Action Alert: Airport Input Needed ASAP on Senate FAA Amendments Addressing Transient GA Parking, Grant Assurances
June 13, 2023
In advance of the scheduled consideration of draft FAA reauthorization legislation by the Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday, amendments to the bill are circulating - some troubling and some positive. We need your help in engaging with members of the committee as soon as possible to ensure that airport views are understood before votes are cast. Contact within the next 24 hours is critical.
Urge the Defeat of the So-Called GA Airport Access Act:
Transient Parking Requirements at All Public Use Airports
Private pilot groups are pushing a troubling proposal that would require all public use airports to provide transient general aviation aircraft parking for pilots who don't want to utilize the services of fixed-base operators at their facilities. The proposal - known as the General Aviation Airport Access Act - further prescribes that any fees assessed on the transient aircraft be 'fair, reasonable, transparent, publicly available (including on the covered airport's website) and exclude any extraneous or hidden costs.' In setting this fee, proponents of the measure have made clear that an airport could only recoup direct costs of the parking apron rather than the broader indirect costs of running the airport. Finally, the measure also dictates that pilots or passengers could not be charged a fee to transit between their aircraft and a place outside the airport's perimeter fence even if the transit requires passing through a building.
The amendment has been filed by Senator Ted Budd (R-NC) and the specific legislative text is available here. Senator Budd has also filed an amendment that would establish a new grant assurance establishing that an airport 'will not redevelop existing general aviation hangar, tie-down, or aircraft shelter facilities unless it replaces them with hangar, tie-down, or aircraft shelter facilities on the same airport.'
The sweeping transient ramp proposal is being backed by AOPA, and the group is aggressively pushing for its inclusion in both the Senate and House reauthorization bills. We further understand that other proposals could emerge at some point in the future that would propose universal access credentials for pilots modeled on the TWIC program that could provide for unescorted access to air operations areas. If this materializes, it obviously raises major security questions.
The House Transportation Committee has been in session all day considering its version of FAA reauthorization legislation. The House bill does not include the transient parking proposal, but it is evident that proponents have not given up on gaining its approval on that side of the Capitol.
Draft Talking Points: Please act now to contact your senators - particularly members of the Senate Commerce Committee - to urge their opposition to the inclusion of the General Aviation Airports Act or similar proposals in FAA reauthorization legislation. Suggested talking points are:
• I urge Senator [Last Name] to oppose the Budd amendment to the Senate FAA reauthorization bill that would require all airports to accommodate transient private pilots, at little to no cost to the pilot, with special parking areas if they don't want to use certain airport service providers (FBOs).
• The so-called General Aviation Airports Access Act raises serious economic, regulatory, policy, and security concerns and should be rejected.
• To set a parking fee, proponents argue that airports should only be allowed to recover the direct costs associated with the pavement in question. This ignores the significant indirect costs that airports incur to ensure they are providing a safe operating environment for users, including the itinerant users.
• These indirect costs are substantial and include keeping insurance, providing fire and police response, retaining access control systems, maintaining staff, ensuring maintenance occurs, and paying for general services (e.g., legal, accounting, janitorial) that any organization incurs.
• When an aircraft operator visits an airport, they are benefiting from all these services and investments made to ensure the parking ramp is available for safe use.
• If adopted, airports would have to increase their fees on other users of the airport, which would lead to a situation where one group of users is subsidizing the use of the airport by transient private pilots.
• Some airports may not be able to increase fees on those other users and may violate longstanding grant obligations requiring them to be as self-sustaining as possible.
• Airports could be forced to increase existing fees on other users and possibly even create new fees (i.e. landing fees at GA airports) that don't currently exist.
• Private pilots, like other users, should be required to pay their fair share of the airport's operating costs.
• Further, who determines if the airport fee for the special parking area is 'fair and reasonable?' Who will enforce that? Are we going to needlessly allocate valuable FAA resources to ensure that private pilots don't pay their fair share?
• From an operational standpoint, how is an airport to determine which aircraft/pilot wants FBO services and which don't? This would need to occur in advance to ensure available space.
• Many airports are space constrained. What if space isn't available to accommodate all users who want to avail themselves of special parking areas?
• With little to no fees, there will be significantly more demand for very limited ramp space at some of the busiest airports in the country. This could cause congestion in the airspace and on the ground and have safety implications.
• Airport security is imperative. The current model is built on knowing exactly who is in sensitive areas of the airport, including aircraft operating areas.
• Who is required to meet the aircraft and ensure that individuals on the aircraft are properly escorted as is required under current security regulations?
• Airports do not have adequate personnel to accommodate arrivals and provide necessary escorts during all operating hours.
• Many FBOs currently fulfil this role, but their services are considered unnecessary by this proposal.
• Again, I urge you to oppose this troubling proposal.
Support Proposals That Seek to Eliminate or Modify Onerous Grant Assurances
As we have noted, the Senate bill also currently includes troubling provisions (Sections 620 and 621) that would 1.) require an airport to continuously police the public disclosure of certain fees of private businesses operating at their facilities; 2.) federally regulate fees for certain airport users, likely at the expense of other users; and 3) place unnecessary requirements on the types of fuel an airport must offer. In addition to threatening the loss of federal funding for future critical projects, the bill proposes civil penalties of $5,000 to $25,000 for certain violations in Section 621.
AAAE has produced a fact sheet arguing against the inclusion of Sections 620 and 621 that we have shared with Senate offices.
Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) has filed separate amendments to strike section 620 and section 621, Additionally, Senators Deb Fischer (R-NE) and Gary Peters (D-MI) have filed a bipartisan amendment that would eliminate most of section 620 outside of the avgas requirements and create a GAO study on FBO pricing transparency. While we would prefer to see Sections 620 and 621 eliminated completely, we are also supportive of the Fischer/Peters amendment.
Other Amendments - With More Likely to Follow
Other amendments of note include several from Senator Lummis to: create liability protections for airports under CERCLA for the use of AFFF; change timelines for reports to Congress on the transition to fluorine-free foam; establish new categorical exclusions for aviation projects under $12 million in federal funds or projects with a total cost less than $65 million and a federal share of less than 15 percent (similar to provisions in House FAA bill); create a special rule for AIP apportionments for fiscal years 2024 and 2025; establish a pilot program that would allow airports to charter motorcoach services after passing through screening and then be transported to a larger, nearby airport without going through another screening; and allow or the construction of new sponsor-owned hangar facilities at nonhub airports and the taxiways leading to them.
Controversial amendments on slots at DCA and pilot age and training requirements are also likely along with others that have not yet surfaced for review.
Thank you in advance for your efforts to engage with Capitol Hill on these important issues. We are likely to learn more about amendments in the hours ahead, so stay tuned for further updates and calls to action.
