Airport(s):
Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (LAS)
Abstract:
The Office of General Counsel provided guidance in response to a letter from the Director of Aviation at the Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (Nevada) explaining the Clark County Department of Aviation’s proposals for more effective use of the Airport through fee-based approaches or a regulatory method to manage congestion, and addressing other related issues.|Provided that the airport sponsor “employ[s] a reasonable, consistent, and transparent (that is, clear and fully justified) method to establish the airfield rate base and allocate . . . costs,” and that “none of the costs allocated to the users, that are paid for (or already the subject of obligation from) FAA-issued grants or approved passenger facility charges, . . . [are] included in the rate base,” the airport sponsor may “include the following costs in the overall airfield rate base: all airfield construction costs, financing costs, operations and maintenance costs, easements and noise-based costs, damages (including those from inverse condemnation cases based on aircraft operations), a share of public use roadway costs, a share of the reliever airports [owned and operated by the same airport sponsor], and a share of the [airport sponsor] overhead costs.” (p. 2).|Environmental Costs:|Easement and noise-based costs, including the costs of remediating environmental contamination, mitigating the environmental impact of an airport development project, abating aircraft noise, and insuring against future liability for environmental contamination may be recovered through the airfield rate base in accordance with the Notice of Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges, 61 Fed. Reg. 31,994 (June 21, 1996), amended by 73 Fed. Reg. 40,430 (July 14, 2008) (the “Rates and Charges Policy”), P 2.4.4. (p. 3). “Damages, including those from inverse condemnation cases based on aircraft operations, would likely constitute operating costs of the airport” and may be included in the airfield rate base depending on the types of damages and on the justification for the allocation methodology. (p. 3).|Access Roads:|A share of maintaining the airport access roads may be included in the airfield rate base pursuant to paragraph 2.3 of the Rates and Charges Policy, provided that the allocated costs do “not . . . exceed an amount reflecting the respective aeronautical purposes and proportionate aeronautical uses of the facility.” (p. 4).|Reliever Airports:|A portion of the reliever airport costs may be included in the airfield rate base pursuant to paragraphs 2.5.4 and 2.5.4(e) of the Rates and Charges Policy, provided that both airports are owned by the same sponsor, “the other airport is designated as a reliever airport for the first airport in the FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems,” and “the total airfield revenue recovered from users of both airports [do] not exceed the total allowable aggregate costs of the two airports.” (p. 4).|Administrative Costs:|An allocable share of the airport sponsor’s administrative overhead costs may be included in the airfield rate base pursuant to paragraphs 2.7.1 and 3.4.1 of the Rates and Charges Policy as long as the allocation is “based on a reasonable, transparent cost allocation formula calculated consistently for other units or cost centers within the [airport sponsor’s] control.” (p. 4).|Airfield Cost Allocation:|An airport sponsor may allocate costs among groups of airport users “based on the uses made by these groups, including uses applicable to different locations.” (p. 5). However, pursuant to paragraphs 3, 3.1, and 3.4 of the Rates and Charges Policy: (1) the airport sponsor must apply “a consistent methodology in establishing fees for comparable airport users, . . . (2) assuming a cost-based methodology is utilized, aeronautical fees imposed on a particular group [can] not exceed the costs allocated to that group,” and (3) an airport user group may not be required “to pay costs properly allocable to another user group.” (p. 5).|“Allocating the costs of the taxiways and ramps used by commercial airlines separately from the costs of the taxiways and ramps used by the general aviation users would be consistent with the [R]ates and [C]harges [P]olicy, as long as such allocations were reasonable, transparent, justified, and not unjustly discriminatory.” (p. 6).|Allocating airfield costs by using landing fees that are partly weight-based and partly per-operation-based is permitted pursuant to paragraphs 2.1.4 and 2.1.4(a) of the Rates and Charges Policy, provided that the “combination of a per-operation charge and a weight-based charge . . . is reasonably allocated to users on a rational and economically justified basis, and . . . does not exceed the allowable airfield costs.” (p. 6). If such a fee is not based on congestion, it must be justified separately. (pp. 6-7). The per-operation component of the fee may be calculated to correspond to the rating time for an aircraft’s runway encumbrance during a flight operation,” but not the use of the air on its approach and landing. (p. 7).|ARFF Cost Allocation:|An airport sponsor “may be justified in allocating ARFF costs among aeronautical users on the basis of both ‘aeronautical purposes’ and ‘proportionate aeronautical uses.’” (p.8).|Residual Credit Allocation:|Pursuant to paragraph 2.1 of the Rates and Charges Policy, an airport sponsor may “provide credits against overall airport charges to commercial service airlines and general aviation users. For example, commercial service airlines [may] receive credits of net concession revenues, generated in the terminals and related ground facilities, on a per-passenger basis. General aviation operators [may] receive credits of net FBO rents and fuel flowage fees based on the number of operations.” (p. 8).|Peak-Period Pricing:|An airport sponsor may “apply peak period pricing charges . . . when there is, or there is an expectation of, a certain level of operating delays at the airport . . . , when aeronautical users are consulted well in advance, and when revenue neutrality would be maintained by reducing landing fees to adjust for revenue received from peal hour surcharges.” (p. 9).|Allocation of Aircraft Among Different Airports:|An airport sponsor may relocate certain categories of aircraft from one airport to another airport owned by the same sponsor “only when the volume of air traffic approaches or exceeds the maximum capacity of the first airport, the classes of aircraft can be fully accommodated within the system [of airports owned by the sponsor] without unreasonable penalties, and the restriction is fully supportable as beneficial to overall system capacity.” However, “the multi-airport policy may not be used to justify a ban on general aviation operations at a commercial airport.” (p. 11).
Index Terms:
Allowable costs|Cost allocation|Easements|Multi-airport policy|Noise|Peak period pricing|Rates and charges