NATA Press Release RSS Feed

NATA 2009 Environmental Fact Sheet

Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:27:00 GMT

May 6, 2009

Worldwide concern over climate change and the U.S. House of Representatives' introduction of a draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act has focused attention on carbon emissions. Although aviation activity generates a small percentage of total emissions, the aviation industry recognizes its responsibility to minimize the consumption of natural resources and the production of emissions. While there is much written about the role aircraft play in generating emissions, it is important to highlight the facts on emissions concerning aviation.

Aviation accounts for only 3% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worldwide, according to data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

U.S. aviation industry has reduced GHG emissions by 13% since 2000. General aviation and U.S. airlines are doing a better job of transporting passengers on less fuel, which includes harmonizing schedules, increasing load factors, switching to more fuel efficient aircraft and engines, and generally undertaking fuel-saving measures.

The use of jet fuel emits 2-3% less lifecycle GHGs than the use of other major grades of transportation fuels.

Aircraft fuel efficiency, based on the amount of fuel consumption per passenger mile, improved by 23% from 2000 to 2006, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. During that same period, automobile fuel efficiency increased by 2%.

Aviation gasoline and jet fuel account for 12% of total petroleum product consumption. According to data from the Department of Energy (DOE), aviation gasoline and jet fuel supply account for 1,624,000 barrels per day compared to 20,588,000 barrels of all petroleum products used per day.

Alternative fuels programs exist within aviation. In early 2009, Continental Airlines in partnership with Boeing and GE Aviation became the first U.S. carrier to conduct a demonstration flight powered in part by alternative fuels. The Boeing 737-800 left George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, TX, and flew for one hour and forty-five minutes with one engine powered by a mix of conventional jet fuel and a second generation biofuel produced from algae.

The implementation of NextGen could reduce CO2 emissions by 12%. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the implementation of NextGen technology, specifically Automatic Dependant Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) could reduce domestic aviation emissions by 12%. This reduction would occur with the increased fuel efficiency due to the lowering of aircraft separation minimums and more direct routing.

Aviation activities provide a tremendous positive economic impact for the amount of energy used. According to the FAA, U.S. commercial aviation consumes less than 3 percent of U.S. total energy use, but drives about 6 percent of the U.S. gross economic output and just under 9 percent of national employment.

Aviation vs. Other Transportation Modes

The DOE has issued a publication titled Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 26 (June 1, 2007). In this publication, the DOE provides an annual statistical compendium designed to characterize transportation activity and explore data on other factors that influence transportation energy use. An analysis of this data can provide some very interesting insights. In order to obtain a relative comparison of the magnitude of carbon emissions for different modes of transportation, an analysis of fuel consumption is used. Because different types of fuel (gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel to name a few) provide different energy values, the data is normalized by looking at the energy use in British Thermal Units (BTUs). This provides a better comparison than actual gallons of fuel consumed. The table below shows the energy use for aviation and several other modes of transportation.

Mode of Transportation	BTUs Used (Trillions) in 2005	Percent of Total

Aviation	2,477	9.0%
Cars	9,140	33.4%
Light Trucks	8,108	29.6%
Medium/Heavy Trucks	4,577	16.7%
Water	1,366	5.0%
Pipeline	842	3.1%
Rail	657	2.4%

The table shows that aviation accounts for only 9% of the total transportation energy use. Cars and light trucks each use more than three times the energy as the aviation industry, and medium/heavy trucks account for about twice that of aviation. Highway transportation (cars, light trucks, and medium/heavy trucks) combine for almost 80% of the transportation energy use and thus contribute a similar level of GHGs. Aviation, on the other hand, is a much smaller contributor to energy use and GHG emissions.

Further analysis within the aviation group shows the relative contribution of commercial aviation versus general aviation. The table below shows this comparison.

Mode of Transportation	BTUs Used (Trillions) in 2005	Percent of Total Transportation

Aviation	2,477	9.0%
Domestic Carriers	1,861	6.8%
International Carriers	373	1.4%
General Aviation	242	0.9%

General aviation accounts for less than one percent of the total transportation energy use in the United States, and its fuel use is about one seventh that of the domestic air carriers.

The analysis of the relative efficiency of fuel use for different modes of transportation includes several additional factors. This analysis includes normalizing the data using the BTU content as did the previous analysis, but also includes the average passengers per vehicle, and provides a conversion into an equivalent miles per gallon (MPGe) based on the BTU content of gasoline (115,000 BTU per gallon). For example, automobiles have an average passenger use of 1.57 passengers per car. Using the DOE data, we find that cars use on average 3,496 BTUs per passenger mile and this corresponds to approximately 33 MPGe. The table below shows several modes of transportation and their corresponding MPGe.

Mode of Transportation	Average Passengers per Vehicle	BTUs per Passenger Mile 2005	MPG Equivalent

Aviation	90.4	3,959	29 MPGe
Cars	1.57	3,496	33 MPGe
Light Trucks	1.72	4,329	27 MPGe
Rail (Commuter)	32.9	2,569	45 MPGe
Rail (Intercity- Amtrak)	17.9	2,760	42 MPGe
Bus (Transit)	8.7	4,318	27 MPGe

This table shows that aviation provides the greatest average number of passengers per vehicle and the resulting MPGe of 29 is roughly the same as cars and light trucks. Aviation offers the vast advantage of moving large numbers of people quickly over many miles.

In summary, this analysis of transportation modes shows that aviation provides a very efficient mode of transportation and compares similarly to typical highway transportation (cars and light trucks) in per passenger equivalent miles per gallon. Additionally, the aviation industry contributes a much smaller percentage (about 9%) of the total energy use and, thus, contributes a much smaller percentage of GHG emissions as compared to highway transportation (about 80% for cars, light trucks and medium/heavy trucks).

Life Cycle GHG Emissions of Jet Fuel
Vs.
Other Major Grades of Transportation Fuel

One of the challenges of measuring a fuel's GHG emissions is accounting for the GHGs that were emitted in the production of the fuel and when it is used. This accounting is known as lifecycle greenhouse gas (LCGHG) emissions and includes GHG emissions during the 5 stages of fuel production and use.

Stage 1 – Raw Material Acquisition
Stage 2 – Raw Material Transportation
Stage 3 – Liquid Fuels Production
Stage 4 – Product Transport & Refueling
Stage 5 – Vehicle or Aircraft Operation

Only when all 5 stages are taken into account can you accurately measure the cost in emissions for using a particular fuel. A study funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory titled Development of Baseline Data and Analysis of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Petroleum-Based Fuels, November 2008 quantifies these LCGHG emission numbers for several major transportation fuels in 2005.

Life Cycle Stage	Conventional Gasoline	Conventional Diesel	Kerosene-Based Jet Fuel
Stage 1	7.3	6.6	6.8
Stage 2	1.4	1.3	1.3
Stage3	9.8	9.5	6.0
Stage 4	1.1	0.9	1.0
Stage 5	76.6	76.7	77.7
Total LCGHGe	96.3	95.0	92.9

*All numbers are kilograms CO2 Equivalent per Million British Thermal Units Lower Heating Value (kg CO2E/MMBtu LHV)

The study found that jet fuel, due to its lower refinery energy inputs, has 3.5% and 2.2% lower LCGHG emissions than gasoline and diesel, respectively.

What NATA Is Doing

NATA established its Environmental Committee to develop programs designed to assist member companies in minimizing their impact on the environment. The programs outlined below compose the early stages of the NATA Climate Initiative:

Clear Skies:

NATA, in partnership with Carbon Neutral Plane, is pioneering a program called Clear Skies that will, for the first time, allow participating aviation companies to track and monitor GHG emissions from energy use. Participating companies will then have the option of purchasing verified carbon offsets for their GHG emissions. Phase I of the Clear Skies program will involve implementation and testing of monitoring and tracking of energy use.

Green Aviation Facilities:

NATA encourages its member companies to meet proper environmental compliance standards, including a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure plan if fuel is stored above ground in tankers. The association is currently undertaking the development of best management practices that will allow aviation businesses to capitalize on becoming more energy efficient while minimizing their company's impact on the environment. To date, NATA has crafted best management practices for the following topics (note: each topic directs the reader to a white paper on that issue):

Public Relations Campaign:

NATA is developing a public relations campaign to provide the facts about aviation's impact on the environment and what its members are doing to ensure the protection of the environment.

Support Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen):

NATA has encouraged its members to support H.R. 2881, a bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives that would provide historic funding levels, nearly $13 billion, for the FAA's Facilities and Equipment account and accelerate implementation of NextGen. NextGen is the FAA's national plan to transform the air traffic control system from a ground-based navigation system using radar to a satellite-based system. This legislation will enable the FAA to make needed repairs and upgrades to existing facilities and equipment, and provide for high-priority safety-related systems.

By utilizing new technologies, airspace routes can be better defined, allowing more aircraft and more routes to be determined within the airspace. And most importantly, utilizing new technologies to improve airspace use will enable aircraft to fly routes more directly, thereby minimizing noise and the impact on the environment.

Cooperating with other industry stakeholders:

NATA has partnered with over 20 other aviation associations and groups to create Aviation and Climate Change, The Views of Aviation Stakeholders, a white paper that outlines a workable path forward in addressing aviation's impact on climate change.

The demand for air travel is increasing steadily. The FAA projects that by 2025 the number of domestic enplanements will have doubled to 1,482 million per year. The environmental impact of air travel is increasingly important to consumers, and the aviation industry is collaborating to address this important issue.

View in PDF format.

Click here for more information.

NFPA 409 - Standard on Aircraft Hangars White Paper

Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:26:00 GMT

May 6, 2009

Background

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is an international member organization whose mission is to reduce the worldwide burden of fire and other hazards by providing and advocating consensus codes and standards, research, training, and education. The NFPA has over 80,000 members from 80 different countries. The NFPA currently develops, publishes and updates over three hundred standards and codes designed to reduce the potential of fire and minimize the damage done by fire in a wide variety of environments.

The NFPA Board of Directors oversees all of the organization’s activities, including the appointment of a 13-person Standards Council. The Standards Council oversees the development of codes and standards, issues final codes and standards, administers the association’s rules and regulations and acts as an appeals body.

As part of its oversight of the code and standard development cycle, the Standards Council appoints members to over 250 individual code making panels and technical committees. The technical committees are the bodies that propose new codes or standards and modify existing ones.

NFPA 409

The stated purpose of NFPA 409 is:

“1.2.1 The purpose of this standard is to provide a reasonable degree of protection from fire for life and property in aircraft hangars, based on sound engineering principles, test data, and field experience.”

The standard accomplishes this purpose by first classifying aircraft hangars by size and construction materials, then sets forth specific fire protection requirements for each class of hangar. The standard also includes detailed engineering and technical requirements for the various fire protection systems.

Most general aviation aircraft hangars are of similar construction, therefore classification of the hangar, and thus protection requirements, are based on size.

Group I Hangar
- Meets any of the following
  - Aircraft access door height greater than 28ft
  - Single Fire area in excess of 40,000ft2
  - Provision for housing aircraft with a tail height greater than 28ft
- Fire Protection Requirements
  - One of the following
    - A foam-water deluge system
    - Automatic sprinkler system and an automatic low-level, low-expansion foam system
    - Automatic sprinkler system and an automatic low-level, high-expansion foam system

Group II Hangar
- Meets both of the following:
  - Aircraft access door height of 28ft or less
  - Single fire area between 12,001ft2 and 40,000ft2
- Fire Protection Requirements
  - One of the following
    - A foam-water deluge system
    - Automatic sprinkler system and an automatic low-level, low-expansion foam system
    - Automatic sprinkler system and an automatic low-level, high-expansion foam system
    - A closed-head foam-water sprinkler system

Group III Hanger
- Meets both of the following:
  - Aircraft access door height of 28ft or less
  - Single fire area of 12,000ft2 or less
- Fire Protection Requirements
  - Group III hangars where hazardous activities are performed are required to have the same fire protection system as a group II hangar.
  - All other group III hangars are required to have portable fire extinguishers.

Group IV Hangar
- A group IV hangar is a structure constructed of a membrane-covered steel frame
- Fire protection requirements vary by hangar size and use.

2009 NFPA Proposed Revisions

The call for proposals for the 2009 revision cycle for NFPA 409 closed on May 30, 2008. Thirty proposed revisions were received. A new standard, NFPA 409A, was proposed to cover group III and Residential Hangars. In addition, the same proposal will require language added to the existing 409 standard that will require automatic sprinkler systems in all group III hangars. Both proposals were accepted by the committee, with two members voting against accepting and one member abstaining.

Talking Points

NFPA 409 provides guidance on the fire protection requirements of all aircraft hangers large and small without providing a detailed balance of risk vs. cost that the general aviation industry needs.

A new proposal is being drafted to create a new standard, NFPA 409A – Standard on Group III and Residential Hangars - incorporating all general aviation hangars.

NATA believes that the effort to create a new standard on general aviation hangars must be driven by the realities of the general aviation environment.

NATA Position

The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) recognizes the countless hours of research and planning that go into creating and developing an NFPA code or standard. NFPA members have saved countless lives and treasure with their dedication to reducing the risk that fire presents. NFPA 409 provides guidance on the fire protection requirements of all aircraft hangers, from the largest airline maintenance facility to a single-bay “garage” hangar. Because this standard covers such a broad range of structures, with values from a few thousand dollars to millions of dollars, it is not able to provide the detailed balance of risk vs. cost that an industry such as ours demands.

In addition, to the proposed changes to group III hangars, NATA is concerned with the costs of complying with the group II hangar fire protection requirements.

NATA believes that the solution to these problems lies in collaboration between the general aviation industry and the professionals who compose the NFPA Standards Council and Technical Committees. The Technical Committee on Airport Facilities has already begun the process by receiving a proposal to create a new standard, NFPA 409A – Standard on group III and residential hangars. This new standard should incorporate all general aviation hangars, and the first step in development must be to reject the proposed new requirements for group III hangars. Adoption and enforcement of NFPA 409 codes already vary by locality, and adding new requirements to group III hangars while preparing to establish a new standard for those same hangars would only add to the disparity and confusion in adoption and enforcement.

NATA firmly believes that the effort to create a new standard on general aviation hangars must be driven by the realities of the general aviation environment.

The measure of size used in hangar classification is Fire Area. The definition of Hangar Fire Area can be found in NFPA 409 – 3.3.10.

Hazardous activities are defined as: fuel transfer operations, welding, torch cutting, torch soldering, doping and spray painting.

NATA Staff Contact:

Kristen Moore
Director of Legislative Affairs
kmoore@nata.aero

Click here to view in PDF.

Click here for more information.

General Aviation: Creating Value For America

Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:25:00 GMT

Background

General aviation, which includes all aviation other than military and scheduled airline operations, is a uniquely efficient means of moving people and goods between thousands of communities nationwide. It creates jobs, increases productivity, and provides life-saving services.

Through a network of some 5,200 public-use community airports nationwide, general aviation forges links between thousands of businesses, their suppliers, and their customers. It allows those businesses to move people, equipment, and products with a degree of speed and efficiency available through no other mode of transportation. At the same time, it provides personal transportation to millions of individuals, linking them to families, recreation, and specialized services.

General Aviation Fuels the Economy:

Contributing $150 billion to the economy each year.
Creating 1.2 million jobs across a broad range of disciplines, including aircraft manufacturing and maintenance, avionics development and installation, flight instruction and training, airport operations, and support services.
Increasing productivity, allowing business travelers to reach multiple destinations in a single day and conduct meetings, work, and plan while en route.

General Aviation Unites The Nation:

Connecting 170 million passengers each year to thousands of communities not served by the 70 airline hub airports.
Bringing the necessities of life to isolated communities with no other reliable access to the outside world.
Allowing business and personal travelers to expand their reach.

Every American Benefits from General Aviation:

Emergency medical flights through medevac operations and volunteers who fly patients to distant locations for specialized treatment.
Airborne search-and-rescue, disaster relief, firefighting, emergency evacuation, and law enforcement activities.
Agriculture, fishing, pest control, forestry, and wildlife management.
Infrastructure, oversight and maintenance, including oil, water, and gas pipelines, as well as electrical and telephone lines.
Public information including airborne news, traffic, and weather reporting.

Click here to view in PDF format.
Click here for more information.

Large Aircraft Security Program White Paper

Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:25:00 GMT

May 6, 2009

Background

Unveiled by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in October 2008, the Large Aircraft Security Program (LASP) would govern operations for all aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds and require operators of those aircraft to implement an approved security program. The LASP proposal would, for the first time ever, require security programs for thousands of privately operated general aviation aircraft and ultimately seek to combine a number of security programs currently in place for general aviation, including the Twelve-Five Standard Security Program (TFSSP), into a single, uniform program.

The current TFSSP, required since 2004, applies only to operators of aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW) of more than 12,500 pounds in operations for compensation or hire. These flights are typically conducted under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 135 and are frequently referred to as "charter" flights. The proposed LASP would expand requirements similar to those currently found in the TFSSP to all operators of aircraft with a MTOW of more than 12,500 pounds regardless of the type of operation, federal regulation operating rules, or mission.

The TSA's current security programs for the types of aircraft affected by the proposed LASP, including the TFSSP, apply to approximately 650 aircraft operators. This proposed regulation would extend those requirements to over 10,000 aircraft operators flying over 15,000 aircraft.

The LASP would also impose new requirements on over 300 general aviation airports and additional requirements on aircraft with a MTOW over 100,309.3 pounds (replacing the existing Private Charter Standard Security Program [PCSSP]), and aircraft with a MTOW over 12,500 pounds in all-cargo operations.

Overview of LASP Requirements Aircraft Operators

The proposed LASP would require all operators of aircraft with a MTOW of more than 12,500 pounds to:

Ensure flight crew members undergo fingerprint-based criminal history record checks and security threat assessments;
Conduct watch-list matching of passengers through TSA-approved watch-list matching service providers;
Undergo a biennial audit of compliance; and
Comply with the prohibited items list.

Airports

Airports designated as reliever airports by the Department of Transportation and 40 additional airports designated by the TSA would be required to implement a TSA-approved partial security program. In its most basic form, a partial security program includes:

Designation and training of an Airport Security Coordinator (ASC);
Description of law enforcement support to comply with CFR 1542.215(b);
Training program for law enforcement, if required by CFR 1542.217(c)(2);
Maintenance of records;
Procedures for distribution, storage, and disposal of Security Directives, Security Sensitive Information, etc.;
Procedures for posting public advisories; and
Incident management procedures.

Talking Points

The TSA has proposed regulation without providing the public with justification of the necessity of increased security on general aviation aircraft operators.

The TSA's current security programs for the types of aircraft affected by LASP apply to approximately 650 aircraft operators. The LASP would extend those requirements to over 10,000 aircraft operators flying over 15,000 aircraft.

TSA and industry groups have been meeting to discuss the shortcomings of the LASP program and to develop methods to increase the outstanding security record of general aviation.

Ask Members of Congress to write the TSA and request that the LASP be withdrawn.

NATA Position

NATA is concerned that the TSA has proposed a vast expansion of regulation without providing the public with justification of the necessity for increased security on general aviation aircraft operators. The public should be permitted to review the agency's justification for this rule. The Administration Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act requires a federal agency to weigh the costs of a proposed regulation against the anticipated benefits. The public has been unable to validate the TSA's pronouncement that the benefits of this proposed rule in fact outweigh the costs because of the agency's unwillingness to share data. Furthermore, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released on March 29, 2009, revealed that the TSA has not followed federal internal control standards to assist it in implementing the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) risk management framework for all modes of transportation. Specifically, the TSA is lacking an organizational structure that allows the agency to direct and control operations to achieve agency objectives. While specific TSA proposals such as the LASP weren't mentioned, the GAO report stated that the TSA work with the DHS to validate its risk management approach, conduct comprehensive risk assessments, and establish related internal controls. The DHS concurred with all of the GAO recommendations.

On February 26, 2009, NATA submitted its formal comments to the TSA regarding the LASP. The comments focused on the impact that the LASP proposed rule will have on aircraft operators and airports as well as numerous issues the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) raises that lie outside the scope of the proposed rule. Areas of concern addressed by NATA include:

Airport Operators

Weight Threshold Justification
Implementation
Liability for Compliance
Applicability
CHRCs and STAs
STA Expiration
Watch List Service Providers
Watch List Matching Costs
Secure Flight
Watch List Matching on International Flights
Master Passenger List
Third-Party Audits
Privacy Notices
Prohibited Items List

Airports

Applicability
Airport Security Coordinator
ASC at Multiple Locations
Training of Law Enforcement
Program Development and Implementation

Issues Outside the Scope of This Rulemaking

Positive Pilot Identification
Aircraft Owners
Airports

Overall, this NPRM demonstrates a troubling lack of knowledge and understanding of the general aviation community by the TSA. The proposed rule is a very discouraging outcome after years of work at the agency, during which the industry offered assistance to provide an effective, feasible means to address the TSA's concerns. These offers of assistance were repeatedly declined by the TSA, and the resulting proposal reflects the agency's refusal to work with the industry.

NATA and other members of the industry have begun meeting with the TSA to discuss the shortcomings of the LASP program and to develop more appropriate methods to increase the already outstanding security record of general aviation.

To view NATA's comments on the LASP, please visit our Web site at: www.nata.aero.

NATA Staff Contact:

Kristen Moore
Director of Legislative Affairs
kmoore@nata.aero

Click here to view in PDF format.

Click here for more information.

Security Directive 08F White Paper

Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:58:00 GMT

May 6, 2009

Background

Federal regulations give the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) the power to issue Security Directives (SD) in response to threats against civil aviation. These SDs prescribe procedural or policy changes designed to address the specific nature of the threat, and differ from typical federal rulemaking in that they can be issued with no public notice, comment or cost-benefit analysis. In fact, SDs are typically considered Sensitive Security Information, thus limiting their distribution to directly regulated entities and/or individuals that the TSA determines have a “need to know.” In December 2008, the TSA issued an SD to the directors of airports serving commercial air carriers. This SD mandated changes to the issuance of airport identification media and expanded the base of individuals who would be required to obtain airport identifications.

The SD mandates that any individual requiring unescorted access to the airport operations area (AOA) of an airport serving commercial air carriers must apply for and receive airport-issued identification media. This requirement may expand the airport identification process to include individuals such as:

FBO employees
Private aircraft owners
General aviation maintenance providers
Flight instructors
Flight School Students
Other airport tenants needing unescorted access to the AOA

The SD also requires that any individual applying for airport-issued identification must verify their identity and undergo a TSA Security Threat Assessment (STA). To undergo an STA, the TSA requires that individuals submit the following information to the airport operator:

Full legal name
Current mailing address
Daytime telephone number
Personal information
- Gender
- Date of birth
- Country of birth
- Citizenship country code
Social Security Number
- This item is voluntary, but failure to provide may delay completion of STA
For non-U.S. citizens
- Alien Registration Number; or
- I-94 Arrival/Departure Form Number
For individuals who hold a non-immigrant visa; the visa control number
For individuals who are U.S. citizens born abroad or naturalized U.S. citizens
- U.S. passport number
- Certificate of naturalization number
- Certification of Birth Abroad
Employer’s name

In the event that an individual does not pass the STA, the airport is not permitted to grant the individual regular escorted access to the AOA to circumvent the SD requirements – in effect banning that individual from accessing the AOA on a regular basis.

Talking Points

TSA has chosen to use an SD to promulgate regulations affecting a broad category of previously unregulated individuals.
General aviation pilots, service providers and aircraft owners affected by the SD believe the TSA should issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
An NPRM will allow those potentially affected by the SD to voice their concerns and offer suggestions on the best methods for securing the AOA. Ask your Members of Congress to write the TSA.

NATA Position

NATA is concerned that the TSA has chosen to use an SD to promulgate regulations affecting a broad category of previously unregulated individuals. NATA understands the importance of not disclosing certain security procedures and policies; however, many of the mandates imposed by the SD will be public knowledge upon their implementation, thus negating the importance of non-disclosure in their implementation.

Due to the large number, and varied interests, of the general aviation pilots, service providers and aircraft owners who will be affected by this SD, NATA believes that it is imperative that the TSA approach the issue of securing the AOA of commercial airports by issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. By following this time-tested process of federal rulemaking, the TSA will allow those affected by the proposed rule the ability to voice their concerns and suggestions on the best methods for securing the AOA.

NATA is involved in a dialogue with key staff at the TSA regarding this issue and will continue to work towards a more reasonable and cooperative solution to securing the AOA at regulated commercial airports.

NATA Staff Contact:

Mike France
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
mfrance@nata.aero

Click here to view in pdf form.

Click here for more information.

Employee Free Choice Act White Paper

Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:57:00 GMT

May 6, 2009

Issue

Democrats in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate introduced controversial labor legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act, in both chambers on March 10, 2009. H.R. 1409/S. 560, also referred to as "card check," would change how unions organize workers in the United States by eliminating a company's right to demand a secret ballot if a majority of employees sign authorization cards to form a union. It also requires binding arbitration to reach a first contract, if labor and management can't reach an agreement within 120 days, and increases penalties for businesses that violate labor laws. Instead of an election run by the National Labor Relations Board, workers would be able to fill out cards saying whether they support or oppose a union.

Talking points in opposition to the Legislation:

Under existing law, employees can vote for or against unionization in a private-ballot election that is federally supervised. Under the Card Check bill, if more than 50% of workers at a facility sign a card, the government must certify the union, and a private-ballot election would be prohibited even if workers want one.
Card Check opens the door to intimidation and coercion by forcing workers to sign a card in public instead of vote in private.
Workers could be asked to sign a card almost anywhere, including outside the workplace, such as their homes. Union organizers could go back to any worker who declines to sign over and over again until they get the desired result.
Under Card Check, a union is not obligated to tell an employer it is launching an organization drive. An employer may not find out an organizing campaign is underway until ordered by the federal government to start collective bargaining. Likewise, not all workers might know about organizing efforts and therefore might not have had the opportunity to vote.
Over 70% of union voters agree that a private election is better than card check.
Card Check could put government regulators in charge of private business decisions.
Once a union is certified, the business and union would only have 120 days to reach agreement before being forced into binding arbitration. A panel of government arbitrators who may have no understanding of the business could impose a two-year contract deciding all of the terms without the company's or its employees' involvement.
Card Check would unfairly punish businesses by imposing new penalties on them and not unions for violations during the union recognition process. This could be detrimental to small businesses that are not familiar with unionizing campaigns or the National Labor Relations Act.
If Card Check becomes law, many small and medium-size businesses would be facing unionization for the first time.

NATA Position

NATA strongly encourages its members to be outspoken in opposition to the Card Check bill. It is going to take a lot of influence in both the House and Senate to persuade lawmakers that this legislation will negatively affect small businesses and large employers in the U.S. Call, write, or visit your representatives today!

Status

Currently, Senate Democrats do not have the support necessary to pass the legislation. It's possible that the legislation could be on the Senate floor in late April or the beginning of May. President Obama co-sponsored the legislation when he was in the Senate and said last week he would work to "pass the Employee Free Choice Act," his most explicit comments in support of the bill since taking office.

NATA Staff Contact:

Kristen Moore
Director of Legislative Affairs
kmoore@nata.aero

Click here to view PDF.
Click here for more information.

FAA Reauthorization Legislation White Paper

Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:42:00 GMT

May 6, 2009

Background

Legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considered in Congress every four or five years, and includes both funding and contract authority for the FAA. Without a reauthorization bill approved by Congress, the FAA is unable to issue grants for airport improvement projects and other capacity expansion initiatives. Additionally, the FAA reauthorization bill serves as comprehensive legislation for all aviation-related issues pending in Congress, which means a large number of aviation issues are up for consideration in one piece of legislation. Previous reauthorization legislation passed by Congress expired on September 30, 2007, and has been extended numerous times.

On February 9, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure introduced H.R. 915, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 to reauthorize the FAA and other aviation programs through fiscal year (FY) 2012.

Issue

The bill includes increased funding levels for the Equipment Account and research and development and does not include a user fee proposal.

NATA would like to see the following provisions included in the Senate bill.

No User Fees: Commercial airline travel is the reason why the cost of air traffic control services continues to increase. General and business aviation are incremental users of the system. Increasing the costs for non-scheduled operators will result in operators flying less frequently.

Repeal of the Fuel Fraud Provision: The 2005 Highway Bill contained a provision altering the collection method of fuel taxes for business and general aviation fuel providers, which has had a significant financial impact on the aviation industry and constitutes a de facto tax increase. When aviation fuel is purchased it is now taxed at 24.4 CPG (as opposed to the original 21.9 CPG), which is then deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. Only when the fuel provider applies to the IRS for the 2.5 CPG refund does the remaining 21.9 CPG transfer from the Highway Trust Fund into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. In many cases, due to confusion or administrative overhead, an operator or fuel provider does not apply for a refund; therefore, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund receives no revenue from the sale of the aviation jet fuel and the fuel remains taxed at the higher rate. This policy has increased Highway Trust Fund revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars at the expense of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.

Airports Providing Aviation Services: NATA recommends that Congress closely monitor government-run entities that attempt to compete with private industry at our nation’s airports. As the FAA notes in Advisory Circular 150/5190-6, “aeronautical services are best provided by profit motivated, private enterprises. Government must recognize that airport management should focus on fostering a competitive environment that will benefit air travel passengers.

Accelerating Implementation of Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen): Funding provided for NextGen in the FAA reauthorization bill will enable the agency to make critical upgrades to existing facilities and equipment and implement new technologies that will better define routes within the national airspace system, allowing more aircraft to travel within the airspace. Additionally, this technology will minimize the impact on the environment due to aircraft flying more direct routes, improving fuel efficiency and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Talking Points

General aviation pays into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund via fuel tax on jet fuel and AV gas. An increase from 21.9-cents per gallon to 24 cents is a fair compromise instead of a user fee.

Include language repealing the fuel fraud provision included in the 2005 Highway Bill to ensure aviation fuel taxes are not going into the Highway Trust Fund.

It is imperative that Congress pass a long-term bill. Anything less than two years will not ensure adequate funding levels or progress in implementation of NextGen.

NATA Position

The strength of our national airspace system and its ability to meet future demands are dependent upon the federal government's success in meeting its obligations in providing adequate infrastructure. A critical step in meeting those obligations is for Congress to pass a comprehensive, long-term reauthorization bill this year that will help the country to meet the current and growing demands being placed on the aviation system.

NATA supports H.R. 915 but has concerns with several provisions in the legislation. Specifically, the provision banning Stage II aircraft in the next five years provides too short a time period for more recent Stage II aircraft purchasers to amortize their investment. A longer phase-out period, with financial incentives for the purchase of new aircraft, would be a more reasonable decision.

NATA is also concerned with the provision allowing non-primary airports to use AIP funds to install revenue-producing facilities. The association is wary that federal funds will be used to allow airports to install facilities that will compete with existing fixed base operators at airports. NATA is interested in working with members of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to ensure that the legislative intent indicates that the funds are not intended to allow an airport to compete with an existing business.

The requirements of drug and alcohol testing for foreign repair stations also raise concerns. The requirements represent a back-door attempt to bar U.S. air carriers from obtaining maintenance services abroad by imposing rules that the United States has no ability to enforce.

The association also has questions regarding the series of registration fees set forth in the legislation. While the overall fees are not unreasonable, the FAA should not be allowed to raise the fees unilaterally without approval from Congress.

NATA Staff Contact:

Kristen Moore
Director of Legislative Affairs
kmoore@nata.aero

View in PDF format.

Click here for more information.

FAA Regulatory Interpretation Standardization White Paper

Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:41:00 GMT

May 6, 2009

Background

One of the biggest burdens confronting the general aviation industry is the varying interpretation of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations by the agency's Regional, Aircraft Certification (ACOs) and Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs). Currently, there are 9 FAA regions, 10 ACOs and more than 80 FSDOs that each issue approvals on a wide range of maintenance and operational requests made by regulated entities. These regulated entities include Part 135 on-demand air charter operators, Part 145 repair stations, and Part 141 and 61 flight training facilities. Affected regulated entities continue to be challenged by regulatory interpretations that regularly vary from one inspector within one FSDO or ACO, to another.

Issue

These varying interpretations of how to achieve or demonstrate compliance with federal aviation regulations (FARs) are estimated to cost general aviation businesses hundreds of millions of dollars annually when previously approved actions are subject to "re-interpretation."

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report was requested to review how inconsistent regulatory interpretations are costing the FAA and the aviation industry hundreds of millions of dollars in resources, while raising serious concerns about unified safety standards.

Examples of varying regulatory interpretations that affect NATA members are:

A Part 135 on-demand air charter operator contacted the NATA stating that he had to spend approximately $25,000 to secure FAA approval to move an aircraft on his air carrier certificate from one FAA region to another. First, the operator demonstrated compliance with FAA officials from the region where the aircraft was based. The operator then had to work with FAA officials in the region to where the aircraft was being moved as its new base location. The new FAA office would not accept the determination of compliance from the original FAA office and insisted that the operator again demonstrate that the aircraft was in compliance with the FARs.

The aircraft was out of service and unavailable for customer use for more than five weeks, at a cost of more than $200,000 in lost revenue to the operator.

A Part 145 repair station was informed by the FAA that the region with responsibility for oversight of the repair station would be changing. The NATA member company endured a lengthy, costly process as the new region with jurisdiction decided to re-approve the repair station's manual, used to prescribe performance of maintenance functions, and identified more than 75 "deficiencies." The manual had been deemed to be fully compliant with all FAR requirements and approved by the first FAA region, but the new region insisted that revisions be made according to its interpretation of the regulations. This drawn out process cost the repair station countless hours of employee time and hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue while it implemented the new region's revisions.

Talking Points

Lack of standardization of FAA regulations are estimated to cost general aviation businesses hundreds of millions of dollars annually when previously approved actions are subject to "re-interpretations."

Examples of varying interpretations are broad, ranging from moving an aircraft on a certificate from one FSDO to another to approval of maintenance manuals.

A GAO study is underway and the findings will help pinpoint ways to alleviate the burden on industry while improving the FAA's regulatory enforcement capabilities.

NATA Position

NATA is hopeful that the results of the report will prove the significance of the issue and highlight not only a need for change within the FAA but the best course of action to make constructive changes to alleviate the problem.

NATA Staff Contact:

Kristen Moore
Director of Legislative Affairs
kmoore@nata.aero

View in PDF format.

Click here for more information.

NATA Comments on Air Carrier Maintenance Requirements

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 GMT

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Air Carrier Contract Maintenance Requirements, in November 2012 in response to a mandate contained in section 319 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 as well as numerous Department of Transportation (DOT) Inspector General (IG) reports.
Click here for more information.