On April 13, 2012, following the passage of the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of February 14, 2012 („FMRA“), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed changes to the „subsidy guarantees“ included in FAA contracts with airports receiving FAA funding for physical improvements and/or noise performance. These changes were made to ensure consistency in grant contracts with changes made by FMRA. The revisions focus on three categories of measures: (1) the authorization of „by-closing“ transactions, under certain conditions; (2) exceptions to current restrictions on the use of airport revenues; and (3) revision of the rules on the use of revenue from the transfer of FAA-subsidized airport property. When these inconsistencies became apparent, we realized that a more comprehensive approach was warranted. At that time, we were updating our airport compliance manual and we took this opportunity to clarify our housing policy agreements through the fence. Under the new Regulation 5190.6B, „under no circumstances is the FAA required to support a „closure“ agreement on the use of housing, as this measure is inconsistent with the federal obligation to ensure compatible use of land next to the airport. While this regulation is only internal to FAA staff, we recognize that this is a widespread reference within the airport community. Although this was not necessary, we made the orders available for a period of six months for a public statement. Currently, there are several airports that, under the Closure Regulations, have agreements that are not respected for certain financial aid violations. To date, we have not put sponsors in non-compliant status simply because they have a closing agreement. This proposed policy will not have a significant impact on the eight non-compliant sponsors.
They must continue to work with local FAA staff to develop a corrective action plan to address their financial assistance deficiencies. As soon as the FAA accepts this corrective action plan, it will become its residential access plan to cross the barrier. Second, there has long been a principle that federal grants will enshrine certain conditions, such as non-discrimination. In accordance with this principle, every time we make a financial investment in an airport, the sponsor accepts 39 assurances from the Confederation, the vast majority of which are expressly mandated by Congress. These safeguards are intended to protect the airport`s public aviation characteristics, promote good airport management and impose conditions for protecting the public objective for which the investment of taxpayers` money was made. These conditions include fair and reasonable fare and royalty requirements, airport layout plans, maintenance and operation in accordance with safety standards, and prohibitions on discrimination and misappropriation of revenue. We may not always be able to predict where demand will increase and stimulate future capacity needs, but we can invest in the long term and require airport managers to provide a solid foundation for the needs of future aviation users. These principles and assurances protect and extend the world`s most robust airport system for 60 years.