TagPassenger Facility Charges(9)

This 2019 legal research digest examines how U.S. airports can legally encourage competition among airlines and fixed-base operators (FBOs) while complying with federal grant requirements. It covers the impact of airline industry consolidation, the rules airports must follow to avoid unfair discrimination or granting exclusive rights, and practical strategies for accommodating carriers with different business models.

The Port of Seattle's 2018 Federal Legislative Agenda outlines priorities for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, including securing federal funding for infrastructure, expanding TSA and customs screening capacity, and addressing the airport's impact on surrounding communities. On noise and environmental issues, the Port sought greater FAA authority to engage local communities on flight path changes and noise concerns, supported studies on ultrafine particulate emissions, and pledged to monitor any proposed changes to the 65 DNL noise mitigation standard. The agenda also emphasized promoting sustainable aviation fuels, protecting immigrant workers, and improving quality of life for residents near the airport.

The MAC Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program completed sound insulation work on 3,673 homes near Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport between 1992 and 1997, at a total cost of $76.6 million. Funding came from two sources: $28.7 million in FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants and $48.6 million in MSP Passenger Facility Charges (PFC). The program grew significantly over its six-year run, peaking in 1996 with 1,002 homes insulated at a cost of $20.7 million.

In a September 1, 1992 letter to the FAA Administrator, the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs formally requests reconsideration of the FAA's August 14, 1992 decision approving Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The Commission, representing communities near Sea-Tac severely impacted by aircraft noise, argues that PFC funds should be redirected toward noise mitigation efforts rather than security improvements and preliminary studies, and that local governments were not properly notified or consulted during the PFC application process. The letter calls for increased funding levels for noise mitigation, cancellation of certain approved expenditures deemed inappropriate or excessive, and greater consideration of local government views in future PFC allocation decisions.