[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 174 (Friday, September 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47012-47020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-22354]




[[Page 47011]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



Proposed Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / 
Notices   

[[Page 47012]]


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. 27782]
RIN 2120-AF90


Proposed Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges

AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed policy; reopening of comment 
period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document proposes a significant revision of the Policy 
Regarding Airport Rates and Charges published with request for comment 
on February 3, 1995. The proposed policy retains the structure and 
basic approach of the February 3 policy statement, but the strict 
requirement for equality of fees and costs based on historic cost 
valuation of assets would be limited to the airfield portion of an 
airport, and the policy would permit substantial flexibility in the 
establishment of fees for other aeronautical facilities. The revision 
reflects public comments received on the February 3 policy statement. 
This notice announces two public meetings on the proposed policy and 
reopens the comment period until October 23, 1995.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed, in quadruplicate, to: Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules 
Docket (AGC-10), Dockets No. 27782, 800 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20591. All comments must be marked: ``Docket No. 
27782.'' Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their 
comments must include a preaddressed, stamped postcard on which the 
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 27782.'' The 
postcard will be date stamped and mailed to the commenter.
    Comments on this Notice may be examined in room 915G on weekdays, 
except on Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Rodgers, Director, Office of 
Aviation Policy, Plans and Management Analysis, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, 
telephone (202) 267-3274; Barry Molar, Manager, Airports Law Branch, 
Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-
3473.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 113 of the FAA Authorization Act of 
1994, Public Law 103-305 (1994 Authorization Act) signed into law on 
August 23, 1994, 49 U.S.C. 47129, required the Secretary of 
Transportation to issue standards or guidelines for use in determining 
the reasonableness of an airport fee. After notice and opportunity for 
public comment, on January 30, 1995, the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation (OST) and the FAA issued a ``Policy Regarding Airport 
Rates and Charges,'' and requested further public comment on the 
interim policy as published. Docket No. 27782 (60 FR 6906, February 3, 
1995). The comment period on the interim policy closed on May 4.

Comments Received

    More than 125 comments were received in response to the February 3 
request for comment, including comments received after the close of the 
comment period. The Department considered all comments, including the 
late-filed comments. Because the Department is proposing a 
substantially revised policy statement and publishing the statement for 
an additional comment period, the Department will include in this 
supplemental notice only a brief discussion of public comments received 
on the February 3 policy statement, and will not address the comments 
in detail at this time. When a final policy statement is published in 
the Federal Register, the Department will include a comprehensive 
response to public comments received on both the February 3 interim 
policy and this proposed revision.

Summary of Proposed Changes and Response to Significant Issues 
Raised

1. Valuation of Assets for Ratesetting Purposes.

    The interim policy requires valuation of all airport land and 
airfield assets at historic cost to the original airport proprietor ( 
Para. 2.4.1). The airport proprietor may use other valuation methods 
for other assets, but total aeronautical revenue may not exceed total 
aeronautical cost, based on historic cost asset (HCA) valuation, absent 
agreement (Para 2.4.1(a)).
    Aeronautical users filing comments supported the interim final 
policy's approach to asset valuation.
    Airport operators uniformly criticized the treatment of asset 
valuation. They argued that, inter alia, the combination of the HCA 
valuation requirement and the total cost cap will disrupt their current 
practices in leasing nonairfield facilities; will underfinance smaller 
airports that are unable to use debt-financing to fund capital 
replacement and improvement; and will cause signatory carriers to pay 
more than non-signatory carriers under certain residual lease and use 
agreements. They also argued that the HCA requirement is inconsistent 
with Sec. 47129's prohibition on setting rates; is inconsistent with 
Departmental policies on financial self-sustainability of airports; and 
is inconsistent with an airport proprietor's Constitutional right to 
earn a reasonable return on investment.
    While airport commenters prefer elimination of the HCA valuation 
requirement for all assets, most (the City of Los Angeles being the 
primary exception) stated that retention of the HCA valuation 
requirement for the airfield would be acceptable, because HCA valuation 
for the airfield reflects common industry practice.
    The Department proposes to revise the policy by limiting the HCA 
valuation requirement in proposed Para. 2.5.1 to airfield assets and by 
eliminating the total HCA cost cap for aeronautical facilities (Para. 
2.4.1(a) of the interim policy). Airfield assets would be defined in 
the applicability section of the policy statement to include runways, 
taxiways, nonexclusively leased aprons, land associated with these 
facilities, and land acquired and held to assure compatibility with 
airfield operations. If the latter land were developed for compatible, 
nonairfield uses, the land would be removed from the airfield rate 
base.
    In addition, further guidance would be given on the way airfield 
land may be included in the rate base (proposed Para. 2.5.1(a)). The 
cost of land acquired with debt could be included in the rate base by 
charging all debt service expenditures to the airfield cost center. The 
cost of land acquired with internally generated funds or donated by the 
airport proprietor could be recovered by amortization. A new paragraph 
2.5.1(b) is proposed to clarify that, while HCA valuation must be used 
to establish total airfield costs, airport operators may, to enhance 
the efficient use of the airfield, allocate costs using a reasonable 
and not unjustly discriminatory methodology that departs from a pro 
rata division of HCA costs.
    A new paragraph 2.6 would be added, providing that fees for other 
aeronautical services and facilities could be established by any 
reasonable methodology. As discussed below, the policy would provide 
for FAA scrutiny 

[[Page 47013]]
of accumulation of surplus funds attributable to aeronautical revenues, 
however. The Department does not intend this possible scrutiny to 
function as an indirect reinstatement of the HCA cost cap.
    The proposed revision to the policy is intended to carry out the 
Department's mandate to adopt a policy that assures that airport fees 
are reasonable while avoiding unnecessary disruption to long-standing, 
well-accepted pricing practices, especially for nonairfield assets.
    For nonairfield facilities, which may be priced according to any 
reasonable method, our experience suggests that effective competition 
generally exists. Fees for such facilities are generally established by 
agreement between the airport proprietor and aeronautical user based on 
negotiations. Formal administrative complaints over fees for 
nonairfield facilities have in almost all instances involved 
allegations of unjust discrimination--not allegations that nonairfield 
fees were excessive. Moreover, since 1989, all of those complaints not 
still pending have been dismissed following investigation. Based on 
these considerations, we propose to rely on the discipline of 
competition, in the first instance, rather than detailed prescriptions 
of permissible charging practices to assure that fees for nonairfield 
facilities meet the requirements of reasonableness contained in 
statutes, grant agreements and applicable international aviation 
agreements. However, the policy would explicitly preserve the authority 
of the FAA to investigate the accumulation of aeronautical surpluses.
    For airfield assets--runways and taxiways--there is greater risk 
that airport proprietors may enjoy locational monopoly power. The HCA 
requirement for these assets would guard against any abuse of monopoly 
power and would conform to general industry practice.
    The HCA valuation requirement does not conflict with the statutory 
prohibition on setting the airport fee. The valuation of airfield 
assets is but one element in setting a fee. Even with the HCA valuation 
requirement, the airport proprietor has substantial latitude with 
respect to those other elements.
    Further, the HCA valuation requirement does not amount to a 
regulatory taking of property. The HCA valuation requirement allows the 
airport proprietor to fully recover its costs of providing airfield 
facilities. HCA valuation is one of the methods that has been found 
reasonable, and hence constitutional, by the courts.
    Finally, many of the arguments against the HCA requirement for the 
airfield were considered and rejected by the Department in its decision 
on the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) landing fee dispute. See 
pages 19-26, Order 95-6-36 (June 30, 1995).

2. Applicability to Airfield and Non-Airfield Assets

    As noted above, the Department proposes to modify the interim 
policy to eliminate the total HCA cap on aeronautical revenues and to 
permit nonairfield fees to be set according to any reasonable method. 
In keeping with this change, the provision in the policy requiring that 
aeronautical revenues not exceed aeronautical costs (Para. 2.1 of the 
interim policy) would be narrowed to apply to airfield revenues and 
costs (Proposed para. 2.2). Similarly, the provision specifying in 
detail the costs that may be included in the rate base (Proposed Para. 
2.4) would be modified by adding an exception for nonaeronautical fees 
determined by other reasonable means as provided in proposed Para. 2.6. 
The Department relies on market forces in the leasing of nonairfield 
facilities to assure that aeronautical revenues, averaged over time, 
will approximate costs, including the airport's capital investment 
needs. However, it is unrealistic to expect the market to produce fees 
that exactly equal costs for each particular user during every 
accounting period.

3. Charging Imputed Interest on Investment of Surplus Aeronautical 
Revenues

    The interim policy provides that airport proprietors could include 
in the aeronautical rate base the implicit cost of capital (imputed 
interest) of funds generated from nonaeronautical sources and invested 
in capital assets for aeronautical use (par. 2.3.1). The interim policy 
further provides that the Department considers it reasonable to use the 
rate of interest prevailing at the time of the expenditure on bonds 
issued by the airport proprietor or another airport with a similar bond 
rating.
    Airport commenters objected to this provision on a number of 
grounds. They argued that by precluding interest on surpluses generated 
from aeronautical revenues, the policy creates an incentive to invest 
such aeronautical surpluses in nonaeronautical assets. They further 
argued that it will be difficult, if not impossible, in most cases to 
trace a surplus to nonaeronautical sources. In addition, they argue 
that an interest rate based on their borrowing costs is unreasonably 
low, and that a reasonable rate of interest should be based on what the 
airport proprietor could earn on alternative investments.
    Airport users did not object to this provision.
    After reviewing the comments and in light of the other revisions to 
the policy relating to fees for nonairfield services and facilities, 
the Department proposes to modify the provision on imputed interest. 
The new provision would permit the airport proprietor to include in the 
rate base imputed interest on all funds invested in aeronautical 
facilities except those generated from airfield operations and funds 
acquired through issuance of debt when debt service costs are also 
included in the rate base. In addition, the policy would no longer 
specify a particular interest rate as reasonable. This approach is 
consistent with our decision to provide greater flexibility in 
establishing nonairfield fees. As promulgated, the interim policy could 
be read as limiting the assessment of an imputed interest charge on 
nonairfield assets such as terminals and hangars. With the additional 
flexibility proposed in this supplemental notice for nonairfield fees, 
it is possible that fees could include an element of imputed interest 
that would be inconsistent with the interim policy's limitation on 
imputed interest. By narrowing the scope of the provision on imputed 
interest (Proposed Para. 2.4.1) to funds generated by the airfield, the 
Department would avoid a potential internal conflict in the policy. In 
addition, the new approach would reduce the potential disincentives to 
investing funds in aeronautical, rather than nonaeronautical assets.
    Under the revised proposal, the airport proprietor could not charge 
imputed interest on funds generated from fees charged for the use of 
the airfield. The policy and legal considerations for this limitation 
are discussed below, in connection with the issue of allowing a return 
on investment.
    With respect to commenters' concerns over the ability to trace the 
source of funds, we note that in the recent decision on LAX landing 
fees, the Department stated that, under the Administrative Procedure 
Act, a carrier complaining about inclusion of imputed interest in the 
rate base would bear the burden of proving that the airport proprietor 
was claiming imputed interest on aeronautical surpluses. Under this 
ruling, an airport proprietor need not trace the source of internally 
generated funds to claim imputed interest. However, if the airport 
proprietor has data available that would enable a complainant to trace 
the funds, that data should be disclosed during fee 

[[Page 47014]]
negotiations or in connection with a fee dispute resolution proceeding.

4. Return on Investment.

    The interim policy does not provide for the inclusion of a separate 
return on investment in the aeronautical rate base.
    Airport commenters generally objected to this omission. They argued 
that a return on investment represents the cost of providing capital 
for the airport and retaining that investment in use as an airport. 
They further argued that the failure to allow a rate of return would 
amount to an unconstitutional taking of property. In addition, they 
argued that by not allowing a rate of return in the aeronautical rate 
base, the policy provides incentives for airports to invest internally 
generated funds in nonaeronautical assets. They also argued that a rate 
of return is necessary to assure that airport proprietors have adequate 
revenue to meet debt service coverage obligations and maintain adequate 
cash reserves to protect against contingencies and unexpected declines 
in activity and revenue.
    Airport users do not object to the approach of the interim policy 
statement on this issue.
    The proposed revisions would permit airport proprietors to use any 
reasonable, not unjustly discriminatory method to establish nonairfield 
fees. Fees established by negotiation, for example, may well include a 
reasonable profit margin for the airport proprietor.
    With respect to a publicly-owned airfield, no separate rate of 
return would be allowed, although imputed interest might be included in 
the rate base in some circumstances. This treatment of the airfield is 
justified by the nature of the airfield asset and by the Federal 
government's historic role and interest in airport development.
    A publicly-owned airfield is a public asset operated for the 
benefit of the general public. Moreover, since the enactment of the 
first Federal airport aid program in 1946, the overwhelming 
preponderance of Federal assistance has been applied to finance 
airfield development. The purpose of this assistance has been to 
promote and assure the growth, safety and efficiency of the national 
air transportation system, not to assist airport sponsors in developing 
profit-making facilities. In this regard, we note that the AAIA 
specifically prohibits an airport proprietor from including the Federal 
share of projects in the airport's rate base. The Department considers 
this prohibition to reflect a Congressional intent to limit the public 
airport proprietor's ability to employ facilities financed in part with 
Federal assistance as a means to generate a profit. Finally, with the 
exception of Los Angeles, whose landing fees were found to be 
unreasonable in part, we are not aware of any public airport operator 
that has sought to include a rate of return in its airfield rate base.
    In contrast, nonairfield assets such as hangars and terminal gates, 
are usually leased on an exclusive-use basis. The lease rates reflect 
the value to the tenant of having an exclusive right to use the 
particular facility leased. In addition, hangars are ineligible for 
Federal funding. Eligible terminal development is limited to public 
use, nonrevenue producing areas--not those which would typically be the 
subject of an exclusive, or even preferential use lease. In addition, 
terminal development has constituted a relatively small share of 
overall Federal airport assistance over the years. Thus, for 
nonairfield aeronautical facilities, the possibility of earning a 
profit from Federally financed assets is a de minimis concern.
    Finally, under the proposed policy, a public airport proprietor may 
recover its full costs, including the cost of its actual investment in 
the airfield. In addition, the policy allows the airport proprietor to 
add the cost of meeting debt-service coverage requirements and 
reasonable reserves to the rate base. Therefore, a separate rate of 
return allowance is not needed to meet these requirements for publicly 
owned airports. A private owner could earn a reasonable return on 
investment.

5. Applicability to General Aviation Airports

    Airport commenters generally objected to the application of the 
policy to general aviation airports. They argued that Sec. 47129 
precludes the Department from adopting airport fee policies applicable 
to general aviation airports, since that section directs the Secretary 
to establish policies to be applied in disputes between air carriers 
and airports. They also argued that the total HCA cap would pose a 
hardship for most general aviation airports, where nonaeronautical 
revenues are insignificant and cannot be relied on to generate surplus 
funds to finance replacement and improvement of airport assets.
    Airport users did not specifically address this issue.
    The Department does not propose to exclude general aviation 
airports from the scope of the policy. However, we propose to modify 
the policy statement to clarify that in situations not covered by 
Sec. 47129, the policy would be applied by the FAA in its role as 
administrator of the AIP program, under which the agency must satisfy 
itself that an applicant for grants is in compliance with its 
assurances, but does not provide a forum for adjudicating disputes 
between private parties.
    While Sec. 47129 mandates the promulgation of standards relating to 
airport fees charged to air carriers, it does not prohibit the 
development of airport fee policies for other airports. Section 511 of 
the AAIAct, 49 U.S.C. 47107(a) requires the Department to receive 
satisfactory assurances that, inter alia, each airport receiving a 
grant will be available for public use on reasonable terms without 
unjust discrimination. This provision is not limited to air carrier 
airports. Moreover, Sec. 519(a) of the AAIAct, 49 U.S.C. 47122 
authorizes the Department to take action we ``consider necessary to 
carry out'' the AAIA. Under these provisions, the Department has 
authority to issue a policy on reasonable and nondiscriminatory airport 
fees applicable to general aviation airports.
    The Department is aware of the differences between general aviation 
airports and airports receiving extensive air carrier services. As we 
noted in publishing the interim policy, we will take these differences 
into account in applying the policy. Moreover, the potential adverse 
impact on general aviation airports of the revenue cap would be 
eliminated by our proposal to eliminate that cap.

6. Applicability Where an Agreement Exists

    Airport commenters generally requested that we modify the policy to 
exclude fees established by agreements with users. They argued that the 
limitations in Sec. 47129 (e)(1) and (f)(1) preclude the application of 
the policy to fees established by agreement. They also argued that fees 
established by agreement generally represent a mutual exchange of 
benefits to both parties. A determination of unreasonableness by the 
Department would disturb this exchange and provide a windfall to the 
airport user who challenged the fee.
    The Department does not intend to fully exclude fees set by 
agreement from the scope of the policy. However, we propose to modify 
the policy statement to clarify that if the FAA reviews a fee set by 
agreement, the FAA will not act as a forum for adjudication of contract 
disputes between private parties.
    As noted above, the AAIA provides authority for establishing a 
policy that applies to all airport fees imposed on aeronautical users, 
including fees established by agreement. In addition, many bilateral 
aviation agreements include a commitment by the United 

[[Page 47015]]
States that airport fees charged to foreign airlines will be 
reasonable. An airport and individual aeronautical user or users cannot 
by private agreement waive the obligations of the AIP grant assurances, 
which are designed to protect the public, not just private interests. 
Similarly, they cannot waive the United States' obligations to foreign 
governments. Moreover, it is possible that an agreement that is 
reasonable, and even beneficial in its impact on the parties could have 
an unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory impact on nonparty airport 
users.

7. Applicability to Users Other Than U.S. Air Carriers

    Airport commenters generally request us to limit the applicability 
of the policy to U.S. air carriers and foreign air carriers. A few 
commenters also request that we exclude fees charged to foreign air 
carriers from the scope of the policy and from the applicability of the 
expedited hearing procedures in 14 CFR Part 302, subpart F. They argue 
that Sec. 47129 by its terms precludes us from adopting policies and 
procedures to determine the reasonableness of fees other than those 
fees charged to air carriers that are not otherwise excluded from 
Sec. 47129 by its terms. They further argue that the methods used to 
establish fees to non-carrier aeronautical users do not readily lend 
themselves to application of the policy.
    The Department does not propose to limit the applicability of the 
policy to fees imposed on U.S. and foreign air carriers. However, we 
propose to modify the policy statement to clarify that in situations 
not covered by Sec. 47129, the policy would be applied by the FAA in 
its role of administrator of the AIP program in carrying out the 
agency's obligation to satisfy itself that an applicant for grants is 
in compliance with its assurances, not in the role of a forum for 
adjudicating a dispute between private parties. The Department also 
intends to apply the procedures mandated by Sec. 47129, including the 
procedures governing refunds, to foreign air carriers in the same way 
we apply it to U.S. air carriers.
    As noted above, the AAIA provides authority for establishing a 
policy that applies to all airport fees imposed on aeronautical users, 
including fees imposed on foreign air carriers and noncarrier 
aeronautical users. In addition, many bilateral aviation agreements 
include a commitment by the United States that airport fees charged to 
foreign airlines will be reasonable.
    The Department recently considered the applicability of Sec. 47129 
to foreign air carriers in the decision on the reasonableness of LAX 
landing fees. The Department concluded that Sec. 47129 allows foreign 
airlines to obtain retrospective relief and to file complaints. The 
Department pointed out that the United States' obligations to give 
nondiscriminatory treatment to foreign carriers generally precluded us 
from denying foreign air carriers a remedy available to U.S. carriers 
absent a bar to granting foreign air carriers that remedy. Order 95-6-
36 at 53-56. For the reasons stated in its consideration of the issue 
in the LAX case, the Department will continue to consider complaints 
filed by foreign air carriers under the terms of Sec. 47129.

8. Limits on Aeronautical Surplus

    The Department proposes to modify the policy to eliminate the total 
HCA cap on aeronautical revenue and to provide that nonairfield fees 
may be established by any reasonable means. In providing this 
flexibility, the Department is in no respect waiving the requirements 
in statute, AIP grant assurances and, where applicable, international 
aviation agreements. The use of negotiated rates or rates based on an 
objective determination of fair market value creates the opportunity 
for the generation of surplus aeronautical revenues in any given year. 
The Department proposes to rely generally on market discipline to 
prevent the generation of aeronautical revenues that, over time, exceed 
aeronautical costs. Based on this reliance, we are not proposing an 
alternative cap on fees imposed for aeronautical services and 
facilities other than the airfield. However, to address the remote 
chance that the market mechanism may break down, we propose to add a 
provision on revenue generation specifying that the accumulation of 
surpluses attributable to aeronautical revenue may warrant an inquiry 
into the reasonableness of the aeronautical fees (proposed Para. 
4.2.1).

Public Meetings

    In order to facilitate the submission of public and industry 
comment, and to ensure that agency staff has the best opportunity to 
understand the positions of commenters and the scope of industry 
practice on this complex subject, the Department will hold at least two 
informal public meetings on the proposed policy. The meetings will be 
structured to permit informal discussion among the various interested 
parties rather than simply delivery of prepared comments for the 
record. Notice of the time, date, and location of the meetings will be 
published separately in the Federal Register.

Proposed Policy

    Accordingly, the OST and the FAA propose to revise the Policy 
Regarding Airport Rates and Charges as follows:
Policy Regarding the Establishment of Airport Rates and Charges

Introduction

    It is the fundamental position of the Department that the issue of 
rates and charges is best addressed at the local level by agreement 
between users and airports. By providing guidance on standards 
applicable to airport fees imposed for aeronautical use of the airport, 
the Department intends to facilitate direct negotiation between the 
proprietor and aeronautical users and to minimize the need to seek 
direct Federal intervention to resolve differences over airport fees.

Applicability of the Policy

A. Scope of Policy

    Under the terms of grant agreements administered by the FAA for 
airport improvement, all aeronautical users are entitled to airport 
access on fair and reasonable terms without unjust discrimination. 
Therefore, the Department considers that the principles and guidance 
set forth in this policy statement apply to all aeronautical uses of 
the airport. The Department recognizes, however, that airport 
proprietors may use different mechanisms and methodologies to establish 
fees for different facilities, e.g., for the airfield and terminal 
area, and for different aeronautical users, e.g., air carriers and 
fixed-base operators. Various elements of the policy reflect these 
differences. In addition, the Department will take these differences 
into account if we are called upon to resolve a dispute over 
aeronautical fees or otherwise consider whether an airport sponsor is 
in compliance with its obligation to provide access on fair and 
reasonable terms without unjust discrimination.

B. Aeronautical Use and Users

    The Department considers the aeronautical use of an airport to be 
any activity that involves, makes possible, is required for the safety 
of the operations of, or is otherwise directly related to, the 
operation of aircraft. Aeronautical use includes services provided by 
air carriers related directly and substantially to the movement of 
passengers, baggage, mail and cargo on the airport. Persons, whether 
individuals or businesses, engaged in 

[[Page 47016]]
aeronautical uses involving the operation of aircraft, or providing 
flight support directly related to the operation of aircraft, are 
considered to be aeronautical users.
    Conversely, the Department considers that the operation by air 
carriers or foreign air carriers of facilities such as a reservations 
center, headquarters office, or flight kitchen on an airport does not 
constitute an aeronautical activity subject to the principles and 
guidance contained in this policy statement with respect to 
reasonableness and unjust discrimination. Such facilities need not be 
located on an airport. A carriers decision to locate such facilities 
is based on the negotiation of a lease or sale of property. 
Accordingly, the Department relies on the normal forces of competition 
for commercial or industrial property to assure that fees for such 
property are not excessive.

C. Applicability of Section 113 of the FAA Authorization Act of 1994

    Section 113 of the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1994 
(``Authorization Act''), 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47129, directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to issue a determination on the reasonableness of 
certain fees imposed on air carriers in response to carrier complaints 
or a request for determination by an airport proprietor. Section 47129 
further directs the Secretary to publish final regulations, policy 
statements, or guidelines establishing procedures for deciding cases 
under Sec. 47129 and the standards to be used by the Secretary in 
determining whether a fee is reasonable. Section 47129 also provides 
for the issuance of credits or refunds in the event that the Secretary 
determines a fee is unreasonable after a complaint is filed. Section 
47129(e) excludes from the applicability of Sec. 47129 a fee imposed 
pursuant to a written agreement with air carriers, a fee imposed 
pursuant to a financing agreement or covenant entered into before the 
date of enactment of the statute (August 23, 1994), and an existing fee 
not in dispute on August 23, 1994. Section 47129(f) further provides 
that Sec. 47129 shall not adversely affect the rights of any party 
under existing air carrier/airport agreements or the ability of an 
airport to meet its obligations under a financing agreement or covenant 
that is in effect on August 23, 1994.
    The Department does not interpret Sec. 47129 to repeal or narrow 
the scope of the basic requirement that fees imposed on aeronautical 
users be reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory or to narrow the 
obligation on the Secretary to receive satisfactory assurances that, 
inter alia, airport sponsors will provide access on reasonable terms 
before approving AIP grants. Moreover, the Department does not 
interpret sections 47129 (e) and (f) to preclude the Department from 
adopting policy guidance to carry out the Department's statutory 
obligation to assure that aeronautical fees are being imposed at AIP-
funded airports in a manner that is consistent with the obligation to 
provide airport access on reasonable terms. Likewise, in the case of 
airports receiving international service, these provisions do not 
preclude us from carrying out any international obligations for 
assuring that airport fees charged to foreign airlines are reasonable.
    Therefore, the Department will apply the policy guidance in all 
cases in which we are called upon to determine if an airport sponsor is 
carrying out its obligation to make the airport available on reasonable 
terms, including instances covered in Sec. 47129 (e) and (f).
    However, as the statute provides, a dispute over matters described 
by Sec. 47129 (e) and (f) will not be processed under the procedures 
mandated by Sec. 47129. Rather those disputes will be processed under 
procedures applicable to airport compliance matters in general. In 
addition, the Department will take into account the existence of an 
agreement between air carrier and airport operator, if one exists, in 
making a determination.

D. Components of Airfield

    The Department considers the airfield assets to consist of runways, 
taxiways, ramps or aprons not leased on an exclusive use basis and land 
associated with these facilities. The Department also considers the 
airfield to include land acquired for the purpose of assuring land-use 
compatibility with the airfield, if the land is included in the rate 
base associated with the airfield under the provisions of this policy.
Principles Applicable to Airport Rates and Charges

    1. In general, the Department relies upon airport proprietors, 
aeronautical users, and the market and institutional arrangements 
within which they operate, to ensure compliance with applicable legal 
requirements. Direct Federal intervention will be available, however, 
where needed.
    2. Rates, fees, rentals, landing fees, and other service charges 
(``fees'') imposed on aeronautical users for aeronautical use of 
airport facilities (``aeronautical fees'') must be fair and reasonable.
    3. Aeronautical fees may not unjustly discriminate against 
aeronautical users or user groups.
    4. Airport proprietors must maintain a fee and rental structure 
that in the circumstances of the airport makes the airport as 
financially self-sustaining as possible.
    5. In accordance with relevant Federal statutory provisions 
governing the use of airport revenue, airport proprietors may expend 
revenue generated by the airport only for statutorily allowable 
purposes.

Local Negotiation and Resolution

    1. In general, the Department relies upon airport proprietors, 
aeronautical users, and the market and institutional arrangements 
within which they operate, to ensure compliance with applicable legal 
requirements. Direct Federal intervention will be available, however, 
where needed.
    1.1 The Department encourages direct resolution of differences at 
the local level between aeronautical users and the airport proprietor. 
Such resolution is best achieved through adequate and timely 
consultation between the airport proprietor and the aeronautical users. 
Airport proprietors should engage in adequate and timely consultation 
with aeronautical users about airport fees.
    1.1.1 Airport proprietors should consult with aeronautical users 
well in advance, if practical, of introducing significant changes in 
charging systems and procedures or in the level of charges. The 
proprietor should provide adequate information to permit aeronautical 
users to evaluate the airport proprietor's justification for the change 
and to assess the reasonableness of the proposal. For consultations to 
be effective, airport proprietors should give due regard to the views 
of aeronautical users and to the effect upon them of changes in fees. 
Likewise, aeronautical users should give due regard to the views of the 
airport proprietor and the financial needs of the airport.
    1.1.2 To further the goal of effective consultation, Appendix 1 of 
this policy statement contains a description of information that the 
Department considers would be useful to the carriers and other 
aeronautical users to permit meaningful consultation and evaluation of 
a proposal to modify fees.
    1.1.3 Airport proprietors should consider the public interest in 
establishing airport fees, and aeronautical users should consider the 
public interest in consulting with airports on setting such fees. 

[[Page 47017]]

    1.1.4 Airport proprietors and aeronautical users should consult and 
make a good-faith effort to reach agreement. Absent agreement, airport 
proprietors are free to act in accordance with their proposals, subject 
to review by the Secretary or the Administrator on complaint by the 
user or, in the case of fees subject to 49 U.S.C. 47129, upon request 
by the airport operator, or, in unusual circumstances, on the 
Department's initiative.
    1.1.5 To facilitate local resolution and reduce the need for direct 
Federal intervention to resolve differences over aeronautical fees, the 
Department encourages airport proprietors and aeronautical users to 
include alternative dispute resolution procedures in their lease and 
use agreements.
    1.1.6 Any newly established fee or fee increase that is the subject 
of a complaint under 49 U.S.C. 47129 that is not dismissed by the 
Secretary must be paid to the airport proprietor under protest by the 
complainant. Unless the airport proprietor and complainant agree 
otherwise, the airport proprietor will obtain a letter of credit, or 
surety bond, or other suitable credit instrument in accordance with the 
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47129(d). Pending issuance of a final order 
determining reasonableness, an airport proprietor may not deny a 
complainant currently providing air service at the airport reasonable 
access to airport facilities or services, or otherwise interfere with 
that complainant's prices, routes, or services, as a means of enforcing 
the fee, if the complainant has complied with the requirements for 
payment under protest.
    1.2  Where airport proprietors and aeronautical users have been 
unable, despite all reasonable efforts, to resolve disputes between 
them, the Department will act to resolve the issues raised in the 
dispute.
    1.2.1  In the case of a fee imposed on one or more air carriers or 
foreign air carriers, the Department will issue a determination on the 
reasonableness of the fee upon the filing of a written request for a 
determination by the airport proprietor or, if the Department 
determines that a significant dispute exists, upon the filing of a 
complaint by one or more air carriers or foreign air carriers, in 
accordance with 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47129 and implementing regulations. 
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47129, the Department may 
only determine whether a fee is reasonable or unreasonable, and may not 
set the level of the fee.
    1.2.2  The Department will first offer its good offices to help 
parties reach a mutually satisfactory outcome in a timely manner. 
Prompt resolution of these disputes is always desirable since extensive 
delay can lead to uncertainty for the public and a hardening of the 
parties' positions. Air carriers and foreign air carriers may request 
the assistance of the Department in advance of or in lieu of the formal 
complaint procedure described in 1.2.1.; however, the 60-day period for 
filing a complaint under Sec. 47129 shall not be extended or tolled by 
such a request.
    1.2.3  In the case of fees imposed on other aeronautical users, 
where negotiations between the parties are unsuccessful and a complaint 
is filed alleging that airport fees violate an airport proprietor's 
federal grant obligations, the Department will, where warranted, 
exercise the agency's broad statutory authority to review the legality 
of those fees and to issue such determinations and take such actions as 
are appropriate based on that review.
    1.3  Airport proprietors must retain the ability to respond to 
local conditions with flexibility and innovation. An airport proprietor 
is encouraged to achieve consensus and agreement with its airline 
tenants before implementing a practice that would represent a major 
departure from this guidance. However, the requirements of any law, 
including the requirements for the use of airport revenue, may not be 
waived, even by agreement with the aeronautical users.

Fair and Reasonable Fees

    2. Rates, fees, rentals, landing fees, and other service charges 
(``fees'') imposed on aeronautical users for the aeronautical use of 
the airport (``aeronautical fees'') must be fair and reasonable.
    2.1  Federal law does not require a single approach to airport 
financing. Rates may be set according to a ``residual'' or 
``compensatory'' rate-setting methodology, or any combination of the 
two, or according to a new rate-setting methodology, as long as the 
methodology used is applied consistently to similarly situated 
aeronautical users and as otherwise required by this policy. Airport 
proprietors may set rates for aeronautical use of airport facilities by 
ordinance, statute or resolution, regulation, or agreement.
    2.1.1  Aeronautical users may receive a cross-credit of 
nonaeronautical revenues only if the airport proprietor agrees. 
Agreements providing for such cross-crediting are commonly referred to 
as ``residual agreements'' and generally provide a sharing of 
nonaeronautical revenues with aeronautical users. The aeronautical 
users may in turn agree to assume part or all of the liability for non-
aeronautical costs, or an airport proprietor may cross-credit 
nonaeronautical revenues to aeronautical users even in the absence of 
such an agreement, but an airport proprietor may not require 
aeronautical users to cover losses generated by nonaeronautical 
facilities except by agreement.
    2.1.2  In other situations, an airport proprietor assumes all 
liability for airport costs and retains all airport profits for its own 
use in accordance with Federal requirements. This approach to airport 
financing is generally referred to as the compensatory approach.
    2.1.3  Airports frequently adopt charging systems that employ 
elements of both approaches.
    2.2  Revenues from fees imposed for use of the airfield (airfield 
revenues) may not exceed the costs to the airport proprietor of 
providing airfield services and airfield assets currently in 
aeronautical use (airfield costs) unless otherwise agreed to by the 
affected aeronautical users.
    2.3  The ``rate base'' is the total of all aeronautical costs that 
may be recovered from aeronautical users through fees charged for 
providing aeronautical services and facilities (aeronautical fees). 
Airport proprietors must employ a reasonable, consistent, and 
``transparent'' (i.e., clear and fully justified) method of 
establishing the rate base and adjusting the rate base on a timely and 
predictable schedule.
    2.4  Except as provided in paragraph 2.6 below or by agreement with 
aeronautical users, costs that may be included in the rate base 
(allowable costs) are limited to all operating and maintenance expenses 
directly and indirectly associated with the provision of aeronautical 
facilities and services (including environmental costs, as set forth 
below); all capital costs associated with the provision of aeronautical 
facilities and services currently in use, as set forth below; and 
current costs of planning future aeronautical facilities and services. 
In addition, a private, equity owner of an airport can include a 
reasonable return on investment.
    2.4.1  The airport proprietor may include in the aeronautical rate 
base, at a reasonable rate, imputed interest on funds used to finance 
capital investments for aeronautical use, except to the extent that the 
funds are generated by fees charged for the use of airfield assets and 
airfield services. However, the airport proprietor may not include in 
the rate base imputed interest on funds obtained by debt financing if 
the debt-service costs of those funds are also included in the rate 
base. 

[[Page 47018]]

    2.4.2  Airport proprietors may include reasonable environmental 
costs in the rate base to the extent that the airport proprietor incurs 
a corresponding actual expense. All revenues received based on the 
inclusion of these costs in the rate base are subject to Federal 
requirements on the use of airport revenue. Reasonable environmental 
costs include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
    (a) the costs of investigating and remediating environmental 
contamination caused by aeronautical operations at the airport at least 
to the extent that such investigation or remediation is required by or 
consistent with local, state or federal environmental law, and to the 
extent such requirements are applied to other similarly situated 
enterprises;
    (b) the cost of mitigating the environmental impact of an airport 
development project (if the development project is one for which costs 
may be included in the aeronautical users' rate base), at least to the 
extent that these costs are incurred in order to secure necessary 
approvals for such projects, including but not limited to approvals 
under the National Environmental Policy Act and similar state statutes;
    (c) the costs of aircraft noise abatement and mitigation measures, 
both on and off the airport, including but not limited to land 
acquisition and acoustical insulation expenses, to the extent that such 
measures are undertaken as part of a comprehensive and publicly-
disclosed airport noise compatibility program; and
    (d) the costs of insuring against future liability for 
environmental contamination caused by current aeronautical activities. 
Under this provision, the costs of self-insurance may be included in 
the rate base only to the extent that they are incurred pursuant to a 
self-insurance program that conforms to applicable standards for self-
insurance practices.
    2.4.3  Airport proprietors are encouraged to establish fees with 
due regard for economy and efficiency.
    2.4.4  The airport proprietor may include in the rate base amounts 
needed to fund debt service and other reserves and to meet cash flow 
requirements as specified in financing agreements or covenants (for 
facilities in use), including but not limited to debt-service coverage; 
to fund cash reserves to protect against the risks of cash-flow 
fluctuations associated with normal airport operations; and to fund 
reasonable cash reserves to protect against other contingencies.
    2.4.5  The airport proprietor may include in the rate base capital 
costs in accordance with the following guidance, which is based on the 
principle of cost causation:
    (a) Costs of facilities directly used by the aeronautical users may 
be fully included in the rate base, in a manner consistent with this 
policy. For example, the capital cost of a runway may be included in 
the rate base used to establish landing fees.
    (b) Costs of airport facilities used for both aeronautical and 
nonaeronautical uses (shared costs) may be included in a particular 
aeronautical rate base if the facility in question supports the 
aeronautical activity reflected in that rate base. The portion of 
shared costs allocated to aeronautical users should not exceed an 
amount that reflects the aeronautical purpose and proportionate 
aeronautical use of the facility in relation to nonaeronautical use of 
the facility, unless the affected aeronautical users agree to a 
different allocation. Aeronautical users may not be allocated all costs 
of facilities that are used by both aeronautical and nonaeronautical 
users unless they agree to that allocation.
    2.5  Airport proprietors must comply with the following practices 
in establishing the rate base, provided, however, that one or more 
aeronautical users may agree to a rate base that deviates from these 
practices in the establishment of those users' fees.
    2.5.1  In determining the total costs that may be recovered from 
fees for the use of airfield assets, public use roadways, and 
associated land in the rate base, the airport proprietor must value 
them according to their historic cost to the original airport 
proprietor. Subsequent airport proprietors generally shall acquire the 
cost basis of such assets at the original airport proprietor's historic 
cost, adjusted for subsequent improvements.
    (a) Where the land associated with airfield facilities and public 
use roadways was acquired with debt-financing, the airport proprietor 
may include such land in the rate base by charging all debt service 
expenditures incurred by the airport proprietor, including principal, 
interest and debt service coverage. If such land was acquired with 
internally generated funds or donated by the airport proprietor the 
airport proprietor may include the cost of the land by amortization. 
Upon retirement of the debt or completion of the amortization, the land 
may no longer be included in the rate base.
    (b) The airport proprietor may use a reasonable and not unjustly 
discriminatory methodology to allocate the total airfield costs among 
individual segments of the airfield to enhance the efficient use of the 
airfield, even if that methodology results in fees charged for a 
particular segment that exceed that segment's pro rata share of costs 
based on HCA valuation.
    2.5.2  Where comparable assets, e.g., two runways or two terminals, 
were built at different times and have different costs, the airport 
proprietor may, at its option, combine the cost basis of the comparable 
assets to develop a single cost basis applicable to all such 
facilities.
    2.5.3  The costs of facilities not yet built and operating may not 
be included in the rate base. However, the debt-service and other 
carrying costs incurred by the airport proprietor during construction 
may be capitalized and amortized once the facility is put in service. 
The airport proprietor may include in the rate base the cost of land 
that facilitates the current operations of the airport.
    2.5.4  The rate base of an airport may include costs associated 
with another airport currently in use only if: (1) The proprietor of 
the first airport is also the proprietor of the second airport; (2) the 
second airport is currently in use; and (3) the costs of the second 
airport to be included in the first airport's rate base are reasonably 
related to the aviation benefits that the second airport provides or is 
expected to provide to the aeronautical users of the first airport.
    (a) Element no. 3 above will be presumed to be satisfied if the 
second airport is designated as a reliever airport for the first 
airport in the FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems 
(NPIAS).
    (b) If an airport proprietor closes an operating airport as part of 
an approved plan for the construction and opening of a new airport, 
reasonable costs of disposition of the closed airport facility may be 
included in the rate base of the new airport, to the extent that such 
costs exceed the proceeds from the disposition.
    2.6  For other facilities and land not covered by Paragraph 2.5.1, 
the airport proprietor may use any reasonable methodology to determine 
fees, so long as the methodology is justified and applied on a 
consistent basis to comparable facilities, subject to the provisions of 
paragraph 4.2.1 below.
    2.6.1  Reasonable methodologies may include, but are not limited 
to, historic cost valuation, direct negotiation with prospective 
aeronautical users, or objective determinations of fair market value. 

[[Page 47019]]

    2.7  At all times, airport proprietors must comply with the 
following practices:
    2.7.1  Indirect costs may not be included in the rate base unless 
they are based on a reasonable, transparent cost allocation formula 
calculated consistently for other units or cost centers within the 
control of the proprietor.
    2.7.2  The costs of airport development or planning projects paid 
for with federal government grants and contributions and passenger 
facility charges (PFCs) may not be included in the rate base.
    (a) In the case of a PFC-funded project for terminal development, 
for gates and related areas, or for a facility that is occupied by one 
or more carriers on an exclusive or preferential use basis, the fees 
paid to use those facilities shall be no less than the fees charged for 
similar facilities that were not financed with PFC revenue.

Prohibition on Unjust Discrimination

    3.  Aeronautical fees may not unjustly discriminate against 
aeronautical users or user groups.
    3.1  Unless aeronautical users agree, aeronautical fees imposed on 
any aeronautical user or group of aeronautical users may not exceed the 
costs allocated to that user or user group under a cost allocation 
methodology adopted by the airport proprietor that is consistent with 
this guidance.
    3.1.1  The prohibition on unjust discrimination does not prevent an 
airport proprietor from making reasonable distinctions among 
aeronautical users (such as signatory and non-signatory carriers) and 
assessing higher fees on certain categories of aeronautical users based 
on those distinctions (such as higher fees for non-signatory carriers, 
as compared to signatory carriers).
    3.2  A properly structured peak pricing system that allocates 
limited resources using price during periods of congestion will not be 
considered to be unjustly discriminatory. An airport proprietor may, 
consistent with the policies expressed in this policy statement, 
establish fees that enhance the efficient utilization of the airport.
    3.3  Relevant provisions of the Convention on International Civil 
Aviation (Chicago Convention) and many bilateral aviation agreements 
specify, inter alia, that charges imposed on foreign airlines must not 
be unjustly discriminatory, must not be higher than those imposed on 
domestic airlines engaged in similar international air services and 
must be equitably apportioned among categories of users. Charges to 
foreign air carriers for aeronautical use that are inconsistent with 
these principles will be considered unjustly discriminatory or unfair 
and unreasonable.
    3.4  Allowable costs--costs properly included in the rate base--
must be allocated to aeronautical users by a transparent, reasonable, 
and not unjustly discriminatory rate-setting methodology. The 
methodology must be applied consistently and cost differences must be 
determined quantitatively, when practical.
    3.4.1  Common costs (costs not directly attributable to a specific 
user group or cost center) must be allocated according to a reasonable, 
transparent and not unjustly discriminatory cost allocation formula 
that is applied consistently, and does not require any air carrier, 
foreign air carrier or other aeronautical user group to pay costs 
properly allocable to other users.

Requirement to be Financially Self-Sustaining

    4.  Airport proprietors must maintain a fee and rental structure 
that in the circumstances of the airport makes the airport as 
financially self-sustaining as possible.
    4.1  If market conditions or demand for air service do not permit 
the airport to be financially self-sustaining, the airport proprietor 
should establish long-term goals and targets to make the airport as 
financially self-sustaining as possible.
    4.1.1  Airport proprietors are encouraged, when entering into new 
or revised agreements or otherwise establishing rates, charges, and 
fees, to undertake reasonable efforts to make their particular airports 
as self sustaining as possible in the circumstances existing at such 
airports.
    (a) Absent agreement with aeronautical users, the obligation to 
make the airport as self-sustaining as possible does not permit the 
airport proprietor to establish fees for the use of the airfield that 
exceed the airport proprietor's airfield costs.
    (b) For those facilities for which this policy permits the use of 
fair market value, the Department does not construe the obligation on 
self-sustainability to compel the use of fair market value to establish 
fees.
    4.1.2  At some airports, market conditions may not permit an 
airport proprietor to establish fees that are sufficiently high to 
recover aeronautical costs and sufficiently low to allow commercial 
aeronautical services to operate at a profit. In such circumstances, an 
airport proprietor's decision to charge rates that are below those 
needed to achieve self-sustainability in order to assure that services 
are provided to the public is not inherently inconsistent with the 
obligation to make the airport as self-sustaining as possible in the 
circumstances.
    4.2  In establishing new fees, and generating revenues from all 
sources, airport owners and operators should not seek to create revenue 
surpluses that exceed the amounts to be used for airport system 
purposes and for other purposes for which airport revenues may be spent 
under 49 U.S.C. 47107(b)(1), including reasonable reserves and other 
funds to facilitate financing and to cover contingencies. While fees 
charged to nonaeronautical users may exceed the costs of service to 
those users, the surplus funds accumulated from those fees must be used 
in accordance with Sec. 47107(b).
    4.2.1  The Department assumes that the limitation on the use of 
airport revenue and effective market discipline for aeronautical 
services and facilities other than the airfield will be effective in 
holding aeronautical revenues, over time, to the airport proprietor's 
costs of providing aeronautical services and facilities, including 
reasonable capital costs. However, the progressive accumulation of 
substantial amounts of surplus aeronautical revenue may warrant an FAA 
inquiry into whether aeronautical fees are consistent with the airport 
proprietor's obligations to make the airport available on fair and 
reasonable terms.
Requirements Governing Revenue Application and Use

    5.  In accordance with relevant Federal statutory provisions 
governing the use of airport revenue, airport proprietors may expend 
revenue generated by the airport only for statutorily allowable 
purposes.
    5.1  Additional information on the statutorily allowed uses of 
airport revenue is contained in separate guidance published by the FAA 
pursuant to Sec. 112 of the FAA Authorization Act of 1994, which is 
codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47107(l).
    5.2.  The progressive accumulation of substantial amounts of 
airport revenues may warrant an FAA inquiry into the airport 
proprietor's application of revenues to the local airport system.


[[Page 47020]]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 21, 1995.
Federico Pena,
Secretary of Transportation.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration.

Appendix 1--Information for Aeronautical User Charges Consultations

    The Department of Transportation ordinarily expects the 
following information to be available to aeronautical users in 
connection with consultations over changes in airport rates and 
charges:
    1. HISTORIC FINANCIAL INFORMATION covering two fiscal years 
prior to the current year including, at minimum, a profit and loss 
statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement for the airport 
implementing the charges.
    2. JUSTIFICATION. Economic, financial and/or legal justification 
for changes in the charging methodology or in the level of 
aeronautical rates and charges at the airport. Airports should 
provide information on the aeronautical costs they are including in 
the rate base.
    3. TRAFFIC INFORMATION. Annual numbers of terminal passengers 
and aircraft movements for each of the two preceding years.
    4. PLANNING AND FORECASTING INFORMATION
    (a) To the extent applicable to current or proposed fees, the 
long-term airport strategy setting out long-term financial and 
traffic forecasts, major capital projects and capital expenditure, 
and particular areas requiring strategic action. This material 
should include any material provided for public or government 
reviews of major airport developments, including analyses of demand 
and capacity and expenditure estimates.
    (b) Accurate, complete information specific to the airport for 
the current and the forecast year, including the current and 
proposed budgets, forecasts of airport charges revenue, the 
projected number of landings and passengers, expected operating and 
capital expenditures, debt service payments, contributions to 
restricted funds, or other required accounts or reserves.
    (c) To the extent the airport uses a residual or hybrid charging 
methodology, a description of key factors expected to affect 
commercial or other nonaeronautical revenues and operating costs in 
the current and following years.

[FR Doc. 95-22354 Filed 9-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P