NATA Press Release RSS Feed

Letter to IRS

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:23:00 GMT

April 19, 2013

Courier’s Desk
Internal Revenue Service
Attn: CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2013-22)
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20224

VIA EMAIL: Notice.Comments@irscounsel.treas.gov

Re: Recommendations for 2013-2014 Guidance Priority List (Notice 2013-22)
Transportation of Persons by Air: Taxability of Aircraft Management Fees Under I.RC. § 4261

Dear Sir and/or Madam:

This letter is submitted by the National Business Aviation Association (“NBAA”) and the National Air Transportation Association (“NATA”) in response to the invitation published in Notice 2013-22 for recommendation of items for inclusion on the 2013-2014 Guidance Priority List. NBAA represents more than 9,000 member companies and is the leading organization for companies that own or operate general aviation aircraft to make their businesses more efficient, productive and successful. NATA is the leading organization representing over 2,000 owners and operators of aviation service businesses such as fixed base operators, charter providers, maintenance and repair organizations, and aircraft management companies.

For the reasons discussed below, we respectfully request that the Internal Revenue Service ("Service") issue clear and precise guidance to determine if an aircraft management company providing certain services to an aircraft owner is providing taxable air transportation under I.R.C. § 4261.

While this letter outlines our request at a high level we have previously provided officials in the Service’s Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries) with additional details as to possible guidance. We look forward to discussing our previous submissions in more detail as part of the priority guidance process.

Existing Guidance on Taxability of Aircraft Management Fees

For over 60 years there has been a recognized lack of clear and precise guidance as to the applicability of the Federal Excise Tax (“FET”) on air transportation to aircraft management companies and their customers. For example, in Rev. Rul. 58-215, 1958-1, C.B. 439, the IRS determined that “since the corporation owns the aircraft, has exclusive control over the aircraft’s personnel, pays the operating expenses of the aircraft, and maintains liability and risk insurance and the airline operates the aircraft as an agent for the corporation,” the airline company was not providing taxable transportation and thus the corporation’s payments to the airline company were not subject to FET.

However, the Service also issued an outlier ruling, Rev. Rul. 74-123, 1974-1 C.B. 31, where a government agency was required to pay FET for fees the agency paid to a charter company for transporting government personnel both on aircraft owned by the charter company and on government owned- aircraft. At the request of the Service we previously provided a detailed explanation contrasting the facts and conclusions in Rev. Rul. 74-123 with a typical aircraft management arrangement.

The publication of the Excise Tax- Air Transportation Audit Technique Guide (“ATG”) in 2008 created further confusion as it described aircraft management arrangements in ways that are inconsistent with how the industry functions. Publication of the ATG generated increased audit activity but did not provide the aircraft management industry with clear and precise guidance as to FET applicability.

Finally, the Chief Counsel Advice (“CCA”) memorandum (Number: 201210026, released March 9, 2012) ignored this conflicting guidance and took the approach that virtually all amounts paid by an aircraft owner to a management company are subject to FET. Since the publication of the CCA, NBAA and NATA have observed that virtually any business aviation company engaged in providing aircraft management services is subject to audit. The expense incurred by the Service to undertake these audits, and by the taxpayer to defend the audits, is significant and clearly not the best use of resources by either party.

Requirement for Clear and Precise Guidance

Management companies are typically small and mid-sized companies that may manage one or two aircraft each and do not have significant financial resources. FET is a collected tax causing the management companies to be secondarily liable for the tax. With the enforcement position currently being taken by the Service, management companies are often found liable for FET not only on payments by current customers but also on payments by previous customers. With the lack of clear and precise guidance on this issue, aircraft management companies have not typically collected FET from owners conducting non-commercial flights for themselves on their own aircraft. These owners may no longer own aircraft or may not even exist, making it impossible for management companies to collect retroactive taxes. Management companies simply cannot continue as going concerns with the retroactive tax liabilities being imposed by the Service during audits.

In Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978)—which involved the scope of an employer’s secondary liability for allegedly failing to withhold and deposit employment taxes on an employee’s “wages”—the Supreme Court explained that when a taxpayer (the employer in that case) acts as the Government’s tax collector, its collection and deposit obligations must be clear at the time the taxpayer is required to collect the tax. Thus, a person in a secondary liability position is protected by the Central Illinois principle from liability for failing to collect the tax from the person primarily liable for the tax when it lacks a contemporaneous “precise and not speculative” notice of its duty to collect the tax.

In the context of FET, aircraft management companies have not been provided with guidance that is clear as to their requirements for serving as the government’s deputy tax collector. Aircraft management companies are left to try and make sense of conflicting IRS rulings and have no explanation as to how the Service actually determines FET applicability.

Apply Common Law Principles of Leasing to Determine if Aircraft Owner has Transferred Possession, Command and Control of Aircraft to Management Company

In general, to provide taxable air transportation, a person must provide both the aircraft and the pilot services for the flight. In order to provide the aircraft, the person must have possession, command and control of the aircraft. It is possible to have possession, command and control of the aircraft by owning the aircraft or by leasing it from another person.

Based on several meetings with the Service on this issue, we understand that they agree that a clear standard is needed to determine when taxable air transportation is provided. Since obtaining possession, command and control of the aircraft is necessary to provide taxable air transportation, focusing on this element in developing a test seems to be logical.

Under common law principles, an aircraft owner has the exclusive right to possession, command, and control of its aircraft. Furthermore, under common law principles, a lease of an aircraft can be by means of an actual lease or a constructive lease. Common law principles apply to determine, on a flight by flight basis, whether the owner has transferred possession, command, and control of its aircraft to another person under a constructive lease, or whether such other person is merely performing services with respect to the aircraft, e.g., pursuant to an aircraft management agreement. Petit Jean Air Service, Inc. v. United States, 33 A.F.T.R.2d 74-1526 (E.D. Ark. 1974, appeal not recommended, AOD 1975-33 (Mar. 27, 1974) (constructive lease found based on intent of the parties).

Using these common law principles and existing case law to determine whether an aircraft has in fact been actually or constructively leased to an aircraft management company will provide a clear test to determine whether the management company has obtained possession, command and control of the aircraft. Most aircraft management arrangements are simply service arrangements and the aircraft is not actually or constructively leased to the management company.

We have previously submitted an explanation regarding this constructive leasing standard to the Service’s Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries) and look forward to discussing the concept further.

Requested Guidance

Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Service provide guidance that creates a clear standard, consistent with applicable law, to determine when taxable air transportation is being provided. In our opinion, the constructive leasing standard discussed above may serve as a good starting point for such guidance.

We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with appropriate officials from the Service and Department of the Treasury.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,
Ed Bolen                                                      Thomas L. Hendricks
President and CEO                                        President and CEO
National Business Aviation Association          National Air Transportation Association

cc: Lisa Zarlenga, Tax Legislative Counsel, U.S. Department of the Treasury Curt Wilson, Associate Chief Counsel, Passthroughs and Special Industries, IRS

Click here to view a pdf of the letter.
Click here for more information.

Letter to Senator Moran in Support of Amendment to Continuing Resolution

Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:36:00 GMT

March 12, 2013

Senator Jerry Moran
Senate Russell 354
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Moran,

On behalf of more than 2,000 owners and operators of aviation businesses across the country, I write in support of your amendment to the Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 2013 that would ensure the contract tower program is subjected to fair and equitable funding reductions as a result of sequestration.

As you know, under the FAA’s current sequestration plan, programs, projects, and activities will be reduced by 5% while the contract tower program will shoulder a 75% reduction (189 contract towers out of 251 total contract towers). This dramatic cut will most certainly have a negative impact on safety, emergency medical operations, and some military flights.

The contract tower program is one of the most successful and cost effective programs under the FAA’s purview. Your efforts will help ensure that the contract tower program is not shuttered and will equitably distribute reductions in spending among other FAA programs in a sensible and fair manner.

The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) is the voice of aviation business and represents the owners and operators of Fixed Based Operators (FBOs), general aviation maintenance and repair organizations, fuel distributors, air charter companies, and other services support companies across the country.

Sincerely,

Thomas L. Hendricks

President and CEO

Click here for more information.

New NATA Workers' Compensation Insurance Program

Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:23:00 GMT

Dear NATA Member,

I am pleased to announce, as one of my first official duties as NATA president and CEO, a new member program to benefit your business and help advance our industry’s safety goals embodied in NATA’s Safety 1st program. Starting January 1, 2013, the association will offer our members a new cutting edge NATA Workers’ Compensation Insurance Program designed exclusively for NATA members with your special needs in mind. The program is underwritten by Companion Property & Casualty Group and managed by Beacon Aviation Insurance Services, Inc. This exciting new program will offer their most competitive prices for NATA members. In addition, NATA’s members participating in NATA’s Safety 1st programs will be given preferential pricing wherever it is permitted by local state rules!

The new program was developed not only to reduce member operating costs but also to assist NATA in fostering and expanding its current array of safety programs. To date, NATA’s Safety 1st program supports members through:

on-line training,
the NATA Safety 1st Management System for Ground Operations,
the NATA Safety 1st Management System for Air Operators, and
the NATA Safety 1st Ground Audit Standard.

We are proud to lead and support the advancement of safety standards that achieve the highest levels of safety in the aviation industry and are excited by the opportunity to broaden that support through NATA’s latest membership benefit program.

To learn more about this exciting new Workers’ Compensation program, I encourage you to review the ‘NATA Workers’ Compensation Insurance Program Frequently Asked Questions’, by clicking here.

Tomorrow, we will send out a Press Release announcing the program. At the same time, Beacon Aviation Insurance Services will publish information about the program on its Web site.

NATA recommends that member companies contact their insurance agent prior to the renewal of their current program to find out more about the benefits of this new program through Beacon Aviation Insurance Services. I look forward to getting to know you and to finding additional ways for NATA to address your business’ needs and concerns.

Sincerely,

Thomas L. Hendricks
President and CEO

Click here for more information.

Letter to Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam in Opposition of Government Competition with Private Business

Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:59:00 GMT

June 19, 2012

The Honorable Bill Haslam

State Capitol Building

Nashville, TN 37243-0001

Dear Governor Haslam:

I am writing to bring to your attention a national issue affecting our transportation infrastructure that has, in recent months, become centered in the state of Tennessee. This issue concerns airport owners, which are usually arms of state and local government, creating an unlevel playing field for the private companies that do business at their airport. This issue is highlighted by the actions of the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority (CMAA), which has utilized more than $10 million in government grants to establish its own on-airport general aviation service facility to compete with the existing privately owned service provider at Lovell Field Airport (CHA). The CMAA, which acts as regulator for and charges rents and fees to the private businesses operating on the airport, has now decided that it should also act as those businesses competitor.

History has shown the value of private investment in our nation’s airports. Across the state of Tennessee and around the nation, you will find thousands of aircraft service facilities funded and built by private investment. These service facilities act as catalysts, creating jobs and providing the services and support local businesses need to utilize aviation to expand their markets and grow their business. All of this is accomplished using private investment, not taxpayer funds.

Some in our industry have begun advocating for more local government-owned and operated (and taxpayer funded) general aviation service facilities, known as fixed base operators (FBO), to be constructed to compete with the existing private businesses. Many reasons are given for supporting this type of an operation, such as greater control over pricing and a supposed need for more competition. In all cases, however, the advocates ask for government grants to build these supposed “needed” facilities. The bottom line is government grants are needed so these airport-owned FBOs can enjoy a competitive advantage over private business since they face no need to amortize the cost of funding the construction of facilities and purchase of equipment the way a private company does. In effect, these airport-owned businesses enjoy access to “free money” that never needs to be paid back out of the businesses’ income.

Aside from the flatly unfair practice of allowing government to compete with private enterprise by using “free money,” we are faced with the stark reality that government is not as proficient or efficient at providing services as is private industry. One need look no further than Chattanooga to see the real effect of a government-run business competing with a private company. Despite receiving $10 million in government grants that it need not worry about ever paying back, the CMAA’s FBO has operated at a loss of over a half a million dollars in its first nine months. The CMAA predicted a full first year loss of only $250,000. The excess losses, much like the $10 million used to construct this facility, come directly from funds that could be used for other safety and security improvements in our aviation system.

Allowing this type of unlevel playing field to be constructed by airport sponsors will have only one long-term effect; the chilling of private investment at airports. As the stream of private investment begins to slow, more and more government funding will be needed to take its place, putting a further strain on already strained state and federal budgets. Funds that used to be used to expand capacity and create a safer and more secure aviation system will need to be diverted to support government-run businesses such as the one in Chattanooga.

NATA firmly believes that private business is the best route to provide quality services at our nation’s airports. History and the billions of private dollars that have been invested at airports across the nation prove the value that these private companies bring to our air transportation system. Now, with the CMAA having already used $10 million in government grants and poised to ask the state of Tennessee for $5 million more to expand its failing government-run FBO, I ask you to consider the role the state of Tennessee should have in this issue. Should the state allow its transportation grant funding to be used to allow airports to compete unfairly with existing private businesses or should it reaffirm that the role of government is to support and regulate private business, not compete with it?

I hope you will look further into the use of state funding to disadvantage on-airport private business and conclude, as I have, that government funds should not be used to compete with existing private business. If I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Working together, I believe we can ensure the future of the businesses that have made our airports and aviation system successful.

Sincerely,

James K. Coyne

President and CEO

Click here to view as pdf.

Click here for more information.

Letter to the Editor of the Star Tribune

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:57:00 GMT

NATA submitted the following commentary on the February 4th article written by Susan Feyder titled “3M Execs are Cutting Costs, But Flying High” in the Star Tribune of Minnesota. Click here to read Feyder’s article.

The February 4th article written by Susan Feyder titled “3M Execs are Cutting Costs, But Flying High” again highlights the Star Tribune’s apparent unwillingness to recognize the importance of general aviation to Minnesota as well as to the U.S. and global economies. Ms. Feyder’s article maligns an industry that is an enormous economic driver for Minnesota. The aviation industry:

Contributes $2.9 billion, $595 per capita, to Minnesota’s economy, making the state number nine on the list of leading states in terms of general aviation contribution per capita
Provides 37,600 jobs to Minnesota, totaling $1.86 billion in payroll, and the state is home to aircraft manufacturer Cirrus Design
Calls Minnesota home for the following aviation businesses that support the more than 7,700 aircraft in the state, including 3M’s fleet:
- 31 charter flight companies
- 55 repair stations
- 13 flight schools operating
- 102 fixed-based operators in the state.

There are 154 commercial and general aviation airports in the state serving 13,132 pilots.

The only part of this article that is accurate is that portion reporting that because of bad publicity, which would include Ms. Feyder’s article, sales of new general aviation aircraft have dropped by one third since 2008.

I encourage the Star Tribune to take its blinders off and recognize the value and importance of the general aviation community before joining the league of corporate aircraft bashers that fail to recognize the immense economic driver and job creator general aviation is to Minnesota. Those corporate aircraft are supported by hundreds of businesses in the state that fuel, maintain and clean the aircraft and provide a host of other services that bolster the Minnesota economy.

Not long ago former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty recognized the importance of general aviation by declaring the month of October “General Aviation Appreciation Month.” And last fall, 77 mayors from 44 states, including the mayors of Blaine, Duluth, and Pequot Lakes, sent a letter to President Obama asking him to stop criticizing general aviation.

General aviation is an essential part of America, serving in one way or another almost every citizen. It is fundamental to our nation’s economic strength as are interstate highways, international trade, and the Internet. I hope going forward the Star Tribune recognizes these facts and changes its outlook on a key economic driver for Minnesota.

Click here for more information.

Letter to South Carolina Senator Phil Leventis in Opposition to Legislation Prohibiting Ramp Fees

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:15:00 GMT

January 30, 2012

The Honorable Phil P. Leventis
South Carolina Senate
608 Gressette Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Dear Senator Leventis:

The National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the voice of aviation business, is the public policy group representing the interests of aviation businesses before the Congress, federal agencies and state governments. NATA's more than 2,000 member companies own, operate and service aircraft and provide for the needs of the traveling public by offering services and products to aircraft operators and others such as fuel sales, aircraft maintenance, parts sales, storage, rental, airline servicing, flight training, Part 135 on-demand air charter, fractional aircraft program management and scheduled commuter operations in smaller aircraft. NATA members are a vital link in the aviation industry providing services to the general public, airlines, general aviation and the military.

On behalf of NATA’s member companies, I write in strong opposition to S. 1109, legislation that you recently introduced to prohibit fixed base operators (FBO) from charging a ramp fee to aircraft that use their facilities. As you are a former small business owner yourself, I am disappointed that you fail to realize the harm to small businesses at airports throughout the state your bill will cause. Additionally, I believe you have wrongly characterized aircraft that come to an FBO, park their plane, and use the FBO’s physical facilities as not using an FBO’s services. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The services that FBOs provide, including aircraft parking, waiting areas, restrooms and security for both passengers and aircraft, are the reason that aircraft use these FBOs as opposed to dropping their passengers near any airport gate. FBOs are costly to build and maintain and recouping a reasonable return on investment is the goal of any business. In some locations, due to local market conditions, ramp fees play an important role in that business model. FBOs that do charge "ramp fees" are simply unbundling their services due to market conditions. Your bill would, in effect, prohibit a portion of this unbundling and force those aircraft operators who do purchase fuel, maintenance or other products to pay for those who use an FBO but choose not to purchase a product. This transfer of cost will allow aircraft operators who do not purchase a product to receive a "free ride" while those who do purchase products must pay the price for all users of the FBO. Using the power of the state legislature to treat FBOs as if they are a public accommodation is inappropriate.

It is not in the best interest of any business to have government control their pricing policies and procedures. While public airports receive public funding, most FBOs are private businesses built with an investment of private capital. This capital is put to use not only providing valuable aeronautical services at an airport but also relieving the taxpayers from having to provide these services.

According to the South Carolina Department of Commerce, general aviation supports 5,167 jobs and contributes more than $417 million to the state’s economy. In addition, general aviation generates $9.4 million in personal property taxes and $1.6 million in jet fuel taxes. South Carolina is home to 22 charter flight companies, 34 repair stations and 52 FBOs. FBOs are a valuable resource in both aeronautical services and airport development. Your bill, by allowing government to intervene in the management of these businesses, will reduce their ability to provide quality services and facilities at our nation’s airports.

I hope that you will withdraw S. 1109 to ensure that valuable aviation businesses in South Carolina are protected. To discuss this matter or any other issues related to general aviation, please contact me at (703) 845-9000.

Sincerely,

Eric R. Byer
Vice President for Government and Industry Affairs

To view in pdf, click here.

Click here for more information.

Letter To Secretary LaHood On DOT/FAA Diversion Forum

Thu, 08 Dec 2011 14:07:00 GMT

December 8, 2011

The Honorable Ray LaHood
Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590

Dear Secretary LaHood:

The National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the voice of aviation business, is the public policy group representing the interests of aviation businesses before Congress, federal agencies and state governments. NATA's 2,000 member companies own, operate and service aircraft. These companies provide for the needs of the traveling public by offering services and products to aircraft operators and others such as fuel sales, aircraft maintenance, parts sales, storage, rental, airline servicing, flight training, Part 135 on-demand air charter, fractional aircraft program management and scheduled commuter operations in smaller aircraft. NATA members are a vital link in the aviation industry providing services to the general public, airlines, general aviation and the military.

A significant portion of our membership includes companies that provide services to scheduled air carriers as their primary business. These companies comprise NATA’s Airline Services Council (ASC). ASC member companies provide a wide range of services including aircraft fueling, ground handling, baggage service, catering, cleaning and security. Today, the ASC represents local, regional, state and international aviation service providers that account for approximately $5 billion in combined revenue, employ over 90,000 employees, and provide services at 425 airports in 67 countries. Airline services companies are a vital link in our nation’s air transportation system.

I wish to commend the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for holding the Diversion Forum to address issues that were highlighted during the early winter snowstorm this year so that future diversion events do not place an undue burden on the national airspace system. NATA staff attended the forum in the interest of furthering preparedness for weather and other emergency situations that require the diversion of aircraft. NATA and the ASC believe that preparation and communication are key elements in handling aircraft diversions.

NATA and the ASC would like to suggest that one component of preparation that is needed to effectively handle diversion events is an airport diversion plan. Such a plan would need to be completed by any Part 139 certificated airport and accepted by the FAA. Such a plan should be developed in coordination with airport ground service and fuel providers to ensure that needed equipment and manpower could be made available during a diversion event. The diversion plan would also cover airport specific operating plans that take into account security requirements and available space for additional passengers.

Ground service companies provide a critical role in an airports ability to properly manage a diversion event. NATA and its ASC members respectfully request to be a part of the process as the FAA works toward finalizing the best way to ensure that the airline industry works together in sharing information to better manage weather-related diversion in the future. In addition, we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the value of an airport diversion plan with you and your staff. We believe that with proper preparation future diversions, like the one that occurred in October of this year, these diversions can be handled more effectively and efficiently.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

With best regards,

James K. Coyne
President

View in PDF format.

Click here for more information.

NATA President James K. Coyne Asks DOT and FAA to Intervene In CA Avgas Lawsuit

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 09:36:00 GMT

November 30, 2011

Mr. Robert S. Rivkin
General Counsel
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Rivkin:

As president and CEO of NATA and on behalf of our members located in the state of California, I am writing to you in response to your November 21^st letter to Congressman Flores and others regarding the ongoing Proposition 65 litigation in California regarding the use of leaded aviation gasoline (avgas). In the closing of that letter, you indicated that the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration would consider involvement in this matter in the event of ongoing Proposition 65 litigation involving avgas. As I am sure you are aware, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) responded to the dismissal of our group’s federal lawsuit by filing its own suit, under Proposition 65, in state court the following day, October 20th.

In its state lawsuit, CEH contends that the sale of leaded aviation gasoline at airports represents a violation of the warning provision of Proposition 65 since aircraft that "take off and land" at airports where avgas is sold emit lead in the areas surrounding the airport. CEH asks the court to: (1) impose civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day per violation; (2) prohibit the sale of leaded aviation gasoline unless a warning, to be proposed by CEH, is provided to everyone residing near the federally obligated airports where the defendants operate; and (3) require the defendants to pay CEH’s legal fees.

As you indicated in your letter, and a position with which I concur, the preferable resolution to the issue of transitioning the general aviation industry to an unleaded fuel is through the completion of the ongoing federal rulemaking. However, the CEH suit in California poses a significant threat to that rulemaking. As I am sure you are also aware, many Proposition 65 lawsuits are resolved through settlement due to the very structure of Proposition 65 (where the burden of proof is on the accused) and the enormous potential penalties and other costs required in mounting a successful defense. Proposition 65 plaintiff’s attorneys have become deft at driving litigation into settlement rather than in-depth litigation. In this case, CEH has released many of the larger companies originally targeted in this suit and now has focused solely on a limited number of defendants, the FBOs that under airport minimum standards are required to sell avgas. Currently, other than one distributor, airport sponsors, aircraft operators, aviation fuel producers and distributors are not included in this lawsuit, despite their role in the industry and the use of avgas. Under the framework now established by CEH, with the leverage provided by California’s Proposition 65, these few FBOs are tasked with defending the use of an FAA-approved aviation fuel by federally certificated aircraft at federally funded airports and in federally controlled airspace. Without DOT and FAA intervention in this case, the future of aviation gasoline will be charted by the ability of these few small businesses to fight against a scheme that tilts the table in favor of the plaintiff’s narrow agenda and against orderly and thorough agency rulemaking that considers all the relevant public policy goals at stake.

For these reasons, NATA requests that the DOT and the FAA intervene in this case in a timely fashion to protect the national airspace system, federally funded airports, and the FAA’s authority to regulate the aviation industry. I would be happy to brief you and your staff further on the pending lawsuit and to discuss possible methods of DOT and FAA intervention in light of the current state of the case.

Sincerely,

James K. Coyne
President and CEO

Click here to view in PDF format.

Click here for more information.

Aviation Industry Seeks Final Rule on Repair Station Security

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:33:00 GMT

November 22, 2011

The Honorable Janet Napolitano

Secretary

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528

Dear Secretary Napolitano:

We the undersigned companies and associations are writing to express our concern with the lack of progress on the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) rulemaking regarding repair station security.

This rulemaking is the direct result of congressional mandates contained within the 2003 Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, and the 2007 Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act. The former act required TSA to issue “final regulations to ensure the security of foreign and domestic aircraft repair stations” within 240 days while the latter act specifically prohibits the FAA from certifying any new non-domestic repair stations after August of 2008 if the TSA had not yet promulgated the required regulations.

TSA first held a public meeting on this rulemaking in 2004 and issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) five years later in November of 2009. The aviation industry provided TSA with comprehensive comments on the nature and diversity of repair station operations and how to make this rule an effective, risk-based security regulation. The public comment period for this NPRM closed in February of 2010 and work on a final rule has been ongoing for the past 21 months.

The United States has long been the world leader in aviation and American aircraft and parts remain one of our key exports with aerospace contributing positively to our nation’s balance of trade. The extensive delay in promulgation of a final rule regarding repair station security has a negative impact on our industry and the U.S. economy. American companies seeking to expand their markets overseas are hindered relative to foreign competitors due to the inability to get new repair stations certified.

We respectfully request that your department work with TSA and others in the federal government to finalize the rulemaking by Dec. 31, 2011. The publication of a final rule will enhance security and also remove a regulatory roadblock that is currently damaging American companies. We urge your department to move quickly on this rule.

View in PDF format

Click here for more information.

Standard Operating Procedure AIR-100-001 - Aircraft Certification Service Project Sequencing

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:17:00 GMT

October 3, 2011

Mr. Renton S. P. Bean
Aircraft Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division (AIR-103)
Federal Aviation Administration
950 L’Enfant Plaza, 5th Floor, SW
Washington, DC 20024

RE: SOP#: AIR -100-001; Standard operating procedure – aircraft certification service project sequencing

Dear Mr. Bean:

The National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the voice of aviation business, is the public policy group representing the interests of aviation businesses before the Congress, federal agencies and state governments. NATA's over 2,000 member companies own, operate and service aircraft and provide for the needs of the traveling public by offering services and products to aircraft operators and others such as fuel sales, aircraft maintenance, parts sales, storage, rental, airline servicing, flight training, Part 135 on-demand air charter, fractional aircraft program management and scheduled commuter operations in smaller aircraft. NATA members are a vital link in the aviation industry providing services to the general public, airlines, general aviation and the military.

In this Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) explains the process used to sequence certification projects: “All applications for new certification and validation projects requiring more than 40 hours of dedicated FAA work effort are prioritized, on a national basis, based primarily on the project’s impact on safety and availability of resources.”

NATA Interest in this Standard Operating Procedure
While this SOP has been implemented to increase the efficiency of the Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) and alleviate the strain on the FAA’s limited resources, the project sequencing process still renders significant delays to applications for certification/validation. These delays will continue to affect economic growth and efficiency of the aviation industry. The AIR’s certification backlog not only affects the financial aspect of the industry but also impacts the improvement of safety as the industry’s utilization of new initiatives and advanced technology is delayed.

With regard to this SOP, NATA offers general comments and recommendations on the AIR’s project sequencing process.

It is important for the FAA to provide adequate, timely and consistent support to the aircraft certification process. NATA believes various factors have play in the delays of the aircraft certification process. There has been inconsistent interpretation of rules, standards, and policies between FAA offices, which at times creates a deadlock in the process as offices try to determine how to proceed. The project sequencing process gives inadequate access, especially to small business owners. Some methods used in project sequencing are wasteful.

NATA requests that the FAA form an advisory committee to conduct an analysis and evaluation of the AIR process to identify and eliminate waste and recommend effective changes to optimize the work flow of project certification. It’s recommended that the FAA develop and implement a system to track delays and wait-listing of applications and the reasons for delays in order to communicate submission status better to applicants. A timeline for response should also be developed for better communication with applicants when they are being delayed.

New aircraft technology and modifications that are being developed for aircraft improve the overall safety of the aviation industry and raise the standard of safety not only in the United States but also globally.

Aviation has been one of the country’s key contributors to the gross economy. The U.S. aviation/aerospace manufacturing industry has held a competitive edge across the globe. Delaying these projects will only put America at a competitive disadvantage in the future.

Closing
NATA is an advocate of the general aviation industry and its partners that aid in enhancing the safety and growth of the industry. The AIR plays a vital role in advancing new innovations, parts, and aircraft that propel the industry to greater heights. However, there are significant challenges within the project sequencing process that must be addressed. We believe that, with a detailed investigation and evaluation of the process, the FAA will be able to identify the bottlenecks and implement corrective actions to get the process flowing.

Sincerely,

Eric R. Byer
Vice President, Government and Industry Affairs

View in PDF format.

Click here for more information.

NATA President Asks DOT, FAA & EPA To Support CA Avgas Coalition

Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:30:00 GMT

September 7, 2011

The Honorable Ray LaHood

Secretary

U. S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

The Honorable Randy Babbitt

Administrator

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

The Honorable Lisa Jackson

Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

RE: August 25, 2011 letter from California Deputy Attorney General on Proposition 65 and Avgas

Dear Secretary LaHood, Administrator Babbitt and Administrator Jackson:

The National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the voice of aviation business, is the public policy group representing the interests of aviation businesses before the Congress, federal agencies and state governments. NATA's over 2,000 member companies own, operate and service aircraft and provide for the needs of the traveling public by offering services and products to aircraft operators and others such as fuel sales, aircraft maintenance, parts sales, storage, rental, airline servicing, flight training, Part 135 on-demand air charter, fractional aircraft program management and scheduled commuter operations in smaller aircraft. NATA members are a vital link in the aviation industry, providing services to the general public, airlines, general aviation and the military.

I am writing in response to the August 25, 2011 letter from the California Attorney General’s office. In that letter, Deputy Attorney General Susan Fiering purports to clarify several issues relating to the threat of suit by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) under California’s Proposition 65, by which CEH seeks to regulate the sale, use and distribution of leaded aviation gasoline (avgas) in California. She states that her office has no plans to file a suit against our members based upon CEH’s allegations that our members have violated Proposition 65. She then points out that CEH has since withdrawn the allegation in its original Notices of Violation (NOVs) that the use of avgas violates the Prop 65 discharge prohibition, and claims that the amended NOVs are now focused on the Prop 65 warning requirement. According to the letter, even if its lawsuit is eventually successful, “avgas could continue to be sold in California.”

For several reasons, I take strong exception to Ms. Fiering’s characterization of the issues here.

First, the state attorney general is hardly a neutral observer. Ms. Fiering fails to disclose that her office has vigorously opposed our effort to obtain a federal court ruling even on whether the Prop 65 warning requirement is preempted by federal law. Just last week, the state attorney general filed a brief seeking dismissal of our entire complaint – including our claim for declaratory relief that federal law does not allow California to regulate the sale of avgas by requiring warnings to persons traveling through public use airports. Ms. Fiering also fails to disclose that her office will receive 75% of any penalties imposed on our members should CEH prevail in its threatened Proposition 65 lawsuit. It is obviously in Ms. Fiering’s interest, therefore, to forestall the United States government from expressing its independent position in this litigation.

Second, while CEH deleted the discharge claim from its amended NOV, a cover letter to the California fixed base operators, avgas producers and distributers named in the NOV reserves the right to reassert these allegations at a later date. The withdrawal of the discharge claim represents little more than legal maneuvering to prevent the court from reviewing our request for declaratory relief. With CEH able to reassert those claims at any moment (presumably as soon as the federal court accepts their arguments and CEH files in state court), the continued availability of avgas in California still remains in grave doubt.

Third, CEH still seeks to curtail the sale of avgas in California. Its proposed “resolution” of the impending lawsuit against our members provides a Hobson’s choice: pay millions in back penalties for “failure to warn” of the supposed danger of lead emissions and either stop selling fuel to piston aircraft operators (which requires relief from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-required minimum standards for airport fuel sellers) or warn millions of passengers who pass through and residents who live nearby California airports. Given the litigation climate in California, mass warnings will inevitably prompt spurious tort claims by persons claiming exposure to lead. Our members are small businesses that can’t afford to defend state court litigation over conduct that is perfectly lawful under prevailing federal regulation.

Our national airspace system is one of this nation’s great achievements. Our utilization of aircraft for economic growth is unmatched anywhere in the world. A key reason for this success is that the regulations and laws governing aviation are set by national policy, and individual states and localities are not permitted to impose additional rules and regulations that interfere with that policy. Despite Ms. Fiering’s opinion, the bottom line is this: The availability of an FAA-approved aviation fuel is under serious threat in California. For that reason, and the others expressed by several members of Congress and in our formal complaint filed in federal court, I respectfully request the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to weigh in on this issue by means of an amicus brief or statement of interest that supports our request for declaratory relief.

Sincerely,

James K. Coyne

President and CEO

View in PDF format.

Click here for more information.

General Aviation Industry United in Opposition to Renewed User Fee Proposal

Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:26:00 GMT

General Aviation Industry United in Opposition to Renewed User Fee Proposal

Alexandria, VA – The nation’s leading general aviation organizations on Tuesday, July 19, 2011, sent a joint letter to all members of the U.S. House and Senate, urging them to abandon a proposal to charge a $25 “departure fee” on both airline and general aviation flights.

In the letter, the presidents of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), the Helicopter Association International (HAI), the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), and the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) tell the legislators, “Our community is deeply concerned about reports suggesting that current negotiations to raise the debt ceiling are giving rise to a resoundingly discredited approach to raising revenues from our industry—user fees.”

The entire general aviation industry believes that the current fuel excise tax system is the most efficient and effective way for general aviation to contribute to the aviation trust fund. Experience elsewhere in the world, on the other hand, demonstrate that user fees cripple general aviation, doing irreparable harm to a vital economic driver.

"Bad ideas, like bad pennies, have a habit of turning up again and again in Washington,” said AOPA President and CEO Craig L. Fuller. “User fees are a bad idea that hurts an entire industry, the economy, and the nation. They simply make no sense. Time and again we've seen that they stifle aviation and compromise safety."

“GA already pays its fair share and then some for the small segment of the national airspace system that it uses,” said Rod Hightower, EAA President/CEO. “A user fee system will not only create an expensive and unnecessary federal bureaucracy, but also instantly hinder the growth of general aviation and drive more job losses in our country.”

“Now is not the time to revisit the bad idea of user fees,” said Matthew S. Zucaro, president of HAI. “Such a detrimental initiative will only result in a debilitating effect on the helicopter community. Helicopters perform missions on a daily basis for the greater good of society—such as emergency medical transport, aerial firefighting, law enforcement, search and rescue, disaster relief, national security, and counterterrorism. Helicopter operators already pay more than their fair share when one considers their minimal impact on the ATC infrastructure. Enough is enough.”

“It is time for everyone to take a collective deep breath and make certain that changes are not made on the fly that hurt general aviation’s economic recovery,” said GAMA’s President and CEO Pete Bunce. “User fees have crippled general aviation in Europe and the last thing we want to see in the U.S. is user fees growing the federal bureaucracy.”

“Instead of embracing the economic growth and jobs this great industry provides to the U.S., the President continues to vilify our community,” stated NATA President & CEO James K. Coyne. “It’s time for this Administration to cease any and all consideration of a user fee system for a general aviation community that is still recovering from the recession.”

“As policymakers have thoroughly reviewed the idea of user fees in recent years, the general aviation community has consistently said that we should not try to adopt foreign-style user fees, but should instead build upon the time-tested and proven fuel-tax system,” said NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen. “This pay-at-the-pump mechanism is the best – and should remain the exclusive – means for the industry to meet its tax obligations.”

In their letter, the leaders conclude, “We urge you not to create an expensive new federal collection bureaucracy that will need to be funded on the backs of general aviation operators in the name of deficit reduction. It is a nonsensical and self-defeating approach.

“For general aviation, fuel taxes work – user fees do not. There has to be a way for our industry to pay at the pump rather than creating a new federal collection bureaucracy. Please do not destroy a great national asset and critical industry.

Click here for more information.

Avgas Coalition Responds To Threat Of Lawsuit Against California Avgas Suppliers And Retailers

Wed, 11 May 2011 17:38:00 GMT

The Oakland, Calif.-based Center for Environmental Health (CEH) provided notice early this week that it intends to sue 50 fuel retailers and suppliers (including subsidiaries and affiliates) for violating California’s drinking water and toxic enforcement law, based on the suppliers’ distribution of aviation gasoline, which contains a lead additive. The aviation members of the General Aviation Avgas Coalition are exploring all options for supporting the named fuel retailers and suppliers.

Because the National Airspace System belongs to the people of the United States and benefits the entire country, Congress has reserved to the Federal government, through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the right and responsibility to regulate all aviation activities in the U.S. The threatened CEH lawsuit in California raises the specter of a patchwork of state regulations governing fuels pilots may or may not use in their piston-powered aircraft.

Equally important, at the heart of the federal aviation gasoline fuel standard is safety of flight – ensuring that the engine of an aircraft in flight does not suffer a catastrophic failure.

The FAA, the federal agency with oversight for general aviation, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal agency with oversight for environmental concerns including aircraft emissions, are working with the general aviation industry – including aircraft and engine manufacturers, fuel producers and developers, and representatives of fuel suppliers and consumers – through the FAA’s Unleaded Avgas Transition Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to address the transition to an unleaded fuel. The ARC is working through a host of factors, with safety paramount, for transitioning to an unleaded fuel. These include certification, production, and distribution, as well as environmental and economic concerns.

It is imperative that the issues surrounding the safe and effective transition to an unleaded fuel be addressed at the Federal level, and that the FAA and EPA be the agencies that address those concerns.

The potential for this type of legal action at the state level highlights the necessity of FAA leadership, EPA involvement, and industry input to continue the safe transition to a new fuel.

The lead content of aviation gasoline has already been reduced by 50% since the federal Clean Air Act was passed. But even as the general aviation industry works toward an unleaded solution, the Avgas Coalition has taken steps to further reduce the lead content as an interim improvement, developing a Very Low Lead fuel standard that will allow for a further 20 percent reduction in the maximum amount of lead in the fuel without adversely affecting air safety.

Because several of their members are named as potential litigants, petroleum industry representatives to the GA Avgas Coalition did not join aviation industry representatives in issuing this statement.

Click here for more information.

NATA Support for Petition for Rulemaking - Proposed Amendment to 14 CFR Part 61

Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:56:00 GMT

February 18, 2011

U.S. Department of Transportation
Docket Operations
West Building Ground Floor
Room W12–140
1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, DC 20590

RE: NATA Support for Petition for Rulemaking dated January 31, 2011 – Proposed Amendment To 14 CFR Part 61

The National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the voice of aviation business, is the public policy group representing the interests of aviation businesses before the Congress, federal agencies and state governments. NATA's over 2,000 member companies own, operate and service aircraft and provide for the needs of the traveling public by offering services and products to aircraft operators and others such as fuel sales, aircraft maintenance, parts sales, storage, rental, airline servicing, flight training, Part 135 on-demand air charter, fractional aircraft program management and scheduled commuter operations in smaller aircraft. NATA members are a vital link in the aviation industry providing services to the general public, airlines, general aviation and the military.

NATA wishes to express its enthusiastic support for the petition for rulemaking dated January 31, 2011, Proposed Amendment to 14 CFR Part 61 (hereafter “the petition”) and submitted by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and the National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI). NATA’s support is based upon the association’s opinion that changes to 14 CFR Part 61 contained within the petition will have a positive effect on aviation safety and the growth of the pilot population.

Purpose and Summary of the Petition

The purpose of the position is to remove the regulatory roadblock that prevents pilots from crediting any of the training they received while pursuing a sport pilot certificate towards additional ratings and certificates. The remedy proposed by the petition accomplishes this purpose by recognizing the three distinct and separate training requirements for a recreational and private pilot certificate:

Aeronautical Knowledge
Flight Proficiency
Aeronautical Experience

By recommending small changes to language of the aeronautical experience requirements for both the recreational and private pilot certificate, the petition allows for the crediting of overall experience, specifically that experience gained while pursuing a sport pilot certificate, while leaving intact the rigorous requirements for instruction, both in content and provision, in aeronautical knowledge and flight proficiency.

Justification for Support

NATA believes that the current FAA policy of not allowing the crediting of experience gained while pursuing a sport pilot certificate towards additional certificates and ratings creates a disincentive for currently certificated sport pilots to receive training for additional ratings and certificates. This disincentive is created by treating, from a certification standpoint, a pilot who has amassed aeronautical experience while pursuing a sport pilot certificate identically to an individual who has no aeronautical experience whatsoever. Despite the fact “that many of the areas of operation on which an applicant for a sport pilot certificate is required to receive training are identical to those on which an applicant for a private pilot certificate is also required to receive training,” that training is viewed as not relevant by current policy. NATA believes that regulatory disincentives towards receiving additional voluntary training should be removed as long as they do not unintentionally lower the overall level of aviation safety or have other adverse consequences.

The proposals outlined in the petition are very narrow and are well designed to remove the disincentive to receiving additional voluntary training without adversely affecting safety or creating unintentional consequences. The petition achieves this by focusing solely on overall aeronautical experience requirements for the recreational and private pilot certificate and leaving all other areas untouched. Flight proficiency training, aeronautical knowledge training, recency requirements and FAA final judgment in certification remain fully intact. NATA foresees no degradation in safety levels for certificated recreational and private pilots or unintended consequence resulting from the enactment of the regulatory changes contained within the petition.

Aside from not degrading aviation safety, the proposed regulatory changes contained within the petition will actually serve to increase safety. By recognizing that “experience begins to accrue the very first day that a student pilot sits behind the controls of an aircraft” these regulatory changes will encourage additional voluntary training and certification. FAA has long recognized that training and varied experience increase the level of safety.

Closing

NATA, again, expresses our support of the petition and asks, based upon the justification above, that the FAA undertake the rulemaking suggested by the petition at the earliest possible date.

Michael France
Director, Regulatory Affairs

View in PDF format.

Click here for more information.

Urgent Alert For All TFSSP & PCSSP Operators!

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:23:00 GMT

The TSA is requiring every operator subject to the Twelve-Five Standard Security Program (TFSSP) or Private Charter Standard Security Program (PCSSP) to take two specific steps to ensure on-going access to the TSA Webboard.

Very shortly, the TSA will purge their user access lists. Anyone NOT verified by an operator as having and continuing to need access will be deleted from the system. These persons will no longer have access to the Webboard.

First, every TFSSP or PCSSP operator should create a list of each person with a username that allows him/her to access the Webboard and send that information to their assigned Principal Security Inspector (PSI) as soon as possible. Each person’s full name and associated username must be listed in the email the operator’s PSI.

Second, operators should contact each person within their company that has access and ask them to log into the Webboard and update their personal profile. To locate the profile page, click “Options” at the top right of the Webboard screen, then select “My Profile” from the list of options presented. TSA officials have requested that users place their company name in the field marked “Country” as there is not a specific field for company name. Users should use the actual company name to which the TFSSP or PCSSP was issued, not DBA’s or any other related business name. This will help ensure that legitimate users are not inadvertently deleted. Be sure to hit the “Save” button when updates are completed.

Although a specific date for the purge has not been given to NATA, TSA officials have stated that these two steps are “mandatory and time sensitive” actions for TFSSP and PCSSP operators.

NATA encourages operators to complete the requested actions as soon as possible. A complete listing of PSIs, with a geographic list of responsibility and email addresses, is available on the Webboard.

Please contact NATA Director of Regulatory Affairs Jacqueline Rosser with any questions.

Click here for more information.

TSA Launches New Webboard For Watchlists

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:21:00 GMT

Beginning Monday, June 21, operators subject to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security programs will need to visit a new Webboard to obtain watchlists.

Only operators required to comply with a TSA security program, such as the Twelve-Five Standard Security Program (TFSSP), are impacted by this change.

The TSA has created a new Webboard titled “Watchlists Webboard” that will be the only location to obtain watchlists used in the name checks required by security programs. All other TFSSP information will remain on the TFSSP Webboard.

TFSSP Webboard users will use their existing log-in credentials to access the new Watchlist Webboard. Operators are encouraged to visit the Webboard’s site to become familiar with the new location. Additional information on this change is available on the TFSSP Webboard.

The processes of granting access for current TFSSP Webboard users to the Watchlist Webboard is on-going. Some operators may already be able to access the new site, but all users will be able to access it by Monday.

Operators should contact their principal security inspector with any problems or questions.

Click here for more information.

Update - CA Regulation of Flight Schools

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:20:00 GMT

Membership Update – July 26, 2010
California Regulation of Flight Training

NATA’s legislative effort to get relief from AB 48 (the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009) and the corresponding regulations issued by the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) for flight training providers is ongoing. There are currently two active bills in the California Legislature that offer a delay in compliance for flight training and also require the Legislature to hold informational sessions to investigate the appropriateness of regulation of flight training. The Legislature is now on recess and will not return to session until early August. As most flight training providers in the state recognize, August 1^st is the deadline under AB 48 statute for entities regulated by the BPPE to submit an application for approval to operate or to submit an application for exemption from the Act.

In its comments to the BPPE on the proposed regulations, NATA asserted that under the specific statutory language of AB 48 flight training should be exempted from regulation. NATA asked for a response clarifying the BBPE’s interpretation and intent regarding exemptions and flight training. NATA has not received a response from the BPPE.

With the deadline for application rapidly approaching, NATA recommends that its members complete and submit the Verification of Exempt Status form to the BPPE prior to August 1. NATA believes that a basic reading of the applicable California statute indicates that flight training providers may be exempt from regulation under the provision allowing exemption for institutions providing “license exam preparation” with programs approved, certified or sponsored by a government agency (such as the Federal Aviation Administration).

Although NATA believes that the aforementioned exemption provision is applicable to flight training providers, there is no guarantee that the BPPE will agree with NATA’s interpretation. Considering the BPPE’s failure to respond to our request for clarification on that interpretation, it may even be unlikely that the BPPE will concur. For that reason, NATA believes that the best long-term solution involves a delay in compliance passed by the Legislature followed by an effort to educate the Legislature on the dangers in overburdening flight training providers with unnecessary regulations and fees.

How To File an Exemption Request

1. Download the “Verification of Exempt Status” from the BPPE
2. Complete Sections 1 and 2
3. For section 3, check the box next to: “An institution offering continuing education or license examination preparation, if the institution or the program is approved, certified or sponsored by any of the following: “
4. Complete sections 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9
5. Submit the form and fee to the BPPE

Click here for pdf version of member update.

Staff Contact: Michael France
Director, Regulatory Affairs
mfrance@nata.aero

Click here for more information.

AB 1140 Passes CA Senate Committee

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:19:00 GMT

AB 1140 Passes CA Senate Committee

Assembly Bill 1140, authored by California Assemblyman Roger Niello, would provide for a delay in compliance for flight training facilities with the regulations issued by the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education and require the California Legislature to hold hearings to investigate the appropriateness of regulating flight training.

Yesterday, August 9^th, the California Senate Business and Professions Committee voted 6 to 1 to pass AB 1140 out of committee. There were two attempts to amend AB 1140 prior to it leaving the committee, one to reduce the length of the delay from 18 months to 12 months and the other to double join AB 1140 with Assembly Bill 1889. Assemblyman Niello along with NATA’s lobbyist and NATA members testified in support of the bill. While the delay amendment offered by the committee was unwillingly taken, the Service Employees International Union’s (SEIU) proposed amendment to double join the bills was successfully defeated.

The effort to join AB 1140 and AB 1889 will continue and could threaten the future of AB 1140, as AB 1889 is expected to be vetoed due to matters not related to flight training.

AB 1140 will be heard this Thursday in the Senate Appropriations Committee. NATA will target its grassroots effort at key members of that committee to ensure that AB 1140 is passed and not double joined to AB 1889.

**AB 1140 Legislative Analysis**

For more information, please contact:

Michael France
Director, Regulatory Affairs
National Air Transportation Association
mfrance@nata.aero

Click here for more information.

Relief for CA Flight Training Facilities

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:18:00 GMT

NATA Membership Update
Relief for CA Flight Training Facilities

Over the past several weeks, the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), along with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and the flight training community in the State of California, has worked closely with California state legislators during their special session to secure language providing for a delay in compliance, for flight training facilities, with regulations issued by the Bureau Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE). This language is part of the budget package being considered by the California Legislature.

Late yesterday, after extensive outreach efforts by NATA, bills in both in the California Assembly and Senate were amended to provide a delay in compliance for all flight training from July 2010 to July 2011. The amended bills would, however, require facilities providing flight training to notify the BPPE that they are operating during the delay period.

The amended bills, Assembly Bill (AB) 1616 and Senate Bill (SB) 856, are expected to be voted on today. Both bills would require a two-thirds vote. If passed, only one of the two bills would be sent to the Governor for his signature. Both bills may be viewed at the links below.

Click here to view AB 1616

Click here to view SB 856

NATA will update members as new details arise. For more information, please contact:

Michael France
Director, Regulatory Affairs
mailto:mfrance@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.