The following is a brief description of NATA’s 2009 legislative and regulatory accomplishments.
Legislative Accomplishments
FAA Reauthorization
Background
Congress recently passed the eighth short-term extension (March 31, 2010) of FAA reauthorization legislation. The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 915 on May 21, 2009. The U.S. Senate introduced H.R. 1451 on July 14; however, the legislation did not make it to the floor of the Senate.
Issue
The following provisions were in the House and Senate bills that NATA supported or opposed.
Foreign Repair Station Language.NATA is concerned with the requirement contained in the House and Senate bills (H.R. 915/S. 1451) to increase inspections on foreign repair stations. The potential job loss to U.S. repair stations is high if the European Union retaliates against the trade agreement with the U.S.
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. NATA supports a reasonable increase in the fuel tax to help alleviate the burden on the Airport and Airways Trust Fund and has worked diligently on this issue. A user fee did not appear in either the House or Senate bill.
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. While the actual tax on aviation jet fuel remained at 21.9 cents per gallon (CPG), the Highway Bill mandated that all taxes on aviation jet fuel be collected at the same rate as the tax for highway diesel fuel, 24.4 CPG. When aviation fuel is purchased, the 24.4 CPG tax is deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. Only when a fuel provider applies to the IRS for the 2.5 cents refund does the remaining 21.9 cents transfer from the Highway Trust Fund into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. In many cases, operators or fuel providers do not apply for a refund; therefore, the aviation trust fund receives no revenue from the sale of the aviation jet fuel. This policy has increased Highway Trust Fund revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars at the expense of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. NATA has worked with the Senate Committee on Finance on repealing the fuel fraud provision. Unfortunately, the Senate bill did not reach the Committee on Finance before Congress adjourned this year.
Airports Providing Aviation Services. NATA has briefed Congress and requested that they closely monitor government-run entities that attempt to compete with private industry at our nation’s airports. Aviation businesses such as fixed base operators are better equipped to provide aviation services at an airport, and the government must recognize that airport management should focus on fostering a competitive environment that will benefit air travel passengers. A provision has been retained in the House bill to enhance oversight of the Small Community Air Service Development program, and requires the U.S. Department of Transportation to consider the impact a grant under the program would have on existing businesses at the airport.
Accelerating Implementation of Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Funding was provided for NextGen in both the House and Senate bills to help ensure that critical upgrades are made to existing facilities and equipment and enable implementation of new technologies that will better define routes within the national airspace system, allowing more aircraft to travel within the airspace. NATA supports additional funding for NextGen to implement the needed technology to minimize the impact on the environment due to aircraft flying more direct routes, improving fuel efficiency and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Weight Restrictions at Teterboro Airport. A provision was included in the Senate bill that would prohibit the FAA administrator from taking actions designed to challenge or influence weight restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro Airport in Teterboro, New Jersey, except in an emergency. NATA was concerned that this provision would set a precedent for other airports to devise their own weight restrictions.
Conclusion
The current extension expires on March 31, 2010. The President’s budget will be released in February, and there may be a “funding mechanism” or user fee included in the budget. NATA will work to ensure that if a funding mechanism appears to help supplement the Airport and Airways Trust Fund Congress will continue to oppose it as they have done in previous years.
FAA Standardization
Issue
NATA has been working to combat one of the largest burdens on the general aviation industry, varying interpretation of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations by the agency’s Regional, Aircraft Certification (ACOs) and Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs). Affected regulated entities continue to be challenged by regulatory interpretations that regularly vary from one inspector within an FSDO or ACO, to another. These varying interpretations of how to achieve or demonstrate compliance with FAA regulations (FARs) are estimated to cost general aviation businesses hundreds of millions of dollars annually when previously approved actions are subject to “re-interpretation.”
Conclusion
To address this widespread problem, NATA sought support from Members of Congress, who requested the Government Accountability Office to study the problem as a whole to identify the varying problems and ways to eliminate the unnecessary and costly regulatory re-interpretation process that currently exists between FAA field offices. NATA believes that the solution to the regulatory standardization issues that plague our industry will have to involve a commitment from all stakeholders, from aircraft operators to individual FAA field staff. Together a solution can be forged that ensures the highest level of regulatory compliance without the unnecessary costs and burdens currently imposed on the industry. The study is due in late 2010.
Security Directive
Background
In December 2008, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued a security directive (SD) 1542-04-08G (SD-8G) 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 by requiring any individual wanting unescorted access to the airport operations area (AOA) of an airport serving commercial air carriers to apply for and receive airport-issued identification media. This requirement expanded the airport identification process to include individuals not already required to be badged, which included FBO employees, private aircraft owners, general aviation maintenance providers, flight instructors, flight school students and other airport tenants needing unescorted access to the AOA.
Issue
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 felt it imperative that the TSA approach the issue of securing the AOA of commercial airports by issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). By following the federal rulemaking process, 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.
Conclusion
While the SD became final, NATA worked with Congress throughout the year on ways to combat future SDs that are issued without an imminent threat.
- Amendment offered by Rep. John Mica (R-FL) to H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration Reauthorization Bill of 2009.
- The amendment sought to amend the TSA’s authority to issue security directives by requiring the imminent threat to be of finite duration. In addition, the amendment required additional factors to be determined such as whether a security directive remained in effect and didn’t require revision within 90 days and whether the cost of the regulation was excessive.
- The amendment passed as well as H.R 2200 in the U.S. House of Representatives; however, H.R. 2200 was not addressed by the U.S. Senate.
- H.R. 3678 was introduced in response to SD-8G by Representatives John Mica (R-FL), Thomas Petri (R-WI), Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), Sam Graves (R-MO) and Allen Boyd (D-FL) to modify the authority of the assistant secretary of homeland security within the TSA to issue regulations and security directives using emergency procedures.
- The bill did not make it to the floor for a vote.
Employee Free Choice Act
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,” sought to 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 required 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.
Conclusion
NATA urged Members of Congress to oppose Card Check legislation (H.R. 1409/S. 560). In addition, NATA members were asked through an Action Call to write their Members of Congress in opposition to the legislation.
Environmental Policy
Background
As climate change becomes a priority for the Obama administration and the Congress, it is important to note the efforts of the general aviation community. The aviation industry is one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy, and much attention has been focused on carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft.
Issue
Worldwide concern over climate change has focused more attention on carbon emissions. This year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act on June 26, 2009. The U.S. Senate introduced S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act on September 30, but it did not make it to the floor of the chamber. Although aviation activity generates a small percentage of total emissions, the aviation industry recognizes its responsibility in minimizing 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. The bill requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate GHG emissions from aircraft and aircraft engines by 2012.
- Clean Transportation
- Emission Standards: Amends Title VIII of the Clean Air Act to require the EPA to establish greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards.
- Establishes provisions for averaging, banking, and trading of GHG emissions credits for motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines, non-road vehicles and engines (including marine vessels), and aircraft and aircraft engines.
- Establishes targets for reducing global warming pollution: Reduces U.S. GHG emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 (the House-passed bill included a 17 percent reduction target) and 42 percent by 2030.
Conclusion
The aviation industry has been successful in adopting an environmental agenda that supports a sustainable aviation environment. NATA established an Environmental Committee that has developed programs and policies to aid the aviation industry and its member companies on environmental issues impacting general aviation. These programs include:
- NATA Clear Skies Program
- Best Management Practices
- Environmental Compliance Tools
- Public Relations Campaign
General Aviation Serves America Campaign
Background
Late last year, the Congress held a series of hearings to determine whether the Big Three auto manufacturers, Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, warranted federal assistance due to their companies’ financial struggles. During one hearing, Members of Congress blasted the three testifying CEOs for using private aircraft to travel to the hearing to ask the Congress for billions of dollars in federal assistance. As a result, provisions were included in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate bills that would have required companies receiving federal funding to divest themselves of corporate aircraft. While the legislation wasn’t passed in either chamber, the Bush administration released Troubled Asset Relief Act (TARP) funds from the U.S. Treasury to General Motors and Chrysler. The terms of the loan included provisions prohibiting the purchase or lease of private aircraft.
Issue
Public perception is that general aviation or business aircraft are luxury assets, contrary to the truth which is that general aviation plays a vital role in the state of the American economy. The general aviation industry has banded together with the leadership of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) to educate lawmakers and the public about the role general aviation plays in our nation’s economy amidst the current financial turmoil that is crippling the industry.
Conclusion
NATA joined forces with AOPA to help promote the General Aviation Serves America campaign. Thank you to all NATA members who have supported the campaign. For more information on the campaign, please visit the Web site at www.gaservesamerica.com.
Congressional Testimony
NATA President James K. Coyne testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on the Hudson River Corridor Class B Airspace.
Hudson River Corridor Class B Airspace: Click on the links below to view each hearing’s testimony.
FAA Reauthorization Hearing
NATA submitted written testimony to be printed in the congressional record. The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing on February 13, 2009, on the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. Click here to view NATA’s written testimony.
General Aviation Caucus
NATA worked in conjunction with other general aviation associations helped establish a Congressional Caucus in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate this year. The purpose of the caucus is to gather Congressional support for the industry. In addition, the caucus can meet to brief congressional staff on issues important to the industry. Currently, there are 100 Members of Congress on the House General Aviation Caucus and 20 Senators on the Senate General Aviation Caucus.
Events
Day on the Hill
The association conducted its 13th Annual Day on the Hill event on May 13, 2009. Approximately 70 NATA members visited more than 100 Members of Congress and their staff.
Regulatory Accomplishments:
Large Aircraft Security Program (LASP)
Background
In October 2008, the TSA published a proposed rule that will govern operations of all aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds and require operators to implement an approved security program. The proposed rule, titled the Large Aircraft Security Program (LASP), seeks to combine a number of security programs currently in place for general aviation, including the Twelve-Five Standard Security Program, and would impose security programs on thousands of privately operated general aviation aircraft.
Issue
The association has serious concerns with the LASP proposed rule, including the following provisions:
- FBI background check of pilots is unnecessary for owner-piloted aircraft.
- A biannual compliance audit is mandatory, at the aircraft owner’s expense.
- The implementation schedule is not realistic considering the number of aircraft operators who would be required to participate.
- The program doesn’t specify how managed aircraft will be treated, as many aircraft are managed by outside firms.
- Passenger lists are required to be submitted for comparison to the terrorist watch list.
NATA submitted its comments regarding the shortcomings and issues with LASP to the TSA. NATA then joined other industry representatives and the TSA in formal discussions on needed changes to the LASP. The TSA is expected to release a new version of the proposed rule in early 2010.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 409
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 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 stated purpose of NFPA 409 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.
Issue
During the 2009 revision cycle of NFPA 409, a proposal to require that all new or modified aircraft hangars under 12,000 square feet be installed with an automatic sprinkler system was preliminarily accepted.
Conclusion
NATA questioned the cause and necessity for this increase in protective requirements both in person and in writing to the NFPA committee overseeing the revision. The committee agreed that the proposed change to NFPA 409 was unwarranted and unnecessary and removed the proposal from consideration. At this time, the committee’s decision is still open to appeal.
Additionally, NATA staff now holds a seat on the committee overseeing the development of future NFPA 409 revisions.
European Emissions Trading Scheme
Background
In 2009, the European Union (EU) officially included aviation activities in its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). ETS is basically a “Cap and Trade” program requiring participants to monitor and purchase credits for their annual GHG emissions. The EU’s proposal would include U.S.-based operators flying to, from or between EU airports.
Issue
Due to the regulatory structure of the EU, differences between current FAA and EU regulations and the implementation time frame, there was considerable confusion over applicability, exemption and effect of the inclusion of aviation in ETS.
Conclusion
NATA worked closely with industry experts and regulators in the United Kingdom to identify specific issues relating to compliance and applicability. NATA employed white papers, a webinar and direct one-on- one phone consultation to ensure that its members had the latest information regarding ETS compliance and applicability.
Airport Minimum Standards
Background
Airports receiving federal funds through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) or receiving federal land grants must agree to a set of assurances that require the airport to be operated for the public good. These assurances are known as the Federal Grant Assurances. The FAA has suggested that obligated airports develop a document called airport minimum standards that sets forth the minimum requirements for providing an on-airport commercial aeronautical service. Properly constructed airport minimum standards act as a tool to assist airports in maintaining compliance with grant assurances and also work to protect the investment of current on-airport commercial service providers by requiring all similarly situated new service providers to meet the same standards in equipment, personnel and facilities.
Issue
NATA found that a significant number of airport sponsors have not produced minimum standards, leaving them open to challenges that they are not complying with the grant assurances.
Conclusion
NATA undertook a complete rewrite of its Airport Sponsors Guide to Minimum Standards this year. The guide provides basic information about the grant assurances, minimum standard contents and the standards development process. In addition to publication of the 2009 version of the guide, a webinar on minimum standards was held in December.
Airports
Background
Airports throughout the country continue to fall under attack from various sources including local governments, community groups and airport sponsors. The majority of these attacks are aimed at limiting the aeronautical activities occurring at the airport due to noise, pollution and safety concerns.
Issue
Bob Hope Airport – KBUR
NATA submitted comments to the FAA on the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority’s request to institute a nighttime curfew on traffic at KBUR. NATA’s comments highlighted the fact that the authority’s request failed to meet the statutory requirements for instituting airport access restrictions for noise mitigation purposes. The FAA later denied the authority’s request on those grounds.
Falcon Field – KFFX
Community groups surrounding KFFX have begun a push to have the City of Mesa, AZ (the airport sponsor) limit nighttime and other general aviation flight training activities due to noise and safety concerns. The groups specifically targeted one on-airport flight training provider but also were looking to limit flight training activities in general. NATA assisted local members in addressing the issue in a positive manner with the city government.
Grant-Valkaria Airport – X59
The town of Grant-Valkaria Airport in Valkaria, FL, was attempting to ban flight training activities at X59 despite the fact that the town is not the airport sponsor. NATA provided the airport manager with research on applicable federal regulations and statutes that prevented non-airport sponsor municipalities from regulating aeronautical activities at federally obligated airports.
FAA Regulation of Flight Training
Background
In late August 2009, the FAA issued a final rule that affected Part 61, 91 and 141 of the federal aviation regulations. NATA had submitted comments to the FAA in 2007 on the contents of the rule
Issue
In the final rule, the FAA attempted to simplify and reorganize the rules affecting the use of flight simulators for the training and testing for additional pilot ratings, including type rating. In doing so, the FAA inadvertently changed the regulations by severely limiting the utility of flight simulators in training and testing for additional ratings
Conclusion
NATA led an industry group consisting of members from AOPA, NBAA and various training providers to address this inadvertent change. NATA staff worked closely with FAA staff in identifying the regulatory language creating the change and identifying possible corrective actions. The FAA released a final rule correction to bring the new regulations in line with the existing rules.