[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48693-48708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24430]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. 28895]


Airport Privatization Pilot Program: Application Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final application procedures.

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

SUMMARY: Section 149 of the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996 
establishes an airport privatization pilot program, and authorizes the 
Department of Transportation to grant exemptions from certain Federal 
statutory and regulatory requirements for up to five airport 
privatization projects. A request for participation in the airport 
privatization pilot program will be initiated by the filing of either a 
preliminary or final application for exemption with the FAA. This 
statement identifies the issues the Department will consider in 
granting exemptions and approving the transfer of a public use airport 
under the program; it also describes the application procedures to be 
used by interested public airport sponsors and private parties to apply 
for an exemption under the program.

DATES: This policy is effective on publication. With exception noted 
below, preliminary and final applications for exemption will be 
accepted or after December 1, 1997, and will be handled on a first-come 
first-served basis until the limits of section 47134 are reached. An 
otherwise qualifying preliminary or final application for exemption 
will be accepted before December 1, 1997, if the sponsor has issued, on 
or before the date of publication of this notice, a formal solicitation 
or request for proposals for the sale or lease of an airport. All 
applications will be evaluated in the order of receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benedict D. Castellano Manager, (202-
267-8728) or Kevin C. Willis (202-267-8741) Airport Safety and 
Compliance Branch, AAS-310, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591,

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction and Background

    This notice of application procedures to be used by applicants for 
an airport privatization project is being published pursuant to section 
149 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1996, 
Public Law 104-264 (October 9, 1996) (1996 Reauthorization Act), which 
adds a new section 47134 to Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Section 47134 
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation, and through delegation, the 
FAA Administrator, to exempt a sponsor of a public use airport that has 
received Federal assistance, from certain Federal requirements in 
connection with the privatization of the airport by sale or lease to a 
private party. Specifically, the Administrator may exempt the sponsor 
from all or part of the requirements to use airport revenues for 
airport-related purposes, to pay back a portion of Federal grants upon 
the sale of an airport, and to return airport property deeded by the 
Federal Government upon transfer of the airport. The Administrator is 
also authorized to exempt the private purchaser or lessee from the 
requirement to use all airport revenues for airport-related purposes, 
to the extent necessary to permit the purchaser or lessee to earn 
compensation from the operations of the airport.

[[Page 48694]]

    In addition to identifying the application procedures, this notice 
discusses the issues the FAA will consider in determining whether to 
approve an application for an exemption under section 47134 and other 
Federal requirements for airport operation. The term ``public sponsor'' 
is used in this document to mean the governmental agency or authority 
that currently owns or operates a public airport and proposes to sell 
or lease it to a private purchaser or lessee. The term ``private 
operator'' is used to refer to a private firm or firms that propose to 
purchase or lease a public airport under the program; the term 
``applicant'' means all of the parties jointly participating in the 
application for privatization of a particular airport.

Requirements for Transfer of a Federally-Assisted Public Airport

    A request for transfer of the operation of an airport from an 
existing public sponsor to a new operator, whether public or private, 
requires FAA approval. The request for exemption under Sec. 47134 would 
be considered in conjunction with existing approval requirements and 
processes.
Grant/Deed Conditions
    Airport sponsors receiving Federal assistance under a grant program 
or through donation of surplus property agree as a condition of the 
assistance to obtain FAA approval before transferring control or 
ownership of the airport to another party. For example, Assurance No. 
5.b. in the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant agreements provides 
that a sponsor will not sell, lease, or otherwise transfer any part of 
its title or other interests in the airport property subject to the 
grant assurances, for the duration of the term of the grant agreement, 
without approval by the Secretary. Assurance No. 5 further provides 
that the sponsor and the transferee approved by the Secretary shall 
insert in the contract or document transferring the sponsor's interest, 
and make binding upon the transferee, all of the terms, conditions and 
assurances contained in the sponsor's grant agreement. Similar 
conditions are written into the deeds of conveyance for Federal surplus 
property donated to an airport sponsor.
    The FAA expects that applications will include a statement that the 
new owner/operator will assume the obligations of the original sponsor 
under existing grant agreements or deeds. The FAA will consider whether 
the new owner/operator has the powers and authority to fulfill its 
obligations under the assurances.
Regulatory Requirements
    An operator of an airport receiving air service by aircraft with 
more than 30 passenger seats must hold an FAA operating certificate 
under 14 C.F.R. Part 139. Authority to certificate airports served by 
aircraft with 9 or more passenger seats was granted to the FAA in the 
1996 Reauthorization Act. FAA operating certificates are not 
transferable; a new operator of a certified airport must obtain a new 
certificate issued by the FAA.
Section 47134
    Section 47134 contains specific provisions for issuance of an 
exemption in connection with a transfer of airport operation. These 
conditions supplement and to some extent overlap the factors that FAA 
would consider under Assurance No. 5.b., but do not replace other 
requirements for approval of an airport transfer. In summary, section 
47134(c) provides that the Administrator may issue exemptions to a 
public sponsor and a private sponsor only if the Administrator finds 
that the sale or lease agreement contains provisions satisfactory to 
the Administrator to ensure that:
    (1) The airport will continue to be available for public use on 
reasonable terms and conditions without unjust discrimination;
    (2) The operation of the airport will not be interrupted if the 
private operator experiences bankruptcy or other financial difficulty;
    (3) The private operator will ``maintain, improve, and modernize'' 
airport facilities through capital investments, and submit a plan for 
these actions;
    (4) Airport fees imposed on air carriers will not increase faster 
than inflation unless a higher amount is approved by at least 65 
percent of the air carriers using the airport and the air carriers 
having at least 65 percent of the landed weight of aircraft at the 
airport;
    (5) The percentage of increase in fees imposed on general aviation 
operators will not exceed the percentage increase in fees imposed on 
air carriers;
    (6) Safety and security will be maintained ``at the highest 
possible levels;''
    (7) Adverse effects of noise from operations at the airport will be 
mitigated to the same extent as at a public airport;
    (8) Adverse effects on the environment from airport operations will 
be mitigated to the same extent as at a public airport; and
    (9) Any collective bargaining agreement that covers airport 
employees and is in effect on the date of the sale or lease of the 
airport will not be abrogated by the sale or lease.
    In addition, the Administrator must find that the transfer will not 
result in unfair and deceptive trade practices or unfair methods of 
competition, and that the interests of general aviation users are not 
adversely affected.

Number of Participating Airports

    In establishing the privatization pilot program, Congress placed 
limitations on the number and kind of airports eligible to participate. 
Paragraph 4713(d)(1) provides that if the applications of 5 airports 
are approved, then at least one must be a general aviation airport. 
Paragraph 4713(d)(2) provides that no more than one of the airports 
approved may be an airport with more than 1 percent of total passenger 
boardings (a large hub airport), as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102(10).

Notice of Proposed Application Procedures; Discussion of Comments 
Received

    On April 22, 1997, the Federal Aviation Administration published in 
the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Procedures entitled ``Airport 
Privatization Pilot Program: Application Procedures,'' proposing 
application procedures for public sponsor participation in the Airport 
Privatization Pilot Program (62 FR 19638). The notice also included a 
discussion of issues involved in reviewing applications and a notice of 
a public meeting. The agency asked for public comment by June 4, 1997. 
The FAA also solicited and received comments at the public meeting held 
on May 21, 1997. Verbatim transcripts of the meeting have been included 
in the docket of this proceeding.
    The Agency received more than 22 written comments to the Notice of 
proposed application procedures. Comments were received from such 
organizations and individuals as; Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association, (AOPA); Air Line Pilots Association, (ALPA); Air Transport 
Association, (ATA); Airport Commission City and County of San 
Francisco; Airports Council International-North America, (ACI-NA); 
Airport Group International, (AGI); Allegheny County Department of 
Aviation; American Association of Airport Executives, (AAAE); BAA USA, 
Inc.; Infrastructure Management Group, (IMG); Johnson Controls; Landrum 
and Brown; National Air Transportation Association, (NATA); National 
Organization to Insure A Sound Controlled Environment, (NOISE); New 
York State Department of

[[Page 48695]]

Transportation, (NYSDOT); Sam Stuart of ProAir Partner Inc.; Public 
Employees Department, AFL-CIO, Reason Foundation; Scenic Hudson; Mr. 
Charles Spence; Stewart Park & Reserve Coalition; Transportation Trades 
Department, AFL-CIO (TTD).
    The summary of comments is intended to represent the general 
divergence of industry views on various issues. It is not intended to 
be an exhaustive restatement of the comments received. All comments 
received were considered by the FAA even if not specifically identified 
in this summary. In addition to specific changes noted in the 
discussion of the issues, the FAA has made editorial changes throughout 
the application procedures to enhance readability and clarity. The 
Notice of Proposed Procedures included a discussion of issues that 
would be considered by the FAA in reviewing applications and granting 
exemptions (62 FR at 19641-19645). This notice addresses comments on 
that discussion, but does not repeat the separate discussion of those 
issues.

Application Procedures

Required Report to Congress
    Comments: A number of comments suggest changes in the reporting 
requirement to Congress. Allegheny County Department of Aviation 
suggests the FAA initiate a dialogue with industry groups to identify 
potential measures of success to monitor and evaluate the program. 
Several commenters suggest that industry comments should be solicited 
annually and the FAA report to Congress on the efficacy of 
privatization and the pilot program. The Transportation Trades 
Department, AFL-CIO suggests that the FAA should address employee and 
collective bargaining relationships in the two year report to Congress; 
the report should address such issues as the program's effects on wages 
and working conditions, retention percentages, contracting out 
practices and other factors deemed relevant. The FAA should also 
consider a yearly reporting requirement to monitor the long term effect 
on employees.
    Discussion: The law requires the FAA to provide a report to 
Congress on the Progress of implementation of the program no later than 
two years after the approval of the initial application. While the 
statute requires the FAA to report only on the implementation of the 
program, a considerable amount of effort has been undertaken to better 
understand the potential impacts of airport privatization. During the 
past year, the agency has held a number of meetings with industry 
leaders and trade groups, both proponents and opponents of airport 
privatization, both domestically and internationally. In May, 1997, the 
FAA and DOT conducted a public meeting to obtain public testimony on 
the topic.
    Final Disposition: The FAA will consider the public comments 
received from the notice combined with the results of the May 21 public 
meeting and the background information provided by the industry in the 
development of the report to Congress. The FAA does not plan further 
notice and comment on the results of the program at this time, but will 
consider a public forum for discussion of experience under the program 
at an appropriate time in the future.
Resale or Lease to Third Party
    Comments: ATA suggests that the FAA should establish procedures 
prohibiting the resale of an airport to a third party and mandating the 
reversion of the airport to the original public entity.
    Discussion: Approval of a sale or lease under section 47134 would 
not eliminate the Federal obligations of the private operator under 
grant agreements to obtain FAA approval for a subsequent sale or lease. 
Therefore, a prohibition on resale or sublease is unnecessary.
    Final Disposition: The final procedures do not include a 
prohibition on resale or subleasing of the airport.
Number of Airports in Pilot Program
    Comments: Landrum and Brown, a consulting firm, requests policy 
clarification on the number and type of participating airports. Landrum 
and Brown believes that for the five airports selected for 
participation in the program, specific limits should be placed on each 
hub classification (e.g., large, medium, and small hub) to permit 
participation by all airport hub classifications. FAA should also 
provide guidelines and criteria for the development of the sponsor's 
request for proposal/qualifications (RFP/RFQ).
    Discussion: Congress did not intend for participation in the 
airport privatization program to be defined according to airport hub 
classifications beyond those specifically identified in section 149. 
The conference report, for the bill which became section 149, indicates 
that the program should be flexible using neither size or geographical 
diversity as factors in the selection of airports. H.R. Rep. 104-848 at 
27 (September 29, 1996).
    Final Disposition: The final policy retains the original position 
as identified in the April 22 Federal Register notice.
Two Year Assessment Period
    Comments: Allegheny County Department of Aviation suggests that the 
statutory two year assessment period provides as insufficient time to 
fully evaluate the impacts of the program. As an example, the county 
mentioned a typical capital development schedule can have a longer 
horizon than two years. If the generation of new capital and investment 
is a measure of performance, the two year reporting period does not 
provide sufficient time for determining results. The county suggests 
that Congress establish a longer horizon to permit a more realistic 
assessment of the program.
    Discussion: The statute requires the FAA to submit a report to 
Congress not later than two years after the approval of the first 
application.
    Final Disposition: The report to Congress will be filed 2 years 
from the date of the first application.
Selection Process
    Comments: A number of comments suggest changes to the selection 
process and application submission dates. San Francisco argues that the 
FAA's system of ``first come first serve'' is arbitrary and unfair. San 
Francisco suggests that the start date of December 1, 1997, should be 
delayed for three months to allow applicants sufficient time to prepare 
an exemption application. They also suggest that the selection process 
be replaced by a lottery of pre-qualified applicants with five airports 
selected by a disinterested third party.
    Johnson Controls, a private airport operator, has two concerns with 
the ``first come first serve'' approach. Their first concern is that 
the first five applications submitted may not be the most qualified to 
be included in the program. Second, if more than five airports submit 
applications for the December 1 deadline, some of those airports 
sponsors and their associated parties will be forced to expend a great 
deal of preparatory work and expense with no assurance that they will 
be able to obtain an exemption. As an alternative, Johnson Controls 
suggests a two step process. The first step requires the submittal of a 
preliminary application consisting of a description of the procurement 
process, a copy of the request for proposal (RFP) and a list of the 
airport owner's minimum requirements. The second step would consist of 
the FAA granting conditional approval for five airport sponsors to 
issue a RFP. A stand-by list would be utilized should one of the first 
five

[[Page 48696]]

applicants be unable to complete the process. Airport sponsors would 
have to request FAA approval of their final applications. This 
selection process is endorsed by Airports Council International North 
America (ACI-NA) and the American Association of Airport Executives 
(AAAE).
    Landrum and Brown wants both the airport sponsor and private 
airport operator to be pre-qualified for exemption and participation in 
the pilot program. Airport Group International (AGI) proposes that 
interested airport sponsors submit an expression of interest by a date 
certain. The statement would include basic information about the 
facility and a feasibility report demonstrating that the economics of 
the airport can support privatization. Based upon this submittal, the 
FAA would select five airports best qualified for participation in the 
program. Exemptions would be issued upon the completion of the 
solicitation process.
    The Reason Foundation suggests staggered start dates based upon 
airport classification. Under this proposal, applications for general 
aviation airports would be accepted from December 1 onward, but 
approval would be limited to a maximum of two during the initial 18 
months, while awaiting for applications from air carrier airports. 
Large and medium hub airports could not submit an application until 18 
months later, all other carrier airports would have 12 months. This 
type of extended schedule would provide large and medium hub airports a 
longer time for preparation due to the complexity of preparing a 
request for proposals.
    Discussion: We agree with commenters that a revision of the 
selection procedures is warranted. The FAA drew on several different 
comments for development of the following two-step selection process. 
We continue to believe applications should be selected on a first come 
first served basis, rather than a selection process based on criteria 
not found in section 47134. First, the direction for a report to 
Congress within 2 years indicates an interest in early implementation 
of the program. A first-come first-served selection procedure is most 
likely to meet this objective, as would the December 1 start date for 
applications, rather than a date of 12 or 18 months hence. Second, 
section 47134 does not provide specific authority or guidance for 
comparative selection of eligible applications, should more than five 
applications be received, based on their merits as privatization 
projects. However, FAA agrees that a two-step process, involving both 
preliminary and final applications, would be beneficial because it will 
avoid a costly and extensive process by parties that will turn out not 
to be among the first five qualifying applicants. Also, the FAA agrees 
with the suggestion for a lottery procedure to the extent necessary to 
assign priority to applications received on the same day.
    Final Disposition: As a first step, interested public sponsors may 
submit a summary preliminary application to the FAA for review and 
approval on or after December 1, 1997 (with certain exceptions noted 
below). The preliminary application will consist of: a summary 
narrative of the objectives of the privatization initiative; i.e., what 
the sponsor is trying to accomplish; second, a description of the 
process and timetable to be employed in selecting an operator; third, 
all the information required to be included in Part II of the final 
application; fourth, airport financial statements including balance and 
income statements for the last two reporting periods; and finally, a 
distribution ready copy of the request for proposals (RFP) that the 
sponsor will use in seeking a private operator.
    The RFP must be specifically for the sale or lease of the airport 
under the Sec. 47134 Airport Privatization Pilot Program. The document 
should contain references to this notice and the nine statutory 
objectives listed in section 47134(c). These preliminary applications 
will be accepted for review on a first come first served basis. The FAA 
will review each preliminary application and, if the preliminary 
application is accepted for review, the FAA will publish the status of 
the application in the Federal Register. Filing dates for applications, 
for the purposes of determining filing order under this program, will 
be the filing date of an approved preliminary application or the filing 
date of the final application if no preliminary application is filed. 
The FAA may accept up to five applications. If more than five airports 
submit applications, the FAA will establish a stand-by list. The FAA 
agrees to notify an applicant within thirty days of the filing of the 
preliminary application whether the application has been accepted for 
review.
    Once a preliminary application is accepted for review, an applicant 
may issue its RFP, select a private operator, negotiate an agreement 
and submit a final application to the FAA for approval without 
competing with other applicants for one of the five program slots. The 
acceptance for review of the preliminary application is time specific 
and based on the time table submitted with the preliminary application. 
Extensions may be granted, if the FAA finds that the public sponsor is 
making reasonable efforts to complete the process. For applications 
received by the FAA on the same business day, the FAA will hold a 
public lottery to assign priority.
    Final applications and preliminary applications will not be 
accepted before December 1, 1997, unless an applicant has issued an RFP 
on or before the date of publication of this notice. Applicants that 
have already issued an RFP for proposals for the sale or lease of the 
airport on or before the date of publication of this notice and have 
selected a private operator may submit a final application for review 
before December 1, 1997. Applicants that have issued the RFP but have 
not selected a private operator may file a preliminary application on 
or before that date. When a final application is accepted for review, 
the FAA will publish notice in the Federal Register with a 60-day 
comment period.
    The application procedures will be modified to reflect the changes 
to the selection process.
Privately Owned General Aviation Airports
    Comments: The State of New York recommends that privately held 
general aviation airports be excluded from section 47134(a) because 
they will not ``facilitate new forms of airport ownership'' as was 
intended by the statute.
    Discussion: The statute provides no basis for excluding privately 
owned airports. Privately owned airports are currently bound by many of 
the same laws, regulations, and grant assurances that govern publicly 
owned airports. However, exemptions under the program are granted only 
``to the extent necessary'' for the purposes listed in Sec. 47134(b) 
(2) and (3). It is likely that no exemption would be necessary for 
these purposes in a sale or lease of an airport from one private owner 
to another, and the FAA does not anticipate that applications will be 
received from private sponsors or that such sponsors would qualify for 
an exemption under the standards of section 47134.
    Final Disposition: The FAA will issue exemptions only to the extent 
necessary for the purposes listed in section 47134(b) (2) and (3).

Public Outreach

    Comments: Several commenters requested that additional public 
outreach efforts be written into the procedures. NATA supports the idea 
of publishing the application in the Federal Register for the 
solicition of

[[Page 48697]]

public review and comment. AOPA wants the airport sponsor to implement 
measures to improve the opportunity for public comment from the 
airport's general aviation community. AOPA suggests that the airport 
sponsor be required to contact all general aviation tenants 
individually by mail, to the extent practical, and to post a notice in 
a prominent location on the airport, to notify all general aviation 
tenants of a pending application before the FAA. The FAA should also 
conduct a public hearing at each airport being considered for 
participation in the pilot program. Scenic Hudson, Incorporated and 
Stewart Park and Reserve Coalition, two community organizations with an 
interest in Stewart International Airport, Newburgh, New York, 
requested the FAA to provide notification by personal mail service to 
interested parties regarding the acceptance of a final application with 
a copy of the final application provided upon request. They also 
suggested that the comment period on each application be for a period 
of 90 days.
    Discussion: The FAA supports efforts to inform the public of any 
expected changes affecting the airport community. However such efforts 
to obtain tenant participation and comment are best initiated by the 
airport sponsor in conjunction with local pilot groups and airport 
tenant and user committees.
    The FAA expects that a request for Federal exemption is only one 
part of a complex process that will involve a considerable amount of 
preparatory work, will generally also require the sponsor to obtain 
local government legislative and other types of approval, and in some 
cases will require state authorization. Public participation in the 
process may be required before the application is submitted to the FAA. 
In addition, we assume that industry organizations will make their 
membership aware of the opportunity to comment at the appropriate level 
of government authority. With respect to Federal action, the names of 
public sponsors submitting preliminary applications will be published 
in the Federal Register. FAA will institute a 60 day comment period for 
public review of sponsor's final application. We believe a 60 day 
comment period is reasonable considering the earlier requirement for 
publication in the Federal Register of a sponsor's preliminary 
application. We encourage airport sponsor to augment our efforts with 
their local means of communicating with the general public, and we are 
modifying the procedures to require that applicants describe their 
public outreach efforts in the final application.
    Final Disposition: Upon receipt of a preliminary application, the 
FAA will publish a notice in the Federal Register. When a final 
application is accepted for review by the FAA, the application will be 
published in the Federal Register for public review and comment for a 
sixty day period. The application procedures will be modified to 
reflect these changes and to require a description of any local public 
outreach efforts by the applicant.
Part II of the Application: Airport Property
    Comments: Scenic Hudson and Stewart Park and Reserve Coalition 
request clarification of what would be considered airport property, 
specifically as it pertains to Stewart International Airport. The two 
commenters want to know who will define what is to be included as 
airport property and the criteria to be employed in this determination.
    Discussion: The FAA agrees that property to be transferred must be 
clearly identified. Airport sponsors, requesting an exemption under 
section 47134, must provide a description of the airport property to be 
transferred under the pilot program. They must also provide an 
acquisition history of the existing airport property. The airport 
sponsor, as property owner, is in the best position to know the 
acquisition history of the airport's property and determine what 
property will be included as part of the transfer.
    Final Disposition: Questions regarding the property of a specific 
airport should be directed to the airport operator.
Part III of the Application: Terms of the Transfer
    Comments: ATA argues that the parties buying or leasing the airport 
will be interested in recouping all or part of the cost of the initial 
transaction. ATA recomends that the parties should provide information 
on the source of reimbursement for purchase or lease payments and the 
projected impact of the fees charged to airport users.
    Discussion: We believe this information will be valuable in 
evaluating a public sponsor's application. And find the ATA 
recommendations to be reasonable.
    Final Disposition: The application procedures will be changed to 
incorporate a requirement that the source of funds for reimbursement of 
the purchase or lease payments be identified, and that the applicants 
describe the anticipated impact of the reimbursement on aeronautical 
user fees.
Part IV of the Application: Qualifications of the Private Operator
    Comments: San Francisco opposes the implementation of a fitness 
test, because such a test would tend to discriminate against private 
operators. Allegheny County, ATA and AGI believe that a fitness test 
could be a valuable exercise for the FAA to perform. Several comments 
express the concern that such a test should not be unduly burdensome 
and the investigation process should be similar to those investigations 
conducted for public operators. Johnson Controls emphasizes the need to 
crease a ``level playing field'' for both publicly operated airports 
and privately operated airports. FAA should not use the exemption 
approval process as an excuse for placing burdens on the private 
operator which were not imposed on the public entity previously 
operating the airport.
    Discussion: Comments supporting the need for a fitness test, raise 
two concerns. First, a fitness test should not be discriminatory 
against private operators; any investigation process conducted should 
be the same for both public and private operators. Second, it should 
not be unduly burdensome on the operator.
    Section 47134 did not change existing requirements applicable to 
public airport sponsors for ownership of airports or eligibility to 
receive Federal grants. In contrast, this section did impose new 
financial and other requirements for private firms undertaking the 
operation of a public use airport under the pilot program. Accordingly, 
a fitness test related to the eligibility requirements of the pilot 
program cannot be considered discriminatory against private operators 
applying for participation in the program. FAA believes a limited 
fitness review of private operators, modeled on information reviewed 
for DOT economic certification decisions, would be beneficial in 
ensuring that the FAA meets the requirements of section 47134. The 
information involved is limited to items related to this program, and 
will not be a burden for applicants.
    Final Disposition: In addition to the information previously 
provided in the proposed application procedures the fitness test will 
require the following:
    1. A private operator's airport operation and management 
experience.
    2. The identity, experience, expertise and responsibility of key 
personnel.
    3. A description of facilities presently being managed by the 
company, both domestically and internationally.
    4. Copies of the 10K annual reports filed in the past 3 years with 
the

[[Page 48698]]

Securities and Exchange Commission. If not filed, balance sheet and 
income statement and a cash flow statement prepared in accordance with 
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, with all footnotes applicable 
to the financial statements. The above mentioned statement shall be 
filed annually, ninety days after the close of the operator's fiscal 
year.
    A finding of fitness in response to an application under this 
program would apply only to that application and not to other 
applications filed with the FAA or other offices of the Department of 
Transportation.
Part V of the Application: Requests for Exemption
    Comments: ATA also recommends that information provided as part of 
the request for exemption to permit airport revenue to be used for 
compensation of the private operator should include anticipated amount 
and source of airport funds involved, and a description of the effect, 
if any, on air carrier or other user fees.
    Discussion: This request is consistent with ATA's request for 
additional information requested in Part III, ``Terms of Transfer.'' 
Consistent with our action on that request, Part V is being modified to 
include this information in the application. No further action is 
required.
Part VI of the Application: Certification of Air Carrier Approval
    Comments: ATA indicates that statistics for determining landed 
weight should be based on the preceding calendar year. According to the 
State of New York, the regulation does not address the manner in which 
the 65 percent air carrier rule will be calculated in the event one or 
more carriers announce a decision to discontinue service after the end 
of the year preceding application review.
    Discussion: The statistics requested in paragraph B of the 
procedures for total landed weight must be based on the preceding 
calendar year. This is a requirement of the statute. Section 
47134(b)(1)(i)(ii) requires 65 percent approval of the air carriers 
serving the airport and 65 percent approval of the total landed weight 
of air carriers from the preceding calendar year. Carriers 
discontinuing service during or after the calendar year and not 
currently serving the airport would not be counted in the total landed 
weight for the preceding calendar year. This interpretation is 
necessary to permit the 65 percent statutory carrier approval mechanism 
to work if a carrier having more than 35 percent of the landed weight 
at the airport discontinues service. This issue is further discussed 
under the heading ``Issues Considered by the FAA in Granting an 
Exemption Under Section 47134.''
    Final Disposition: The application procedures have been modified to 
reflect the discussion.
Part VIII of the Application: Airport Operation and Development
    Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan. Comments: The ATA suggests that 
information on the five-year capital plan should include, if 
applicable, information on sources and proposed repayment terms of any 
borrowed funds.
    Discussion: We find this request reasonable and consistent with our 
request for disclosure of the source of funds in previously mentioned 
comments.
    Final Disposition: A request for a description of this information 
will be incorporated into the application procedures.
Collective Bargaining Agreements
    Comments: Public Employee Department, AFL-CIO requests that the 
labor requirements be strengthened. FAA should require the recognition 
of collective bargaining rights and an adherence to the collective 
bargaining agreement. The details of workforce standards should be 
identified in any lease or sale agreement. Transportation Trades 
Department, AFL-CIO identified a clerical error in Part VII(A)(10) of 
the proposed procedures. According to the statute, this section should 
read, ``Any collective bargaining agreement that covers employees of 
the airport and is in effect on the date of the sale or lease of the 
airport will not be abrogated by the sale or lease''. The commenter 
suggests that the FAA should more clearly discuss what defines an 
abrogation of a collective bargaining agreement. The FAA should also 
include detailed requirements for collective bargaining agreements. The 
application should address successorship of existing representatives of 
employees, adverse impacts on civil service employees and a requirement 
that private operators offer employment to the existing workforce. 
Transportation Trades Department recommends an addition to Part 
VII(A)(10) requesting the applicant to determine and describe the long 
term effects the transfer may have on collective bargaining agreements 
and employees. Finally, the Transportation Trades Department suggests 
that the FAA should have an oversight role in the treatment of 
employees after the agreement is signed.
    Discussion: Section 47134(c)(9) requires that any collective 
bargaining that covers airport employees will not be abrogated by the 
transfer or sale of the airport. The application procedures permit the 
applicants to satisfy section 47134(c)(9) by providing a certification 
that the collective bargaining agreement has not been abrogated. We 
would expect as a part of submitting the exemption application, the 
issues raised by labor would be the basis for discussion between the 
private operator, the airport owner and the collective bargaining 
units. Before issuing an exemption, the FAA would ensure the terms of 
the agreement met the requirements of the Act.
    After transfer of the airport, we assume that existing federal and 
state agencies with responsibility for labor relations, rather than the 
FAA, would perform oversight functions on labor agreements at the 
airport. FAA's role would be limited to assuring that applicant public 
sponsors and private operators, in the transfer of the airport to 
private operation, comply with assurances of section 47134. Collective 
bargaining agreements and Federal labor laws establish employee rights 
and mechanisms for protecting employee interests. Section 47134(c)(9) 
is not intended to make FAA oversight an alternative process. Rather, 
by requiring assurance that collective bargaining agreements will not 
be abrogated, Congress demonstrated an intent to rely on existing 
devices to protect employee interests.
    Final Disposition: The application procedures will be revised to 
more closely conform with section 47134(c)(9).
Issues Considered by the FAA in Granting an Exemption Under Section 
47134 65 Percent Carrier Approval
    Comments: ATA believes that procedures must be clear that air 
carriers approving ``diverted'' funds must constitute 65 percent in 
number and 65 percent in landed weight.
    Discussion: In order for a public sponsor to recover funds from the 
sale or lease of the airport, the dollar amount must be approved by at 
least 65 percent of the air carriers serving the airport and at least 
65 percent of the total landed weight of the air carriers serving the 
airport in the preceding calendar year. As discussed above, carriers 
that have ceased operations at the airport at the time of application 
will be excluded from the landed weight calculation.
    Final Disposition: The final procedures are being modified to 
reflect this discussion.

[[Page 48699]]

    Comments: Landrum and Brown suggest that the 65 percent carrier 
approval requirement is reasonable if obtained in advance of selection 
of operator. ATA recommends that general aviation airports be exempt 
from the 65 percent carrier provision rule in lieu of a similar test of 
the majority of based air craft owners or some other indication of the 
users.
    The Allegheny County Department of Aviation (Allegheny County) 
argues that it is not appropriate to equate Part 135 operators with 
Part 121 air carriers, especially at general aviation airports. 
Allegheny County argues that air taxi operators at general aviation 
airports are typically fixed base operators that provide on-demand air 
taxi services as one of a group of aviation related activities. 
Typically, according to Allegheny County, these operators have not made 
financial commitments to the airport in the form of long-term leases 
and they do not commit their credit-worthiness to the financing of the 
general aviation airport. Allegheny County argues that the test 
proposed--that any Part 135 operator with at least 50 annual operations 
be counted in the 65 percent vote--would lead to the unfair result that 
an itinerant air taxi with limited financial connections to the airport 
would have a right to vote while a fixed base operator (FBO) located at 
the airport (but with no Part 135 operations) would have no vote. 
Allegheny County suggests that recognition as an air carrier should be 
based on one or more of the following tests: (1) A Part 135 operator 
lease is cited specifically as a security for the sponsor's financing 
of any airport facility; (2) a Part 135 operator is a signatory to a 
long term lease with airport; (3) a Part 135 operator paid to the 
airport within the last twelve months, landing fees for commercial 
flights which constituted a specified percentage of the airport's total 
revenues or exceeded a specified dollar amount.
    After the comment period closed, Allegheny County filed a request 
for a complete waiver of the 65 percent approval requirement for 
Allegheny County Airport, on the grounds that Congress did not intend 
these airports to be subject to the requirement. The FAA provided the 
Part 135 operators with lease or use agreements at the airport with an 
opportunity to respond. To ensure a complete record, the FAA is 
including in this docket the waiver request and all responses.
    The State of New York requested clarification on several aspects of 
the 65 percent carrier approval rule. New York believes carriers that 
no longer have an agreement with the airport sponsor should not 
participate in application approval. They also indicated that landed 
weight requirements should not include general aviation. Finally, the 
State of New York wants to know how the FAA will handle an airline, 
airline holding company, or an affiliate of that airline that becomes 
an applicant for private operation of the airport and also has 
participatory rights under the 65 percent carrier approval provision. 
The state suggests that such an airline would have an inherent conflict 
of interest.
    Discussion: The statute requires the airport sponsor to comply with 
two tests regarding air carrier approval of the amount of funds the 
sponsor can recover as a result of the initial transaction. While the 
statute makes no reference to the timing of the approval, the amount of 
funds to be recovered cannot be determined until the actual business 
arrangements between the airport sponsor and a specific private 
operator are known. Therefore, the FAA is not adopting the Landrum and 
Brown suggestion.
    On the question of including Part 135 air taxi operators in the 65 
percent approval process, the FAA agrees that the proposed procedure 
would have been impractical and could have led to results that are 
undesirable from a policy perspective. However, we do not fully agree 
with Allegheny County's assessment of Congressional intent regarding 
Part 135 operators. Therefore, we are not adopting the modifications 
proposed by Allegheny County Airport. Rather, the FAA is modifying the 
65 percent approval requirement to limit participation to Part 135 
operators with lease and/or use agreements and with aircraft used in 
Part 135 operations. Itinerant Part 135 operators, even with 50 or more 
flights per year, would not be included.
    The FAA has reviewed the provisions of section 47134, and we do not 
find strong evidence that Congress intended to distinguish, as a class, 
either Part 135 operators from Part 121 operators, or general aviation 
airports from commercial service airports receiving scheduled airline 
service. Under the terms of the statute, the public sponsor's receipt 
of sale or lease proceeds and fee increases exceeding the rate of 
inflation must be approved by at least ``65 percent of the air 
carriers'' serving the airport, without limitation or qualification. 
The term ``air carriers'' as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102 encompasses 
Part 135 operators, as Allegheny County recognizes. The FAA assumes 
that if Congress intended to treat Part 135 operators, as a class, 
differently, explicit provisions authorizing or mandating different 
treatment would have been included.
    With respect to the comment that the 65 percent approval 
requirement should not apply at general aviation airports, the FAA 
notes that section 47134(b)(1) does not expressly exclude general 
aviation airports from the 65 percent approval requirement. Based on 
the foregoing, the FAA interprets section 47134(b)(1) (and the parallel 
provision of section 47134(c)(4)) to reflect a Congressional intent to 
give Part 135 operators at general aviation airports voting rights as 
air carriers.
    Nevertheless, the FAA recognizes that the differences in on demand 
Part 135 operators and Part 121 operators justify, on both practical 
and policy grounds somewhat different treatment.
    The nature of Part 135 operator ``on-demand'' air service would 
place an undue burden on the airport sponsor in administering the 
proposed certification requirement, especially as applied to non-based 
operators. Many Part 135 charter operations may be invisible to airport 
surveillance. Many operators conduct their business with no visible 
markings. In many cases it may be difficult to ascertain whether an 
activity is being done as a commercial flight in air transportation, or 
as another activity under Part 91.
    In addition, providing itinerant Part 135 operators with voting 
rights could give them more of an influence over the terms of a 
privatization transaction than other users of a general aviation 
airport who will be more substantially affected--fixed base operators 
without Part 135 operations. The committee report indicates that the 
approval provisions were added because Congress recognized ``that 
airport users may be concerned that an airport could use its monopoly 
power to increase their fees to unreasonable levels.'' Given this 
concern, there is not a strong policy justification for giving 
itinerant air taxi operators--who would likely be less impacted by the 
increases in airport fees relative to airport tenants--a greater 
influence over the terms of the privatization transaction than an 
entire category of airport tenants--FBOs without Part 135 operations. 
Moreover, an airport operator may have no practical means of 
determining whether an itinerant operation is conducted under Part 135 
or Part 91.
    Therefore, the FAA has decided to limit participation in the 65 
percent approval process to Part 135 operators that have lease and/or 
use agreements with the airport and have aircraft used in Part 135 
operations based at the airport. This resolution provides those Part 
135 operators most likely to be

[[Page 48700]]

affected by a privatization transaction with the voting rights Congress 
intended, while avoiding the practical and public policy difficulties 
associated with extending the voting rights to itinerant operators. 
This resolution will provide to FBO tenants with a Part 135 certificate 
voting rights not shared by non-Part 135 FBOs. However, this is a 
distinction that is clearly contemplated by the terms of the statute.
    The FAA also notes that the definition of the term ``air carrier'' 
in 49 U.S.C. 40102 refers to U.S. citizens, and does not include 
foreign air carriers. While section 40102 expressly governs Part A of 
Title 49, Subpart VII, and Section 47134 is in Part B of that subtitle, 
the FAA generally applies the definitions in section 40102 to Part B if 
the terms are not defined to have a different meaning in section 47102, 
the definition section for Part B. Section 47102 does not define ``air 
carrier,'' but defines ``air carrier airport'' in a manner that refers 
to service by U.S. carriers, which is consistent with the section 40102 
definition of ``air carrier.'' Accordingly, the FAA concludes that 
Congress did not intend the statutory procedure for air carrier 
approval to include foreign air carriers in the calculation of either 
65 percent of air carriers serving the airport or 65 percent of landed 
weight in the preceding year. The application procedures reflect this 
conclusion.
    However, the FAA notes that this does not in any way affect 
existing rights of foreign air carriers with respect to reasonable and 
not unjustly discriminatory fees, or to the rights of foreign air 
carriers to use the same administrative and legal processes available 
to U.S. operators to challenge airport fees. Moreover, applicants are 
reminded that bilateral air service agreements provide for consultation 
with foreign air carriers. The applicant should conduct timely 
consultation with foreign air carriers serving the airport on all 
proposals for which approval is requested under section 47134(b)(1) and 
section 47134(c)(4), and include a description of the consultation in 
Part VI of the application.
    Finally, the procedures exclude from the 65 percent approval 
process otherwise qualified air carriers that submitted proposals or 
that participate in consortia that submitted proposals for the 
privatization of the subject airport. The vote of such a carrier, 
whether or not it is the successful proponent, could be based on its 
interests as a proponent rather than its interests as a user of the 
airport. To the extent that it is, such a carrier's vote would not 
further the Congressional objective of the 65 percent approval 
requirement.
    Final Disposition: The application procedures will be modified to 
reflect the above discussion. Specifically, in applying the 65 percent 
approval requirement, carriers serving the airport will consist of all 
carriers conducting operations at the airport under authority of 14 CFR 
Part 121 that have a lease and/or use agreement at the airport or that 
conducted at least 50 flights under such authority in the preceding 
calendar year; all carriers conducting operations at the airport as a 
commuter air carrier within the meaning of 14 CFR Part 298 that have a 
lease and/or use agreement at the airport or that conducted at least 50 
flights under such authority in the preceding calendar year; and all 
operators conducting operations at the airport under authority of 14 
CFR Part 135 that have a lease and/or use agreement at the airport (or 
similar agreement for use and occupancy of airport premises) and that 
have at least one aircraft used in Part 135 operations based at the 
airport. However, an otherwise qualified air carrier will not be 
permitted to participate in the 65 percent approval process, or be 
counted in the total landed weight in the previous year, if the air 
carrier, air carrier holding company, or affiliate of that air carrier 
responds to a solicitation or submits a proposal to serve as a private 
operator or participate in a private operator consortium at that 
airport. In addition, as proposed, an airport that does not keep 
records of landed weight for purposes of calculating landing fees may 
seek an appropriate waiver of the landed-weight approval requirement.
Terms and Conditions Required for Approval--General Approach
    Comments: The State of New York, San Francisco and AGI believe that 
third party beneficiary rights are not necessary and may exceed FAA's 
authority. The State of New York believes the FAA has these rights 
under existing law. Landrum and Brown suggests the FAA should require 
the sale or lease agreement to include provisions that meet the 
statutory objectives. Infrastructure Management Group request 
clarification as to the standards and conditions under which it might 
completely transfer grant obligations to the private sector without 
subsequent recourse to the previous public sponsor.
    Discussion: Section 47134(c) permits the FAA to approve an 
exemption application only if the sale or lease agreement includes 
provisions satisfactory to the FAA. The Agency considers the statutory 
objectives in section 47134(c) as creating a third party beneficiary 
rights for the United States Government. Congress has authorized the 
FAA to approve an application for exemption only if the lease or sale 
agreement contains terms and conditions that ensure the nine statutory 
objectives are met. To assure that these rights are available, we will 
require the sale or lease agreement to include provisions explicitly 
granting third party beneficiary rights to the FAA. The FAA will accept 
as an alternative a suitably structured tripartite agreement among the 
FAA, the public sponsor and the private operator in which the three 
parties agree that the key grant assurances required by section 47134 
may be enforced directly against the private operator by the FAA under 
the agreement as well as under applicable grants.
    During the course of the application process, the FAA will 
determine on a case by case basis, what grant obligations will be 
transferred. As a result of the transfer, the public sponsor should not 
be obligated for the airport grant assurances assumed by the private 
operator. However, the public sponsor may continue to have Federal 
obligations under the exemption approval. These Federal obligations may 
depend on: (1) The conditions of exemption; (2) third party beneficiary 
rights; and (3) specific terms of the transfer agreement.
    Additionally, we are requesting sponsors to identify in the 
application their approach to handling the protection of the airport's 
runway protection zones and the acquisition and retention of avigation 
easements, in consideration that a private operator will have neither 
condemnation authority nor zoning power for adjacent property.
    Final Disposition: The application procedures will be changed to 
incorporate the request for information on the airport's runway 
protection zones and avigation easements and to incorporate the 
requirement for third-party beneficiary rights or a tripartite 
agreement. None of the other comments required changes to the 
procedures.
Terms and Conditions To Assure Public Access on Reasonable Terms 
Without Unjust Discrimination
    Comments: Landrum and Brown recommends that a private operator 
should operate an airport without discrimination under the same 
assurances required of a public sponsor. The State of New York argues 
the introduction of requirements that would hold privately operated 
airports to a higher than public airports would be contradictory and 
deterrent.

[[Page 48701]]

    NATA opposes the ability to transfer proprietary exclusive rights 
to a private operator. It argues that a private operator exercising a 
proprietary exclusive right in an area as fuel sales, for example, will 
impact existing fuel operators. A proprietary exclusive operation may 
result in the closure of existing fixed base operators or the denial of 
market entry by potential new operators.
    Discussion: Under existing FAA policy, the owner of a public-use 
airport may elect to provide any or all of the aeronautical services 
needed by the public at an airport. The statutory prohibition against 
exclusive rights does not apply to these airport owners. They may 
exercise, but not grant the exclusive right to conduct an aeronautical 
activity. Existing policy permits airport owners to engage in these 
services using only their employees and resources. Delegation or 
subcontracting of the proprietary exclusive right is prohibited. As a 
practical matter, public agencies recognize these services are often 
best performed by a profit-motivated private enterprise.
    Private owners of a public use airport are currently permitted to 
exercise propriety exclusive rights on the same basis as public 
agencies. The FAA sees no reason to grant a private operator a lesser 
right than other operators just because the operator came into control 
of the airport under section 47134. However, the FAA may object in 
circumstances when the private operator attempts to exercise a 
proprietary exclusive right through consortiums, joint or limited 
partnerships when the intent is to circumvent the exclusive rights 
provision or the limited exception.
    Final Disposition: FAA will review each request for proprietary 
exclusive on a case by case basis.
Reasonable Rates and Charges Imposed by Airport Operator
    Comments: San Francisco believes the FAA lack the authority to 
apply the Rates and Charges Policy and that the policy should not be 
imposed on the transferee. It proposes that the FAA delete the 
provision that subject fees imposed by the private operator to the 
Policy on Airport Rates and Charges. San Francisco argues that under 
the rule, airlines already have adequate protection against 
unreasonable rates and charges. First: 65% of the air carriers must 
approve the initial agreement in the form of revenue to be retained by 
the airport sponsor; second, air carriers must approve all rates and 
charges (except for those rate increases resulting from new capital 
improvements). Application of the policy to the agreed upon rates and 
charges could result in challenges to the rate structure as new users 
enter the market. This could potentially undermine the investment 
expectations of the private operator by lowering the level of rates and 
charges.
    Discussion: Before responding to the comments, it is necessary to 
discuss a judicial decision in a challenge to the Rates and Charges 
Policy that was pending when the FAA issued the NPP. The Air Transport 
Association (ATA) and the City of Los Angeles each petitioned for 
judicial review of the Airport Rates and Charges Policy. Los Angeles 
challenged the requirement to use historic cost accounting in 
establishing fees for the use of the airfield. The ATA challenged the 
provisions in the policy that permit the airport operator to: (a) Use 
any reasonable method to establish other aeronautical fees; and (b) 
charge imputed interest on the airport operator's own funds from 
specified sources invested in the airfield. On August 1, 1997, the 
United States Court of Appeals issued its opinion, which vacated an 
remanded the Airport Rates and Charges Policy to the Department.
    The effect of the opinion on the provisions of that Policy that 
were not challenged is unclear. Even if the effect of the opinion is to 
vacate the entire policy, it is reasonable to expect that readoption of 
the unchallenged provisions would not be objectionable. In addition, 
the provisions of the policy most directly related to the privatization 
pilot program--provisions on airport operator/user consultation, 
application of the policy to fees set by agreement, and allowable rate 
of return to private equity owners of airports--were not challenged. 
Therefore, the FAA has assumed that those provisions continue to be in 
effect in the discussion of the comments on this issue. We have made 
appropriate editorial changes to the text of the procedures to reflect 
the uncertain status of the Airport Rates and Charges Policy.
    The comment that the FAA lacks authority to apply the Rates and 
Charges Policy to transferees under the pilot program is not supported 
by the statutory language authorizing the pilot program. Section 149(d) 
of the Reauthorization Act, which established the privatization pilot 
program, also included a revision to 49 U.S.C. 47129, the existing 
statute which requires adoption of a DOT rates and charges policy and 
process for adjudication of disputes. The new provision directs the 
Secretary, ``in evaluating the reasonableness of a fee imposed by an 
airport receiving an exemption under Sec. 47134 of this title [to] 
consider whether the airport has complied with section 47134(c).'' 49 
USC 47129(a)(4). This provision does not exempt fees that meet the 65 
percent approval requirement from review under Sec. 47129. On the 
contrary, the provision contemplates that the fees will be reviewed, 
with consideration given to whether the fees meet the 65 percent 
approval requirement.
    The FAA considers the Airport Rates and Charges Policy, in 
particular the first principle and associated guidance, and this policy 
to be consistent with the statutory direction discussed above. The 
first principle states the Department's preference for direct local 
negotiation between the airport operator and aeronautical users. This 
principle recognizes a generally held industry wide practice that 
produces reasonable results. The Airport Rates and Charges Policy was 
amended to avoid the need for investigation of complaints about the 
reasonableness of fees set by agreement if filed by parties to the 
agreement.
    However, as we indicated in the Airport Rates and Charges Policy, 
we believe that Congress did not intend to deprive non-signatory 
carriers of the opportunity to have their fees reviewed by the FAA, 
solely because they were not a signatory to the original agreement. 
Section 47129 does not, by its terms, exempt fees set by agreement from 
the requirement of reasonableness. Furthermore a difference in rates 
between signatory or non-signatory carriers is not necessarily a basis 
for a determination of unreasonable fees. Interested parties should 
consult the section, ``Charges to Non-Signatory Carriers'' of the OST/
FAA Policy on Airport Rates and Charges for further details.
    Final Disposition: The final policy is not modified from the 
proposal.
Reasonable Compensation for the Airport Operator
    Comments: Several commenters voiced concerns about the compensation 
to the private operator. Landrum and Brown suggests that the rate of 
return should be subjected to a reasonableness test. This should be 
handled on a case by case basis. Compensation is driven by the 
``price'' paid for the lease or sale of the airport. The State of New 
York believes agreement between equity owner and airport users is most 
appropriate to determine charges. Infrastructure Management Group 
suggests that the FAA should not directly intervene on the issue of 
reasonable rate of return.

[[Page 48702]]

These issues should be left to the three consenting parties in the 
privatization process, the airport owner, the private operator and the 
airlines. The FAA would still have the authority to exercise remedying 
powers under its current Policy on Airport Rates and Charges. ATA 
argues that the private operator's rate of return must be evaluated in 
light of its impact on user fees, within the context of exemptions 
being proposed under section 47134(b)(3). The ATA encourages the FAA to 
``look at all payments in the aggregate, not as individual pieces.''
    Discussion: A basic premise for determining the reasonableness of 
compensation for the airport operator must begin with three consenting 
parties in the privatization process, the airport owner, the private 
operator and the airlines. As we have indicated, in order to protect 
the general public interest, and the interest of airport users affected 
by but not a party to the agreement, the FAA has a responsibility to 
determine the reasonableness of airport fees paid by aeronautical users 
and compensation to the airport operator included in those fees. The 
FAA will examine an airport operator's rate of return for 
reasonableness on a case by case basis. While we recognize the value of 
agreement on compensation to the airport operator by all consenting 
parties, the FAA reserves the right to ensure that the rate of return 
charged for aeronautical facilities and services meets the applicable 
reasonableness requirements.
    Final Disposition: The final procedures retain the substance of the 
proposed procedures.
Carrier Approval of Fee Increases
    Comments: Landrum and Brown recommends private operators should be 
allowed rate increases to cover at least their cost of capital. The 
definition of capital improvements should be clearly stated so that 
both airlines and the private operator can assess the impact on rates 
and charges.
    ATA and NATA oppose provisions that allow airport fee increases 
based solely on new capital investment without approval of 65 percent 
of the airport's air carriers. Both suggest that all capital 
improvement resulting in fee increases should be subject to air carrier 
approval. ATA argues that the provisions allow the proposed private 
operator to make unnecessary investments for the sole purpose of 
increasing their rate of return, exempt from the revenue retention 
requirements. NATA believes that this automatic approval of capital 
improvements will raise rates and charges, adversely affect its 
membership, which represent many of the aviation businesses servicing 
aeronautical users.
    ACI-NA, AAAE and the State of New York support the measure that 
excludes capital improvements from the 65 percent air carrier rule. 
Supporters believe without this provision, few capital improvements 
would be made. ACI-NA and AAAE in their joint statement, indicated, 
``It would be simply too easy for carriers taking a short-term view of 
expenses and profits to veto an airport's more long term assessment of 
growing needs for capital investment.''
    Discussion: FAA reaffirms its position that the 65 percent air 
carrier rule should not apply to new capital improvement. As we have 
stated before, Congress, in establishing the program, expressed an 
intent to determine if private investment could be employed as an 
alternative funding source. Applying the 65 percent air carrier rule to 
new capital investment would give carriers undue power over an 
airport's capital improvement program and possibly reduce an airport 
operator's ability to meet the long term needs of the market.
    Carriers are afforded sufficient protection by provisions of 
section 47134(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii). This provision of the statute 
effectively requires the consent and participation of the carriers for 
the airport sponsor to transfer the airport to a private operator. The 
FAA expects that during this time carrier concerns and issues will be 
addressed. Additionally, tenants and carriers have the protection of 
their leases, an airport's grant assurances and the federal 
requirements for airport rates and charges.
    Final Disposition: The FAA retains the provisions of the draft 
notice. The text is being modified to explicitly state the exclusion of 
fee increases attributable solely to capital improvements.
Terms and Conditions To Assure Continued Operation in the Event of 
Bankruptcy or Insolvency
    Comments: AGI believes that existing Federal bankruptcy laws are 
adequate to handle leased facilities. Title 11 U.S.C. 365(d)(3) (1995) 
was originally enacted to protect a lessor of commercial realty in the 
event that the tenant seeks bankruptcy protection and performance of 
the contract is essential. This section requires the trustee to meet 
the tenant's obligations under the contract. AGI argues that these 
provisions could apply to operators of leased airports.
    The State of New York suggests that the FAA should require the 
parties to enter into an agreement that addresses bankruptcy within the 
framework of existing law.
    Landrum and Brown and Infrastructure Management Group suggest a 
reversion to the public sponsor in the event of bankruptcy along with 
reasonable cure provisions in the agreement. The operators or creditors 
of a facility should be given time to rectify the problem before the 
original public owner steps in. The only lingering issue in such 
instances is whether and how the parties must compensate each other.
    ATA offers a number of options for addressing bankruptcy. These 
include: (1) The transfer agreement should include an automatic 
reverter to the public sponsor in the event that the airport ceases 
operations due to bankruptcy or reorganization (the transfer agreement 
would not be recognized as an executory contract subject to assumption, 
rejection or assignment under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code); (2) 
FAA required contingency plan for sponsor takeover in defined 
circumstances; (3) Record as an encumbrance on the airport property the 
obligation to operate the property as an airport; (4) establish an 
escrow fund or bond fund to ensure funds are available to pay essential 
costs of operating the airport; (5) Use Chapter 9 insolvent 
municipality provisions instead of Chapter 11 or 7 for airport 
bankruptcies.
    ATA also suggests that the FAA pursue rigorous auditing of private 
operators and impose the requirement for financial fitness similar to 
those imposed by the Department of Transportation on air carriers.
    Discussion: Given the breadth of suggestions and divergence of 
views there is no consensus on a specific requirement. As a part of the 
exemption application submittal, the airport sponsor and private 
operator should provide a plan that specifically addresses the 
requirements of section 47134(c)(2). Because it would involve the 
application of bankruptcy law, the plan should include legal 
justification and a legal opinion. The proposed approach will assure 
continued operation of the airport in the circumstances specified in 
section 47134(c)(2). FAA reserves the right to modify, or totally 
reject the plan and require the airport operator to submit a new plan.
    Final Disposition: The FAA will revise the application procedures 
to require the public sponsor and private operator to specifically 
address the requirements of section 47134(c)(2).

[[Page 48703]]

Terms and Conditions To Assure Capital Investment and Improvements by 
the Airport Operator
    Comments: San Francisco questioned whether FAA has the legal 
authority to require that the private operator ``exceed or accelerate'' 
the public sponsor's capital improvement plan (CIP). While San 
Francisco recognizes that offering such a five year CIP is one method 
of ensuring sufficient private investment, it suggests that this not be 
a requirement for obtaining FAA approval. FAA should make it clear that 
the private operator's CIP does not have to exceed or accelerate the 
public sponsor's CIP. Such a requirement may decrease the 
attractiveness of private investment, when the public sponsor has made 
high investments in the airport prior to privatization. San Francisco 
believes that the air carriers will effectively ensure that the private 
sector will invest sufficient amounts in capital projects. FAA should 
exercise its role concerning capital investment on a case by case basis 
without a predetermined level of investment.
    ACI-NA and AAAE support the procedural provisions that require the 
transfer agreement to include a provision to assure the airport 
operator will maintain, improve and modernize the airport facilities as 
specified in the CIP and subsequent updates.
    Landrum and Brown suggests that the private operator should be 
required to submit a master plan for FAA approval along with the five 
year CIP.
    ATA raises concerns that the requirement to implement a five year 
program could lead to inefficient expenditures of funds for capital 
projects. They recommended the FAA require purchaser/lessor to provide 
annual documentation showing sources of funds for the projects to be 
implemented in next 12 months including, if applicable, information on 
borrowed money and proposed means of repayment of borrowed funds.
    BAA USA is concerned that the requirement of a ``reasonable rate of 
return'' may prove to be a source of controversy and generate wasteful 
capital expenditure. Airport operators could be induced to spend more 
on capital projects, just to extend the scope of the ``reasonable rate 
of return''.
    AGI believes that the public sponsor has the greatest incentive to 
ensure the private operator's CIP is sufficient for the needs of the 
airport.
    Discussion: In enacting the airport privatization pilot program, it 
was the intent of Congress to determine if new investment and capital 
from the private sector can be attracted through innovative financial 
arrangements. The FAA and the public have a reasonable expectation that 
a private operator will provide new capital and create new investment 
opportunities at the airport. A comparison of the public sponsor's 
five-year CIP with the private operator's CIP will be useful in 
evaluating the private operator's commitment. The example of exceeding 
or accelerating the public sponsor's most recent five year CIP is only 
one of several examples of means that a private operator can use to 
assure a sufficient minimum investment of the private operator's funds. 
The FAA will not, however, require the private operator's commitment to 
do so.
    The final procedures do not identify a predetermined level of 
investment. Rather, the private operator is required to provide an 
assurance that the operator will provide sufficient resources of its 
own funds in conjunction with other financial resources for carrying 
out the maintenance, improvements and modernization of the facility as 
required by the statute. This should be accomplished on an annual basis 
with documentation provided showing the source of all funds.
    One commenter suggested that the private operator should be 
required to submit a master plan for FAA approval along with the five 
year CIP. While there is not requirement for a master plan development, 
we would expect all capital development to be performed in accordance 
with the airport sponsor's grant assurances.
    Final Disposition: The application procedures are modified as 
discussed.
Terms and Conditions Relating to Safety and Security
    Comments: Both the Air Line Pilots Association and the 
Transportation Trades of AFL-CIO recommend that private operators 
should conduct public hearings on safety and operational considerations 
at the specific airport with an opportunity for input by 
representatives of aviation employees. It was also suggested that 
private operators conduct monthly or bi-monthly safety meetings.
    Discussion: Such mechanisms as tenant advisory committees and 
airport safety and security meetings are basic management tools for 
ensuring a safe and secure airport. We expect all airports, depending 
on their level of activity, degree of complexity and regardless of 
whether they are privately or publicly operated to have some program 
for addressing the safety and security needs of the airport.
    As we have indicated, we will require private operators to obtain a 
Part 139 airport operating certificate and comply with Part 107 airport 
security requirements at facilities where appropriate. Existing 
certificates held by the public operator are not transferable. Private 
operators will be required to demonstrate their fitness for approval in 
the same manner that public operators are presently required to comply. 
For general aviation airports, we will expect the private operator to 
provide the same level of safety and security as required of the public 
sponsor under the existing grant obligations.
    Final Disposition: The FAA believes that existing airport 
procedures and practices are adequate to ensure tenant and employee 
input on safe airport operating practices and conditions. The 
application procedures are modified to encourage the private operator 
to maintain the public sponsor's existing mechanisms for communicating 
with airport users and the public on safety and security issues. No 
other modifications have been made.
Terms and Conditions Relating to Noise Mitigation
    Comments: The National Organization to Insure a Sound Controlled 
Environment (NOISE), in their comments, asked several questions 
regarding the application procedures. First, NOISE wants to know if the 
terms and conditions of existing grants applicable to noise mitigation 
will be a part of the obligations of the private operator; Second, will 
the new airport owner be obligated to comply with the determination of 
the existing Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan. Third, will notice of 
the proposed sale of the airport be served on local jurisdictions that 
surround the airport or that are located a specified distance from the 
airport within a certain number of miles, or within a specified DNL 
noise contour. NOISE's concern is that Federal Register notification 
may be insufficient to reach many small communities. Finally, NOISE 
would like to see a public hearing in the airport community before an 
exemption is granted.
    AGI indicates that the statute limits AIP grant funding to 40% 
Federal share at section 47134 airports. The procedures are unclear as 
to whether the reduced Federal share applies to both new applications 
and projects approved but not funded.
    Discussion: Standard grant assurance No. 5 requires a transferee 
approved by the Secretary to assume all of the terms, conditions and 
assurances contained in the sponsor's grant agreement. These 
requirements are inserted in the contract or document transferring the 
sponsor's

[[Page 48704]]

interest, and become binding upon the transferee.
    In reviewing a request for transfer, the FAA will consider whether 
a proposed private operator under a privatization pilot project will 
assume the obligations of the original sponsor under existing grant 
agreements or deeds, and whether the new owner has the powers and 
authority to fulfill its obligations under the assurances. The FAA 
would expect a private operator to assume any existing Part 150 noise 
mitigation program for the airport to the extent applicable to a 
private firm. However, we note that under Part 150, implementation of 
approved noise mitigation measures is voluntary.
    With respect to the request for a public hearing, as we previously 
indicated, we encourage airport sponsors to actively solicit public 
comment. However, we do not intend to dictate to airport sponsors a 
single method for conducting public outreach. We believe public 
outreach should be conducted at the local level and in accordance with 
applicable state and local laws.
    On the subject of the applicability of reduced Federal share for 
AIP funded projects, it makes no difference whether the application is 
pending or in preparation. If a grant of discretionary funds is 
approved by the FAA prior to the airport sponsor being granted an 
exemption under section 47134, the conventional Federal share would be 
used, even if the project is not completed at the time of the transfer. 
Any grant of discretionary funds executed after the transfer would be 
at the Federal share of 40% for allowable project costs.
    Final Disposition: No modification is required to address the 
concerns of the commenter.
Unfair Competition Finding
    Comments: AGI wanted to know what constitutes ``unfair and 
deceptive practices''. The concept is not defined. The commenter 
suggests the standard for ensuring reasonable access without unjust 
discrimination replace the ``unfair and deceptive practice'' standard.
    Discussion: The statute permits the FAA only to approve an 
application, if the approval will not result in unfair and deceptive 
practices or unfair methods of competition. While there may be some 
overlap between this standard and the standard of reasonable access 
without unjust discrimination, the FAA is not prepared to treat the 
standards as identical. Doing so would make one of the standards 
meaningless. This outcome should be avoided in construing statutory 
language. We will not further define ``unfair and deceptive practices'' 
or ``unfair methods of competition'' in the procedures. Ample guidance 
on this subject can be found in agency and court decisions interpreting 
section 411 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 49 USC 
41712 and Sec. 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 USC 16. 
However, to assist in making this determination, the final procedures 
are being modified to require information on any findings that the 
private operator or key personnel have engaged in unfair or deceptive 
practices or unfair methods of competition, or are the subject of 
pending investigations.
Protection of General Aviation Interests
    Comments: AOPA recommended that each private operator should 
specifically address in the application how proposed changes at the 
airport will impact general aviation.
    Discussion: Congress intended that general aviation users not be 
adversely impacted as a result of the transfer of the airport from 
public to private operation. This is demonstrated by the provisions in 
the statute governing fee increases, section 47134(c)(5) and the 
protection of general aviation interests, section 47134(f). In order 
for the FAA to fulfill its responsibility under the statute, we would 
expect to see what actions the airport sponsor and private operator 
plan to take to comply with the requirements of these provisions. At a 
minimum, we would expect to see how the proposed changes in the 
management and operation of the airport would affect general aviation 
users. Additionally, we would expect to see some effort by the airport 
sponsor and private operator to undertake reasonable consultations with 
affected parties using the airport. The requirements of this section 
could also be addressed by providing a description of the operator's 
plans for the development of general aviation.
    Final Disposition: The application procedures will be revised to 
request that the applicant private operator provide information on its 
plans for consulting and communicating with the general aviation users 
regarding the planned privatization of the airport, and on the 
applicants' projections of the impact of the proposal on general 
aviation.
Revocation Procedures
    Comments: Several commenters argue that the FAA should not require 
automatic reversion of the airport to the public sponsor. Automatic 
reversion should be one of many options available. The FAA should 
retain discretion to take appropriate action. ACI-NA and AAAE request 
that revocation procedures should be crafted in such a way that they 
are not an impediment to the bond issuing ability of the airport 
sponsor. The Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO suggests 
that the FAA consider revocation procedures for termination of the 
program when privatization has been found to be contrary to the public 
interest.
    Discussion: The FAA did not propose to require reversion to the 
public sponsor in the event of default or violation of the exemption 
conditions, as a condition of granting an exemption, and the final 
procedures do not add a requirement for reversion. However, the 
application must provide for continued operation of the airport and 
compliance with other obligations in the future under all foreseeable 
circumstances. The provisions will vary according to the circumstances 
of the airport privatization proposed. For example, where a public 
sponsor does not operate any other airports and will no longer maintain 
a capability to assume operation of an airport on short notice, the 
applicants may provide means other than reversion to the former public 
sponsor as a first recourse for correction of problems in the private 
operation of the airport.
    The FAA is aware of effect that the potential enforcement action, 
even if the probability is very small, can have on the predictability 
of a future revenue stream for purposes of determining investment risk. 
As the ACI-NA and AAAE comments noted, the FAA has developed 
enforcement procedures for passenger facility charge (PFC) collection 
requirements that permit underwriting of bond issues based on PFC 
collections alone. While the FAA does not intend to prescribe separate 
procedures for agency enforcement of grant assurances and exemption 
conditions involved in a privatization project, we can give assurance 
that in the unlikely event any enforcement action was necessary in such 
a case, the agency will be sensitive to the financial commitments and 
covenants associated with the financing of the project. Moreover, by 
requiring a three-way agreement or the inclusion of third-party 
beneficiary rights for the FAA as part of the original transaction, the 
FAA has provided means for limited, targeted correction of deficiencies 
without relying on the revocation for the underlying exemption.
    Termination of the pilot program, as opposed to action to correct 
deficiencies

[[Page 48705]]

in a specific privatization project, is not within the FAA's authority.
    Final Disposition: As discussed previously, the FAA will require 
the parties to provide third party beneficiary rights to the FAA or to 
execute tripartite agreements. These remedial options in addition to 
revocation will assure that the FAA's compliance program is effective.
Administration of AIP Grants
    Comments: The State of New York, Landrum and Brown, and AGI argue 
that the system of prioritization of discretionary AIP funds should 
continue to make no distinction between public or private airports. 
Projects should be selected solely on their merits.
    Final Disposition: Discretionary AIP funds will be awarded in 
accordance with existing policy on priority of projects. Private 
ownership per se will not affect grant priority or eligibility, but the 
FAA will continue to consider the availability of other sponsor 
resources and the sponsor's use of available funds in granting 
applications for discretionary grants.

Process for Applying for an Exemption Under Sec. 47134

Exemption Application and Review Process: Overview

    The FAA will apply the following policies and procedures for filing 
and review of requests for privatization of a public airport under 49 
U.S.C. 47134:
    1. A request for participation in the airport privatization pilot 
program will be initiated by the filing of a preliminary application 
for exemption under section 47134(a). A public sponsor may also elect 
to file a final application without the prior filing of a preliminary 
application, if the public sponsor has selected a private operator.
    2. With the exemption noted below, preliminary and final 
applications for exemption will be accepted on or after December 1, 
1997, and will be handled on a first-come first-served basis until the 
limits of section 47134 are reached. An otherwise qualifying 
preliminary application for exemption will be accepted before December 
1, 1997, if the sponsor has issued, on or before the date of 
publication of this notice, a formal solicitation or request for 
proposals for the sale or lease of an airport, but has not selected an 
operator. If the sponsor has selected the operator on or before the 
date of publication of this notice, the FAA will accept only a final 
application before December 1, 1997. All applications will be evaluated 
in the order of receipt.
    3. Participation in the program is limited to five airports. The 
maximum of five participants in the program will be considered to have 
been reached based on applications under review, not exemptions 
granted, so that an airport with an application on file will not be in 
a race for inclusion in the program. A standby list will be established 
for airports not selected.
    4. An application received by the FAA will be considered to be 
filed on the date received. Application packages will be date-stamped 
on receipt in Room 600 East, FAA headquarters building. The FAA will 
not determine order of filing based on the time of day received. If 
multiple applications are received on the same day, their order of 
filing will be determined by public lottery rather than by time of day 
received.
    5. FAA will review the application to determine if it meets the 
procedural requirements stated in this notice.
    6. The FAA will accept preliminary applications filed before the 
applicant has commenced the procurement process for the selection of an 
operator. The preliminary application must contain the information 
listed under the section titled ``Contents of Applications''. The FAA 
will notify applicants of its decision on the acceptance of the 
application for review within thirty days of the filing of the 
preliminary application.
    7. If the preliminary application meets the procedural requirements 
described in this notice, the applicant will be notified that the 
application is ``accepted for review.'' The FAA may request additional 
information before accepting the application for review, but the 
original filing date will remain in effect. The applicant is authorized 
to select a private operator, negotiate an agreement and submit a final 
application to the FAA.
    8. If the preliminary application does not meet the procedural 
requirements described in this notice, and cannot be brought into 
compliance with those requirements with information requested by the 
FAA during its 30-day review, the preliminary application will be 
rejected. The FAA will notify the applicant that the application is 
rejected and that the application is no longer on file. The applicant 
may file a new application at any time, and receive a new ``on file'' 
date at that time.
    9. The FAA will publish in the Federal Register a notice that a 
preliminary application has been received under 49 U.S.C. 47134, and 
that the FAA has accepted the application for review.
    10. Applicants may file a final application after the public 
sponsor has selected a private operator and reached substantial 
agreement on the terms of the privatization transaction. If an 
application cannot reasonably be brought into compliance with the 
requirements of section 47134 and other applicable Federal statutes 
with current information in accordance with the time schedule submitted 
during the preliminary application, the FAA will notify the applicant 
that the application is rejected and that the application is no longer 
on file. The applicant may file a new application at any time, and 
receive a new ``on file'' date at that time.
    11. The FAA will publish in the Federal Register, a notice of 
receipt of the final application, establish a docket, and accept public 
comment on the application for a period of 60 days. Selection as one of 
the 5 airports eligible to participate in the program will be evidenced 
by the issuance of an exemption under section 47134(b). If an 
application is approved, an exemption will be issued after the 
execution of all documents necessary to fulfill the requirements of 
section 47134 and other laws and regulations within the FAA's 
jurisdiction (e.g., issuance of a Part 139 certificate to the private 
operator; FAA approval of a security program under Part 107). FAA 
representatives will be available to meet with parties interested in an 
airport privatization project both before and after the filing of a 
preliminary application for exemption to discuss the Federal statutory 
requirements and policies that apply to applications under section 
47134.

Filing an Application

    1. Applicants must submit one original application package and four 
copies containing the information described under ``Content of 
Applications'' in this notice to: Susan L. Kurland, Associate 
Administrator for Airports, ARP-1, Room 600 East, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    2. All preliminary and final applications may be delivered or 
mailed, but will not be considered to be ``on file'' with the FAA until 
received and date stamped in the Office of the Associate Administrator 
for Airports, Room 600 East.
    3. There is no required form for an application. However, the 
application package must be submitted with a cover letter, signed, in 
the case of the preliminary application, by appropriate officials of 
the current public sponsor or in the case of the final application, 
jointly by appropriate officials of the current public sponsor and the 
private operator proposing to buy or lease the

[[Page 48706]]

airport, requesting an exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 47134 for the 
purpose of the privatization of an airport. Please title each section 
according to the appropriate sections of the application. Officials 
signing for the public sponsor must provide evidence of their authority 
to file the application.

Contents of the Preliminary Application

    The preliminary application should consist of:
    1. As much of the information required by Part I, ``Parties to the 
Transaction,'' for the Final Application, as is available.
    2. Summary narrative of the objectives of the privatization 
initiative; what the public sponsor wants to accomplish by the 
solicitation.
    3. A description of the process and a reasonable, realistic 
timetable to be employed in selecting an operator and completing 
transfer of the airport. This should include the identification of all 
local approvals and the time frame when the FAA can anticipate the 
final application will be submitted for review.
    4. All of the information required by Part II. ``Airport 
Property,'' from the Final Application
    5. Financial statements including balance, income and cash flow 
statements for the last two reporting periods.
    6. A distribution ready copy of the request for proposals for the 
management and operation if the airport under section 47134. The 
document should contain references to this notice and the nine 
statutory objectives listed in section 47134(c).

The Final Application

    The following statements and information must be included in the 
final application. The FAA realizes that some documents, figures, and 
other information will not be available until shortly before the 
execution of the transfer transaction. The final application must be 
filed after the public sponsor has selected a private operator and 
reached sufficient agreement with the operator on the terms of the 
transaction to represent these terms in an application. The FAA will 
not require that all information listed below be provided at the time 
of the application, however. For each item below for which information 
is not available, the applicant may substitute a description of the 
expected response and the date by which the final information will be 
available. Information not provided with the application should be 
submitted to the FAA as soon as it becomes available.

Part I. Parties to the Transaction

    A. Name of the airport proposed for sale or lease.
    B. Name and address of the public sponsor of the airport; name, 
address, telephone number and fax number of the person to contact about 
the application.
    C. Name and address of the private operator proposing to purchase 
or lease the airport; name, address, telephone number and fax number of 
the person to contact about the application.
    D. If the private operator proposing to purchase or lease the 
airport is a partnership, jointly venture, or other consortium of 
multiple interests, the name and address of each of the participating 
members.
    E. Citizenship of the private operator and/or each member of the 
private operator consortium, and percentage of interest of each such 
member.
    F. A statement of the public sponsor's authority to sell or lease 
the airport, with a citation to legal authorities.

Part II. Airport Property

    A. A description if the airport property to be transferred. 
Applications should describe property in sufficient detail to identify 
the parcels of property and facilities to be transferred; a map and a 
legal description of the property may be included but are not required.
    B. A history of the acquisition of existing airport property: 
applicants should include information on grants, types of deeds, the 
dates and means of conveyance, e.g. Surplus Property Act other Federal 
conveyance of donated property, parcels purchased with Federal funds 
and parcels purchased with only local funds.

Part III. Terms of the Transfer

    A. A detailed description of the terms of the transfer, other than 
financial, including:
    The form of the transaction (sale, lease, other);
    Term of the lease or other transfer agreement;
    Description of any rights, authority, or interests retained by the 
public sponsor, including reversion of title to facilities;
    If the private operator is a consortium, a description of the 
respective rights and responsibilities of each member;
    B. Financial terms of the transaction:
    Amounts and timing of payments to public sponsor.
    Amounts of payments to sponsor to be used, respectively, for 
airport purposes (including recoupment of public sponsor investments 
not previously recovered) and other purposes.
    Financial arrangements, including source of the funds used by the 
private operator for purchase payment or initial and future lease 
payments.
    Projected impact of the initial transaction on the fee structure 
for charges to airport users.
    Projected impact of future purchase or lease payments to the public 
sponsor on the fee structure for charges to airport users.
    Other relevant financial terms of the transfer.
    C. Copies of all documents executed as part of the transfer, to be 
provided as they are executed or are in sufficiently final form to 
indicate the substantive nature of the expected final document.
    D. If applicable, a request for confidentiality of any particular 
document or information submitted, with supporting information.
    E. Provisions in document conferring third party beneficiary rights 
on behalf of the FAA to enforce key obligations, or the alternative 
tripartite agreement among the FAA, the public sponsor and the private 
operator giving the FAA the right to enforce directly against the 
private operator key obligations contained in AIP grant agreements and 
the assurances required by Section 47134..

Part IV. Qualifications of the Private Operator

    A. Complete description of airport management and operations 
experience. The identity, experience, expertise and responsibility of 
key personnel. A description of the facilities and airports presently 
being managed by the company, both domestically and internationally. If 
the private operator is a newly formed entity, describe the experience 
of the constituent members and the proposed management structure to 
integrate operations functions.
    B. Financial resources for operating/capital expenses of the 
airport. Copies of the 10K annual reports filed in the past 3 years 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, if not filed, balance 
sheet and income statement prepared in accordance with Generally 
Accepted Accounted Principles, with all footnotes applicable to the 
financial statements.
    C. Timing/details of application for Part 139 certificate, if 
applicable.
    D. Plan for compliance with Part 107, if applicable.
    E. A description of the private operator's capability of complying 
with the public sponsor's existing grant assurances, including the 
assurance of compatible land use around the airport; the protection of 
navigation aids, approach lights, runway safety areas, and runway 
protection zones; and the

[[Page 48707]]

continuation and extension of aviation easements.
    F. Affiliations with air carriers or other persons engaged in 
aeronautical business activity at an airport (other than airport 
management).
    G. A description of all charges of unfair or deceptive practices or 
unfair methods of competition brought against the private operator, 
private operator's key personnel and in the case of a private operator 
that is a joint venture, partnership or other consortium, the separate 
members of the entity in the past 10 years. The description should 
include the disposition or current status of each such proceeding.

Part V. Requests for Exemption

    A. Describe the specific exemption requested by the public sponsor 
under 49 U.S.C. 47134(b)(1), from the prohibition on use of airport 
revenue for general purposes, including the amount of funds involved. 
The description should include sale or lease proceeds as well as funds 
in existing airport accounts that would be transferred to general 
accounts.
    B. Describe the specific exemption requested by the public sponsor 
under 49 U.S.C. 47134(b)(2), from the requirement to repay Federal 
grants funds or return property.
    C. Describe the specific exemption requested by the private 
operator under 49 U.S.C. 47134(b)(3), from the prohibition on use of 
airport revenue for general purposes. The description should include 
the anticipated amount of airport revenue to be used for compensation 
of the private operator, the source of airport funds involved, and a 
description of the effect, if any, on air carrier or other aeronautical 
user fees.

Part VI. Certification of Air Carrier Approval

    A. Provide a certification that air carriers meeting the 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 47134(b)(1)(A) approve the exemption 
described in Part V.A. above.
    B. Provide (1) a list of all U.S. air carriers serving the airport, 
to include all carriers conducting operations at the airport under 
authority of 14 CFR Part 121 that have a lease and/or use agreement at 
the airport or that conducted at least 50 flights under such authority 
in the preceding calendar year; all carriers conducting operations at 
the airport as a commuter air carrier within the meaning of 14 CFR Part 
298 that have a lease and/or use agreement at the airport or that 
conducted at least 50 flights under such authority in the preceding 
calendar year; and all operators conducting operations at the airport 
under authority of 14 CFR Part 135 that have a lease and/or use 
agreement at the airport and that have at least one aircraft used in 
Part 135 operations based at the airport; but excluding any carrier 
that is not currently serving the airport or that has responded to a 
solicitation or submitted a proposal to serve as a private operator or 
participate in a private operator consortium at that airport; (2) a 
list of the air carriers that have approved the exemption; (3) the 
total landed weight of all operations by air carriers listed under 
VI.B.1 above at the airport for the preceding year; (4) the total 
landed weight of each air carrier listed under VI.B.1 above that has 
approved the exemption; and (5) a list of carriers serving the airport 
in the previous or current year but excluded from the list in VI.B.1, 
with the reason for exclusion.
    C. Provide a copy of each document indicating air carrier approval 
of or objection to the exemption requested.
    D. Provide a description of consultation with foreign air carriers 
serving the airport on proposals for air carrier approval under 49 
U.S.C. 47134(b)(1)(A).

Part VII. Airport Operation and Development

    A. Provide a description of how the private operator, the public 
sponsor, or both will address the following issues with respect to the 
operation, maintenance, and development of the airport after the 
proposed transfer.
    1. Part 139 certification. A request for Part 139 certificate 
should be filed with the local FAA regional Airports Division. The 
exemption application needs only to reflect the private operator's 
intentions and the status of a certificate application, if applicable.
    2. Continuing access to the airport on fair and reasonable terms 
and without unjust discrimination, in accordance with section 
47134(c)(1).
    3. Continued operation of the airport in the event of bankruptcy or 
other financial or legal impairment of the private operator, in 
accordance with the specific terms of section 47134(c)(2). The 
application should include any provision for reversion to the public 
sponsor. The application should include a legal opinion and 
certification that the proposed plan will be effective under operation 
of all applicable law, including but not limited to bankruptcy law, in 
assuring the continued operation of the airport.
    4. Maintenance, improvement, and modernization of the airport, in 
accordance with section 47134(c)(3), including the public sponsor's 
most recent 5-year capital improvement plan (CIP) and the 5-year CIP 
proposed by the private operator. Applicants should identify the 
sources of funds to be used for capital development, including any 
continuing contributions by the public sponsor. If funds are to be 
borrowed, applicants should identify the expected sources, anticipated 
repayment terms of any borrowed funds, and the source of revenue to be 
used for repayment. Applicants should also include any financial 
security provisions, such as a letter of credit or performance bond, 
for the accomplishment of the maintenance, improvement, and 
modernization projects committed to by the private operator.
    5. Compliance with the limitations on air carrier fees, pursuant to 
section 47134(c)(4), not imposed for funding of new capital development 
undertaken after the transfer to the private operator.
    6. Compliance with the limitation on general aviation fees 
described in section 47134(c)(5).
    7. Maintenance of safety and security at the airport, in accordance 
with section 47134(c)(6). The application should note the applicant's 
contacts with the Airports District Office on Part 139 and the Office 
of Aviation Security on Part 107, but does not need to duplicate 
information filed in connection with those actions. The application 
should include planned efforts by the private operator to maintain the 
public sponsor's existing mechanisms for communicating with airport 
tenants and users and the public on safety and security issues.
    8. Mitigation of adverse effects of noise from airport operations, 
in accordance with section 47134(c)(7). The applicant should 
specifically describe its intentions with respect to an existing or 
future Part 150 noise compatibility program for the airport, with 
respect to the public sponsor's commitments under past records of 
decisions on airport development projects, and other measures the 
private operator intends to take in the future.
    9. Mitigation of adverse effects on the environment from airport 
operations, in accordance with section 47134(c)(8).
    10. Recognition that section 47134(c)(9) provides that any 
collective bargaining agreement that covers employees of the airport 
and is in effect on the date of the sale or lease of the airport will 
not be abrogated by the sale or lease.
    11. The private operator's intentions regarding consultation with 
general aviation users regarding the planned privatization of the 
airport, and the projected effect on general aviation of the proposed 
changes in operation and management of the airport.

[[Page 48708]]

    12. Private operator's plans (if known) for development of general 
aviation.
    B. The private operator's acceptance of the grant assurances 
contained in the public sponsor's grant agreements with the FAA. 
Assurance 25 need not be addressed. In addition, either (1) the 
applicants' agreement that the grant assurances and the assurances 
required for granting an exemption under section 47134 create third-
party beneficiary rights enforceable by the FAA in an administrative or 
judicial legal proceeding, or (2) a proposed tripartite agreement among 
the FAA, the private operator and the public sponsor granting to the 
FAA the right to enforce directly against the private operator the 
grant assurances and the assurances required for granting an exemption 
under section 47134.
    C. Provide a description of the parties' efforts to consult with 
airport users about the proposed transaction and of the parties' 
community outreach efforts.

Part VIII. Periodic Audits

    Section 47134(k) provides that the FAA may conduct periodic audits 
of the financial records and operations of an airport receiving an 
exemption under the pilot program. Applicants should indicate their 
express assent to this provision in the application.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 9, 1997.
Susan L. Kurland,
Associate Administrator for Airports.
[FR Doc. 97-24430 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M