[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39176-39178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-16462]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2003-15495]


Weight-Based Restrictions at Airports: Proposed Policy

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice requests comments on a proposed statement of 
policy on the use of weight-based airport access restrictions as a 
means of protectign airfield pavement. In grant agreements between an 
airport operator and the FAA for Federal airport development grants, 
the airport operator makes certain assurances to the FAA. These 
assurances include an obligation to provide access to the airport on 
reasonable, not unjustly discriminatory terms to aeronautical users of 
the airport. Some airport operators have implemented restrictions on 
use of the airport by aircraft above a certain weight, to protect 
pavement not designed for aircraft of that weight. These actions have 
raised the question of when such an action is a reasonable restriction 
on use of the airport. In the interest of applyng a uniform national 
policy to such actions, the FAA is publishing for comment a draft 
policy on weight-based access restrictions at federally obligated 
airports.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 15, 2003. Comments that are 
received after that date will be considered only to the extent 
possible.

ADDRESSES: The proposed policy is available for public review in the 
Dockets Office, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. The documents have been 
filed under FAA Docket Number FAA-2003-15495. The Dockets Office is 
open between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. The Dockets Office is on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building at the Department of Transportation at the above 
address. Also, you, may review public dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Comments on the proposed policy must be delivered on 
mailed, in duplicate, to: the Docket Management System, U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number ``FAA Docket No FAA-
2003-15495'' at the beginning of your comments. Commenters wishing to 
FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments must include a 
preaddressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is 
made: ``Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2003-15495.'' The postcard will 
be date stamped and mailed to the commenter. You may also submit 
comments through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James White, Deputy Director, Office 
of Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-2, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, 
telephone (202) 267-3053.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Airport operators that accept federal 
airport development grants under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), 
49 U.S.C. 47101 et seq., enter into a standard grant agreement with the 
FAA. That agreement contains certain assurances, including assurance 
no. 22, based on the requirement in 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(1). Grant 
assurance no. 22 reads, in part:

    a. [The sponsor] will make the airport available as an airport 
for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination 
to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, 
including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to 
the public at the airport.

    At the same time, the FAA expects that airport sponsors will 
protect airfield pavement from damage or early deterioration. Many 
airport projects funded with the AIP grants involve pavement. As a 
result, both the FAA and airport sponsors have a significant investment 
in airfield pavement, and an interest in assuring that pavement remains 
in acceptable condition for its design life, normally at least 20 
years. The policy of assuring reasonable access to the airport and the 
interest in protecting the investment in airfield pavement are both 
extremely important, but is clear that they can potentially work 
against each other in a particular case.
    In February 2002, the Airports Division in an FAA regional office 
issued a preliminary determination on the ability of a particular 
airport operator to limit use of the airport according to aircraft 
weight. In that case the weight limit effectively prohibited operation 
by aircraft heavier than the

[[Page 39177]]

aircraft considered in the design of the airport's pavement. The FAA 
found, in summary, that the airport operator could limit use above the 
design weight of the pavement, but that some operations above that 
weight could and should be permitted, because they would have no 
measurable effect on the pavement. The FAA has received several 
questions relating to the policy underlying that determination.
    In view of the importance of the policies at stake, we believe it 
is appropriate to issue more specific guidance on the specific issue of 
weight-based access restrictions.
    The policy proposed in this notice provides more detailed guidance 
on how the FAA will interpret Grant Assurance No. 22, in cases in which 
an airport sponsor limits operation by aircraft above a certain weight 
in order to preserve the integrity of airport pavement. The FAA 
requests comment on the following statement of policy, and may modify 
the policy in accordance with comments received on this notice. For any 
cases presented before a final policy is issued, the FAA will apply the 
policy as proposed in this notice.
    For the above reasons, the FAA proposes to adopt the following 
policy:

Operating Limitations to Protect Airport Pavements From the Effects of 
Operations in Excess of Design Weight-Bearing Capacity

    1. When designing new airport pavement or rehabilitating existing 
pavement, airport operators design the pavement to accommodate the 
loads and frequencies of the aircraft expected to use the airport over 
the period of expected pavement life. A load-bearing capacity is then 
assigned to the pavement based upon the most demanding aircraft. Once 
that pavement is constructed, airport operators have a responsibility 
to protect the local and Federal investment in the pavement. At the 
same time, airport operators are encouraged to upgrade airport 
pavements for forecast increases in aircraft size or operations, or if 
the number of operations and size of aircraft increase over time beyond 
what was forecast.
    2. Airport pavements are designed to accommodate a finite number of 
aircraft operations, based on planning forecasts and experience. In 
most cases it should not be necessary or appropriate to impose aircraft 
operating restrictions to protect pavement from occasional operations 
of aircraft which exceed the published pavement strength. Even in the 
exceptional case in which the mix of aircraft types using the pavement 
becomes heavier over time, a limitation on maximum weight of aircraft 
may not be warranted. It is the nature of airport pavement to begin a 
gradual deterioration process as soon as it is opened to traffic. A 
pavement designed for a specified number of operations by an aircraft 
type of a particular weight will not be immediately affected by some 
number of operations by heavier aircraft, up to a point. In general, 
each 10% increase in weight of the most demanding aircraft will 
decrease the number of design operations by 20-25%. The original load-
bearing capacity of pavement may be increased by surface overlays or 
other pavement rehabilitation techniques. Therefore, some number of 
operations by aircraft exceeding the design load-bearing capacity of 
airport pavement by some degree will ordinarily not have a sufficient 
impact to shorten its useful life. (The Airport/Facility Directory 
introductory language notes that ``[m]any airport pavements are capable 
of supporting limited operations with gross weights of 25-50% in excess 
of the published figures.'').
    3. However, where the airport operator reasonably believes that 
actual damage or excessive wear has resulted or would result from 
operation of aircraft of a particular weight (and particular gear 
configurations), then the airport operator can limit those operations 
to the extent necessary to prevent that damage or excessive wear.
    4. The design load-bearing capacity of pavement is a guide to the 
probability of adverse effects on pavement life. Design load-bearing 
capacity is demonstrated by planning and engineering documents created 
at the time the pavement was designed, constructed, rehabilitated or 
improved. Testing to determine actual load-bearing capacity may be 
appropriate or necessary where design information is unavailable or 
does not appear to represent actual current condition of the pavement.
    5. Any action by the airport operator to limit operations above the 
design load-bearing capacity must be reasonable and unjustly 
discriminatory, and would require evidence of the effect of operations 
at certain weights on the pavement. Such limitations, if determined to 
be necessary, could include:
    [sbull] Requiring particular taxi routes and parking areas for 
aircraft above a certain weight, to avoid weaker areas;
    [sbull] Requiring prior permission for operation by aircraft above 
the design load-bearing capacity of the pavement (see examples in 
Exhibit 1);
    [sbull] Permitting operations of such aircraft only up to a certain 
weight;
    [sbull] Prohibiting all operations by aircraft exceeding a weight 
at which even a small number of operations would significantly reduce 
pavement life.
    [sbull] Assigning heavy aircraft a particular runway (through 
agreement with Air Traffic Control) if operationally feasible.
    Operating procedures, such as requiring use of designated taxiways 
and ramp parking areas, are preferable to an outright ban or limit on 
the number of operations. A limit on the number of operations and/or 
weight of operations must be based on an analysis of pavement life 
using known pavement design capacity, actual load-bearing capacity, and 
actual condition. That analysis can be performed with the AAS-100 
Pavement Design Software, based on Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5320-6D, 
available on the FAA Airports web site. An analysis is also required to 
assess the load-carrying capacity of existing bridges, culverts, in-
pavement light fixtures, and other structures affected by the proposed 
traffic. Such structures are generally not capable of supporting a 
single load application above design limits, and may preclude any 
operations by heavier aircraft unless other taxi routes can be 
specified. Guidance for those evaluations is stated in AC 150/5320-6D.
    6. The airport operator may avoid any issue of reasonable, 
nondiscriminatory access to the airport by accommodating current 
operations and bringing pavement up to the standard for the current use 
of the airport as the condition of the pavement requires.
    7. This policy applies only to pavement weight-bearing capacity and 
pavement condition, and does not apply to geometric airport design 
standards.
    8. This policy applies only to the purpose of protecting an airport 
operator's investment in pavement, and is not a substitute for noise 
restrictions. If there is no showing of need to protect pavement life, 
or the limit on airport use appears motivated by interest in mitigating 
noise without going through processes that exist for such restrictions, 
an attempt to limit aircraft by weight will be considered unreasonable. 
The FAA notes that there are a few existing noise rules that include 
weight categories, generally adopted before ANCA and the AAIA were 
enacted. Issues arising under those rules will be addressed on a case-
by-case basis.

Examples

    Airport operators may experience demand for use of the airport by 
aircraft that weigh more than the design load-bearing capacity of the 
airport

[[Page 39178]]

pavement. In some cases that demand can adversely affect pavement 
condition. Ideally the airport operator should accommodate demand by 
upgrading facilities. If that option is not practical, the airport 
operator can permit reasonable access by these aircraft, while avoiding 
adverse effects on existing pavement, by regulating the number and 
maximum weight of operations on a prior-permission-required basis. The 
number and maximum weight of operations permitted would vary according 
to the specific circumstances at each airport, including:
    [sbull] Pavement load-bearing capacity.
    [sbull] The mix of aircraft operating at the airport. The heavier 
the aircraft, the fewer operations it takes to have an effect on 
pavement life.
    [sbull] Seasonal effects on pavement strength, for example wet or 
dry subgrade conditions or very low or high pavement temperatures.
    The following scenarios are not recommendations but simply examples 
of limitations that might be appropriate in particular circumstances. 
Local conditions may require more complex solutions. An engineering 
analysis will be required in each case.
Scenario 1
    The airport pavement is designed to 60,000 lb. dual-wheel load. 
Pavement design and soil support conditions are known. Operations up to 
60,000 lb. are unrestricted, and the issue is how many flights should 
be permitted above that weight.
    The airport receives frequent operations by several aircraft types 
at 70,000 lb., and occasional operations at 105,000 lb., but very few 
operations by other aircraft types in between those weights.
    Reference to AC 150/5320-6D shows that on an annual basis up to 
xxxx operations at 70,000 lb. and xx operations at 105,000 lb. together 
would have no measurable effect on the life of the pavement, but more 
operations at either weight would begin to shorten pavement life.
    The operator could require prior permission for operations above 
60,000 lb. Permission would be granted on a first-come first-served 
basis, for xx (xxxx/52) operations per week up to 70,000 lb. and for x 
(xx/52) operations per week up to 110,000 lb.
Scenario 2
    The airport pavement is designed to 100,000 lb., with dual-wheel 
gear configuration. Pavement design and soil support conditions are 
known.
    Most operations at the airport are well under 100,000 lb., but the 
airport receives regular operations by various types of aircraft at 
weights from 100,000 lb. up to 135,000 lb. Operations up to 100,000 lb. 
are unrestricted, and the issue is how many flights should be permitted 
above that weight.
    Reference to AC 150/5320-6D shows that on an annual basis various 
assortments of operations above 100,000 lb. can operate without 
measurable effect on the life of the pavement. However, there is no 
single ``right`` combination, because more operations at one weight 
will reduce the number that can be permitted at another weight. Also, 
each flight at the heavier end of the scale, e.g., 135,000 lb., has a 
disproportionately adverse effect equal to several flights at the lower 
end of the scale, e.g., just above 100,000 lb.
    There may be many ways to allocate limited operating rights for the 
various types of aircraft that would use the airport over time, while 
controlling the maximum cumulative stress on the airport's pavement. 
One way would be to allocate operating permission by ``points'' rather 
than by number of operations. While the numbers actually used would 
need to be validated using AC 150/5320-6D, something like the following 
could be used:
    Each operation 100,001 lb. to 110,000 lb.; 1 point.
    Each operation 110,001 lb. to 120,000 lb.; 2 points.
    Each operation 120,001 lb. to 130,000 lb.; 4 points.
    Each operation 130,001 lb. to 140,000 lb.; 6 points.
    If AC 150/5320-6D indicated that no combination of operations equal 
to an annual usage of 1200 points would have an adverse effect on 
pavement life, then the airport operator could allocate 23 points a 
week with no adverse effects.
    The operator would require prior permission for operations above 
100,000 lb. Permission would be granted on a first-come first-served 
basis, until the weekly allocation of points was assigned.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 20, 2003.
David L. Bennett,
Director, Airport Safety and Standards.
[FR Doc. 03-16462 Filed 6-30-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M