2020 ACA FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
The Aviation Council of Alabama, Inc. 1207 Emerald Mountain Parkway Wetumpka, AL 36093 Todd Storey, President (District 2) www.aviationcouncilofalabama.com Tel: (334) 844-4606
Legislative Committee Rick Tucker (Chair), Huntsville International Airport (District 5) Scott Fuller, Jack Edwards National Airport ( (District 1) Barry Griffith, Northwest Alabama Regional Airport (District 5) Russ Kilgore, General Aviation at Large (District 1) Erskine Funderburg, St. Clair County Airport at Pell City (District 6) Jeff Powell, Tuscaloosa Regional Airport (District 7) Marshall Taggart, Montgomery Regional Airport (District 7) Rudder Williams, Scottsboro Municipal Airport (District 5) Devoski Boyd, Montgomery Regional Airport (District 7)
Board of Directors
Todd Storey, President, Auburn University Regional Airport (District 2) Thomas Hughes, Vice President, A.A.E., IAP, Vice President, (District 1) Jeff Powell, CM, Secretary, Tuscaloosa Regional Airport (District 7) Leslie Williams-Murray, Treasurer (District 7) Chris Curry, Mobile Regional Airport (District 1) Scott Fuller, Jack Edwards National Airport (District 1) Russ Kilgore, General Aviation at Large (District 1) Art Morris, III, Dothan Regional Airport (District 2) Thomas Day (District 3) Col. Roosevelt J. Lewis (USAF Ret.), Tuskegee Municipal Airport (District 3) Ray Miller, Talladega Municipal Airport (District 3) Jerry Cofield, Albertville Regional Airport (District 4) Rick Tucker, Huntsville International Airport (District 5) Rudder Williams, Scottsboro Municipal Airport (District 5) Nikki Jordan, Bessemer Airport Authority (District 6) Terry Franklin, Shelby County Airport (District 6) Erskine Funderburg, St. Clair County Airport at Pell City District 6) Michelle Conway, Goodwyn Mills Cawood (District 7) Marshall Taggart, Montgomery Regional Airport (District 7) FEDERAL PRIORITIES 2020 ACA FEDERAL AGENDA
FAA/TSA FUNDING . Fully fund AIP to $3.35 billion . Fully fund Supplemental Discretionary Funds for FY 2021 to $1.064 billion . Support TSA/DHS Funding for LEO reimbursement and exit lane staffing . Support SB-2898 relating to staffing at FAA Contract Towers – Provide contract tower funding of $172.8 Million . Support H.R. 5912, the Expedited Delivery of Airport Infrastructure Act . Provide a gradual increase (based on defined activity levels) of the $150,000 entitlement for general aviation airports up to the $1,000,000 minimum entitlement for primary airports . Small Community Air Service Programs . AirportsUnited 2020 Legislative Priorities for Airports
INFRASTRUCTURE LEGISLATION . Increase Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) to $8.50/pax for Origin and Destination (O&D) ONLY, index for construction costs inflation . Airport Infrastructure Exhibits prepared by ACI-NA . Rand Report – Future of Aviation Infrastructure and Financing Study
AIR SERVICE FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES . Conditional Code Sharing for Small Community Airports - Improving access to the National Airspace System (NAS) . Air Service for Small Communities – Continue funding for the Small Community Air Service Development (SCASD) Program . ACI-NA U.S. Policy Council Adopts Resolution on Conditional Airline Code Sharing
REGULATORY RELIEF AND EMPOWERMENT . Establish a Pilot Program/Demonstration Project Granting Greater Flexibility to Airports through Economic Deregulation . Oppose HR-5423 – the Aircraft Noise Reduction Act . PFAS – Immunity for Airports from Liability for Use of FAA-mandated Aqueous Film Forming Foam (“AFFF”)
AVIATION IN ALABAMA . Unfunded Alabama Airport Infrastructure Needs . Unmanned Aerial Systems Pilot Program . Alabama Airports are Terminally Challenged (ACI-NA)
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2020 ACA FEDERAL AGENDA
FUNDING: (Tab A) . Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding o Fully fund AIP to $3.35 billion. o Fully fund Supplemental Discretionary Funds for FY 2021 to $1.064 billion . TSA/DHS Funding for LEO Reimbursement and Exit Lane Staffing . Support SB-2898 relating to Staffing at Contract Towers [Exhibit A1] . General Aviation Entitlements - Provide a gradual increase (based on defined activity levels) of the $150,000 entitlement for general aviation airports up to the $1,000,000 minimum entitlement for primary airports . FY2020 Government Spending Package Related to Airports [Exhibit A2] . Small Community Air Service Program [Exhibit A3] . AirportsUnited 2020 Legislative Priorities for Airports [Exhibit A4] . Adverse Impact of Continuing Resolutions (CRs) and Delayed Grant Awards
INFRASTRUCTURE LEGISLATION (Tab B) . Increase Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) to $8.50/pax for Origin and Destination (O&D) ONLY, index for construction costs inflation . Airport Infrastructure Exhibits prepared by ACI-NA o Passenger Growth Outpaces Infrastructure Investment [Exhibit B1] o Unmet Airport Infrastructure Needs [Exhibit B2] o Airports are Terminally Challenged (ACI-NA) [Exhibit B3] o A Plan That Works for Airport Infrastructure [Exhibit B4] o Beyond the Runway Collation [Exhibit B5] o Conservative Support for User Fees [Exhibit B6] o Airline Profits Soar as Airport Infrastructure Goes Unfunded [Exhibit B7] . Rand Report – Future of Aviation Infrastructure and Financing [Exhibit B8]
AIR SERVICE FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES (Tab C) . Conditional Code Sharing for Small Community Airports [Exhibit C1) . Air Service for Small Communities – Continue funding for the Small Community Air Service Development (SCASD) Program [Exhibit C2] . ACI-NA U.S. Policy Council Adopts Resolution on Conditional Airline Code [Exhibit C3] o Existing statutory authorities and regulatory tools potentially available [Exhibit C3(a)] o U.S. Department of Transportation (Title 49 §40101) Aviation Policy [Exhibit C3(b)] o Factors Behind Small Airport Service Challenges [Exhibit C2(c)] o Air Service Challenges: Conclusion [Exhibit C3(d)] o Applying Conditionality to Small Airports and Access Issues [Exhibit C3(e)] . The State of U. S. Commercial Air Service at Year End 2018 (RASA) [Exhibit C4] . Economic Impact of Small Community Air Service in Alabama [Exhibit C5]
3
REGULATORY RELIEF AND EMPOWERMENT (Tab D) . Support SB-2898 relating to staffing at FAA Contract Towers [See Tab A, Exhibit A1] . Establish a Pilot Program/Demonstration Project Granting Greater Flexibility to Airports through Economic Deregulation [Exhibit D1] . Oppose HR-5423 – Aircraft Noise Reduction Act [Exhibit D2] . PFAS – Immunity for Airports from Liability for Use of FAA-mandated Aqueous File Forming Foam (“AFFF”) [Exhibit D3] . Additional Detailed ACA Recommendations related to Regulatory Relief and Empowerment [Exhibit D4] . ACRP Report 90 Summary: Impact of Regulatory Compliance Costs on Small Airports [Exhibit D5] . Reassess the substantial reduction of eligible AIP/PFC project costs resulting from FAA Order 5100.38D, AIP Handbook, dated 9/30/2014.
AVIATION IN ALABAMA (Tab E) . Unfunded Alabama Airports Infrastructure Needs [Exhibit E1] . Unmanned Aerial Systems Pilot Program [Exhibit E2] . Alabama’s Airports are Terminally Challenged (ACI-NA) [Exhibit E3] . General Aviation Caucus [Exhibit E4] . Army Aviation Caucus [Exhibit E5] . Map of Airports in Alabama [Exhibit E6] . Alabama AIP Funding and Economic Impact [Exhibit E7]
4 EXHIBITS
2020 ACA FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
Tab A Exhibits FUNDING Exhibit A1: Support SB-2898 relating to Staffing at Contract Towers Exhibit A2: FY2020 Government Spending Package Related to Airports Exhibit A3: AirportsUnited – Support Small Community Air Service Programs Exhibit A4: AirportsUnited 2020 Legislative Priorities for Airports
Tab B Exhibits INFRASTRUCTURE LEGISLATION Exhibit B1: Passenger Growth Outpaces Infrastructure Investment Exhibit B2: Unmet Airport Infrastructure Needs Exhibit B3: Airports are Terminally Challenged Exhibit B4: A Plan That Works for Airport Infrastructure Exhibit B5: Beyond the Runway Collation Exhibit B6: Conservative Support for User Fees Exhibit B7: Airline Profits Soar as Airport Infrastructure Goes Unfunded Exhibit B8: Rand Report– Future of Aviation and Infrastructure Financing
Tab C Exhibits AIR SERVICE FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES Exhibit C1: Conditional Code Sharing for Small Community Airports Exhibit C2: Tuscaloosa receives grant to attract air service at Tuscaloosa National Airport Exhibit C3: ACI-NA U.S. Policy Council Adopts Resolution on Conditional Airline Code Sharing (a) Existing statutory authorities and regulatory tools potentially available (b) U.S. Department of Transportation (Title 49 §40101) Aviation Policy (c) Factors Behind Small Airport Service Challenges (d) Air Service Challenges: Conclusion (e) Applying Conditionality to Small Airports and Access Issues Exhibit C4: The State of U. S. Commercial Air Service at Year End 2019 (Delta Airport Consultants, Inc.) Exhibit C5: Economic Impact of Small Community Air Service in Alabama
5 Tab D Exhibits REGULATORY RELIEF AND EMPOWERMENT Exhibit D1: Establish a Pilot/Program Demonstration Project Granting Greater Flexibility to Airports through Economic Deregulation Exhibit D2: Oppose HR-5423 – the Aircraft Noise Reduction Act Exhibit D3: PFAS – Immunity for Airports from Liability for Use of FAA-mandated Aqueous Film Forming Foam (“AFFF”) Exhibit D4: Additional Detailed ACA Recommendations related to Regulatory Relief and Empowerment Exhibit D5: ACRP Report 90 entitled, “Impact of Regulatory Compliance Costs of Small Airports
Tab E Exhibits AVIATION IN ALABAMA Exhibit E1: Unfunded Alabama Airports Infrastructure Needs Exhibit E2: Unmanned Aerial Systems Pilot Program Exhibit E3: Alabama’s Airports are Terminally Challenged (ACI-NA) Exhibit E4: General Aviation Caucus Exhibit E5: Army Aviation Caucus Exhibit E6: Map of Airports in Alabama Exhibit E7 Alabama AIP Funding and Economic Impact
6 TAB A
FUNDING
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Funding . Fully fund AIP to $3.35 billion. . Fully fund Supplemental Discretionary Funds for FY2021 to $1.064 billion
TSA/DHS Funding for LEO Reimbursement and Exit Lane Staffing . Risk Based Security . Keeping TSA Pre✓® Lanes Open at Small Airports
Support SB-2898 relating to Staffing at Contract Towers . Provide contact tower funding of $172.8 Million [Exhibit A1]
Support H.R. 5912, the Expedited Delivery of Airport Infrastructure Act
General Aviation Airports Entitlements . Provide a gradual increase (based on defined activity levels) of the $150,000 entitlement for general aviation airports up to the $1,000,000 minimum entitlement for primary airports.
FY2020 Government Spending Package Related to Airports [Exhibit A2]
Small Community Air Service Programs . AirportsUnited – Support Small Community Air Service Programs [Exhibit A3]
AirportsUnited 2020 Legislative Priorities for Airports [Exhibit A4]
Adverse Impact of Continuing Resolutions (CRs) and Delayed Grant Award . Please keep in mind the adverse impact on construction projects relating to CRs and Delayed Grant Award, including increased costs, delays in starting projects, difficulty in planning and inability to use the entire construction season etc.
7 EXHIBIT A1
GA advocates urge Congress to bolster funding for FAA contract tower program
FEBRUARY 25, 2020
LEADERS OF NINE GENERAL AVIATION ADVOCACY GROUPS ARE URGING CONGRESS TO BOLSTER FUNDING FOR THE FAA CONTRACT TOWER (FCT) PROGRAM IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION/FAA FY2021 APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
Now in its 38th year, the FCT program provides a critical safety role at 256 community airports across 46 states, including at many facilities used by general aviation. In addition to maintaining the current roster of FCTs, the requested appropriation of $172.8 million would also fund additional contract control towers expected to be added to the program in the coming fiscal year.
THE ATC TOWER AT LAKELAND-LINDER REGIONAL AIRPORT, WHERE SUN ‘N FUN IS BASED.
In a Feb. 19 letter to U.S. House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Rep. Nina Lowry (D-17-NY) and other members of the House and Senate appropriations committees, the general aviation leaders noted FCTs handle approximately 29% of all air traffic control tower (ATCT) aircraft operations in the
8 U.S. but only account for about 10% of FAA’s overall budget allotted for control tower operations.
“More importantly, the safety and efficiency record of the FAA Contract Tower Program has been validated numerous times by the DOT Inspector General, as well as by FAA safety audits,” stated the letter, which also noted the number of airports utilizing contract towers in each lawmaker’s state.
The program came under fire in 2013 when the FAA threatened to close nearly 150 contract towers to meet mandated budget-curtailment requirements under federal budget sequestration.
GA advocates successfully rallied lawmakers’ support for the contract facilities.
“Events of the past several years have made it abundantly clear that the FAA Contract Tower Program enjoys strong bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress,” read the letter. “We urge you to dedicate full funding to the program for FY ’21 and extend the bill language that was adopted in previous spending bills.”
Signing the letter were Ed Bolen, president and CEO of the National Business Aviation Association; J. Spencer Dickerson, executive director, U.S. Contract Tower Association; Faye Malarkey Black, president, Regional Airline Association; Mark Baker, president and CEO, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; Timothy Obitts, president and CEO, National Air Transportation Association; Kevin Burke, president and CEO, Airports Council International; John R. Binder III, chairman, National Association of State Aviation Officials; Peter F. Dumont, president and CEO, Air Traffic Control Association; and Stephen A. Alterman, president, Cargo Airline Association.
9 EXHIBIT A2
FY2020 GOVERNMENT SPENDING PACKAGE RELATED TO AIRPORTS December 16, 2019
DOT/FAA
Funding for FAA Programs
Supplemental Airport Improvement Program Funding: The final bill proposes an additional $400 million in supplemental AIP discretionary grants available to airports of all sizes, bringing the total supplemental discretionary funding for airports to just under $2 billion over the past three years.
Priority Consideration: The FAA reauthorization bill, which Congress passed last year, requires the FAA to use not less than 50 percent of supplemental AIP funds for projects at small hub, non hub and nonprimary airports. The joint explanatory statement accompanying the final FY 2020 spending bill "directs the FAA to restrict this set-aside to 50 percent, and use the remaining funds for grants at medium hub and large hub airports."
The statement accompanying the bill also "directs the FAA to provide priority consideration for grant applications that complete previously awarded discretionary grant projects, and to provide priority consideration based on project justification and completeness of pre-grant actions."
As a reminder, the FY 2018 omnibus appropriations bill included an additional $1 billion for supplement discretionary grants and required DOT to give priority consideration to small airports. The fiscal year 2019 spending package included another $500 million in extra AIP funding under the terms established in the FAA reauthorization bill.
Traditional Airport Improvement Program Funding: The final FY 2020 bill includes $3.35 billion for the traditional AIP account next year. Of that amount, $116.5 million would go toward administrative expenses, $15 million for the Airport Cooperative Research Program, and $10 million for the Small Community Air Service Development Program. Another $39.2 million would go toward Airport Technology Research.
Facilities and Equipment: The bill includes slightly more than $3 billion for FAA facilities and equipment, including NextGen programs - a $45 million increase from the current level.
FAA Operations: The spending package contains $10.6 billion for FAA operations - $219.2 million more than the current level.
Research, Engineering, and Development: The measure includes almost $192.7 million for research, engineering, and development - almost $1.6 million above the current funding level.
Airport Improvement Program
Cost-Free Space: The Senate bill includes a AAAE-backed proposal that would continue to prohibit the FAA from requiring airports to provide space free of charge in airport-owned buildings.
Continued EDS Prohibition: The bill continues the prohibition against the use of AIP funds for "the
10 EXHIBIT A2 continued
replacement of baggage conveyor systems, reconfiguration of terminal baggage areas, or other airport improvements that are necessary to install bulk explosive detection systems."
Local Match: The bill maintains a provision that allows small airports to pay the lower 5 percent match for any unfinished phased projects that were underway prior to the passage of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
Boarding Bridges: The agreement directs the FAA to consult with the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and the U.S. Attorney General to develop a list of foreign state-owned entities that have "misappropriated intellectual property or trade secrets" from an entity in the United States. The FAA is required to "make such list available to the public and work with the USTR, to the extent practicable, to utilize the system for award management database to exclude such entities from being eligible for Federal non-procurement awards."
The language is aimed at Chinese companies that manufacture airport boarding bridges. The report accompanying the Senate version of the bill expressed concern about foreign passenger boarding bridge manufacturers that "committed industrial espionage" and "attempted to compete for AIP funded contracts..."
Small Community Programs
Contract Towers: The final bill includes $170 million in dedicated funding for the Contract Tower and Contract Tower Cost Share Programs - $2 million more than the current level. The administration's budget request did not include any dedicated funding for the program.
The bill also includes a general provision that prohibits the FAA from using funds "to withhold from consideration and approval any new application for participation in the Contract Tower Program, or for reevluation of Cost-share program participants as long as the Administrator determines such tower is eligible using the factors set forth in the Federal Aviation Administration published establishment criteria."
Essential Air Service: The bill includes $162 million in discretionary funding for the Essential Air Service Program - $13 million less than the current funding level. Coupled with an estimated $150.5 million from overflight fees, the overall funding level for EAS would be approximately $312.5 million in FY 2020.
Like the FY 2019 spending bill, the bill would waive the 15-passenger seat requirement. It would also prevent DOT from entering into new a new contract for EAS communities that are located less than 40 miles from a small hub airport unless the community comes up with a local cost share.
Small Community Air Service Development: The FY 2020 spending package included $10 million for the Small Community Air Service Development Program with funding coming from the AIP account. This is the same amount that Congress approved for the program in FY 2019 and $10 million more than the administration requested. All current small hub and smaller airports would be eligible for grants.
Remote Towers: The bill includes $7 million for the implementation of the remote tower pilot program.
Miscellaneous
Airport Cooperative Research Program: As mentioned above, the Senate bill includes $15 million in AIP funding for the Airport Cooperative Research Program.
11 EXHIBIT A2 continued
Contract Weather Observers: The bill would continue to block the FAA from eliminating the Contact Weather Observers program at any airport.
FAA Reauthorization Implementation: The joint explanatory statement directs the FAA to submit reports to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on March 2, 2020 and September 8, 2020, on "the status of implementation" of the FAA bill. It specifically calls for the agency to provide the committees with a "list of all mandates, associated deadlines, the primary office responsible for executing each mandate, and actions taken to date on implementation each mandate."
DHS/TSA/CBP
The Homeland Security section of the final funding package provides $50.5 billion in net discretionary funding for DHS and its related agencies, including CBP and TSA, in FY 2020. This funding is $1.1 billion above the FY 2019 enacted level. The bill restores funding for the LEO reimbursement program and continues funding of TSA staff at exit lanes instead of shifting that responsibility to airports.
Transportation Security Administration
The spending agreement provides a total of $7.814 billion for TSA, $53 million above the FY 2019 level. Specific TSA highlights include:
Aviation Security Fees: The final spending agreement once again rejects the administration's proposed $550 million increase in aviation security fees.
LEO Reimbursement Program: The bill includes $46.3 million for the LEO reimbursement program, rejecting the administration's proposal to eliminate funding for this program and shift these costs on to airport operators.
Exit Lane Staffing: The bill includes $83.5 million for TSA to maintain existing exit lane staffing, as required by statute, instead of shifting those costs on to airports. In addition, the bill contains statutory language requiring TSA to continue monitoring exit points from sterile areas in locations they were responsible for as of December 1, 2013.
Transportation Security Officers (TSOs): The bill provides $77.8 million above the FY 2019 enacted level to hire additional TSOs and funds their associated training and support costs. These additional TSOs are necessary to address the continued growth in passenger volume at airports.
Retention Incentives: The bill provides $46.4 million to fully fund retention incentives for TSA employees.
Canine Teams: The final agreement includes $166.9 million for 1,097 explosive detection canine teams, including the continued utilization of 50 teams added in FY 2019.
Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams: The spending bill provides $58.8 million to sustain 31 TSA VIPR teams, rejecting the administration's request to eliminate funding for this program.
Computed Tomography: In total, the spending agreement provides funding for 320 computed tomography (CT) units, including funding from both discretionary appropriations and mandatory appropriations from the Aviation Security Capital Fund. Funding is for the purchase and
12 EXHIBIT A2 continued
installation of these systems at airport checkpoints to add detection capabilities and to mitigate emerging threats. In addition, the spending bill provides $1.5 million to advance CT algorithm development efforts towards higher detection rates. Finally, the bill increases, by $2 million above the request, funding for the design and development of a CT suitable for a wider range of deployment locations, including at small and rural airports.
Reimbursements for In-line Baggage Screening Systems: The spending bill provides $40 million to continue to reimburse airports that acquired partial or complete in-line baggage systems prior to August 3, 2007, and have validated project costs. Previous direction in both the House and Senate reports require TSA to update the Congress on its timeline and allocation plan for these funds not later than 60 days after the date of enactment and to include a plan for how TSA will address the remaining balance of reimbursement claims in future budget requests.
Credential Authentication Technology (CAT): The spending bill includes $4.3 million to continue procurement of CAT.
Screening Partnership Program: The bill includes $226.4 million for the Screening Partnership Program, $29.3 million above the FY 2019 enacted level, to fully fund program requirements.
Janitorial Service: The final spending agreement does not restore funding ($21.1 million) for janitorial services. This means that TSA will not be required to reimburse airports for janitorial services at checkpoints.
Capital and Technology Investment Plans: The final spending agreement requires the TSA Administrator to submit, 30 days after the delivery of the administration's FY 2021 budget request, a plan for continuous and sustained capital investments in new equipment and the replacement of aged transportation security equipment, a five year technology investment plan, and an advanced integrated passenger screening technology report.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
The bill makes a total of $14.9 billion available to CBP, a decrease of $44 million below the FY 2019 level. This level maintains funding for the border wall and associated barrier technologies at the FY 2019 level. An additional $2.5 billion in fees fund additional CBP activities. Key CBP items of note include:
CBP Officers: The spending bill includes $140.4 million to support 800 new positions in the Office of Field Operations, including 610 CBP additional officers and agriculture specialists. When combined with fee funding, CBP will have sufficient resources to hire a total of 1,200 new CBP officers and 240 agriculture specialists during FY 2020.
Overtime: The bill caps overtime to $45,000 except under exceptional circumstances. This level is consistent with the overtime cap in FY 2018 and FY 2019.
Biometric Exit: In total, $61 million in user fees is allocated to biometric exit efforts in FY 2020.
Innovative Technology: The spending bill includes $20 million for innovative technology and directs that no single project should exceed $5 million.
13 EXHIBIT A3
Support Small Community Air Service
Support Small Community Air Service Programs
We urge Congress to fully fund the Contract Tower, Essential Air Service (EAS), and Small Community Air Service Development Programs. These programs enhance aviation safety and help small communities maintain and attract new commercial air service. Congress also should examine the emerging pilot shortage issue, a problem of growing urgency that is impacting air service frequency and reliability at smaller communities across the country.
Contract Tower Program: Airports urge Congress to provide $149 million in dedicated funding for the Contract Tower Program, including $9.5 million for the Contract Tower Cost Share program.
• Currently, 252 airports in 46 states participate in the Contract Tower Program, which nationwide handles approximately 28 percent of control tower operations.
• The safety, cost-effectiveness, and air traffic efficiency record of the program has been validated numerous times by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General and FAA safety audits.
Essential Air Service Program: Airports urge Congress to fully fund the EAS program, which ensures that people who live in rural and less populated areas continue to have access to our national aviation system.
• The EAS program has been the cornerstone of small community air service since the airline industry was deregulated in 1978. Without this critical program, a large number of small communities simply would no longer have commercial air service.
• The EAS program currently provides payments to air carriers that serve approximately 160 small communities. EAS funding comes from a combination of revenue from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and overflight fees collected by the FAA.
• During consideration of the last FAA reauthorization bill and accompanying short-term extensions, Congress ushered in a number of EAS reforms and tightened eligibility requirements. The FAA bill also capped the number of communities that are allowed to participate in the program.
Small Community Air Service Development Program: Airports recommend that Congress continue to invest in the Small Community Air Service Development Program, which
14 allows small communities to leverage federal and local resources to attract new commercial air service.
• Since Congress created the Small Community Air Service Development program in 2000, it has helped numerous small communities around the country suffering from insufficient air service or unreasonably high fares.
• According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, small communities that are selected to participate in the program use funding for a variety of purposes “including revenue guarantees to backstop new air service, air service development studies, start-up cost offsets to help attract new airlines, and marketing support to improve usage of the airport.”
• The last FAA reauthorization bill authorized $6 million annually for the program. Funding for the Small Community Air Service Development Program comes from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund as well as significant local contributions.
• At a time when the pilot shortages have impacted an increasing number of small communities, it is imperative that Congress continue to invest a relatively small a
15 EXHIBIT A4
2020 Legislative Priorities for Airports
Modernize the Outdated Federal Cap on Local Passenger Facility Charge User Fees: Airports around the country are calling on Congress and the administration to adjust the outdated federal cap on local Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs). PFCs are local user fees that must be approved locally, imposed locally, and used locally for specific projects approved by the FAA in consultation with the airlines.
With airports facing $25 billion-plus in annual infrastructure needs, a PFC adjustment is long overdue. Congress has not adjusted the PFC cap since 2000 – two decades ago – and we urge Congress to include an adjustment as part of an urgently needed infrastructure package. At a time when there is increasing pressure to reduce federal spending, adjusting the PFC cap now would provide airports with the self-help they need to finance critical infrastructure projects without relying on scarce federal funds. A recent nonpartisan and congressionally mandated study also recommends raising the PFC cap and adjusting it for inflation.
To be clear, airports are simply seeking the authority to increase their local PFC if they have meaningful projects and determine that the PFC is the best mechanism for paying for those projects. An increase in the federal cap on the PFC simply puts additional authority in local hands.
Close the Airline Bag Fee Loophole: Air carriers are increasingly relying on revenue generated from checked baggage fees and other ancillary charges and less on funds from base airline tickets. Unlike airline tickets, baggage fees and some other ancillary charges are not subject to a 7.5-percent excise tax to support the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF), which helps fund FAA investments in airport infrastructure projects and the air traffic control system. In other words, the airlines’ a la carte pricing model allows carriers to avoid paying aviation excise taxes for services that were once included in the price of traditional airline tickets.
As Congress prepares to debate infrastructure legislation, lawmakers should close the airline bag fee loophole by subjecting bag fees charged by the airlines to the same aviation excise taxes as base airfares. Doing so would ensure that the airlines are properly depositing their fair share into the AATF. That revenue should rightly be used to pay for airport infrastructure projects, air traffic control modernization, and other FAA functions – not the airlines’ bottom line.
According to DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the airlines collected almost $43 billion in bag fees and almost $31 billion in reservation change fees between 2008 and the third quarter of 2019. The bag fee loophole alone has cost the Airport and Airway Trust Fund more than $3.2 billion in foregone revenue during that timeframe, and the annual loss is now about $370 million.
Better Prepare for Full Implementation of REAL ID: With DHS establishing October 1, 2020, as the deadline for when air travelers must present REAL ID compliant identification in order to access TSA security checkpoints, airports are greatly concerned about the low penetration of REAL ID compliant IDs among the traveling public.
16 EXHIBIT A4 continued
Having millions of passengers arrive at the airport yet unable to board their flights will severely impact the individual travelers, airline operations, and security throughout the public areas of airports.
To minimize the impact of the transition to full implementation of REAL ID requirements, airports call for increased efforts, led by DHS and TSA, to aggressively raise awareness about REAL ID requirements, and TSA to be directed to provide alternate vetting procedures for air travelers who do not present compliant identification upon full implementation of REAL ID. If these conditions cannot be met, then full implementation of REAL ID should be extended to a future date that ensures significant, nationwide penetration of REAL ID compliance in order to minimize unnecessary impacts on air travelers and operations.
Protect Airports from Unsafe Drone Activity: Airports see tremendous opportunities for the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the areas of urban air mobility, cargo delivery, and at airports themselves for security, emergency response, construction management, site surveys, and facility inspections. However, airports remain extremely concerned about the risks that careless, clueless, or criminal drone operators pose to airports, aircraft, and the traveling public. To better protect the airspace in and around airports, we have the following policy objectives: keep unauthorized UAS away from airports and aircraft; provide clear delineation of the duties and responsibilities federal agencies have with respect to UAS detection and mitigation; and provide clear mechanisms for state/local officials to collaborate with federal partners in UAS detection and mitigation efforts.
Ensure PFAS Remediation Is a Federal Responsibility: Airports are committed to being responsible partners with their communities by operating their facilities in environmentally responsible ways. However, in exercising its mandate to ensure the safety of the traveling public the FAA requires airports to provide aircraft rescue and firefighting services using aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) that contain PFAS compounds. The debate about whether Congress should require the EPA to designate PFAS as hazardous materials is far from over. Considering the long-standing FAA requirements and the fact that the agency has yet to approve a PFAS-free foam, Congress should provide liability protection to airports.
Since the FAA directed the use of these compounds starting in the 1970s, before there was any recognition of their potential downsides, the federal government has the full responsibility to address and remediate any impacts flowing from that federal mandate. These efforts should include federal programs to dispose of AFFF- containing PFAS, PFAS-contaminated airport equipment, and PFAS-contaminated material, as well as to replace old airport AFFF and firefighting equipment once a PFAS-free alternative is approved by the FAA.
Include the Following Airport Priorities in the Fiscal Year 2021 Appropriations Process:
U.S. Department of Transportation
Increase Funding for the Airport Improvement Program: Airports urge the inclusion of $3.35 billion for the traditional AIP account and an additional $1 billion in supplemental discretionary funding available to airports of all sizes. Higher AIP funding levels would help airports meet their $7 billion in annual AIP- eligible infrastructure projects.
Support Full Funding for the Contract Tower Program: We urge Congress to provide full funding for the Contract Tower Program. This successful program allows 256 smaller airports in 46 states to have cost-effective air traffic control services that enhance aviation safety. The popular Contract Tower Program also plays a key role in connecting smaller airports and rural communities with our national air transportation system.
17 EXHIBIT A4 continued
Protect Air Service Programs for Small Communities: Congress should protect programs that help small communities maintain commercial air service. Specifically, we recommend full funding for the Essential Air Service and Small Community Air Service Development programs. Both programs help to ensure that people who live in rural and less populated areas have access to our national aviation system.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Protect Funding for the TSA LEO Reimbursement Program: Airports urge Congress to fully fund TSA’s law enforcement officer (LEO) reimbursement program despite the administration’s repeated efforts to terminate this grant program. These grants, totaling $46 million, partially reimburse LEOs who respond to possible threats during the checkpoint screening process because TSA screeners do not have authority to detain or make arrests. Eliminating these annual reimbursements while still requiring airports to provide TSA with law enforcement resources at checkpoints may cause many airports to divert resources allocated to other security purposes, like patrolling public areas, which could weaken overall security.
Require TSA to Continue Staffing Exit Lanes: Despite federal law requiring TSA to permanently monitor exit points from sterile areas where the agency was performing those duties on December 1, 2013, the administration has repeatedly tried to shift these responsibilities to our airports. Airports urge Congress to continue to reject that proposal and reaffirm support for TSA staffing at exit lanes.
Properly Staff TSA Security Checkpoints and CBP Air Ports-of-Entry: Airports urge Congress to provide TSA and CBP with the resources they need for more officers and canine teams, as well as new technologies, to effectively and efficiently screen travelers and their baggage.
Provide Funding for TSA to Replace Outdated Explosive Detection Systems: As many explosive detection systems have reached or are about to reach the end of their useful lives, TSA needs funding to fully replace these old systems and their associated in-line baggage systems. Absent federal resources TSA will seek to unfairly shift the funding burden onto airports and airlines.
Restore Funding for TSA Janitorial Reimbursement Program: Last year’s final appropriations measure included an administration request to eliminate TSA’s program that reimbursed airports for janitorial services at security checkpoints, effectively shifting the full burden to airports. Despite the administration’s assertions to the contrary, there is no federal requirement that airports provide janitorial services at TSA checkpoints. Airport operators should not be forced to assume the costs of janitorial services at tenant locations outside of their control, particularly when they are required by law to provide the space to TSA free of charge.
End Diversion of TSA Aviation Security Fee: In FY 2020, $1.4 billion of aviation security fees will be diverted from TSA to subsidize other federal programs. Airports urge Congress to end this diversion. Since terrorists continue to see aviation as a high value target, these fees would be better used to proactively respond to the evolving security threats against our transportation system. TSA could invest in emerging checkpoint screening systems that detect more complex threat items, upgrade current systems more quickly as new capabilities arise, and replace outdated baggage screening systems installed shortly after the agency was formed. TSA estimates it requires about $1.9 billion per year just to keep up with the emerging threats and remain compliant with current directives. Annual appropriations, coupled with an end of the fee diversion, would allow the agency to meet these security capital investment needs.
18 TAB B TAB A
INFRASTRUCTURE LEGISLATION
Increase Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) to $8.50/pax for Origin and Destination (O&D) ONLY, index for construction costs inflation
Airport Infrastructure Exhibits prepared by ACI-NA
. Passenger Growth Outpaces Infrastructure Investment [Exhibit B1] . Unmet Airport Infrastructure Needs [Exhibit B2] . Airports are Terminally Challenged [Exhibit B3] . A Plan That Works for Airport Infrastructure [Exhibit B4] . Beyond the Runway Collation [Exhibit B5] . Conservative Support for User Fees [Exhibit B6] . Airline Profits Soar as Airport Infrastructure Goes Unfunded [Exhibit 7]
Rand Study - U.S. Airport Infrastructure and Funding
. Rand Report – Future of Aviation Infrastructure and Financing [Exhibit B8]
19 EXHIBIT B1 THE VOICE OF AIRPORTS®
Demand Outpaces Airport Infrastructure Funding
The Unsustainable Status Quo
America’s airports are a fundamental component of our nation’s infrastructure. To meet the capacity demands of the future with safe, efficient, and modern facilities air travelers expect and deserve, we need to make long overdue investments to maintain and modernize airports. Since 2008, passenger volume has increased with no adjustment to the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) user fee and little increase in federal grants through the Airport Improvement Program. As a result, funding for airport infrastructure projects has flatlined for 20 years while demand continues to climb to record levels. >> Enplanements 917 million
Enplanements 689 million
PFC Collections AIP Grants $3.58 billion $3.67 billion PFC Collections AIP Grants $2.64 billion $3.35 billion
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Airport Indebtedness Hits Record Airport Infrastructure Needs Increase $99.4 Billion in 2018 80% since 2013
Airports commonly use bonds to finance large scale The five-year outlook for airport infrastructure needs has infrastructure projects. Airports currently carry close to increased to nearly $130 billion since 2013. Airports will $100 billion in public debt, nearly 30 percent higher than need $25.6 billion per year through 2023 to fund these the amount of debt airports held in 2008. The airport infrastructure improvements. credit card is maxed out. $99.4 billion 100 $128.1 $91.7 billion 95 billion $87.3 $88.0 $86.3 billion billion 90 $83.7 $83.6 $83.5 billion $81.3 billion billion billion $99.9 85 billion billion 80 $71.5 $70.7 $75.7 billion 75 billion $71.3 billion 70 billion
65 2013 - 2017 2015 - 2019 2017 - 2021 2019 - 2023 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20 EXHIBIT B2 THE VOICE OF AIRPORTS®
AMERICA’S AIRPORTS UNMET AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS January 2019
America’s airports are a fundamental component of our UNMET AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS nation’s infrastructure. To meet the capacity demands of the future with safe, efficient, and modern facilities passengers In ACI-NA’s most recent infrastructure needs survey, ACI-NA estimates that there are nearly $130 billion in unmet airport and airport customers expect, we need to make long overdue infrastructure needs through 2023. That’s more than $25 billion investments to maintain and modernize airports. >> perAIRPORT year necessary INFRASTRUCTURE to keep up with current demand and plan for the future. What’s worse, airport infrastructure needs have Total Five-Year Airport Industry Infrastructure Needs increasedUNMET more NEEDS than 28 percent in just two years and In Billions of Current Year Dollar 70 percent in four years. $128 Annually, airports generate about $10 billion to fund infrastructure projects. That leaves billion airports more than $10 billion short when investing in local airport infrastructure.
Airport Generated Net Income
Airport Improvement Program $100 billion Passenger Facility Charges Capital Contributions
State Grants $76 Unmet Needs $71 billion billion
2013 2015 2017 2019
NO NEW MONEY DOLLARS TO PEANUTS
Since the creation of the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) in U.S. airlines commonly pay rent and landing fees to operate at 1992, nearly than $104 billion in PFC-backed infrastructure America’s airports. These nominal costs account for less than projects have been approved by the FAA. But just over half of six percent of an airline’s annual operating cost. total PFC obligations have actually been collected as of 2017. Over $50 billion in PFC collections are still outstanding but already committed to past projects, meaning no new money is entering the system for future projects to spur airline competition, enhance safety and security, or expand capacity.
AIRLINE ANCILLARY PROFITS Since 2000, UP 624% U.S. airlines have SINCE 2004 spent nearly the PFC COLLECTIONS same amount on 1992 — 2017 snacks as they have spent on landing fees to use APPROVED AIRLINE U.S. airports. $103.9 Billion OPERATING PAID COSTS AT $53.4 Billion AIRPORTS DOWN 3 YEARS $50.5 Billion RUNNING
FOR PAST PROJECTS
21 EXHIBIT B3
THE VOICE OF AIRPORTS®
America’s Airports Are Terminally Challenged
Current airport and airline investment in airport infrastructure projects are not meeting the needs of air travelers today and into the future. America’s airports face more than $128 billion in infrastructure needs across the system. Old, cramped terminals are stretched beyond capacity and in desperate need of repair. Many airport terminals are well beyond their useful life, and inadequate airport infrastructure is stifling airline competition and driving up fares.
After years of neglect we finally have a great opportunity now to change that dynamic at America’s airports. Air travelers would greatly benefit from airports having the ability to generate more local revenue for terminals, gates, runways, and taxiways that would increase capacity, provide much needed competition, enhance safety and security, and improve the overall passenger experience. >>
Strong and vibrant airports lead to economic and job growth in the local communities they serve.
Better infrastructure would give travelers more choices, lower airfares, and a better experience at the airport.
Airport Infrastructure Needs
Large Hubs Medium Hubs Small Hubs
Terminal Landside Airside
InvestingINVESTING in Airports IN AIRPORTS EnhancesENHANCES the THE Passenger PASSENGER Experience EXPERIENCE
Increased Lower Faster, Shorter Competition Airfares Lines On-Time More Baggage System Flights Gates Upgrades
Economic Output of America’s Airports
22 EXHIBIT B4 THE VOICE OF AIRPORTS®
PFCs: A Plan That Works for Airport Infrastructure
No New Federal Spending Strong Bipartisan Support
By modernizing the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC), The PFC has a wide range of support across the political Washington could give airports across the country the spectrum. In the past two Congresses, bills with flexibility to address nearly $130 billion in unmet airport bipartisan support have been introduced to address the infrastructure needs without raising taxes and without outdated cap on the PFC. spending one penny of new federal taxpayer dollars. Investment in Communities
The total economic output of U.S. commercial service airports now exceeds $1.4 trillion, supporting more than 11.5 million jobs with a payroll of more than $428 billion and accounting for more than 7 percent of U.S. GDP. Modernizing airport infrastructure funding ensures our nation’s airports have the resources they need to remain competitive and thriving hubs of economic opportunity.
Promotes Competition and Saves Wide-Ranging Industry Support Passengers Money A broad and diverse coalition of industry groups and Airport investment through the PFC promotes much businesses support modernizing the PFC. The Beyond needed competition in the airline industry. New the Runway Coalition, which is made up of nearly 100 investments in airports are valuable tools in helping local organizations and trade groups, has come together to communities attract new carriers, which lowers airfares support the PFC thanks to the jobs and dollars it brings for passengers. to their industries.
INVESTING IN AIRPORTS SAVES Current PFC Modernized PFC PASSENGERS MONEY Destination 1
Destination 1 More Gates Increased Competition
Lower Airfares Destination 4
Destination 2
Destination 2
Destination 3 Destination 3
23 EXHIBIT B5
THE VOICE OF AIRPORTS®
Beyond the Runway Coalition Partner Organizations
Far Reaching Support for Airport Infrastructure Investment
The story of airports extends far beyond the physical airport. The Beyond the Runway Coalition brings together a wide variety of industry stakeholders seeking to ensure that airports remain strong economic engines and job centers in their local communities. Together, they are aligned in support for modernizing airport infrastructure financing to ensure our nation’s airports have the resources they need to remain competitive and thriving hubs of economic opportunity. >>
777 Development Group, LLC Aviation Strategies and Trade Solutions Association ADB Safegate Bond Dealers of America National Precast Concrete Association Air Conditioning Contractors of America Building America’s Future National Ready Mixed Concrete Association Airline Data, Inc. C&S Companies National Retail Federation Airport Alliances, LLC. California Airports Council National Stone, Sand and Gravel Airport Business Magazine CASE Construction Equipment Association Airport Consultants Council CH2M National Utility Contractors Association Airport Improvement CNN Airport New York Aviation Management Airport Revenue News Competitive Enterprise Institute Association Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure Construction Management Association of Pavement Consultants, Inc. American Apparel & Footwear Association America (CMAA) Portland Cement Association American Assocaition of Airport Executives Corliss Stone Littles, LLC Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute American Coal Ash Association CP&Y RICONDO & Associates, Inc. American Coatings Association Decision Services International LLC San Diego Regional Chamber of American Composites Manufacturers Delaware North Commerce Association DKMG Consulting, LLC. San Diego Tourism Authority American Concrete Pavement Association Dunham Group, LLC. Security Industry Association American Concrete Pipe Association DY Consultants Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning American Concrete Pressure Pipe Florida Airports Council Contractors’ National Association Association Garver SI Partners, Inc. American Council of Engineering GCR Siemens Companies Georgia Airports Association Skanska American Hotel & Lodging Association Hi-Lite SSI, Inc. American Road and Transportation International Association of Airport Duty Studdiford Technical Solutions Builders Association Free Stores Team Eagle, Ltd. American Society of Civil Engineers International Franchise Association Texas Retailers Association American Supply Association Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP The Aviation Council of Alabama American Traffic Safety Services Kimley-Horn TMG Construction Corporation Association Lamar Airport Advertising Top Airport Parking Asian American Hotel Owners Association Liebowitz & Horton Airport Management TransCore Associated Equipment Distributors Consultants TransSolutions Associated General Contractors of America Mead & Hunt Travel Goods Association Association for the Improvement of National Asphalt Pavement Association U.S. Travel Association American Infrastructure National Association of Manufacturers Washington Airports Task Force Association of Equipment Manufacturers National Association of State Aviation Association of Union Constructors Officials Avasant National Electrical Contractors Association Aviation Alliance, Inc. National Electrical Manufacturers 24 THE VOICE OF AIRPORTS®
EXHIBIT B6 PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE THE VOICE OF CONSERVATIVEAIRPORTS® SUPPORT FOR USER FEES January 2019
THE VOICE OF AIRPORTS® Today’sConservative modern conservative Support movement is fordiverse and often fractious, so it can be hard to find unanimity on almost any issue. But when it comesAirport to support User for theFees PFC, conservative think tanks and advocacy groups speak with a clear voice in support of this quintessential user fee.
PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE Why Conservatives Support the PFC Organizations Voicing CONSERVATIVE SUPPORT FOR USER FEES Support for the PFC: Today’s modern conservative movement is diverseJanuary and 2019 often fractious, so it can be hard to find unanimity on Today’s modern conservative movement is diverse and often almostfractious, any so issue. it can Butbe hard when to findit comes unanimity to support on almost for the any Competitive Enterprise Institute issue. But when it comes to support for the PFC, conservativePFC, think conservative tanks and advocacy think tanks groups and speak advocacy with a groups clear voice THE VOICE OF AIRPORTS® speak with a clear voice in support of this quintessential in support of this quintessential user fee. ® FreedomWorks THE VOICE OF AIRPORTS® user fee. >> THE VOICE OF AIRPORTS THE VOICE OF AIRPORTS® Heritage Foundation LocalOrganizations Control Voicing Support for the PFC: PASSENGERTHE VOICE FACILITYOF AIRPORTS CHARGE® PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE Heritage Action The PFC empowers those who know the mostCONSERVATIVE about SUPPORTPASSENGERTHE FOR VOICE FACILITY USEROF AIRPORTS CHARGE FEES® the local airportCompetitive needs, infrastructure Enterprise Institute investments,CONSERVATIVE SUPPORT FOR USERJanuary FEES 2019 CONSERVATIVE SUPPORTPASSENGERTHE FOR FACILITY USEROF CHARGE FEES® Reason Foundation and safety upgrades to make the best decisions for VOICE AIRPORTSJanuary 2019 FreedomWorksToday’s modern conservative movement is diverse and often fractious, so it can be hard to find unanimity onJanuary almost 2019any the airport while balancing the passenger’s interests.CONSERVATIVE SUPPORTPASSENGER FOR FACILITY USER CHARGE FEES issue. But when it comes to support for the PFC, conservative think tanks and advocacyTHE groups VOICE speakOF with AIRPORTS a clear voice ® January 2019 Council for Citizens Against The PFC isHeritage collectedinToday’s support Foundationlocally modern of thisand, conservative quintessential unlike othermovement user fee.aviation- is diverse and often fractious, so it can be hard to find unanimity on almost any issue. But when it comes to support CONSERVATIVEfor the PFC, conservative think tanksSUPPORT and advocacyPASSENGER groups FOR speakFACILITY USER with a clearCHARGE FEES voice ® related fees and taxes, stays local. It never gets passed to THE VOICE OF AIRPORTSJanuary 2019 Government Waste inToday’s support modern of this conservative quintessential movement user fee. is diverse and often fractious, so it can be hard to find unanimity on almost any Washington,Heritage D.C. The Action PFC is the only fundingCONSERVATIVE tool that Organizations SUPPORTPASSENGER Voicing FOR FACILITY USER CHARGE FEES issue. But when it comes to support for the PFC, conservative think tanks and advocacyTHE groups VOICE speakOF with AIRPORTS a clear voice ® maximizes this kindinToday’s support of criticalmodern of this conservative localquintessential control. movement user fee. is diverse and often fractious,Support so itfor can thebe hard PFC: to find unanimity onJanuary almost 2019any Taxpayer Protection Alliance Reason Foundation CONSERVATIVEOrganizations SUPPORTPASSENGER Voicing FOR FACILITY USER CHARGE FEES® issue. But when it comes to support for the PFC, conservative think tanks and advocacyTHE groups VOICE speakOF with AIRPORTS a clear voice ® Today’s modern conservative movement is diverse and often fractious,Support so itfor can thebe hard PFC: to find unanimity onJanuary almost 2019any in support of this quintessential user fee. OrganizationsCompetitive Voicing Enterprise Institute Free MarketCouncil Userissue. for ButCitizensFee when Based it comes Against toSolution support CONSERVATIVEfor the PFC, conservative think tanksSUPPORT and advocacyPASSENGER groups FOR speakFACILITY USER with a clearCHARGE FEES voice Citizen Outreach GovernmentinToday’s support modern Waste of this conservative quintessential movement user fee. is diverse and often fractious,Support CompetitiveFreedomWorksso itfor can thebe hard PFC: Enterprise to find unanimity Institute onJanuary almost 2019any issue. But when it comes to support CONSERVATIVEfor the PFC, conservative Organizationsthink tanksSUPPORT and advocacyPASSENGER Voicing groups FOR speakFACILITY USER with a clearCHARGE FEES voice Heritage Foundation User fees TaxpayerrepresentToday’s aProtection better modern way conservative toAlliance pay movementfor infrastructure. is diverse and often fractious,Support CompetitiveFreedomWorksso itfor can thebe hard PFC: Enterprise to find unanimity Institute onJanuary almost 2019any in support of this quintessential user fee. Organizations Voicing Under this system,issue. the But people when it whocomes actually to support use CONSERVATIVEfor the the PFC, conservative think tanksSUPPORTHeritage and advocacyPASSENGER Action groups FOR speakFACILITY USER with a clearCHARGE FEES voice WHY CONSERVATIVESFreedomWorksHeritage Foundation SUPPORT THE PFC airport bearCitizen the burdenToday’sin Outreach support modern of of upkeepthis conservative quintessential and movementmodernization. user fee. is diverse and often fractious,Support Competitiveso itfor can thebe hard PFC: Enterprise to find unanimity Institute onJanuary almost 2019any CONSERVATIVEOrganizations SUPPORTReason Foundation Voicing FOR USER FEES issue. But when it comes to support for the PFC, conservative thinkOrganizations tanksHeritage and advocacy FoundationAction groups Voicing speak with aSupport clear voice That is the fairest and most equitable way to fund it. FreedomWorks January 2019 inToday’s support modern of this conservative quintessential movement user fee. is diverse and often fractious,Support Competitiveso itfor can thebe hard PFC: Enterprise to find unanimity Institute on almost any OrganizationsReasonCouncil Foundationfor Voicing Citizens Against Passengers who don’tissue. But use when the it airportcomes to willsupport never for the be PFC, asked conservative thinkfor tanksHeritage the and advocacy PFC: Action groups speak with a clear voice WHY CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT THE PFC FreedomWorksGovernmentHeritage Foundation Waste to pay for it. inToday’s support modern of this conservative quintessential movement user fee. is diverse and often fractious,SupportLOCAL Competitiveso itfor CONTROLcan thebe hard PFC: Enterprise to find unanimity Institute on almost any OrganizationsReasonCouncil Foundationfor Voicing Citizens Against issue. But when it comes to support for the PFC, conservative think tanksGovernmentTaxpayerHeritageCenter and advocacy for ActionProtection Freedom Waste groups speakAlliance and with Prosperity a clear voice FreedomWorksGovernmentHeritage Foundation Waste in support of this quintessential user fee. SupportCouncilCompetitive for the for CitizensPFC: Enterprise Against Institute OrganizationsCitizenReason OutreachFoundation Voicing LOCAL CONTROL GovernmentTaxpayerHeritageCitizen Outreach ActionProtection Waste Alliance The PFCFreedomWorksHeritage empowers Foundation those who know the most about the SupportCouncilCompetitive for the for CitizensPFC: Enterprise Against Institute Organizationslocal TaxpayerCitizenReasonairport OutreachFoundation ProtectionVoicingneeds, infrastructure Alliance investments, and safety HeritageGovernmentCompetitive FoundationAction Waste Enterprise Institute The PFC empowers those who know the most about the WHY CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT THE PFC SupportFreedomWorks for the PFC: SupportupgradesCouncilCompetitive for tothe for make CitizensPFC: Enterprise the Against bestInstitute decisions for the airport while local airport needs, infrastructure investments, and safety TaxpayerReasonCitizen OutreachFoundation Protection Alliance WHY CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT THE PFC GovernmentHeritageCouncil Actionfor CitizensWaste Against Government Waste upgrades to make the best decisions for the airport while balancingFreedomWorksHeritage the Foundation passenger’s interests. The PFC is collected LOCAL CONTROL CouncilCompetitive for Citizens Enterprise Against Institute balancing the passenger’s interests. The PFC is collected ReasonCitizen OutreachFoundation WHY CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT THE PFC GovernmentHeritageTaxpayerFreedomWorks ActionProtection Waste Alliance locallyFreedomWorksHeritage and, unlikeFoundation other aviation-related fees and taxes, locally and, unlike other aviation-related fees and taxes, TheLOCAL PFC CONTROL empowers those who know the most about the Council for Citizens Against staysTaxpayerReasonCitizen local. OutreachFoundation It Protection never gets Alliance passed to Washington, D.C. The stays local. It never gets passed to Washington, D.C. The WHYlocal CONSERVATIVES airport needs, infrastructure SUPPORT investments, THE PFC and safety HeritageGovernmentHeritage FoundationAction Action Waste FACT CHECKTheLOCALupgrades PFC CONTROL empowers to make the those best who decisions know thefor themost airport about while the FACT CHECK PFC is the only funding tool that maximizes this kind of PFC isCitizenCouncil the Outreachonly for Citizens funding Against tool that maximizes this kind of localbalancing airport the needs, passenger’s infrastructure interests. investments, The PFC is and collected safety TaxpayerHeritageReasonHeritage Foundation ActionProtection Foundation Alliance critical local control. WHY CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT THE PFC GovernmentHeritage Action Waste LOCALTheupgradeslocally PFC and, CONTROL empowers to unlike make other the those best aviation-related who decisions know thefor feesthemost airportand about taxes, while the critical local control. Myth: The Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Council for Citizens Against localbalancingstays airportlocal. the It needs, never passenger’s infrastructuregets passed interests. to investments, Washington, The PFC is and collectedD.C. safety The ReasonCitizenNational OutreachFoundation Black Chamber of Commerce WHY CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT THE PFC FACTGovernmentTaxpayer CHECK Protection Waste Alliance Myth: The Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) is a tax leviedupgradeslocallyPFC on is theand,passengers. toonly unlike make funding other the best toolaviation-related decisions that maximizes for feesthe this airportand kind taxes, while of FREE MARKET USER FEE BASED SOLUTION LOCALThe PFC CONTROL empowers those who know the most about the Council for Citizens Against balancingstayscritical local. local the It control. never passenger’s gets passed interests. to Washington, The PFC is collectedD.C. The Citizen Outreach is a tax levied on passengers. local airport needs, infrastructure investments, and safety Myth:FACTGovernmentTaxpayerReasonThe CHECK Passenger FoundationProtection Waste Facility Alliance Charge (PFC) WHYlocallyPFC CONSERVATIVESis theand, only unlike funding other SUPPORTtoolaviation-related that maximizes THE feesPFC this and kind taxes, of FREEGovernment MARKET Waste USER FEE BASED SOLUTION Fact: PFCs areLOCALTheupgrades local PFC CONTROL empowers to user make the feesthose best whopaid decisions know only thefor themost by airport about while the is a tax levied on passengers. User fees represent a better way to pay for infrastructure. FREEstayscritical local. MARKET local It control. never USER gets FEE passed BASED to Washington, SOLUTION D.C. The localbalancing airport the needs, passenger’s infrastructure interests. investments, The PFC is and collected safety Myth:FACTTaxpayerCitizenTaxpayerThe CHECK Passenger Outreach Protection Protection Facility Alliance Alliance Charge (PFC) Under this system, the people who actually use the passengersWHY whenlocallyPFC CONSERVATIVESis theand, they only unlike funding use other airport SUPPORTtoolaviation-related that maximizes THE feesPFC this and kind taxes, of LOCALTheupgrades PFC CONTROL empowers to make the those best who decisions know thefor themost airport about while the Fact:is a tax PFCs levied are on local passengers. user fees paid only by Fact: PFCs are local user fees paid only by facilities to helpUserstaysFREEcritical feeslocal.defray MARKET local represent It control. never USERthe getsa better costsFEE passed BASEDway ofto to Washington, pay SOLUTION for infrastructure. D.C. The User Citizenfees represent Outreach a better way to pay for infrastructure. airport bear the burden of upkeep and modernization. localbalancing airport the needs, passenger’s infrastructure interests. investments, The PFC is and collected safety FACTMyth:CitizenThe CHECK Passenger Outreach Facility Charge (PFC) WHYUnderPFC CONSERVATIVESis thethis onlysystem, funding the people SUPPORTtool that who maximizes actuallyTHE PFC usethis the kind of passengers when they use airport That is the most fair and equitable way to fund it - building airportupgradeslocally infrastructure. and, to unlike make other the best aviation-related decisions for feesthe airportand taxes, while isFact: a tax PFCs levied are on local passengers. user fees paid only by passengers when they use airport UserairportcriticalLOCALThe PFC fees localbear CONTROL empowers represent thecontrol. burden athose better of whoupkeep way know to andpay the modernization.for most infrastructure. about the UnderfacilitiesFact: PFCs this to arehelp system, local defray user thethe fees costs people paid of only who by actually use the balancingstaysUserFREE feeslocal. MARKET represent the It never passenger’s USER getsa better FEE passed interests. BASEDway to to Washington, pay SOLUTIONThe for PFC infrastructure. is collectedD.C. The passengers who don’t use the airport will never be asked WHYUnderThatlocal CONSERVATIVES isairport thisthe mostsystem, needs, fair theinfrastructure and people SUPPORT equitable who investments, wayactuallyTHE to PFC fund use it andthe - safety buildingFACTpassengersMyth: The CHECK airport Passenger when infrastructure. they Facility use airport Charge (PFC) WHYlocallyPFCUnder CONSERVATIVESis theand,this onlysystem, unlike funding other the people SUPPORTtoolaviation-related that who maximizes actuallyTHE feesPFC usethis and the kind taxes, of airport bear the burden of upkeep and25 modernization. facilities to help defray the costs of airportpassengersTheupgrades PFC bear empowers to who themake burden don’t the those usebest of whotheupkeep decisions airport know and the forwill modernization. themost never airport about be asked while the facilitiesisFact: a tax PFCs levied to arehelp on local defray passengers. user the fees costs paid of only by to pay for it. staysFREEUsercriticalairportLOCAL feeslocal. MARKET localbear CONTROL represent It thecontrol. never burdenUSER getsa better FEE ofpassed upkeep BASEDway to to Washington, andpay SOLUTION modernization.for infrastructure. D.C. The Thattolocalbalancing pay isairport forthe it. themost needs, passenger’s fair infrastructure and equitable interests. investments, way The to PFC fund is itand collected - safety FACTbuildingMyth:passengersThe CHECK airport Passenger when infrastructure. they Facility use airport Charge (PFC) building airport infrastructure. PFCUnderThat isis thethisthe onlymostsystem, funding fair the and people tool equitable that who maximizes wayactually to fund usethis it the kind - of That is the most fair and equitable way to fund it - LOCALpassengersupgradeslocally and, CONTROL to unlikewho make don’t other the usebest aviation-related the decisions airport forwill feesthe never airportand be taxes, asked while isFact:facilities a tax PFCs levied to arehelp on local defray passengers. user the fees costs paid of only by FREEUsercriticalairportTheLOCALpassengers PFC fees MARKET localbear CONTROL empowers represent whothecontrol. burdenUSERdon’t athose better use FEE of whotheupkeep BASEDway airport know to andpay SOLUTION the will modernization.for most never infrastructure. about be asked the tobalancingstays pay local. for it. the It never passenger’s gets passed interests. to Washington, The PFC is collectedD.C. The passengers who don’t use the airport will never be asked UnderThatlocalto pay isairport forthisthe it. mostsystem, needs, fair theinfrastructure and people equitable who investments, wayactually to fund use it andthe - safety FACTMyth:passengersbuildingThe CHECK airport Passenger when infrastructure. they Facility use airport Charge (PFC) locallyPFC is theand, only unlike funding other toolaviation-related that maximizes fees this and kind taxes, of airportThepassengersupgrades PFC bear empowers to who themake burden don’t the those usebest of whotheupkeep decisions airport know and the forwill modernization. themost never airport about be asked while the toisFact:facilities paya tax PFCs forlevied to arehelpit. on local defray passengers. user the fees costs paid of only by staysFREEUsercritical feeslocal. MARKET local represent It control. never USER getsa better FEE passed BASEDway to to Washington, pay SOLUTION for infrastructure. D.C. The Thatlocaltobalancing pay isairport forthe it. themost needs, passenger’s fair infrastructure and equitable interests. investments, way The to PFC fund is itand collected - safety FACTMyth:passengersbuildingThe CHECK airport Passenger when infrastructure. they Facility use airport Charge (PFC) PFCUnder is thethis onlysystem, funding the people tool that who maximizes actually usethis the kind of passengersupgradeslocally and, to unlikewho make don’t other the usebest aviation-related the decisions airport forwill feesthe never airportand be taxes, asked while isFact:facilities a tax PFCs levied to arehelp on local defray passengers. user the fees costs paid of only by criticalFREEUserairport fees MARKET localbear represent thecontrol. burdenUSER a better FEE of upkeep BASEDway to andpay SOLUTION modernization.for infrastructure. tobalancingstays pay local. for it. the It never passenger’s gets passed interests. to Washington, The PFC is collectedD.C. The UnderThat is thisthe mostsystem, fair the and people equitable who wayactually to fund use it the - FACTMyth:passengersbuildingThe CHECK airport Passenger when infrastructure. they Facility use airport Charge (PFC) locallyPFC is theand, only unlike funding other toolaviation-related that maximizes fees this and kind taxes, of airportpassengers bear whothe burden don’t use of theupkeep airport and will modernization. never be asked isFact:facilities a tax PFCs levied to arehelp on local defray passengers. user the fees costs paid of only by staysFREEcriticalUser feeslocal. MARKET local represent It control. never USER getsa better FEE passed BASEDway to to Washington, pay SOLUTION for infrastructure. D.C. The Thatto pay is forthe it. most fair and equitable way to fund it - FACTpassengersbuilding CHECK airport when infrastructure. they use airport PFCUnder is thethis onlysystem, funding the people tool that who maximizes actually usethis the kind of Myth: The Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) passengers who don’t use the airport will never be asked isFact:facilities a tax PFCs levied to arehelp on local defray passengers. user the fees costs paid of only by FREEUsercriticalairport fees MARKET localbear represent thecontrol. burdenUSER a better FEE of upkeep BASEDway to andpay SOLUTION modernization.for infrastructure. to pay for it. buildingMyth: The airport Passenger infrastructure. Facility Charge (PFC) UnderThat is thisthe mostsystem, fair the and people equitable who wayactually to fund use it the - passengersMyth: The Passenger when they Facility use airport Charge (PFC) passengers who don’t use the airport will never be asked Fact:facilitiesis a tax PFCs levied to arehelp on local defray passengers. user the fees costs paid of only by UserFREEairport fees MARKET bear represent the burdenUSER a better FEE of upkeep BASEDway to andpay SOLUTION modernization.for infrastructure. to pay for it. UnderThat is thisthe mostsystem, fair the and people equitable who wayactually to fund use it the - passengersbuilding airport when infrastructure. they use airport Fact: PFCs are local user fees paid only by Userairportpassengers fees bear represent whothe burden don’t a better use of theupkeep way airport to andpay will modernization.for never infrastructure. be asked facilities to help defray the costs of passengers when they use airport UnderThatto pay is forthisthe it. mostsystem, fair the and people equitable who wayactually to fund use it the - buildingpassengers airport when infrastructure. they use airport airportpassengers bear whothe burden don’t use of theupkeep airport and will modernization. never be asked facilities to help defray the costs of Thatto pay is forthe it. most fair and equitable way to fund it - building airport infrastructure. passengers who don’t use the airport will never be asked to pay for it. EXHIBIT B7
THE VOICE OF AIRPORTS®
AMERICA’S AIRPORTS AIRLINE PROFITS SOAR AS AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE GOES UNFUNDED January 2019
As U.S. airlines rake in record profits, America’s airports AIRLINE BAG FEE AND ANCILLARY VS. PFC COLLECTIONS continue to fall behind without access to new capital to 2008 - 2017 make needed infrastructure investments. To meet the In Billions of Dollars ANCILLARY REVENUE capacity demands of the future with safe, efficient, and $16 2008 - 2017 $105.8 Billion modern facilities passengers and airport customers expect, we need to make long overdue investments to maintain and $12 modernize airports. >>
$8 PFC COLLECTIONS 2008 - 2017 $28.6 Billion $4
$0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
AIRLINE BAG FEE REVENUE PER PASSENGER HAS INCREASED AIRLINE ANCILLARY DOLLARS OUTPACE INFRASTRUCTURE DOLLARS BY TRIPLE
U.S. air carriers have collected more than $105.8 billion in ancillary revenue alone since 2008, compared to only $28.5 2004 2017 billion in PFCs collected by U.S. airports. That totals more than $77.2 billion more in bag and other fees than airports collected in PFCs. BAG FEES AND ANCILLARY REVENUE SKYROCKETS
Since 2004, airline revenue collected from bags and other fees Recent Airport Infrastructure Projects vs. Airline has increased 582 percent per passenger, from an average of $3.91 Infrastructure Investment per passenger to more than $22.75. These revenues go directly to Airline Airport Project airline coffers, bypassing airport infrastructure investment. Contribution
$21.6 million Eugene, OR $0 AIRLINE SUPPORT DOESN’T MEAN AIRLINE terminal expansion INVESTMENT $50 million Grand Rapids, MI $0 terminal rehab Despite airline rhetoric about airport infrastructure investment, airports still report nearly $130 billion in outstanding infrastructure $158.5 million Columbus, OH $200,000* needs through 2023. In most cases, “airline support” for airport runway projects investment is nothing more than a promise not to oppose a $374.8 million Dulles, VA $0 project or to continue to pay their same rent to operate at an new runway airport. The vast majority of projects referenced by airlines totals a $994.2 million New Orleans, LA $0 whopping zero dollars. new terminal
* The airlines paid $200,000 for LED runway lights that were ruled ineligible for the Airport Improvement Program. 26 EXHIBIT B8
Rand Report
Congressionally Mandated Report Calls for PFC Increase January 14, 2020
The Rand Corporation today released a congressionally mandated report that calls for raising the federal cap on Passenger Facility Charges to $7.50 for originating passengers and indexing it for inflation. The 215-page report on airport infrastructure funding and financing comes as AAAE and airports around the country continue to urge Congress to raise the PFC cap and take other steps to help airports build critical infrastructure projects.
The FAA reauthorization bill (H.R. 302), which Congress passed in late 2018, included a provision that required the Department of Transportation to enter into an agreement with an independent non-profit organization to conduct a "Future Aviation Infrastructure and Financing Study." The provision was aimed at having an independent third-party evaluate airport infrastructure needs and financial resources.
The FAA bill called on the organization to consult with representatives of all hub sizes and other aviation stakeholders to consider a long list of airport financing challenges such as the change in purchasing power of PFCs since 2000. It also required the organization to submit its findings and recommendations to DOT and key congressional committees. Some of the report's key recommendations are below.
Recommendations
PFC Cap: Authors of the report considered various PFC options including eliminating the cap. However, they settled on a proposal that calls for raising the cap to $7.50 for originating passengers only and indexing the cap for inflation. Th report suggests that $7.50 is approximately the same level the cap would be today if Congress had adjusted it for inflation since 2000 using the Producer Price Index for construction materials.
"Increasing the PFC cap above the current level of $4.50 would enable those airports that seek additional PFC revenue to initiate their approved projects sooner and pay them off more quickly, lowering costs," the report indicates. Larry Krauter, the CEO of Spokane International Airport; Joe Lopano the CEO of the Tampa Bay International Airport; Candace McGraw, the CEO of the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport; and numerous other airport officials made a similar point last year as lawmakers began debating a possible infrastructure bill.
Large and Medium Hub Entitlements: In exchange for raising the PFC cap to $7.50 for originating passengers and indexing it for inflation, the Rand Corporation calls for eliminating the remaining entitlements for large and medium hub airports that choose to raise their PFC above $4.50.
27
Primary Entitlements: Under current law, the AIP entitlement for primary airports doubles when Congress appropriates at least $3.2 billion for AIP in a fiscal year. The report recommends doing away with that doubled entitlement for primary airports. The organization suggests that airports should compete for larger amounts of AIP funding through discretionary grants instead.
Non-Primary Entitlements: Under current law, AIP entitlement for nonprimary airports is $150,000 when Congress appropriates at least $3.2 billion for AIP in a fiscal year. The Rand Corporation recommends eliminating the non-primary entitlement. The organization points out that $150,000 is "insufficient for major construction projects" and suggests that those smaller airports should similarly compete for AIP funding through discretionary grants.
Airport and Airway Trust Fund: The report indicates that the Airport and Airway Trust Fund had an uncommitted balance of $6.1 billion at the end of FY18. It also recommends establishing a "rainy day" fund of between $4 billion and $6 billion to accommodate sudden drops in revenue. However, it urges Congress to appropriate additional funding for aviation purposes.
Revenue Diversion: The report takes a hard stance against airport revenue diversion. It recommends that Congress phase out waivers for approximately a dozen grandfathered airports that are permitted to lawfully divert a limited amount of revenue every year. The organization also recommends that DOT consider withholding all DOT grants to grandfathered airports that exceed their revenue diversion limits instead of reducing or withholding AIP grants, which the FAA can do today.
Airline Ancillary Fees: For the past several years, AAAE has been making the case that airlines fees for checked baggage and some other ancillary charges are not being taxed at the same 7.5 percent as base airline tickets - a move that allows the airlines to avoid paying their fair share into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. By our calculations, the bag fee loophole alone has allowed airlines to avoid paying taxes on almost $43 billion in bag fees since 2008 and cost the Trust Fund more than $3.3 billion in forgone revenue.
We have been urging Congress and the administration to tax airline bag fees and other ancillary charges at 7.5 percent and use that revenue to fund airport infrastructure projects and other FAA needs. The Rand Corporation makes a somewhat similar - but not identical - recommendation. The organization suggests that bag fees and other ancillary charges should be included in the Domestic Passenger Ticket Tax, but in a revenue-neutral way. "However, Congress should not be collecting additional AATF revenue without a commitment to spend it...," the report states. "For this reason, we recommend that Congress ask the FAA to help determine the level of reduction in the Domestic Passenger Ticket Tax that would make the taxation of ancillary fees revenue-neutral."
28 TAB C
AIR SERVICE FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES
Conditional Code Sharing for Small Community Airports - Improving access to the National Airspace System (NAS) [Exhibit C1]
Air Service for Small Communities – Continue funding for the Small Community Air Service Development (SCASD) Program . Tuscaloosa receives grant to attract air service at Tuscaloosa National Airport [Exhibit C2]
ACI-NA U.S. Policy Council Adopts Resolution on Conditional Airline Code Sharing [Exhibit C3] . Existing statutory authorities and regulatory tools potentially available [Exhibit C3(a)] . U.S. Department of Transportation (Title 49 §40101) Aviation Policy [Exhibit C3(b)] . Factors Behind Small Airport Service Challenges [Exhibit C3(c)] . Air Service Challenges: Conclusion [Exhibit C3(d)] . Applying Conditionality to Small Airports and Access Issues [Exhibit C3(e)]
The State of U. S. Commercial Air Service at Year End 2018 (Delta Airport Consultants, Inc.) [Exhibit C4]
Economic Impact of Small Community Air Service in Alabama [Exhibit C5]
29 EXHIBIT C1
Conditional Code Sharing for Small Community Airports
A majority of consumers recognize the importance of airports to the community, yet even with widespread support only a small percentage of the population is aware that Airport Improvement Program (AIP) federal funds are spent at the local level. Even less realize that while Congress deregulated the airline industry in 1978- allowing airlines to set airfares based on market-conditions- community airports remain burdened with federal economic regulations and, for the most part, are powerless to address airlines airfare pricing in their community. However, Congress has recognized by authorizing the Small Community Air Service Development Program that some small community airports have been severely impacted by insufficient air carrier service, or unreasonably high airfares.
In addition to insufficient air carrier service and unreasonably high air fares, small airports have been and are being severely impacted by airline consolidations (mergers) and pilot shortage. All of these issues intertwined result in reduced or eliminated air service. Airport infrastructure and economic deregulation of airports is a community and economic development issue. Airports need the ability to maintain effective modern infrastructure, as well as attract competitive airfares to their community, in order to meet the needs of commerce, industry and the general public within their region.
Requested Action: Support the concept of applying conditional code sharing, to small and non-hub airports within the National Air Space (NAS) system that meet the criteria for a grant within the Small Community Air Service Development Program, as a condition of U.S. DOT/DOJ approval for regulatory actions related to an airline merger, immunized alliance, or any other federal action, where connection to individual markets could be established. This concept has the support of and endorsement by the Airports Council International (ACI-NA).
30 EXHIBIT C2
Tuscaloosa receives grant to attract air service at Tuscaloosa National Airport
By Angel Coker – Banking and Legal Reporter, Birmingham Business Journal Feb 28, 2020, 9:37am EST New air service could be coming to an Alabama airport with the help of a federal grant.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has awarded the City of Tuscaloosa a $750,000 grant from the Small Community Air Service Development Program. According to a press release, the city will use the grant as a minimum revenue guarantee for a potential air carrier and provide associated marketing support.
The city has been working to enhance air service capabilities in Druid City.
The Atlanta Business Chronicle previously reported that Tuscaloosa National Airport is planning to recruit a commercial airline, possibly Delta Air Lines or SkyWest Airlines, to launch service between Tuscaloosa and Atlanta.
“We will use this grant as another step to further our efforts with network carriers in providing scheduled air service to Tuscaloosa,” said Tuscaloosa National Airport manager Jeff Powell.
The Small Community Air Service Development Program distributed $12.2 million in grants to 18 communities in 18 states this year.
Tuscaloosa will provide supplemental support with a $300,000 match, with $150,000 coming from the City of Tuscaloosa and an additional $150,000 from community partners.
31 EXHIBIT C3
ACI-NA U.S. Policy Council Adopts Resolution on Conditional Airline Code Sharing February 2019 At its meeting on February 6, 2019, the U.S. Policy Council approved a resolution as recommended by the ACI-NA Small Airports Committee. Under the leadership of ACI-NA Small Airports committee Chair Terry Slaybaugh (Dayton), Vice-Chair Christina Callahan (Syracuse), and Board Liaison Monica Lombrana (El Paso), air service at small and non-hub U.S. airports continues to remain a top priority for the Small Airports Committee. In early 2018, the committee began exploring the concept of “conditional airline code- sharing” as a way for improving air service at certain small airports. After consultation with the ACI-NA Executive Committee, a study was commissioned this past summer for Scott Lewis, Attorney with Anderson & Kreiger LLP, and Dr. Steven Van Beek, Director and Head of North America Aviation at the Steer Group, to further explore the conditional airline code- sharing concept. The study’s findings and recommendations were presented at the Small Airports Committee meeting in Nashville, TN, last September. During the Nashville meeting, the full committee unanimously agreed to a resolution that requested the ACI-NA US Policy Council to: Further study/support the concept of applying conditional airline code sharing, to a group of select small and non-hub airports within the National Air Space (NAS) system where air service connectivity remain the most problematic, as a condition for US DOT/DOJ approval for regulatory actions related to an airline merger, immunized alliance, or any other federal action, where connection to individual markets could be established. The U.S. Policy Council approved the above resolution. This resolution has been shared with the Large Hub, Medium Hub and Air Service Committees for feedback in advance of the U.S. Policy Council’s approval, and each committee held a special call on this topic in late November to hear directly from the leaders of the Small Airports Committee Meeting.
See Exhibits C3(a) through C3€ for key information related to the study referenced above.
32 EXHIBIT C3(a)
There are existing statutory authorities and regulatory tools potentially available
The Secretary and DOT’s attention to these issues has been limited to two programs, which while well intentioned, have had limited system-wide effects on addressing air service challenges. Both programs have heretofore untapped legal authorities to encourage interlining and joint-fare arrangements to help address air service challenges.
Essential Air Service (49 USC 41744): (a) In General.— If the Secretary of Transportation determines that extraordinary circumstances jeopardize the reliable performance of essential air service under this subchapter from a subsidized essential air service community to and from an essential airport facility, the Secretary may require an air carrier that has more than 60 percent of the total annual enplanements at the essential airport facility to take action to enable another air carrier to provide reliable essential air service to that community. Actions required by the Secretary under this subsection may include interline agreements, ground services, subleasing of gates, and the provision of any other service or facility necessary for the performance of satisfactory essential air service to that community. SCASDP statute (49 USC 41743): (f)Additional Action.— Under the program established under subsection (a), the Secretary shall work with air carriers providing service to participating communities and major air carriers (as defined in section 41716(a)(2)) serving large hub airports to facilitate joint-fare arrangements consistent with normal industry practice.
| Small Community Air Service: The Challenges, Trends and Policy Options 2
33 EXHIBIT C3(b)
U.S. Department of Transportation (Title 49 §40101) Aviation Policy
The Secretary of DOT has been assigned numerous goals with respect to the economic regulation of air transportation. By their nature, they require balancing and a variety of actions to address the goals. Several of these are directed toward small community air service and airline competition:
(a) Economic Regulation.—In carrying out subpart II of this part and those provisions of subpart IV applicable in carrying out subpart II, the Secretary of Transportation shall consider the following matters, among others, as being in the public interest and consistent with public convenience and necessity: (4) the availability of a variety of adequate, economic, efficient, and low-priced services without unreasonable discrimination or unfair or deceptive practices. (6) placing maximum reliance on competitive market forces and on actual and potential competition (7) developing and maintaining a sound regulatory system that is responsive to the needs of the public and in (8) encouraging air transportation at major urban areas through secondary or satellite airports if consistent with regional airport plans of regional and local authorities, and if endorsed by appropriate State authorities (10) avoiding unreasonable industry concentration, excessive market domination, monopoly powers, and other conditions that would tend to allow at least one air carrier or foreign air carrier unreasonably to increase prices, reduce services, or exclude competition in air transportation.
| Small Community Air Service: The Challenges, Trends and Policy Options 2
34 Exhibit C3(b) continued U.S. Department of Transportation (Title 49 §40101) Aviation Policy
The Secretary of DOT has been assigned numerous goals with respect to the economic regulation of air transportation. By their nature, they require balancing and a variety of actions to address the goals. Several of these are directed toward small community air service and airline competition:
(11) maintaining a complete and convenient system of continuous scheduled interstate air transportation for small communities and isolated areas with direct financial assistance from the United States Government when appropriate. (12) encouraging, developing, and maintaining an air transportation system relying on actual and potential competition— • (a) to provide efficiency, innovation, and low prices; and • (b) to decide on the variety and quality of, and determine prices for, air transportation services. (13) encouraging entry into air transportation markets by new and existing air carriers and the continued strengthening of small air carriers to ensure a more effective and competitive airline industry. (16) ensuring that consumers in all regions of the United States, including those in small communities and rural and remote areas, have access to affordable, regularly scheduled air service
* Addressing these goals requires balancing measures in an industry that continues to evolve *
| Small Community Air Service: The Challenges, Trends and Policy Options
35 EXHIBIT C3(c)
Factors Behind Small Airport Services Challenges
Airports have focused on several industry trends that are placing pressure on small community air service:
• Pilot Shortage, exacerbated by 1500 hour rule • Accelerated retirement, and lack of production, of 50-seat RJs and other metal • Fuel prices (recently low but up 50% in last six months) • Scope clauses (< 86,000lb MTOW) • Legacy airlines focus on flying from, and feeding, their gateway hubs
There has been less focus on airline business models and the effects policy has had on air service:
• Mergers and Consolidation • Consolidation of traffic into gateways and hubs Focus • Growth of ULCCs • Decline of secondary hubs and access points for “spokes”
These are the principal factors behind the loss of connectivity.
| Small Community Air Service: The Challenges, Trends and Policy Options
36 EXHIBIT C3(d) Air Service Challenges: Conclusion
The Problem: • Air service to most small communities has declined over the last decade, with reductions in seat capacity and even greater reductions in frequencies. The majority of the lost air service consists of connections to a now reduced number of network carrier hubs. • The introduction and growth of ULCC service into many markets has brought welcome air service to many destination markets. ULCC aircraft are generally larger and have helped to offset overall capacity reductions. • Reduction of frequency of regional jet operations into small communities continues to challenge air service in many markets. • Taken together, however, represent not only a net loss of air service to the vast majority of markets, but also a loss of connectivity to network hubs and markets beyond. • Additional risks include an industry contraction, higher fuel prices and reduced competition—all of which would exacerbate these challenges.
Forecast of Smaller Aircraft: • Over the next several years, the continuing reduction, leading to the elimination of all 50-seat RJs in the next 10-15 years, will severely challenge many smaller communities. • Given that there are no current industry plans to manufacture RJs with less than 70 seats, there is a need to find business and policy strategies to stimulate more sustainable passenger demand so that service to smaller communities remains viable.
| Small Community Air Service: The Challenges, Trends and Policy Options
37 EXHIBIT C3(e) Applying Conditionality to Small Airports and Access Issues
1. Background: Commercial airlines seek approval to merge and form immunized alliances notwithstanding the competitive issues they raise. While DOT and the EC have approved many of these actions, they have placed conditions on them that the airlines agree to in order to obtain approvals. 2. Competition: With airport infrastructure limited at many of the most important global hubs, it is understandable that policymakers want to ensure competition between hubs and beyond/behind hubs—to connecting airports. The EC is especially vigilant. 3. Small Airports: As with ensuring a competitive industry, the U.S. DOT has affirmative goals to protect and promote NAS access for small communities. But, unlike with competition, U.S. DOT has not taken measures to protect small community air service when approving airline mergers, codeshares and alliance immunization. 4. Conditionality: While airlines dislike the practice, they accept conditions as a price for obtaining approvals for mergers, immunized alliances and codeshares they want. Properly applied, small airport considerations could be addressed through conditions that do not undermine airlines’ business goals. 5. SPAs and Provisos: These pricing and seat inventory practices are accepted by IATA and used by airlines and regulators in the industry today. Together with “at least as favorable” requirements, they offer a possible framework for mandatory codesharing.
| Small Community Air Service: The Challenges, Trends and Policy Options
38 EXHIBIT C4
The State of U.S. Commercial Air Service At Year End 2019 39 EXHIBIT C4 continued 40
Note: All changes are 2019 versus 2014 except for Connectivity, which is 2018 v. 2014. An Uneven Recovery In Connectivity Has Occurred Non-Hub Airports Finally See An Uptick EXHIBIT C4 continued
LARGE HUBS AVERAGE ACQI MEDIUM HUBS AVERAGE ACQI 360 135
350 Recovery began in 2009 130 340 125 Recovery began in 2012 330 120
320 115
310 110 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
SMALL HUBS AVERAGE ACQI NON - HUBS AVERAGE ACQI 55 15.0 52 Recovery began in 2015 14.5 Minor uptick in 2014, but 49 now lower than 2010 14.0 46
43 13.5 41 40 13.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Source: Delta Airport Consultants update of MIT Airport Connectivity Quality Index (ACQI). EXHIBIT C4 Competition Is Keen; Remaining Markets continued Without Nonstop Service Are Small • Today’s legislators will point to the fact that the average number of competitors per city pair – with the exception of the top 500 city pairs – is in decline as a result of consolidation • Considering the degree of consolidation that has taken place, the decline in the average number of nonstop competitors is less than 1 • The top 2,000 city pairs in the Year 2000 accounted for 80 percent of domestic traffic; the top 4,000 accounted for 90 percent (in 2000, 51,151 city pairs reported traffic) • Three-quarters of the Top 2,000 domestic city pairs had nonstop service • The top 2,000 city pairs in 2019 account for 81 percent of domestic traffic; the top 4,000 city pairs accounted for 91 percent (in 2019, 46,383 city pairs reported traffic) • Over 94 percent of the Top 2,000 domestic city pairs have nonstop service today
42 • The question is where are the new growth opportunities particularly as aircraft seating configurations only get larger and unserved market sizes are getting smaller EXHIBIT C4 Along The Way, 37 Small Community Airports continued No Longer Have Commercial Service
Number of Airports With Commercial Service
S t a t u s Q u o Rationalization Capacity Discipline Capacity Regeneration 2004 - 2006 2007 - 2009 2010 - 2014 2015 - 2019
332 334 329 325 327 321 321 318 318 316 317 315 Peak 309 302 299 297 Trough 43
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2 0 1 1 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: 48 contiguous states only. EXHIBIT C4 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS continued
• The report card makes clear that it is the largest markets today that appear to be a safe dot on tomorrow’s map • Whereas 2018 was the year of the Medium Hub, 2019 has to be the year of the Small Hub airport • From their low point in terms of seats serving Small Hub airports in 2015, seats deployed have increased 29.2 percent since and average seating capacity is nearly 100 seats meaning that Small Hubs are again receiving more mainline service • Exciting for this group of airports is the new aircraft technology that is upon us. The A220 and the A321XLR will likely make new international service offerings available over the coming decade • The ULCCs are growing are more than 5 times the rate of the network and LCC’s • More than 94% of the 2,000 top city pairs in the US are served on a nonstop basis.
44 That is up from 75% two decades ago. The US domestic market remains hyper- competitive EXHIBIT C5 The Economic Impact of Small Community Airports in Alabama
Air Service at Small Community Airports: Three issues threaten small community airports — If left unresolved, all will lose frequency and vital Provides the necessary link to the nation’s economy access and 150-200 airports could fall off the grid
Increases the community’s An inadequate pilot supply economic output by adding jobs 1 and helping to bring in visitors
Improves efficiency for local 2 A trend toward larger aircraft by businesses the U.S. airline industry
Helps create business ties globally Airports are restricted on using their 3 revenue to enhance air service Is critical to a small community’s tourism/visitor profile
41K $ $1.1B $3.6B
45 EXHIBIT C5 continued
In 2015, the economic impact of small community air service is conservatively estimated at $121B — supporting over 1.1m jobs
1.1 M $ $36.1 B $121.5 B
46 EXHIBIT C5-continued
C4 There are over 350 small communities in the U.S. that currently receive air service
Number of Small Airports / Share of Activity in the Region
CENTRAL MOUNTAIN NORTHEAST/ MID 51 / 26% ATLANTIC 45 / 24% GREAT LAKES PACIFIC 68 / 22% 49 / 18% 38 / 13%
SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST 66 / 24% 38 / 15%
Source: Innovata Schedules, August 2016 47 Note: Departures EXHIBIT C5 continued
What is a small community?
Seat departures 350+ 64 Daily departures Small Communities Small Hubs Small Hubs 2,400 Small Hubs 220k NON Hubs 1,500 NON Hubs 91k 105 186 EAS EAS 290 EAS 7k NON Hubs
Average seats/departure Share of Small Hubs departures 43% Small Hubs 91 EAS
NON Hubs 60 with 70 seats 99% NON Hubs EAS 24 or less 75%
Small Hubs Average distance to EAS 125 miles medium or large hub 198 miles NON Hubs 146 miles
48 TAB D
REGULATORY RELIEF AND EMPOWERMENT
Support SB-2898 relating to staffing at FAA Contract Towers [See TAB A, Exhibit A1]
Establish a Pilot/Program Demonstration Project Granting Greater Flexibility to Airports through Economic Deregulation [Exhibit D1]
Oppose HR-5423 – the Aircraft Noise Reduction Act [Exhibit D2]
PFAS – Immunity for Airports from Liability for Use of FAA-mandated Aqueous Film Forming Foam (“AFFF”) [Exhibit D3]
Additional Detailed ACA Recommendations related to Regulatory Relief and Empowerment [Exhibit D4]
ACRP Report 90 entitled, “Impact of Regulatory Compliance Costs of Small Airports”, identifying a total of 291 federal actions issued from 2000 – 2010 resulting in net compliance costs for the small airport industry in excess of $700 million. [Exhibit D5]
Reassess the substantial reduction of eligible AIP/PFC project costs resulting from FAA Order 5100.38D, AIP Handbook, dated 9/30/2014.
49 EEXHIBIT D1XHIBIT D1
ESTABLISH A PILOT/PROGRAM DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Granting Greater Flexibility to Airports through Economic Deregulation
The FAA currently provides for less than 25% of the funding for airport capital improvements on an annual basis, but yet controls 100% of the airport's activity. The FAA does not provide airports with general fund dollars, but rather all airport funding comes from users of the airport/aviation system, the FAA merely handles these funds for redistribution to airports based on an archaic formula system. The FAA would serve the airport/aviation community better by allowing airports to set rates, fees, and charges, including the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) based on individual airport needs and solely at the local level without any FAA interference.
Airports face redundancy and overly burdensome compliance and regulations: The 20-page Grant Assurance document that Sponsors (airports) “must” accept in conjunction with accepting an Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grant currently requires airports to comply with over 56 different Federal Regulations, Executive Orders, and Federal Legislation. The majority of the Grant Assurance provisions are an overreach by the FAA to control airport activities for a small grant contribution. In addition, Public sponsors have more stringent requirements than Private Sponsors. Sponsors must also meet the requirements of a 691 page FAA Compliance Manual, a 318 page AIP Handbook, and a 183 page PFC Order, which are just a few examples that further support the fact that the FAA overregulates airports.
Requested Action: It is requested that a pilot program be established where a limited number of small community airports that meet the criteria for a grant within the Small Community Air Service Development Program shall be deregulated economically, similar to airline deregulation in 1978, in order to achieve greater flexibility for small airports to meet the specific air service development needs of their local community. This would allow the selected small airports the ability to spend local airport revenues, without Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) limitations, to implement programs and policies at the local level which could enhance air service for their community. The FAA should have no say in the leases, business practices or fund usage of an airport so long as the funds are used for the betterment of the airport, aviation system, or air service in their community, and there is no diversion of revenue for a non-airport related purpose. This would also demonstrate that airport deregulation would be a successful solution for airports to address their own issues such as reduced air service and high fares via proof of concept.
50 EXHIBIT D2
H.R.5423 - Aircraft Noise Reduction Act 116th Congress (2019-2020) | Get alerts
Sponsor: Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2] (Introduced 12/12/2019) Committees: House - Transportation and Infrastructure Latest Action: House - 12/13/2019 Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation. (All Actions) Tracker: Introduced Passed House Passed Senate To President Became Law
Summary (0) Text (1) Actions (3) Titles (2) Amendments(0) Cosponsors(7) Committees (1) Related Bills (0)
There is one version of the bill.
Text available as: XML/HTML XML/HTML (new window) TXT PDF (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) ?
Shown Here: Introduced in House (12/12/2019)
116ඍඁ CONGRESS 1ඌඍ Sൾඌඌංඈඇ H. R. 5423
To amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize owners or operators of general aviation airports to impose certain restrictions relating to noise, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Dൾർൾආൻൾඋ 12, 2019 Mr. Nൾඎඌൾ (for himself, Ms. Nඈඋඍඈඇ, Mr. Sඎඈඓඓං, Mr. Kඁൺඇඇൺ, Mr. Lඒඇർඁ, and Mr. Sඁൾඋආൺඇ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
A BILL To amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize owners or operators of general aviation airports to impose certain restrictions relating to noise, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “Aircraft Noise Reduction Act”. SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS TO RESTRICT FLIGHTS FOR PURPOSES OF IMPLEMENTING NOISE LIMITATIONS. (a) Iඇ Gൾඇൾඋൺඅ.—Subchapter II of chapter 475 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
51 EXHIBIT D2 continued “§ 47535.Authority of general aviation airports to restrict flights for purposes of implementing noise limitations “(a) Iඇ Gൾඇൾඋൺඅ.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, for purposes of implementing noise limitations, the owner or operator of a general aviation airport is authorized to restrict the number and type of aircraft operations for compensation or hire occurring at the airport, including flights originating or landing at the airport, and the dates and times of such operations. “(b) Cඈආආඎඇංඍඒ Iඇඉඎඍ.—In exercising authority under subsection (a), an owner or operator of a general aviation airport shall take into account input received from individuals or entities in communities surrounding the airport. “(c) Fൾൽൾඋൺඅ Fඎඇൽංඇ.—No Federal funds, including a grant under this chapter, may be withheld from, withdrawn from, or denied to a general aviation airport based solely on an exercise of authority by the owner or operator of the airport under subsection (a). “(d) Eආൾඋൾඇർංൾඌ.—The Secretary of Transportation may restrict the authority of an owner or operator of a general aviation airport under subsection (a) as necessary in the case of an emergency. “(e) Dൾൿංඇංඍංඈඇ Oൿ Gൾඇൾඋൺඅ Aඏංൺඍංඈඇ Aංඋඉඈඋඍ.—In this section, the term ‘general aviation airport’ has the meaning given such term in section 47102 of title 49, United States Code.”. (b) Aඇൺඅඒඌංඌ.—The analysis for subchapter II of chapter 475 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“47535. Authority of general aviation airports to restrict flights for purposes of implementing noise limitations.”.
52 EXHIBIT D2 continued
53 EXHIBIT D2 continued
54 EXHIBIT D3
H.R.535 - PFAS Action Act of 2019 116th Congress (2019-2020) | Get alerts
Sponsor: Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-12] (Introduced 01/14/2019) Committees: House - Energy and Commerce; Transportation and Infrastructure | Senate - Environment and Public Works Committee Meetings: 05/15/19 10:30AM Committee Reports: H. Rept. 116-364 Latest Action: Senate - 01/13/2020 Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (All Actions) Roll Call Votes: There have been 5 roll call votes Tracker: Introduced Passed House Passed Senate To President Became Law
Summary (3) Text(4) Actions (102) Titles (4) Amendments (21) Cosponsors (66) Committees (3) Related Bills (1)
There are 3 summaries for H.R.535. Passed House (01/10/2020)
Bill summaries are authored by CRS.
Shown Here: Passed House (01/10/2020) PFAS Action Act of 2019 This bill revises several environmental laws and requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly referred to as PFAS. These substances are man-made and may have adverse human health effects. A variety of products contain the compounds, such as nonstick cookware or weatherproof clothing. (Sec. 2) The bill designates certain PFAS as hazardous substances, thereby requiring remediation of releases of those PFAS into the environment. Within five years, the EPA must determine whether the remaining PFAS should be designated as hazardous substances, individually or in groups. The bill exempts public agencies or private owners of public airports that receive federal funding from liability for remediation of certain releases of PFAS into the environment resulting from the use of aqueous film forming foam. (Sec. 3) The EPA must require that comprehensive toxicity testing be conducted on all PFAS. These rules shall require the development of information by any person who manufactures, processes, or intends to manufacture or process PFAS. The bill also provides guidelines for the development of these rules, including the methodologies and protocols to be used. The bill revises when any PFAS may be exempt from testing or information submission and requires the EPA to publish a list of all exempt PFAS. (Sec. 4) Currently, unless requirements for an exemption are met, persons planning to manufacture a chemical substance not listed on the EPA’s inventory list or manufacture or process a chemical substance for a significant new use must comply with certain notification requirements. The bill prohibits PFAS from being exempted from these requirements. For five years, the EPA shall prohibit the manufacture, processing, and distribution of PFAS not listed on the EPA’s inventory list or the manufacture or processing of PFAS for a significant new use. (Sec. 5) The bill requires the EPA to promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for certain PFAS. The EPA must publish a health advisory for PFAS not subject to a national primary drinking water regulation. (Sec. 6) The bill prohibits the EPA from imposing financial penalties for the first five years for a violation of a national primary drinking water regulation with respect to PFAS.
55 EXHIBIT D3 continued
(Sec. 7) The EPA must establish a grant program to assist community water systems with the costs associated with treating water contaminated by PFAS. (Sec. 8) In relation to the regulation of toxic air pollutants, the EPA must (1) issue a final rule adding certain PFAS to the list of hazardous air pollutants, and (2) revise the list of air pollution sources within 365 days after issuing the rule to include categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of PFAS. Within five years, the EPA must determine whether to issue a final rule adding the remaining PFAS to the list of hazardous air pollutants. (Sec. 9) The EPA must regulate the disposal procedures for materials containing PFAS or aqueous film forming foam. For criminal penalty purposes, materials containing PFAS shall be considered hazardous waste. (Sec. 10) The bill requires the EPA to (1) revise the Safer Choice Standard of the Safer Choice Program to identify the requirements that specified products (e.g., cooking utensils) must meet in order to be labeled with a Safer Choice label, including a requirement that any such product does not contain PFAS; or (2) establish a voluntary label available for use by any manufacturer of any specified product that the EPA has reviewed and found does not contain any PFAS. The Safer Choice Program helps consumers and businesses find products with safer chemical ingredients through Safer Choice labels. (Sec. 11) The EPA must issue guidance on minimizing the use by first responders of firefighting foam and other related equipment containing any PFAS, without jeopardizing firefighting efforts. (Sec. 12) The EPA must investigate methods to prevent contamination by specified PFAS of surface waters, including those used for drinking water. (Sec. 13) The bill requires an owner or operator of an industrial source that introduces PFAS into treatment works (systems that treat municipal sewage or industrial wastes) to provide specified notices to such treatment works, including the identity and quantity of such PFAS. (Sec. 14) The EPA must establish a website containing specified information relating to the testing of household well water, including a list of certified laboratories that analyze samples. (Sec. 15) The EPA must develop a risk-communication strategy to inform the public about the hazards of PFAS. (Sec. 16) The bill authorizes the drinking water state revolving fund program to provide assistance to the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam to address emerging contaminants, with a focus on PFAS. (Sec. 17) Finally, based on results of biennial reviews related to the discharge of PFAS from point sources that are not publicly owned treatment works, the EPA shall, for certain measureable PFAS, add the PFAS to the list of toxic pollutants, or establish effluent limitations and pretreatment standards. Within two years of the enactment of this bill, the EPA must publish human health water quality criteria for certain PFAS. The EPA shall award grants to owners and operators of publicly owned treatment works to help implement the pretreatment standards for PFAS developed by the EPA.
56 EXHIBIT D3 continued
House Passes Modified PFAS Bill That Includes Airport Liability Exemption January 10, 2020
The House today passed an updated version of a bill to regulate PFAS that includes a liability exemption for airports that are required by federal regulation to use firefighting foam that contains so-called "forever chemicals." Lawmakers passed the bill on a vote of 247 to 159 after considering nearly two dozen amendments over the past two days. Despite House passage of the bill today, the measure is highly unlikely to progress further due to strong opposition in the Senate and at the White House.
The PFAS Action Act (H.R. 535) would require EPA to designate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous materials under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) within one year. The bill would also call on the agency to consider designating other PFAS as hazardous materials within five years.
The House Rules Committee, during consideration of the measure earlier this week, adopted a manager's amendment from House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) to add CERCLA liability protection for airports. AAAE worked closely with committee leaders to include an airport liability exemption in the bill. With PFAS-related issues remaining in the spotlight in Washington, we will remain engaged on Capitol Hill and with policymakers to make the point that airports should not be held liable since they are required by federal regulation to use firefighting foam that contains PFAS and have no approved alternatives.
Rep. Dingell Discusses Airport Liability Exemption
During debate last night, Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI), who introduced H.R. 535 and sponsored the CERCLA provision in the House-passed defense authorization bill last year, pointed to the airport liability exemption as a key aspect of the PFAS Action Act.
Dingell urged her colleagues to defeat an amendment offered by Rep. Michael Burgess (R- TX) that would have removed the section of the bill that directs the EPA to designate PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA. That section also includes the airport liability exemption, which Dingell said should stay in the bill.
"The only change this bill makes in how Superfund operates is a limited exemption for federally required use of PFAS at airports," Dingell said. She continued, "If this amendment were adopted, airports would lose that exemption. And if EPA eventually moves forward with listing PFOA and PFAS, as they have committed to do, EPA is not authorized to exempt
57 EXHIBIT D3 continued airports. Only Congress can do that. So the airports need this amendment defeated, and they need this bill enacted." Lawmakers defeated the amendment on a vote of 161 to 247.
Adopted Amendments
During consideration of the PFAS Action Act on Thursday evening and Friday, the House approved the following amendments, all of which were adopted on a voice vote:
Building Code Inspectors/Fire Marshalls: Lawmakers approved a bipartisan amendment from Reps. Rob Woodall (R-GA) and Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA) to ensure that FAA, state and local building code inspectors and fire marshals are at the guidance-making table. "This will result in a broader collaborative dialogue that includes the risks posed by the use of foam suppression systems in aviation hangars," according to a summary of the amendment.
Firefighting Foam Alternatives: The House adopted an amendment from Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) to require EPA, in consultation with other relevant government agencies, to report to Congress on efforts to identify viable alternatives to firefighting foam and other related equipment containing PFAS.
Clean Air Act Designation: Lawmakers approved a bipartisan amendment to require the EPA, within 180 days, to issue a final rule listing PFOS and PFOA as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The proposal would also ensure that EPA has access to the needed science before making regulatory decisions on other PFAS chemicals to harmonize with other CERCLA provisions in the legislation, according to an amendment summary.
EPA Communications: House members adopted an amendment offered by Rep. Anthony Brown (D-MD) to require the EPA to develop a national risk-communication strategy to inform the public about the hazards of PFAS.
EPA Study: The House approved an amendment from Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI) to require, within five years, a study of EPA actions under CERCLA to clean up PFAS contamination sites.
Infrastructure Grant Program: Lawmakers approved an amendment from Rep. Cindy Axne (D-IA) to authorize the PFAS Infrastructure Grant Program for an additional three years.
58 EXHIBIT D4
ADDITIONAL DETAILED ACA RECOMMENDATIONS Related to Regulatory Relief and Empowerment
U.S. Airports should not be over-regulated by the Federal Government/Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as they are today. Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants, on average, amount to less than 25% of airports’ capital spending and less than 9% of their total annual revenue, yet the FAA looks to control 100% of an airport’s activity. No business in their right mind would give-up this type of control in their company for an investment of 25%, and airports should not be required to do so either. Airports are local owned and controlled and as such should be in full control of their development and operation, with FAA regulations applying only to the related development, and operation and maintenance of the airfield (movement areas) to ensure that airfield standards and safety are met.
The FAA does not provide airports with general fund dollars, but rather all airport funding comes from users of the airport/aviation system, the FAA merely handles these funds for redistribution to airports based on an archaic formula system. The FAA would serve the airport/aviation community better by allowing airports to set rates, fees, and charges, including the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) based on individual airport needs and solely at the local level without any FAA interference.
The 20-page Grant Assurance document that Sponsors (airports) “must” accept in conjunction with accepting an Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grant currently requires airports to comply with over 56 different Federal Regulations, Executive Orders, and Federal Legislation. The majority of the Grant Assurance provisions are an overreach by the FAA to control airport activities for a small grant contribution. In addition, Public sponsors have more stringent requirements than Private Sponsors, which makes no sense. Sponsors must also meet the requirements of a 691 page FAA Compliance Manual, a 318 page AIP Handbook, and a 183 page PFC Order, which are just a few examples that further support the fact that the FAA over-regulates airports.
Although FAA states that the purpose of its Airports Compliance Program is to “protect the public interest in civil aviation,” more often than not it is used by airport tenants or would-be tenants to promote their own parochial business interests rather than the public interest, whether seeking to keep out competition, gain an advantage over a competitor, or gain leverage in lease negotiations with the airport.
The White House and Congress should direct FAA TSA, and CBP to reduce, eliminate, and not add to burdens imposed on airports, and to pay particular attention to easing burdens imposed on smaller airports, which have fewer resources to comply with federal mandates. A guiding principle should be to examine statutory mandates and roll back regulations to meet the requirement of the statute and not extend the agency's reach beyond those requirements.
59 EXHIBIT D4 continued Key Premise for FAA Regulatory Reform
FAA’s role in regulating airports should be re-focused on its primary function of protecting the public: oversight of airfield/airspace standards and safety, as well as airport-related air traffic control functions. The agency should not stray from this core competency.
FAA should be directed to take effective measures to re-orient its airport compliance program to carry out its stated purpose and focus only on protecting important federal interests that concern the public welfare, rather than scrutinizing the details of airport operators’ business decisions.
Moreover, FAA should ensure consistency in the application of standards nationwide by adopting and promoting the least burdensome interpretation of FAA requirements across the board, and educating and directing its regional and local airports offices to implement those less burdensome interpretations.
We recommend the Administration take the following steps to reduce regulatory burdens on airports now and in the future.
Specific ACA Recommendations for Consideration
1. Air Service Incentives A key component of airports’ public responsibility is to encourage and facilitate convenient air service to the community’s desired destinations, and foster price and service competition. With the four largest airlines now controlling 85 percent of the air service market, FAA should revise its restrictions on how airports may induce airlines to increase air service. FAA should allow airports more flexibility in designing, implementing, and participating in incentive programs to foster more air service to their communities. Airports should be allowed to use airport revenues to provide revenue guarantees to air carriers. FAA considers this to be revenue diversion, stating that it would provide regional economic benefits, not benefits to the airport. However, the fundamental purpose of an air carrier airport is to provide air service. FAA allows airports to hire consultants to seek out carriers to provide air service. This is based on the premise that obtaining air service is a legitimate goal of airports. The same reasoning applies to revenue guarantees, which have proven to be an effective means of inducing air service.
FAA should allow greater flexibility in the extent to which airports may be involved in developing incentives without imposing AIP-based limitations on such incentive programs, e.g., they cannot be limited to one carrier, even if selected by a fair process (e.g., an RFP process)
ACA Recommendation: FAA should allow airports to use airport revenues to provide revenue guarantees to air carriers and greater flexibility to develop incentives without imposing AIP-based limitations on such incentive programs, e.g., they cannot be limited to one carrier, even if selected by a fair process (e.g., an RFP process). Airports should
60 EXHIBIT D4 continued
also be allowed to (1) specify the air service schedule, competitive pricing or equipment that would qualify flights for incentives in order to meet the community's needs, (2) provide a robust menu of start-up services and facilities to new entrant or expanding income air carriers, and (3) provide vouchers for airport-related services as incentives for passengers to use the new service.
2. Airport Rates and Charges Airports must comply with a detailed rates and charges policy that includes 68 separate subsections – not including 12 that the DC Circuit Court invalidated in 1997 and which DOT has yet to rewrite. Airports believe that rates and charges should be fundamentally deregulated, except for those provisions that protect against the diversion of airport revenue and grant assurances against unjust discrimination. Airports, like other organizations that manage infrastructure and offer their facilities at a price to users, are in the best position to set pricing regimes in order to pay for the costs of establishing and maintaining their facilities. And because all revenues are kept "on the airport," all the incentives go toward fair pricing for the use of facilities, services and access to the market served by the airport.
Such de-regulation would, for example, help airports construct new gates in anticipation of new entrant or low-fare carriers wanting to provide service at their facility; under the present policy, airports cannot charge for projects under construction in anticipation of new air service (only airports officially deemed congested and under specific conditions are allowed to do so).
ACA Recommendation: Allow greater flexibility in establishing rates and charges by an airport, to include:
▪ Permit airports to utilize free market value principles in establishing rates and charges. These same fair market principles are imposed on airports in all other areas of airport business practices such as leases, land disposal, concessions, etc. If this broad, simple, and fair provision is not adopted, then at least allow airports to:
o Modify historic cost to adjust for value of land and/or replacement costs.
o Allow for pre-funding of projects consistent with ICAO principles.
o Permit airports to vary charges during peak, non-peak and seasonal periods, to incentivize more traffic and improve utilization of infrastructure.
3. Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Reforms Eliminate the statutory cap for Origin and Destination (O&D) passengers, on the level of PFC that may be imposed by an airport (Legislative Change) Eliminate the additional “significant contribution” standard for review of PFCs above $3.00. This is outdated and will serve no useful purpose. (Legislative change) Extend the streamlined PFC process for imposing and using PFCs from non-hub airports
61 EXHIBIT D4 continued
to all hub sizes. PFC streamlining for non-hubs has been a successful initiative that should be replicated for other hub sizes. It reduces time and paperwork and frees up FAA and airport resources. (Legislative Change)
Interpret the PFC statute more generously to allow greater PFC funding of projects such as airport terminals. Currently, excessive FAA and airport staff and consultants’ time must be devoted to extremely detailed analysis of PFC eligibility, for instance whether various portions of terminals are eligible or ineligible for PFC funding. This serves no compelling federal interest.
ACA Recommendation: FAA should identify all existing restrictions on the use of local PFC revenue and provide a plan and timelines for eliminating all regulations not directly related to preventing unjust discrimination or revenue diversion. This includes expanding the eligibility requirements to match the requirements for the use of other locally- generated airport revenue.
4. Construction Reforms The Administration should allow airports to promote early completion and savings for critical federally-funded airport projects by employing contractual provisions, such as incentive payments and more efficient project delivery methods that have worked in the private sector and in other federal transportation grant programs.
Reducing the time it takes to complete airport infrastructure projects can help minimize disruptions that negatively impact airlines, passengers, and other airport customers. In addition, completing projects early would be particularly helpful to airports in northern tier states with short construction cycles.
5. Airport Contracts and Leases FAA should have no say in the business leases of an airport. Two grant assurances should generally cover what is needed here and they are that such leases cannot be discriminatory and that an airport must strive to be self-sustaining. Getting FAA in the middle of reviewing airport leases for which they have no expertise is burdensome, counterproductive, and impedes an airport from conducting its business in a way that best serves their airport and community.
6. Airport Business Practices FAA should have no say in any business practices of an airport. Again, two grant assurances should generally cover what is needed here and they are that such leases cannot be discriminatory and that an airport must strive to be self-sustaining.
62 EXHIBIT D4 continued 7. Revenue Use Policy FAA should have no say how an airport uses its funds so long as the airport is using such funds for the betterment of the airport, aviation system, or air service in their community, and there is no diversion of revenue for a non-airport related purpose. Essentially the only oversight by FAA here should be related to revenue diversion. Revenue Diversion should be defined only as a use of funds for an activity that is not related in some form or fashion to supporting the development (capital infrastructure and air service), operation, and maintenance of the airport.
8. Federal, State, and Local Agencies Use of Airport Space Require that all Federal, State, and Local Agencies must pay for land or space used on an airport, with the exception of navigational equipment required on an airfield.
9. Development/Construction of Non-Airfield Facilities Make it explicit that FAA has no role in the approval of non-airfield (i.e. non-movement areas) improvements. The only requirements for buildings, roadways, non-movement areas, etc. should be that they comply with local building codes and best practices. FAA should not be involved in terminal, roadways, hangars, and other commercial building development, with the exception of the filing of a 7460 like all other non-airport property construction projects.
10. FAA Compliance Manual The FAA Compliance Manual, a 691 page document that is far over-reaching in its requirements of airports. This document should be reviewed with an airport industry-working group to eliminate unnecessary and burdensome requirements.
11. Requiring Rigorous Analysis of Potential Regulations The federal government’s regulatory reach over airports should be smaller, and the government should not impose additional regulatory burdens that are a drag on local, state, and regional economies.
In implementing the Executive Order on reducing regulatory burdens, the Administration should limit FAA regulation only to those areas in which there is truly a national interest and require the FAA to use a full notice/comment rule-making process before imposing new burdens or restrictions on airports. This includes public notice and opportunity for comment.
63 EXHIBIT D5
SUMMARY Impact of Regulatory Compliance Costs on Small Airports
Conclusions
The Cost of Compliance with Federal Requirements Continues to Grow
A total of 291 federal actions related to FAA/DOT, environmental, security, and occupational safety and health requirements were issued from 2000 to 2010. Many new requirements add continuing costs to airports by specifying periodic updates, inspections, monitoring, etc. The cost continues to grow. The FAA has an ongoing process to maintain and update all advisory circulars on a regular basis. The revisions may result in additional costs on airports as the FAA seeks to reduce the risk of accidents and incidents. The FAA is currently developing requirements for safety management systems and environmental management systems that will likely add new costs for airports. The FAA is also moving toward requiring the use of Geospatial Information System (GIS) data to support airport surveys and development of approach procedures and electronic airport layout plans. Full implementation of this requirement will also result in additional costs on airports.
64 EXHIBIT D5 Table ES-8. Net recurring costsof themost costly federal requirements continued for the small airport industry.
Industry Non·airport Funding2 Industry Net Recurring Recurring nk 1 Requirerrent Costs Percentage Arrount Costs
Vehi::leOperationsArea, Enforoomentaru inAircraft O::>ntrol Operations $29,191,000 46% $13,345,060 $15,845,940
2 Vehi::leOperationsArea. Emergency Operations inAircraft Operations $12,229,000 1% $101,633 $12,127,367 Requirements for Useof Geospatial 3 lnformati::>n S stem(GIS) Tochng ues $5,642,000 0% $0 $5,642,000 Part t39Aircraft Rescue &Firefighting 4 (ARFF) Requirements. Newo/ Certifi::i.ted $3,278,000 13% $427,565 $2,850,435 Airports Vehi::leOperations inAircraft Operations 5 Area. Vehda Aooess $3,040,000 3% $S5,ffl3 $2,954,407
6 Vehi::leOperationsArea, Vehi::e lnseocti::>n inAircraft aruMark Operations!i!ij $3,013,000 0% $0 $3,013,000 Mobile Refueler. Material andEquipment 7 Replacement $2,635,000 Notreported $0 $336,ff!B B PartCertificate t39ARFF Hol:lers Requirements, Existim $2,558,000 13% $2,221,402 9 R2,1uirements for Airtel:! Signs $2,449,000 2% $58,310 $2,J;I0,000 AbovEgrouru Storage Tanks, Material 10 $2,108,000 Not reported $0 $2,108,000 aruEquipment Replaooment Disadvantaged Business Enterprise II (DBE) Requirements for AIP,Furued $1,773,000 5% $95,781 $1,687,219 Pro·octs 12 Oooupational Health &Safety Trainiri; $1,218,000 Not reported $0 $1,218,000 13 Wil:llife Hazard Ferci R uilQments $1,166,000 93% $1,094,844 $91,156 Pesti::i::le Applicators. Material and 14 EguiementReelacement $1,116,000 Not reported $0 $1,116,000 Personal P10tective Clothing, Annual 15 Cost $171,000 Notreported $0 $971,000 Vehi::leOperations inAircraft Operations 16 Area, Driver Trainign Curri::ulum $967,000 8% $67,314 $799,686 17 Aiq rt lruustrial Waste R2,1uiiements $670,000 0% $0 $670,000
18 CertificatePerimeter Hol:lersFeri::ing for Part 139. Existing $516,000 0% $0 $516,000 19 ModWedARFF Traini R2,1uiiements $401,000 0% $0 $401,000
al O::>noossionsDBERequirements for Airport $396,000 6% $21,952 $374,048 Total $75,237,000 21% $15,614,648 $56,987,352 ' Rankbased on Table E.S,'.J. 2 Unlassotherwise noted non.federal funding issumof ieported FAA funding andother funding rour03s.
Table ES-9. Summary of net compliance cost for the small airport industry.
Estimated Non-airport Industry TotalCost Payrrents lletCost Conpliance Category ($ Millions)' ($Millionsf ($ Millions( FAA/DOT $1,4ff!.5 $165.7 $493.8 S€Cur y $610.8 $417.6 $193.2 Environmantal !00.2 $57.6 $32.6 Occupati:)nal Safety aruHealth W.7 $24 $93 Total Corrpliance Costs $2,172.2 $1,443.4 $728.8
I nclude i1aialand iecurring :om where applCAb . 2 lumn totalsmaynotadd updue toaunding.
65 EXHIBIT D5 continued
Environmental regulations are also reviewed periodically to evaluate options that streamline requirements and update outdated practices. For example, prior to 2002, the SPCC regulations had not been updated since 1990. In some cases, the amended regulations minimized the regulatory cost for small airports (i.e., exemptions for underground storage tanks and containers with capacities less than 55 gallons), whereas other changes resulted in increased regulatory costs (e.g., integrity testing and plan updates). In the security area, the TSA has reduced the funding to airports through the law enforcement officer (LEO) support program. The reduced TSA assistance means airports are shouldering a higher share of supplying required law enforcement presence at or near screening checkpoints. In addition, airports have reported an increase in the number and complexity of TSA reviews and audits. These review and audit activities require full participation of airport staff during the audit itself and following the audit to respond to reports and recommendations.
Small Airports Do Not Have the Revenue-Generating Capacity to Meet the Costs of Expanding Requirements
For many small airports, low levels of passenger enplanements and/or operations limit their ability to raise revenue to meet the cost of new requirements. Because of low traffic levels and limited tenant operations, the airports have little leverage with airlines to increase fees and charges to cover new compliance costs. Therefore, the additional costs reduce the operating margin (if any) that airports generate and ultimately reduce the airport’s cash reserves. This situation is particularly important because small airports are typically subject to the same or similar requirements as larger airports with greater revenue-generating capacity. For example, a new $500,000 requirement would cost a small airport with 20,000 passengers $25 per passenger. That same requirement at an airport with 2 million passengers would cost only 25 cents per passenger. Although two of the case study airports operate industrial parks or multimodal transportation centers that provide supplemental revenue to help defray the costs of compliance, most small airports do not have such ancillary revenue sources.
Published Cost Estimates for Regulatory Requirements Understate the Full Compliance Costs
There are two major causes for the understatement of costs by regulatory agencies. First, agencies published cost estimates for only a small portion of the federal requirements identified in the study. Many requirements are adopted without an estimate of cost. In general, only formal rulemaking documents may be subject to a requirement for a cost analysis. For example, only six of the 140 requirements adopted by the FAA were formal regulatory documents. The FAA typically adopts ACs, PGLs, CertAlerts, and other guidance documents without analyzing compliance costs, even when the guidance is effectively binding on airports. Similarly out of 81 security requirements adopted during the study period, only two were formal regulatory documents. Even when formal rulemaking is employed, unless the requirement will meet minimum cost levels, or will have a significant impact on small entities, a detailed estimate of costs is not required. Only two of the six FAA regulatory documents issued during the study period included a full analysis of compliance costs. Fourteen of the 39 environmental requirements included
66 EXHIBIT D5 continued specific cost projections. Additionally, in many cases, regulatory actions had multiple components. Costs may be projected separately for each component, and some rules may include combinations of components with cost reductions and increases. Second, based on the survey results, cost estimates published by agencies often understate the results of airports’ actual experience. For example, the FAA’s projections of the cost of compliance with the 2004 amendments to Part 139 were lower than the initial and recurring costs reported by existing certificate holders and lower than the initial costs reported by newly certificated carriers. Estimated costs from the economic analysis for Phase I environmental site assessments (ESAs) ranged from $2,185 to $2,190. The results of industry experience with preparing an ESA for airports and related properties range from $5,000 to $9,000.
The Cost of Compliance with Unfunded Federal Requirements Continues to Grow
The 291 federal requirements identified in this study (with limited exceptions) either added to or expanded upon existing requirements. Airports must absorb at least some of the costs of these requirements and, in many cases, must absorb the full costs.
FAA/DOT Requirements
Only those FAA requirements that involve capital development may be eligible for federal AIP funding. Requirements that affect airport operations, administration, or maintenance are ineligible for AIP funds. For example, one of the case study airports with a substantial runway safety area project reported receiving only a 50 percent contribution from the FAA, even when statutory federal share was 95 percent. DOT has no independent funding programs available for airports. Moreover, AIP eligibility does not guarantee funding. Even when AIP funding is available, airports must pay a local matching share. This matching share recently increased from 5 to 10 percent of eligible project costs. Also, use of AIP funds to comply with federal requirements reduces the amount of funds available for actual project implementation. Finally, the level of AIP funding has not kept pace with increases in federal requirements. AIP funding was essentially flat from FY 2008 through FY 2011 at approximately $3.5 billion. AIP funding decreased in FY 2012 by approximately $200 million and will remain at this level through FY 2015. PFCs are available to help pay for compliance costs associated with eligible capital projects. However, like AIP funds, PFCs cannot be used for operational costs. In addition, the PFC ceiling has not been raised since 2001. The only source of increased PFC revenue since that time has been through increased passenger traffic. Since 2007, the year before the last recession started, passenger traffic at small hub and non-hub airports has declined by 8 percent and 3 percent, respectively. In short, PFC revenue opportunities for small airports have declined while compliance requirements have increased.
Environmental Requirements
Funding to comply solely with environmental requirements is even more limited. There is no distinct federal program (comparable to AIP) for general environmental compliance. ACRP
67 EXHIBIT D5 continued Synthesis of Airport Practice 24: Strategies and Financing Opportunities for Airport Environmental Programs (2011) provides a comprehensive list of federal and state funding sources for environmental initiatives. However, in many cases, funds are provided only for voluntary initiatives, not for mandatory compliance actions. In some cases, AIP funds associated with other projects may be used to fund a portion of the environmental mitigation measures necessary for the project or for projects needed to comply with air and water quality requirements. However, the limitations discussed above apply.
Security Requirements
TSA and AIP funds have been provided for projects to comply with security requirements. As with FAA requirements, the issues of local matching requirements and limits on annual appropriations also arise. Moreover, small airports may not receive the same priority for funding as larger airports with perceived greater security concerns. In addition, Congress has prohibited the use of AIP grants for screening projects since 2003. Federal funding is not available for operational and administrative costs, which have been growing. For example, TSA has increased its monitoring, auditing and investigation activities, with a corresponding increase in costs to airports. The LEO support program provides reimbursement to participating airports for LEO staffing at screening checkpoints. However, airports report the costs of meeting TSA requirements for program funding are substantial. In addition, TSA has been reducing its share of costs reimbursed.
Occupational Safety and Health Requirements
OSHA does not have direct jurisdiction over airports. In these circumstances, there is no direct federal support for occupational safety and health compliance. When airport contractors reflect OSHA compliance costs in their bids, AIP funding could be available, but with the limitations noted previously. However, OSHA requirements may be implemented through states or included in voluntary programs. During the study period, 21 compliance actions were adopted by OSHA, without federal funding.
The Limited Staff Resources of Small Airports Exacerbate the Costs of Compliance with Federal Requirements, Especially for Non-hub Airports
Non-hub airports, in particular, have limited staff available to satisfy new compliance requirements. For example, the three non-hub airports included in the case studies average 10 full- time employees for all administrative and operational functions. Moreover, the limited revenue opportunities available preclude hiring additional staff or contracting out for assistance with compliance requirements. Small airport staff members are responsible for a variety of duties from performing administrative, maintenance, and operational tasks to understanding, planning, implementing, and enforcing regulatory requirements. When a new requirement is added, existing staff must assume responsibility for compliance. In addition, management cannot readily reassign existing duties to other employees to compensate for the added effort of meeting the new requirement. For example, one non-hub airport manager stated that the primary cost-driver for compliance with the FAA’s
68 EXHIBIT D5 continued new airfield signage requirements was not the installation of the signs themselves but the ongoing costs of maintaining visibility. In the summer, additional staff time is required to mow around signs. In the winter, additional time is required to keep signs clear of snow. Furthermore, because non-hub airports typically have limited staff with so many duties, as highlighted by the case studies, airport staff do not always have the time or expertise to understand all the requirements the airport is subject to, especially new ones. The lack of expertise and limited available time could increase the risk of inadvertent non-compliance. Small hub airports generally have greater staff resources, but more complex operational and administrative requirements, than non-hub airports. Even with larger staff, department heads and line personnel are still more likely to be generalists than specialists. As with nonhub airports, small hub airports have comparable impediments to raising revenue to pay for specialized expertise (through staff or contractors) needed to understand and implement new compliance requirements as they are adopted.
The Prohibition on Charging Rent to the TSA Costs Small Airports Substantial Revenue
Airports are prohibited from charging rent to the TSA for the use of passenger and baggage screening space. For the case study airports, the lost revenue ranged from $46,000 to $350,000. For airports with TSA space funded by AIP grants, this prohibition would not have an impact, because the grant assurances would prohibit a charge. Airports are permitted to charge for utilities and janitorial services for screening space, but most airports do not seem to be aware of this policy and do not exercise the privilege.
The Recent Trend of Applying Uniform Standards to All Airports Results in a Disproportionate Responsibility on Small Airports
The FAA, in particular, has in recent years moved toward applying uniform requirements for all airports. The FAA has determined that there are benefits for the safety and efficiency of the aviation system when airports adopt uniform practices and procedures. However, when the FAA has adopted uniform requirements, the requirements tended to reflect the operations and airfield design of large airports. Therefore, small airports are paying added costs to develop plans and procedures that may be excessive to their needs. Small airports are concerned that the FAA will continue this practice when it implements requirements for safety management systems and environmental management systems.
Strategies
Additional Research
The research indicated that airports and agencies use a variety of methods to estimate current and projected cost impacts of regulations. The development of a standardized methodology for projecting costs was beyond the scope of this research. Additional research to develop standard procedures for cost projections and calculations could improve projections of cost impacts of regulatory actions and could be useful to airport operators in developing capital and operating budgets. A single approach, however, may not be suitable for all federal agencies and all regulatory actions. There did not appear to be a relationship between compliance costs and two measures of activity—enplanements and commercial operations. The small number of responses to individual questions may have contributed to this outcome, but the outcome also could be attributed to the various approaches airports take to achieve compliance. Also, anecdotal information suggests compliance costs do not depend on enplanement or operations, as some small airports report
69 EXHIBIT D5 continued compliance costs comparable to large airports. Additional research focused on determining whether statistically significant correlations exist between cost and activity level or other variables (e.g., airport size) would be useful. If such correlations do exist, the correlations could be used by small airports to estimate their cost of compliance, without the need to implement costly and complex accounting systems.
Options to Limit Exposure to Unfunded Requirements in the Future
In the research undertaken in this study, including the case studies, a number of options were identified that could help limit small airports’ exposure to unfunded requirements in the future. Most of the options, however, are not within the airports’ control (and are outside the scope of this study); they would require action by government agencies and regulators— for example, increased funding, changes to policy or procedures to account for differences in the size and complexity of airports, or changes to policy or procedures that would estimate compliance costs more frequently and improve the accuracy and reliability of agency cost projections. Two options identified that are within the airports’ control are as follows:
• Consider engaging federal, state, and local regulators during the regulatory comment period. Increased participation by small airports during this period could include providing comments in narrative form and/or submitting cost data. • Provide public comment responses when agencies issue ACs, policy statements, PGLs, and related documents in draft form. The public comment process provides airports a chance to inform agencies of the cost impact of new proposals.
To assist small airports with engaging regulators, local officials, legislators at all levels, and other stakeholders, a presentation template, located on the ACRP Report 90 summary page of the TRB website (www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/168945.aspx) and included with notes as Appendix D, summarizes the information on the compliance requirements issued between 2000 and 2010 and their overall industry impact. The template can be modified to provide tailored information regarding the requirements applied to individual airports as well as the cost to the small airport industry.
70 TAB E
AVIATION IN ALABAMA
Unfunded Alabama Airports Infrastructure Needs [Exhibit E1]
Unmanned Aerial Systems Pilot Program [Exhibit E2]
Alabama’s Airports are Terminal Challenged (ACI-NA) [Exhibit E3]
General Aviation Caucus [Exhibit E4]
Army Aviation Caucus [Exhibit E5]
Maps of Airports in Alabama [Exhibit E6]
Alabama AIP Funding and Economic Impact [Exhibit E7]
71 EXHIBIT E1
ALABAMA AIRPORT SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING PROPOSAL March 3, 2020
ALABAMA AIRPORT SYSTEM – 81 airports • Commercial Service Airports - 6 • General Aviation Airports – 75
NEEDS—-based on ALDOT Aeronautics Bureau (ALDOT-AB) and ACI-NA data: • Annual State Airport System Funding Needs (based upon FAA ACIP and ALDOT-AB ACIP) - $116,000,000 • Of this $116,000,000 there is $47,000,000 in Airport Pavement Funding Needs Alone
STATE RESOURCES • State Grant Funds - ALDOT-AB State Grant Funds* $ 2,650,000 *Generated primarily from aviation fuel taxes - ADECA Grant Funds* *1st time funding FY20 $ 1,200,000 $ 3,850,000 • Total FAA Federal AIP Grant Funds: Alabama receives approximately $56 million in AIP funds annually. (5-year range - $70m - $45m) - State Apportionment* $ 3,000,000 *Final determination by FAA - General Aviation Entitlements 10,000,000 - Commercial Service Airport Entitlements 15,000,000 - Discretionary 28,000,000 $56,000,000 $59,850,000 • State funds needed to match $56 million in AIP grants - $3,100,000 • Mississippi State Grant Program - $5 Million • North Carolina State Grant Program - $30 Million for GA + $75 Million for Commercial Service • Wyoming State Grant Program $15 Million for Commercial Air Service Development • Economic Impact Study - Phase 1 – Alabama Commercial Service Airports/Dr. Keivan Deravi, March 2020 - Phase 2 – All Airports/ALDOT Department of Aeronautics, Fall of 2020
AIRPORT FUNDING PROPOSAL • Create the “Alabama Airport Improvement Program,” to be funded in the amount of $25 million each fiscal year for the following purposes: (1) fund capital improvements, (2) pay debt service for capital improvements, or (3) fund efforts to grow and expand commercial air service in Alabama. • Provide $10 million to general aviation airports, to be distributed as determined by ALDOT-AB • Provide $15 million to commercial service airports to be allocated among commercial service airports based on each airport’s pro rata share of entitlement funds received by the airport under the federal Airport Improvement Program for the preceding fiscal year.
72 EXHIBIT E2 Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Airspace Hazard Mitigation FAA Reform Act of 2018 In the FAA Reform Act of 2018, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for UAS Security in the National Air Space (NAS) with coordination from states, political authorities, Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The FAA effectively oversees the management of Counter UAS Systems within the United States including territories and possessions by: • Outreach to DOD for equipment and to state and local authorities for guidance on law enforcement and first responders to enhance their effectiveness • Website established for resources to be used by local authorities • Establish requirements for the remote identification of UAS operated in the airspace of the United States.
Airport Safety and Hazard Mitigation The FAA shall work with DHS to ensure that technologies that are used for UAS mitigation do not adversely impact or interfere with safe airport operations, navigation, air traffic services, or the national air space. The FAA shall develop a plan to authorize, permit, and certify UAS mitigation systems and charter an Aviation Rulemaking Committee to provide recommendations on the matter. The FAA shall test UAS mitigation technology at five airports through year 2023. These activities are exempt from laws that previously restrict such activity like the Aircraft Sabotage Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, and the Wiretap Act. Pilot Project for Airport Safety and Airspace Hazard Mitigation. FAA Reform Act of 2018 - Section 364. U.S. Counter-UAS system review of interagency coordination processes This section requires the FAA, in consultation with government agencies authorized to operate counter-unmanned aircraft system (C-UAS) systems, to review interagency coordination, standards for the authorized Federal use of these systems and to report to Congress. FAA Reform Act of 2018 - Section 365. Cooperation related to certain counter-UAS technology This section requires the DOT to consult with the DOD on matters related to the deployment of C-UAS systems in the NAS. FAA Reform Act of 2018 - Section 372. Enforcement This section directs the FAA to establish a five-year pilot program to utilize available remote detection or identification technologies for safety oversight, including enforcement actions against operators of UAS that are not in compliance with applicable Federal aviation laws, including regulations. This section also directs the FAA to establish and publicize a mechanism for the public and Federal, State, and local law enforcement to report suspected unlawful operations of UAS and requires annual reporting to Congress. Finally, this section adds Chapter 448, as added by this Act, to the civil penalty regime under title 49 of U.S. Code.
73 EXHIBIT E3
Alabama’s Airports are Terminally Challenged U.S. Airport Infrastructure Needs Near $130 Billion
Just like airports across the country, Alabama’s While passenger and cargo traffic through airport airports face unprecedented infrastructure facilities continues to grow at a record pace, our outdated aviation infrastructure is not keeping up challenges that threaten their ability to remain with demand. As a result, far too many airports competitive and globally connected. around the country are overcrowded and cramped. America’s airports require more than $128 billion in infrastructure upgrades by 2023.
5 Commercial Service Airports Airport Needs by Project
31,000 At nearly 56 percent, terminal projects account Jobs Created and Sustained for the largest share of infrastructure needs of all airports for 2019 through 2023. Such projects are $1.2 Billion needed to accommodate more passengers and Local Payroll Supported larger aircraft, implement new security requirements, facilitate increased competition among airlines, and $3.4 Billion enhance the passenger experience. Total Economic Output
Infrastructure Needs of Alabama Airports $738 Million 2019 - 2023
Job Creation Potential 16,000 Jobs
Maxed Out Airports
When the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) user fee is maxed out, airports aren’t able to fund needed Addressing the Infrastructure Funding infrastructure projects that help the airport keep Shortfall for All U.S. Airports pace with growth in passenger and cargo volume. With America’s airports facing more than $128 billion ALABAMA AIRPORTS PFC CONSTRAINED UNTIL in new infrastructure needs across the system and a debt burden of $91.6 billion from past projects, it is time to find the means to rebuild our nation’s Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International ...... 2031 aviation infrastructure and improve the passenger Huntsville International ...... 2030 experience for millions of travelers. Montgomery Regional ...... 2027 Modestly adjusting the outdated federal cap on Northwest Alabama Regional...... 2027 local PFCs would allow airports to take control of their own investment decisions and become more financially self-sufficient. Airports could build the appropriate facilities like terminals, gates, baggage systems, security checkpoints, roadways, and runways – to meet the travel demands and customer expectations of their community. Learn more at airportscouncil.org >> 74 EXHIBIT E4
75 EXHIBIT E5
ARMY AVIATION CAUCUS Mission: To create a forum where Members, staff, and Army leaders can bring awareness and support to the Army Aviation Sector. Approach: Members of the Caucus will work together to strengthen the Army Aviation sector. The Caucus will hold Member and staff briefings with key Army Aviation offices to provide detailed insight into the capabilities and needs. Upcoming work for the Army Aviation Caucus includes ensuring that Congress stays focused on military assets and to make certain that those assets are reset on returning from the field. Additionally, the Caucus will work to continue funding for the new armed scout helicopter and carry on funding the modernization of our fleet and the Joint Multi-Role helicopter.
76 EXHIBIT E6
!:�:�NER SUMNER & CANNON, INC, c�a.,,t[P$ .,,.i:,..r-rccas ,...,.,, ... cq• Bw:sc�•,oi.cu,, .... ,1o•,:t �u1>"',:"o"• . "IC:""''r."
2020 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 77 EXHIBIT E7
ALABAMA STATEWIDE AIRPORT SYSTEM
Alabama airports are significant generators of revenues, wages and jobs for the state. Not only do the airports themselves generate economic benefits, but also many other non-aviation employers who rely on the Alabama airport system to support their daily business activities contribute to building the State’s economy. Therefore, continue investment in the Alabama airport system is critical for the foundation of our economy.
The investment made in Alabama’s airport system has built the safest, strongest and most efficient transportation network in history. It provides for both airline and general aviation users while supporting defense, homeland security, postal and cargo delivery, emergency medical transportation and disaster relief. The support from Alabama’s Congressional delegation is essential to not only maintain the current aviation system in Alabama but to make the necessary improvements to provide these critical services in the future.
A study conducted by the Alabama Department of Transportation concluded that every dollar invested in the Alabama airport system returned a total of $163 to the state’s economy. Congressional Employment Payroll Economic The study also found District Impact Impact Impact that General Aviation 1 12,364 $374,058,900 $869,722,900 Airports are used 2 21,839 $592,457,600 $1,737,541,700 directly by 3 410 $12,072,600 $41,958,300 companies who 4 328 $7,286,800 $30,038,600 employ 1 out of 5 15,240 $259,958,700 $665,686,300 every 3 people 6 168 $3,564,600 $12,483,600 working in Alabama. 7 22,788 $504,406,000 $1,333,308,600
78 ALABAMA STATEWIDE AIRPORT SYSTEM CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 1 CONGRESSMAN BRADLEY BYRNE
Alabama airports are significant generators of revenues, wages and jobs for the state. Not only do the airports themselves generate economic benefits, but also many other non-aviation employers who rely on the Alabama airport system to support their daily business activities contribute to building the State’s economy. Therefore, continue investment in the Alabama airport system is critical for the foundation of our economy.
The investment made in airports located in Alabama’s Congressional District 1 has built the safest, strongest and most efficient transportation network in history. It provides for both airline and general aviation users while supporting defense, homeland security, postal and cargo delivery, emergency medical transportation and disaster relief. The support from Alabama’s Congressional delegation is essential to not only maintain the current aviation system in Alabama but to make the necessary Employment Impacts improvements to provide these critical services in the future. 12,364 District 1
A study conducted by the Alabama Airport System 73,139 Department of Transportation concluded that every dollar invested in the Alabama 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 airport system returned a total of $163 to Jobs the state’s economy. The study also found that General Aviation Airports are used directly by companies who employ 1 out of Total Economic Output every 3 people working in Alabama. $870 Million District 1
Airport System $4.7 Billion
$0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 Billions
79 ALABAMA STATEWIDE AIRPORT SYSTEM CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 2 CONGRESSWOMAN MARTHA ROBY
Alabama airports are significant generators of revenues, wages and jobs for the state. Not only do the airports themselves generate economic benefits, but also many other non-aviation employers who rely on the Alabama airport system to support their daily business activities contribute to building the State’s economy. Therefore, continue investment in the Alabama airport system is critical for the foundation of our economy.
The investment made in airports located in Alabama’s Congressional District 2 has built the safest, strongest and most efficient transportation network in history. It provides for both airline and general aviation users while supporting defense, homeland security, postal and cargo delivery, emergency medical transportation and disaster relief. The support from Alabama’s Congressional delegation is essential to not only maintain the current aviation system in Alabama but to make the necessary improvements to provide these critical services in the future. Employment Impacts
A study conducted by the Alabama 21,839 Department of Transportation concluded District 2 that every dollar invested in the Alabama Airport System 73,139 airport system returned a total of $163 to 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 the state’s economy. The study also Jobs found that General Aviation Airports are used directly by companies who employ 1 Total Economic Output out of every 3 people working in $1.7 Billion Alabama. District 2 $4.7 Billion Airport System
$0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 Billions
80 ALABAMA STATEWIDE AIRPORT SYSTEM CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 3 CONGRESSMAN MIKE ROGERS
Alabama airports are significant generators of revenues, wages and jobs for the state. Not only do the airports themselves generate economic benefits, but also many other non-aviation employers who rely on the Alabama airport system to support their daily business activities contribute to building the State’s economy. Therefore, continue investment in the Alabama airport system is critical for the foundation of our economy.
The investment made in airports located in Alabama’s Congressional District 3 has built the safest, strongest and most efficient transportation network in history. It provides for general aviation users while supporting defense, homeland security, postal and cargo delivery, emergency medical transportation and disaster relief. The support from Alabama’s Congressional delegation is essential to not only maintain the current aviation system in Alabama but to make the necessary improvements to provide these critical Employment Impacts services in the future. 410 A study conducted by the Alabama District 3 Department of Transportation concluded Airport System 73,139 that every dollar invested in the
Alabama airport system returned a total 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 of $163 to the state’s economy. The study also found that General Aviation Airports are used directly by companies Total Economic Output who employ 1 out of every 3 people working in Alabama. $42 Million District 3 Airport System $4.7 Billion
$0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0
81 ALABAMA STATEWIDE AIRPORT SYSTEM CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 4 CONGRESSMAN ROBERT ADERHOLT
Alabama airports are significant generators of revenues, wages and jobs for the state. Not only do the airports themselves generate economic benefits, but also many other non-aviation employers who rely on the Alabama airport system to support their daily business activities contribute to building the State’s economy. Therefore, continue investment in the Alabama airport system is critical for the foundation of our economy.
The investment made in airports located in Alabama’s Congressional District 4 has built the safest, strongest and most efficient transportation network in history. It provides for general aviation users while supporting defense, homeland security, postal and cargo delivery, emergency medical transportation and disaster relief. The support from Alabama’s Congressional delegation is essential to not only maintain the current aviation system in Alabama but to make the necessary improvements to provide these critical services in the future. Employment Impacts A study conducted by the Alabama Department of Transportation concluded 328 District 4 that every dollar invested in the Alabama 73,139 airport system returned a total of $163 to Airport System the state’s economy. The study also found 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 that General Aviation Airports are used Jobs directly by companies who employ 1 out of Total Economic Output every 3 people working in Alabama.
$30 Million District 4 Airport System $4.7 Billion
Billions
82 ALABAMA STATEWIDE AIRPORT SYSTEM CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 5 CONGRESSMAN MO BROOKS
Alabama airports are significant generators of revenues, wages and jobs for the state. Not only do the airports themselves generate economic benefits, but also many other non- aviation employers who rely on the Alabama airport system to support their daily business activities contribute to building the State’s economy. Therefore, continue investment in the Alabama airport system is critical for the foundation of our economy.
The investment made in airports located in Alabama’s Congressional District 5 has built the safest, strongest and most efficient transportation network in history. It provides for both airline and general aviation users while supporting defense, homeland security, postal and cargo delivery, emergency medical transportation and disaster relief. The support from Alabama’s Congressional delegation is essential to not only maintain the current aviation system in Alabama but to make the Employment Impacts necessary improvements to provide these critical services in the future. 15,240 District 5 A study conducted by the Alabama Department of Transportation Airport System 73,139 concluded that every dollar invested in the Alabama airport system returned a 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 total of $163 to the state’s economy. Jobs The study also found that General Total Economic Output Aviation Airports are used directly by companies who employ 1 out of every 3 people working in Alabama. $665.7 Million District 5 Airport System $4.7 Billion
$0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 Billions
83 ALABAMA STATEWIDE AIRPORT SYSTEM CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 6 CONGRESSMAN GARY PALMER
Alabama airports are significant generators of revenues, wages and jobs for the state. Not only do the airports themselves generate economic benefits, but also many other non-aviation employers who rely on the Alabama airport system to support their daily business activities contribute to building the State’s economy. Therefore, continue investment in the Alabama airport system is critical for the foundation of our economy.
The investment made in airports located in Alabama’s Congressional District 6 has built the safest, strongest and most efficient transportation network in history. It provides for general aviation users while supporting defense, homeland security, postal and cargo delivery, emergency medical transportation and disaster relief. The support from Alabama’s Congressional delegation is essential to not only maintain the current aviation system in Alabama but to make the necessary improvements to provide these critical Employment Impacts services in the future.
168 A study conducted by the Alabama District 6 Department of Transportation concluded Airport System that every dollar invested in the Alabama 73,139 airport system returned a total of $163 to the state’s economy. The study also 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 found that General Aviation Airports are Jobs used directly by companies who employ 1 out of every 3 people working in Total Economic Output Alabama.
District 6 $12.5 Million
Airport System $4.7 Billion
$0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0
Billions
84 ALABAMA STATEWIDE AIRPORT SYSTEM CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 7 CONGRESSWOMEN TERRI SEWELL
Alabama airports are significant generators of revenues, wages and jobs for the state. Not only do the airports themselves generate economic benefits, but also many other non-aviation employers who rely on the Alabama airport system to support their daily business activities contribute to building the State’s economy. Therefore, continue investment in the Alabama airport system is critical for the foundation of our economy.
The investment made in airports located in Alabama’s Congressional District 7 has built the safest, strongest and most efficient transportation network in history. It provides for both airline and general aviation users while supporting defense, homeland security, postal and cargo delivery, emergency medical transportation and disaster relief. The support from Alabama’s Congressional delegation is essential to not only maintain the current aviation system in Alabama but to make the necessary Employment Impacts improvements to provide these critical services in the future. 22,788 District 7
A study conducted by the Alabama Airport System 73,139 Department of Transportation concluded that every dollar invested in the Alabama 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 airport system returned a total of $163 Jobs to the state’s economy. The study also found that General Aviation Airports are Total Economic Output used directly by companies who employ 1 out of every 3 people working in $1.3 Billion Alabama. District 7 Airport System $4.7 Billion
$0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0
Billions
85