Applications and Petitions: None Answers and Replies: Airport Rates and Charges - Comments of Tri-Cities Regional Airport Orders and Notices: PFC at Panama City/Bay County Int'l Airport - Intent to Rule and Request for Comments Rules and Regulations: None Grant of Petitions: None

	Passenger Facility Charge at Panama City/Bay County International Airport FAA-2008-0344 Published in Federal Register March 18, 2008 Notice of Intent to Rule on a PFC Application and Request for Comments The FAA invites public comment on the additional documentation provided by the applicant in response to the FAA’s requests for clarification and the District, to the FAA in support of the District’s application to impose a PFC at PFN and, once that airport closes, at the New PFN and to use the PFC revenue at the New PFN to construct New PFN. This document requests public comment on the supplementary material provided by the applicant, the Panama City-Bay County Airport and Industrial District in response to the FAA’s requests for clarification of its application to impose a PFC at PFN and, once that airport closes, at the New PFN and to use the PFC revenue at the New PFN to construct New PFN. The supplemental material includes all documentation provided to the FAA by the District after July 16, 2007, which was the date of the Districts’ submission of its PFC application for collection and use of PFC revenue to construct certain portions of New PFN. The FAA will issue a decision on the District’s PFC application under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and 14 CFR Part 158. Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2008. By: PFC Branch, Joe Hebert Index Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges FAA-2008-0036 March 12, 2008 Re: Comments of Tri-Cities Regional Airport For small markets, such as the Tn‑Cities region of Northeast Tennessee and Southwest Virginia (Kingsport, Johnson City and Bristol), nonstop access to key business markets is critical for economic development and stability in a highly competitive world. Without easy access to these key markets, smaller communities are extremely disadvantaged. The proposed policy clearly states that "a two‑part fee would serve as an incentive for carriers to use larger aircraft and increase the number of passengers served with the same or fewer operations." Airline economics typically dictate the use of regional jets and smaller aircraft in smaller communities, and in this volatile economy it is already extremely difficult for smaller communities to gain nonstop service to cities such as Chicago and New York. If the large hubs are allowed to add an additional layer of cost penalizing carriers for using smaller aircraft, it will block virtually all small markets from gaining non‑stop access to these key business centers‑a. situation that could be considered discriminatory for large segments of the population that live in smaller communities. This amendment assumes that by raising airport landing fees, it will deter airlines from scheduling at certain "peak" periods at big airports. But at connecting hub airports, the 'peaks" are connecting banks scheduled by the carriers to allow all communities to have viable air access to the world. Not only are small communities at risk of being completely blocked from "nonstop" access to key hubs, if successful, this amendment may very well artificially restrict small communities like TRJ from having sufficient "connecting" access to international markets. By: Tri-Cities Index