, exit and 

entrance ramps, lighting, equipment to 

provide operational control of a rail 

system or people mover, and rail system 

or people mover stops at intermediate 

points on the airport are eligible when 

they are a necessary part of an eligible 

access road or facility. In addition, the 

public agency must retain ownership of 

the completed ground access 

transportation project. The public 

agency may choose to operate the 

facility on its own or may choose to 

lease the facility to a local or regional 

transit agency for operation within a 

larger local or regional transit system. 

During the 12 years that have ensued 

since publication of the 2004 Notice, the 

FAA has consistently applied these 

criteria. However, as FAA’s experience 

in administering the program has 

developed, it has become clear that 

strictly applying criteria originally 

designed to judge eligibility for onairport road access projects, to onairport rail projects, can produce 

financially and practically inefficient 

outcomes. The concept of ‘‘exclusive 

use’’ has been the subject of particular 

interest because of the underlying 

principle that the stakeholders who pay 

excise taxes on airline passenger tickets 

or passenger facility charges should not 

have to pay the costs of facilities, except 

to the extent necessary to meet the 

needs of airport patrons and employees. 

Over the years, the FAA has had to 

decide whether all or portions of 

proposed on-airport ground access 

projects utilizing rail, or portions 

thereof, met the policy requirement that 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
26612 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2016 / Notices 

8 64 FR 53763 (Oct. 4, 1999); PFC Record of 

Decision, Application No. 01–08–C–00–PDX (July 

20, 2001) at 8. 

9 Id. 

10This policy, when completed, will also apply 

to AIP eligibility. However, due to AIP rules that 

limit funding for airport terminal development, rail 

access projects would not likely be funded with AIP 

funding. 11 Id. 

the rail right-of-way exclusively served 

airport traffic. 

In the past, both before and after the 

publication of the 2004 Notice, the FAA 

has found that almost all otherwise 

eligible rail stations located on-airport 

are eligible for PFC funding under 

agency guidelines, because they are 

exclusively used by airport patrons and 

employees.8 However, whether the right 

of way or guideway itself met the 

historical interpretation of exclusive use 

depended upon the configuration of the 

rail line (e.g., whether a spur line 

terminating at the airport, or a throughline where the airport station is not the 

terminus). Historically, the FAA has 

approved funding only for tracks or 

guideways that clearly meet the 

requirement of exclusive use, by virtue 

of the physical configuration of the rail 

line.9

As discussed below, the FAA recently 

received a request for the use of PFC 

revenue to fund an on-airport ground 

access rail station and related trackage, 

where the trackage would not 

exclusively serve airport traffic because 

the rail line would not terminate at the 

airport station but continue beyond the 

airport property. Our review and 

evaluation of the application has caused 

the agency to consider whether the 

exclusive use policy is unduly limiting, 

thereby preventing the approval of PFC 

funds for some airport ground access 

projects that might be consistent with 

the agency’s mission to ‘‘encourage the 

development of intermodal connections 

on airport property between 

aeronautical and other transportation 

modes and systems to serve air 

transportation passengers and cargo 

efficiently and effectively and promote 

economic development.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

47101(a)(5).10

Specifically, the agency notes that by 

extending the rail line beyond the 

airport, thereby providing more transit 

options for more travelers and 

increasing the utility of the system 

consistent with the agency’s mission, 

the financing options for that system 

become conversely limited. There are 

fundamental differences between fixedguideway systems like rail and public 

roads. With road access, all that is 

needed to facilitate efficient access to 

the air transportation system is a direct 

connection from the airport to a main 

thoroughfare or population center, as 

individual drivers can then choose their 

own path to their destination. The roads 

used by airport visitors are typically 

part of a broader system that may be 

funded, constructed, and maintained by 

multiple levels of government or private 

entities for multiple purposes and 

journeys. Given the open and variable 

nature of road systems, it is critical for 

the FAA to apply strict eligibility 

criteria that tie the funding of the onairport project to the exclusive use of 

the airport. Without such criteria, users 

of the infrastructure could benefit from 

federally-approved funds designed to 

improve access to the national air 

transportation system without ever 

intending to visit, or actually visiting, 

the airport. Airport rail access projects, 

however, are planned, funded, 

constructed, operated, and used 

differently from on-airport road projects. 

By their nature, passenger rail and rail 

transit aggregate passenger traffic along 

fixed routes with a limited number of 

stops, each with their own justification 

and purpose. Users of road 

infrastructure have more flexibility and 

control in determining their route that 

users of rail, who are more limited in 

their options. Without a very strict 

exclusive use requirement, users of 

access roads could take advantage of 

that infrastructure, and make a choice to 

never pass through the airport itself. 

Users of rail, however, have little choice 

of route and their degree of control over 

that route. Non-airport users are not 

taking advantage of the airport portions 

of track by choice, but are more likely 

to be passing through the airport 

because they cannot use rail travel to 

their destination without doing so. The 

FAA is seeing an increasing number of 

circumstances and physical 

configurations in which strict adherence 

to the historical interpretation of 

‘exclusive use’ may not be in the 

balance of the public interest. Indeed, 

rigid application of the historical policy, 

designed primarily for road access 

projects, potentially frustrates the FAA’s 

own objectives as set forth in 49 U.S.C. 

47101(b)(5) and (6). 

Additionally, population and 

demographic trends have changed since 

the ground access policy was 

developed. Many airports that were 

originally constructed on the periphery 

of population centers, now find 

themselves ensconced as suburban 

growth has extended to and beyond the 

airport. As such, it may no longer make 

sense for a ‘‘downtown’’ rail or transit 

line to terminate at the airport, as there 

now exists a pool of potential users 

beyond the airport. However, under 

current policy, which equates on-airport 

rail projects with ‘‘access roads,’’ 

extending rail/transit access beyond the 

airport so that these populations can 

also access the airport precludes the use 

of federally-approved funds, such as 

PFCs, for significant portions of the 

project since the line would go beyond 

the airport and no longer serves airport 

traffic exclusively. 

Accordingly, the FAA is considering 

amending the 2004 Policy so that onairport rail access projects are no longer 

treated identically to access roads. 

The FAA is evaluating whether, 

consistent with intermodal policy under 

49 U.S.C. 47101(b)(5) and (6), it should 

reconsider its policy to only permit 

ground access projects where the airport 

terminal is the terminus of the rail line, 

or whether PFCs should also be 

available for other types of rail projects. 

The FAA is soliciting comment on 

whether it should amend its policy to 

consider rail projects that are located on 

airport, but that may not exclusively 

serve air traffic, where the creation of a 

separate spur into the airport (in order 

to ensure exclusive use of the right-ofway) would be materially more 

expensive than having the rail line 

transit the airport property and continue 

beyond and/or would be contrary to the 

agency’s mission to ‘‘encourage the 

development of intermodal connections 

at airports.’’ 49 U.S.C. 47101(a)(5). The 

FAA requests comments on several 

policy alternatives for determining 

when rail projects on airport are eligible 

for PFC funding. After reviewing 

comments, the FAA may permit some of 

the alternatives to establish PFC 

eligibility or may permit other 

alternatives raised by commenters. One 

recent PFC application received by the 

FAA highlights the agency’s experience 

with intermodal objectives, and a need 

for flexibility in using PFCs to fund onairport rail access. In March 2014, the 

FAA received a PFC application from 

the Metropolitan Washington Airports 

Authority (MWAA) that included a 

request to use PFCs to help fund both 

an on-airport station and a portion of 

the on-airport tracks that would be 

located immediately adjacent to the 

station. Although both segments of the 

track would be located on airport 

property and connect to the nearest 

public transportation facility, the tracks 

would not be exclusively used by 

airport patrons and employees, as has 

been historically required based on the 

FAA’s policy, per the 2004 Notice, to 

analyze rail projects under the same 

framework as access roads.11 The tracks 

would not be for the exclusive use of 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2016 / Notices 26613 

12FAA Final Agency Decision dated July 11, 

2014, page 22. 

13 Id. 

airport patrons and employees because 

the rail line in question would not 

terminate at the airport station, but 

continue to other destinations beyond 

the airport. 

In a July 11, 2014, final agency 

decision, the FAA approved portions of 

the application and the Dulles Airport 

Metrorail Station project in particular, 

but deferred consideration of ‘‘the track 

portions of this project (beyond the 

Airport station footprint).’’ 12

The FAA’s final agency decision 

stated that ‘‘The FAA is generally 

reviewing the historical interpretation of 

exclusive use, and considering possible 

refinements in the general eligibility 

criteria relating to track and guideway 

elements, on airport, in certain 

circumstances.’’ 13

In its consideration of this potential 

policy change, the FAA must be 

mindful of how such a change could 

affect future airport ground access 

project approvals. The agency will have 

to balance the benefit to the airport (e.g., 

increasing ease of access for airport 

patrons, and employees; decreased 

ground congestion; preserving or 

enhancing capacity, etc.) against the use 

of PFCs to pay for the trackage or 

guideway where use of that right-of-way 

would not exclusively serve airport 

traffic as historically interpreted. 

Discussion on Proposed Policy: As a 

result of its review and evaluation of the 

MWAA application, and past PFC 

decisions relating to airport ground 

access, the FAA has identified three 

proposed means by which an airport 

could demonstrate eligible costs of onairport rail trackage to be funded 

through PFC revenues. These proposals 

are based on the underlying principle 

that the stakeholders who pay PFCs 

should not have to pay the costs of 

facilities, except to the extent necessary 

to meet the needs of airport patrons and 

employees, and also promote the 

agency’s statutory mission to expand 

intermodal links at the nation’s airports. 

The three proposals are: 

1. Incremental Cost Comparison: The 

increased cost of a through-track 

solution (compared to a track that 

bypasses the airport) benefits no one but 

the airport passengers and employees. 

Detailed Discussion of Alternative: 

• For this alternative, the public 

agency could demonstrate that the rail 

line would be built from Point A to 

Point B regardless of whether the airport 

station is added. 

• This approach would compare the 

actual cost needed to serve airport 

passengers and employees against the 

cost of the PFC project (airport station). 

• If not for the service to the airport, 

the track alignment in this section 

(Section C–D) would typically be 

shorter, straighter, and less expensive 

than that of a design that includes the 

Airport Station (C–A1–Airport Station– 

B1–D). 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
26614 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2016 / Notices 

• The approximate incremental cost 

to serve the airport is the difference 

between the track cost to serve the 

airport (C–A1–Station–B1–D) and the 

cost if the track did not deviate to serve 

the airport (C–D). This incremental cost 

represents the costs needed to directly 

benefit airport passengers and 

employees. This incremental cost forms 

the basis of PFC eligibility. However, 

only that trackage on airport property 

(A1–Airport Station–B1) is eligible for 

PFC funding. 

2. Separate System Comparison: The 

project costs of a through-track solution 

is less expensive than a stand-alone 

people-mover bringing passengers in 

from an off-airport station. 

Detailed Discussion of Alternative: 

• The full costs of a hypothetical 

people mover system including the 

costs of the Airport Station, the 

transport vehicles, and the full costs of 

the rail line between the Airport Station 

and A1 (theoretical airport property 

line) would typically be eligible for PFC 

funding. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN03MY16.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2016 / Notices 26615 

• This alternative would compare the 

cost of developing a hypothetical people 

mover system (on airport) against the 

cost of bringing the transit line to and 

through an on-airport station. 

If the airport can demonstrate that the 

costs to be funded through PFC 

revenues would be less than the cost of 

building a separate system, then the 

costs to be funded through PFC 

revenues would be eligible. 

3. Prorate the costs of the trackage on 

airport property based on ridership 

forecast. If the airport can demonstrate 

that the costs to be funded through PFC 

revenues would be no more than the 

prorated costs of the trackage on airport 

property, based on ridership forecasts 

and the percentage representing 

passengers and employees utilizing the 

airport, then those costs could be 

considered eligible. 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

submit written comments, data, or 

views concerning this proposal. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, please send only 

one copy of written comments, or if you 

are filing comments electronically, 

please submit your comments only one 

time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments received, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposal. Before acting on this 

proposal, the FAA will consider all 

comments received on or before the 

closing date for comments and any latefiled comments if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. The 

FAA may change this proposal in light 

of comments received. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 27, 

2016. 

Elliott Black, 

Director, Office of Airport Planning and 

Programming. 

[FR Doc. 2016–10334 Filed 5–2–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Requests for Comments; 

Clearance of Renewed Approval of 

Information Collection: Application for 

Employment With the Federal Aviation 

Administration 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 

invites public comments about our 

intention to request the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval to renew a currently approved 

information collection. The information 

collected is used to evaluate the 

qualifications of applicants for a variety 

of positions within the FAA. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

submitted by July 5, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA 

at the following address: Ronda 

Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation 

Administration, ASP–110, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspect of this 

information collection, including (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for FAA’s 

performance; (b) the accuracy of the 

estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to 

enhance the quality, utility and clarity 

of the information collection; and (d) 

ways that the burden could be 

minimized without reducing the quality 

of the collected information. The agency 

will summarize and/or include your 

comments in the request for OMB’s 

clearance of this information collection. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ronda Thompson at (202) 267–1416, or 

by email at: Ronda.Thompson@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 2120–0597. 

Title: Application for Employment 

with the Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

Form Numbers: There are no FAA 

forms associated with this collection. 

Information is collected via the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) online 

USAJOBS system and the FAA’s 

Automated Vacancy Information Access 

Tool for Online Referral (AVIATOR) 

staffing tool. 

Type of Review: Renewal of an 

information collection. 

Background: Under the provisions of 

Public Law 104–50, the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) was 

given the authority and the 

responsibility for developing and 

implementing its own personnel system. 

The agency requests certain information 

needed to determine basic eligibility for 

employment and potential eligibility for 

veteran’s preference and Veteran’s 

Readjustment Act appointments. In 

addition, occupation specific questions 

assist the FAA in determining 

candidates’ qualifications so that only 

the best-qualified candidates may be 

hired for the many aviation safetyrelated occupations. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN03MY16.006</GPH>