Opinion ID: 150469
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Change of Policy

Text: The ATA argues that because the Amendments work a change in DOT policy the Department has additional obligations to justify that change. We have long held that an agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored. Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (1970). Here the ATA identifies two specific changes of policy: (1) including in the rate base costs of some facilities not yet in service, and (2) including in the rate base of a primary airport the costs of a secondary airport. The DOT first denies having made any changes in policy that require explanation because it has not previously addressed modified congestion pricing by airports. We need not resolve that particular squabble, however, because we conclude the DOT adequately explained its reasons for promulgating the two bits about which the ATA complains. In 1996 the DOT explained, when fees are based on cost, it is generally unreasonable to charge users for facilities they do not benefit from or use, but at the same time recognized that doing so might be reasonable in some circumstances. 61 Fed.Reg. at 32,002/2. The DOT then balanced various conflicting concerns and concluded the only costs of future facilities an airport could include in its rate base, and then only under certain circumstances, were the costs of land acquired for future airport development. Id. at 32,020/3. The present Amendments to the 1996 Policy allow an airport more broadly to add to its rate base a portion of the costs of an airfield project under construction, again subject to certain conditions. 73 Fed.Reg. at 40,445. The 1996 Policy also permits an airport proprietor to include the costs of an alternate airport in the rate base of a primary airport if those costs are reasonably related to the aviation benefits that the other airport provides or is expected to provide to aeronautical users of the first airport. 61 Fed.Reg. at 32,020/3; see also id. at 32,014. The Policy specifies that the requirement of benefits to the users of the first airport will be presumed to be satisfied if the other airport is designated as a reliever airport for the first airport [by] the FAA[ ]. Id. at 32,020/3. The Amendments do not change the general standard, but they do add that benefits to the users of the first airport also will be presumed if adding airfield costs of the second airport to the rate base of the first airport during congested hours would have the effect of reducing or preventing congestion and operating delays at [the first] airport in those hours. 73 Fed.Reg. at 40,445/2. The DOT provided a reasoned analysis for these two aspects of the Amendments, considering that [a]n agency's view of what is in the public interest may change, either with or without a change in circumstances. Greater Boston, 444 F.2d at 852. Most fundamentally, the DOT identified a major change in the world around it between 1996 and 2008: Airport congestion had increased significantly. In explaining the need for the Amendments, it detailed congestion at specific airports and recounted the findings of the Federal Aviation Administration about chronic congestion. See 73 Fed.Reg. at 40,431-32 (citing Federal Aviation Administration, Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System 2007-2025: An Analysis of Airports and Metropolitan Area Demand and Operational Capacity in the Future (May 2007)). It reasoned that congestion pricing could encourage more efficient use of [congested] airports and explained how increasing an airport's rate base and allowing it to impose a two-part landing fee could approximate congestion pricing. 73 Fed. Reg. at 40,431-32. Of course, congestion is not an entirely new problem. More than 40 years ago the press, the government, the airlines, the airport operators themselves, and a host of others [told us] that our airports are in a state of `crisis.' Levine, Landing Fees, 12 J.L. & Econ. at 79. The DOT, however, has a continuing mandate to manage the Nation's air transportation system. As the airspace is used ever more intensively, it is unsurprising that the Department would update its approach to landing fees in an effort to relieve airport congestion. So long as it complies with the applicable statutes, its creativity should be welcomed on its merits, not spurned for its novelty.