Environment, Energy and Transportation Program

The State Role in American Aviation Policy

28-page document

October 1998

Transportation Series No. 9

By James B. Reed and Janet B. Goehring

Summary
Introduction
Federal Aviation Role
Airport Development
Safety Regulation
Security in Airports and on Flights
Role of State Government in Aviation
Airport Development
Airport Land Use Compatibility and Noise
Aviation Safety
Flying While Intoxicated
Finance Trends in Aviation
State Block Grants
Privatization
State Revolving Funds
Changes in Technology
Air Traffic control
Airline Service
Rural Air Service
Conclusion
References
Appendix A
Appendix B

Summary

Turbulent times in the aviation industry have focused public attention on aviation issues as the 1990s come to a close. The airline industry has enjoyed record numbers of passengers for the past few years, but several airliner crashes, as well as strikes by various airline employee groups have created anxiety among the flying public. In addition, concerns about ticket pricing, rapidly changing technology, Year 2000 computer problems, system congestion, air traffic control improvements, service to rural areas and potential reorganization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) contribute to an atmosphere of concern among policymakers at the federal, state and local levels. Aviation will be on the agenda of the 106th Congress as it closely examines federal aviation policy, grapples with a multi-year reauthorization of FAA and decides how much aviation funding is necessary.

Government aviation policy is made at the federal, state and local levels and is driven by concerns for safety, transportation efficiency and economic growth. Primary federal responsibility lies with the Federal Aviation Administration that manages air traffic control systems, performs research and development in airspace safety, allocates aviation grants and implements environmental programs.

State legislatures play a key role in funding and directing aviation activities in the states. State governments operate airports, conduct statewide aviation planning, license aircraft and airports, and deal with land use and other environmental issues. The state role is pivotal for safety, development, planning and coordination of access to airports. In addition, an increasing number of states are specifically defining the economic benefits of airports and airline service. Recent state legislation has dealt with airport development and financing, land access to airports, compatibility issues and noise mitigation. Ongoing state-federal issues include state block grants, privatization, revolving loan funds, technological advances, improved air traffic control systems, essential airline service, pricing and competition. Legislatures are developing focused aviation policies that identify state interests in air transportation and are urging the federal government to give states more funding and greater flexibility for state aviation activities. Moreover, the national economic boom has given states an opportunity to invest in aviation infrastructure.

Introduction

Air transportation affects everyone-whether one is flying for business or pleasure, using products shipped by air or flying recreationally. The expanding U.S. economy-along with continuing national population growth-necessitate the movement of more people and freight by air every year, while protecting quality of life and not compromising safety in areas near airports. This is a monumental challenge for policymakers at all levels of government. Public concerns related to air safety, airport development and expansion, new technology, airline service, and noise are the focus of aviation decision makers at the federal, state, regional and local levels.

Air travel trails only travel by motor vehicles in terms of miles logged and passengers carried. Planes carry nearly 600 million passengers yearly, and dozens of airlines fly to and from the 540 airports that support commercial service. In all, more than 18,000 airports exist in the United States alone, 5,500 of which are available for public use. By the year 2008, the FAA estimates that airlines will carry 1 billion passengers. This number does not account for general aviation passengers who fly on small private planes on an unscheduled basis.

Governmental aviation policy is made at the federal, state and local levels. Generally, the federal government manages the air traffic control system, regulates airline and airport safety, and dispenses airport improvement grants to state and local governments. State governments operate airports, provide grants to local airports, conduct statewide aviation planning, license airports and aircraft, lend technical and engineering support to airport managers, provide personnel training and address environmental factors like noise, pollution, fuel tanks, land use planning and tall structures. Regional authorities and local governments operate airports, manage ground access to airports and parking, assess and collect passenger facility charges, address noise and environmental issues, and set local land use and zoning policy. Obviously, the private sector also plays a critical role in the nation's aviation system, primarily in aircraft manufacturing and provision of air transport service. However, the focus of this report is on governmental policy.

Aviation policy in the United States is driven by an interest in safety, transportation efficiency and economic growth. This report first addresses the federal role in airport development and aviation safety, delineating the role of the Federal Aviation Administration and other agencies. The state role in airport development, land use compatibility and safety is covered next, with overviews of specific state programs and recent legislation. Finally, recent trends and issues that affect aviation development and safety are discussed, including block grants, privatization, state revolving funds, technology and airline service. Other topics addressed in the report include deregulation, recent airliner crashes, the FAA certification process, noise and compatibility issues, safe airspace, flying while intoxicated and profiles of state activity in Indiana, Michigan and Washington. Appendix A contains NCSL's aviation policy.

Aviation policy and its implementation are exceedingly complex and are carried out at every level of government. Thus, a report of this nature cannot address each and every aviation issue. However, the authors have endeavored to cover key topics to assist state legislatures in formulating and amending their aviation policies and to inform them of national policies to which they may need to respond.

Federal Aviation Role

Several federal agencies exercise responsibility for aviation matters. Congress has given primary responsibility for civil aviation to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), an arm of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Its functions include regulating civil aviation, managing the air traffic control system, performing research and development in airspace safety and security, dispensing aviation grants to state and local governments and implementing programs to address environmental effects.

Creation of the Federal Aviation Administration

Congress passed the Air Commerce Act in 1926, which charged the Commerce Department with fostering air commerce, safety, air traffic and professional certification. Numerous government agencies and departments were involved in aviation policy from 1926 to 1938. Congress enacted the Civil Aeronautics Act in 1938, which created the Civil Aeronautics Authority and gave it the power to regulate airline tariffs, air mail rates, interline agreements, mergers and airline routes. Its basic mission was to regulate the airline industry by holding rates to reasonable levels and protecting carriers from unbridled competition.

President Franklin Roosevelt in 1940 divided the authority into two agencies, the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) and the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). The CAA handled air traffic control, aircraft certification, safety enforcement and aviation development. The CAB dealt with the development of safety regulations, accident investigation and economic regulation of the airlines.

The airline industry grew and prospered. However, the growth of air travel and the development of jet engines brought additional problems. The skies were too crowded for the existing safety systems and a deadly plane crash in 1956 caused Congress to pass the Federal Aviation Act in 1958. It created a new safety regulatory agency, the Federal Aviation Agency, to run a broad air traffic control system, certify aircraft designs and take responsibility for airline training and maintenance programs. The CAB still dealt with airline routes and rates. With the creation of the Department of Transportation in 1967, the name of the Federal Aviation Agency was changed to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), an independent federal agency, investigates aviation accidents, studies safety issues of national significance and makes recommendations to enhance safety. The NTSB was once within the Department of Transportation, but became an independent federal agency in 1974. The NTSB tracks both aviation fatalities and nonfatal accidents, and publishes annual safety statistics. It also acts as the "court of appeals" for aviation personnel and companies that the FAA determines are in violation of safety rules. Since NTSB does not have regulatory authority, it must rely on the viability and persuasiveness of its recommendations, most of which are directed to the FAA. In most cases the FAA accepts NTSB's safety recommendations and implements the suggested changes.

Other agencies that have aviation related functions include the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which independently reports aviation incidents to the FAA and works cooperatively with the FAA on safety and security research and development, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which provides weather services and information to the FAA. The Department of Defense (DoD) links to civil aviation through use of common civil and military airspace and operations at joint-use airports. During certain wartime conditions, DoD assumes control of the FAA.

Three major functions of the FAA that affect the states are discussed below: airport development, safety regulation and security.

FAA Certification

Federal regulations require the certification of aircraft, commercial airlines, airports and all airline personnel. The FAA is responsible for reviewing the design, manufacture and maintenance of all aircraft equipment. For instance, before the FAA certifies an aircraft, a prototype is designed, constructed and tested. Once that prototype appears fit to fly, the FAA certifies the aircraft for flight. The FAA also is responsible for setting minimum standards for crew training, establishing operational requirements for airlines, and conducting safety-related research and development. If airlines do not meet these minimum requirements, the FAA does not issue operating certificates.

Operating certificates are required for most airlines to be in business. The major airlines-those that earn revenues of $1 billion or more annually and provide nationwide service-must hold both fitness and operating certificates. Fitness certificates are issued by the Department of Transportation and establish that the carrier has the financing and management to provide scheduled service with aircraft that have 61 or more seats and a payload of 18,000 pounds. In compliance with Part 121 of the federal aviation regulations, the FAA issues operating certificates to aircraft with 10 or more seats and a payload of 9,000 pounds. Operating certificates are issued only when the carrier is in compliance with Part 121, which establishes requirements such as training of flight crews and aircraft maintenance.

National carriers-airlines that generate annual revenues between $100 million and $1 billion-also must have fitness and operating certificates. Regional airlines usually serve a single region of the country and range from small to large. Only the small regional carriers, often called commuter airlines, do not require a fitness certificate, mainly because their aircraft are small, usually with fewer than 30 seats. Regional airlines are growing, however, and play an important role in aviation. Walt Coleman, president of the Regional Airline Association, points out that, of over 500 airports in the 48 states with scheduled service, approximately two-thirds are served exclusively by regional airlines.

Airport Development

There are 18,304 airports in the United States; this number increases yearly, according to the FAA. Approximately 15,000 of these are private landing strips or smaller airports-most with unpaved runways and no runway lighting-that are not eligible for federal funding. Virtually all the airports used by the scheduled air carriers are public facilities run by an agency of state or local government, or, often, a commission or port authority that has been established by the state legislature and is run by a board of directors appointed by elected officials.

The FAA has designated 3,304 airports as part of the National Plan for Integrated Airport System (NPIAS); they are eligible for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants. These grants are funded through the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is financed by taxes on domestic airline tickets, international air travel from the United States, domestic cargo transported by air, and noncommercial aviation fuel. Of the 3,304 NPIAS airports, according to FAA classification, 413 are primary commercial service airports (enplaning more than 10,000 passengers annually), 127 support commercial service of less than 10,000 enplanements per year, and 2,764 are general aviation airports, having at least 10 based aircraft but no scheduled commercial passenger service. Nearly 700 are certified by the FAA for air carrier operations and 417 have FAA control towers. In fiscal year 1996, the FAA administered more than $1.45 billion in grants to these airports. (AIP grants for FY 1999 will total about $2 billion.) All airports receiving AIP grants must provide matching funds ranging from 10 percent to 25 percent of a project's total cost, depending on the type of project and the size of the airport.

Airports are given grant funds to comply with safety regulations, maintain infrastructure, accommodate growth, meet user requirements, incorporate technological improvements, and mitigate noise and other environmental effects. Typical improvements to airports include new runways and taxiways, control towers, lighting, landing aids, radar systems, entrance roadways, pedestrian walkways and land acquisition. Improvements not eligible for AIP funds include hangars, revenue-producing terminal areas like concessions and interest on airport debt.

As shown in table 1, airports rely on a variety of funding sources besides the federal government, including passenger facility charges (PFCs), airport bonds and airport-generated revenue. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), in 1996, bonds accounted for 58 percent of airport funding, AIP 20 percent, PFCs 16 percent, state and local funds 4 percent and airport revenue 2 percent.

Table 1. Known* Sources of Airport Capital Financing (in billions of dollars)

Funding Source	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
Airport Revenue Bonds**	$4.6	$3.2	$4.8	$1.6	$3.0	$3.2	$4.0
Airport Improvement Programs (AIP)	1.4	1.8	1.9	1.8	1.7	1.45	1.45
State/Local Grants	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5
Passenger Facility Charges (PFC)	N/A	N/A	0.09	0.5	0.85	1.05	1.1
Total	$6.5	$5.5	$7.29	$4.4	$6.1	$6.2	$7.1

Source: National Civil Aviation Review Commission, June 1997.

*Other potential sources of revenue are available but more difficult to quantify.

**Does not include general obligation (GO) bonds.

Estimates for future capital needs for airports range from $1.4 billion to $10.1 billion annually, according to the GAO. Factors influencing such needs are growth in aviation activity, meeting FAA-recommended design standards, reconstruction of existing infrastructure, upgrades to accommodate different aircraft types, and meeting safety, security and environmental concerns. In general, airport development lags behind the growth of air travel demand and tends to be reactive instead of anticipatory, due in part to the hybrid jurisdictional arrangement (federal-state-local) for financing, planning, constructing and maintaining airport facilities.

Safety Regulation

Recent NTSB statistics show that, in the 15-year period immediately following deregulation, the major U.S. airlines averaged one fatal accident per 1.4 million flights. The worst year was 1974, when 460 lives were lost. In 1996, five fatal accidents resulted in 380 deaths. In 1997, only eight air fatalities were reported (see table 2). By contrast, the Air Transport Association points out that, "in a typical three-month period, more people die on the nation's highways than have died in airline accidents since the advent of aviation." Nonetheless, aircraft safety and the prevention of crashes remain the highest priority for the flying public.

Table 2. Passenger Fatality and Injury Rates, 1982-1996*

Year	Passenger Fatalities	Passenger Serious Injuries	Total Passenger Enplanements (in millions)	Millions of Passenger Enplanements Per Passenger Fatality
1982	210	17	299	1.4
1983	8	8	325	40.6
1984	1	6	352	352.0
1985	486	20	390	08
1986	4	23	426	106.5
1987	213	39	456	2.1
1988	255	44	464	1.8
1989	259	55	464	1.8
1990	8	23	475	59.4
1991	40	19	461	11.5
1992	26	14	485	18.7
1993	0	7	500	None
1994	228	16	541	2.4
1995	152	15	560	3.7
1996	319	16	582	1.8

Source: National Transportation Safety Board, 1997.

*U.S. air carriers operating under 14 CFR 121

The FAA is the primary agency for airline safety regulation and also is responsible for developing, maintaining and operating the nation's air traffic control system. Through the Office of Air Traffic Services, the FAA oversees 200,000 takeoffs and landings per day, while providing 24-hour air traffic control, monitoring the safety of the airlines and attempting to prevent accidents.

Air traffic control facilities include towers, terminal radar approach control facilities, "en route" centers, and flight service stations. To maintain safe separation of aircraft, control systems typically use radar to follow in-flight aircraft. Radar systems allow operators to know both the direction and distance of aircraft flying over the United States to separate aircraft and help ensure airline safety.

One of the more recent actions by the federal government to ensure airline safety is the Safer Skies Program. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced on April 14, 1998, a new FAA safety agenda designed to achieve a fivefold reduction in fatal airline accidents. Vice President Al Gore stated during the unveiling of the safety program, "By targeting and preventing the leading causes of fatalities and injuries, by expanding engine inspections and by improving pilots' warning and detection systems, we will significantly reduce the number of plane crashes and save hundreds and hundreds of lives." The three-part initiative will focus on commercial carriers, general aviation and cabin safety.

The commercial initiative will focus on improvements in controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), loss of control, uncontained engine failures, runway incursions, approach and landing, and weather. The general aviation initiative will seek improvements in the areas of pilot decision-making, loss of control, weather, CFIT, survivability and runway incursions. Finally, the cabin safety initiative will focus on passenger seat belt use, carry-on baggage, child restraints and passenger interference issues.

With advancements in long-term technology and increased efforts to promote safety, aviation accidents can only decline, according to Alan Weichmann, a manager with the FAA Denver office. He states, "The aviation accident rate is one-tenth what it was 30 years ago, mostly due to technological advancements in aircraft."

1996 Was A Tragic Year for Air Fatalities

According to NTSB statistics, 319 passengers died from large air carrier accidents in 1996. Two accidents in particular prompted the public, the FAA and the airlines to pay more attention to airline safety-the ValuJet crash of Flight 592 into the Florida Everglades on May 11, 1996 and the explosion of TWA flight 800 in July 1996. The ValuJet crash was caused by a fire that began when improperly packaged oxygen generators in the cargo hold activated. The airplane was not equipped with smoke detectors to warn the crew, or with a system to suppress the fire. The TWA accident was caused by an explosion of volatile fuel vapors in the airplane's nearly empty fuel tank. The ignition source for the explosion has not yet been identified.

The ValuJet crash might have been averted if the Federal Aviation Administration had followed a decade-old NTSB recommendation to require fire detection and suppression systems in aircraft cargo holds, according to the National Transportation Safety Board. Such a rule was issued by FAA in February 1998. The Washington Post reported that the FAA also failed to monitor ValuJet's maintenance program, contractors and other operations.

After the ValuJet crash, the FAA hired more hazardous materials inspectors, formed a national air carrier certification team of safety experts, and ordered enhanced surveillance and oversight for the first five years that a carrier is in operation. In addition, concerns over FAA's potentially conflicting mandates of regulating air safety and promoting air travel led to Congressional removal of the promotion edict.

Congress also passed the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act that emphasizes assisting families in the wake of aircraft accidents that involve a major loss of life. The act empowers the NTSB to designate various public and private agencies to carry out post accident duties such as verification of passengers aboard, return of possessions, travel to crash location, and counseling services. State emergency management agencies are working with NTSB in implementing the act.

Security in Airports and on Flights

Through the FAA, the federal government creates policies for security in airports and on commercial flights. FAA security personnel work with law enforcement officers and intelligence officials around the world to gather current information pertinent to aviation security. The FAA also works with airlines to establish industry standards for screening security personnel and securely delivering air cargo. Under the FAA's authority, the airlines increase security with additional procedures and personnel when the need arises.

A recommendation of the White House Commission on Aviation and Security, announced in February 1998, was to make civil aviation security a major element of the country's strategy against terrorism. With $144 million appropriated by Congress in FY 1997-98, the FAA has been deploying a variety of innovative explosives detection devices at the nation's largest and busiest airports. The FAA has requested an additional $100 million in FY 1999 for more security equipment to protect the flying public.

Role of State Government in Aviation

The state role in aviation is secondary to that of the federal government, but is nonetheless critical to aviation safety, airport development, planning, and coordination of ground transportation access and other infrastructure.

Deregulation and the States

The airline industry was deregulated in 1978, decreasing the role of the Civil Aeronautics Board. Airlines were freed to set routes, fares and schedules on the basis of their own market and profit projections. Congress hoped that deregulation would create a competitive environment that would benefit the airlines and the public by offering a wider range of prices and service.

The effect of the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) on states was severe. It banned states from enacting or enforcing any law relating to rates, routes or services of air carriers. States cannot impose their own public policies or theories of competition or regulation on the operations of an air carrier. The relevant section of the act reads, "[N]o state...shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation standard or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to rates, routes or services of any air carrier." According to a recent court case, American Airlines vs. Wolens, Congress intended, through the ADA, to leave largely to the airlines themselves-and not at all to the states-the selection and design of marketing mechanisms appropriate to the furnishing of air transportation services. The ADA was designed to promote maximum reliance on competitive market forces. The Wolens case did allow that relief was available to the plaintiffs, who sought relief from the airline's retroactive modifications of its frequent flyer program, if it were proven that an airline dishonored a term the airline itself stipulated.

The lasting effect of deregulation is subject to numerous interpretations. Deregulation helps give the traveling public a better choice of airlines and flights, while paying less for the same service it received prior to deregulation, according to the Air Transport Association. However, concerns continue to be heard relating to cost cutting that may negatively affect safety, the anticompetitive dominance of large carriers at certain hubs and unfair pricing of airline tickets for customers. Last minute travelers, for instance, pay a hefty premium for an airline seat. In addition, airline passengers are subject to greater inconvenience due to delays and lost bags caused by the economically efficient-but increasingly congested-hub and spoke system adopted by airlines after deregulation. The U.S. Department of Transportation now has sole regulatory authority over deceptive trade practices in aviation.

State legislatures provide, on average, between $350 million and $500 million annually to maintain and expand state, regional and local aviation infrastructure. In 1996, states allocated $285 million to airports in the national system. Nearly half the funding supported general aviation airports; some 20 percent was used to match federal grants. These funds are generated primarily through taxes on jet fuel and aviation gasoline. (For a comprehensive overview, see State Aviation Tax Report 1998-99 by the National Business Aviation Association, (202) 783-9000). All states except Connecticut and Texas impose a tax on fuel. Other sources include aircraft registration fees, state-issued bonds, airport operating revenue, airport licensing fees and pilot registration fees. At least 20 states contribute general revenues to aviation expenditures. In addition, most states own aircraft for use by state officials and more than two-thirds of the states operate one or more airports. States also appropriate about $3 million annually for the Civil Air Patrol, an auxiliary of the U. S. Air Force that is best known for its search and rescue missions.

The structure and responsibilities of state aviation agencies vary from state to state. Most state aviation agencies are housed in a state transportation department and primarily carry out federal policies related to aviation safety and airport planning. Other state government departments also are involved in aviation and aircraft operation in the course of carrying out their mandated functions. These include agencies involved with law enforcement, search and rescue, medical emergency transportation, wildlife management, executive transport and environmental protection.

Policy Profile: Washington Aviation Division and State Transportation Commission

The Aviation Division of the Washington State Department of Transportation is a non-regulatory agency that provides general aviation airport aid, disaster relief services, and educational or technical assistance to pilots. The Division also oversees registration and licensing of pilots and aircraft. Although clear in its administrative responsibilities, the division does not have a clear role in the development of aviation policies concerning state interests. In recent years, the Washington State Transportation Commission has set out to define and expand the state's role in aviation policies.

The seven member, governor-appointed Washington State Transportation Commission governs the State Department of Transportation and provides statewide coordination to transportation policies. State law requires the commission to periodically develop and update a state transportation policy, including aviation. Three principles and objectives guide the development of aviation policies, including: relation to the system that aviation facilities impact, such as the economy and environment; and the level of coordination among transportation providers and government programs when delivering services.

The commission created an aviation policy advisory committee in 1996 to identify challenges to the aviation system, the state interest and how to best tackle the challenges through state actions. Issues identified included retention of existing airports, siting new and expanding existing airports, land access to airports, noise and local impact mitigation and economic development.

Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, World Wide Web page, 1998.

The roles of state aviation agencies are changing as regional economies grow and local transportation structures become more important in the movement of people and goods. Although it is in the general interest of the state to make sure that its aviation systems accommodate increased demand and perform efficiently, there are often no clear policies to direct the specific roles state governments should play in aviation. Many state agencies are developing and refining aviation plans for an expanded state role. Increasingly, states are assuming the responsibility of assuring access to the national air transportation system by all citizens, regardless of community size or location. Many of the challenges facing states in aviation policy are discussed below.

Airport Development

A challenge to state, county and municipal aviation agencies is the expansion and improvement of their airport capacity. Airports operate like small cities, with departments for purchasing, engineering, financing, legal matters, operations, personnel, administration, security, public relations, police and fire. Airport planners are faced with several issues, ranging from airport land use compatibility to obtaining capital investments to develop their facilities to handle larger and more sophisticated planes. Regardless of these challenges, however, state and local governments have economic interests in airport development.

The link between airports and economic development is clear, and airport development is more than simply a transport service to the aviation user community. Airports and aviation have a positive economic effect on the cities and counties in which they are located and on neighboring communities. As noted in a report by the Denver Regional Council of Governments, aviation industries generate jobs for a region and provide products and services for sale. Airports can generate jobs for the community because an area that is served by air transportation, passenger, cargo and general aviation is more attractive as a business location. The National Business Aviation Association reports that many national and international corporations-including those in the Fortune 500-locate in areas that have airports that service general aviation. In addition, tourism benefits derive from aviation. For example, 8.5 million visitors arrive by air each year in Colorado and 52 percent of Florida's visitors arrive by air.

Airport Development Profile: Indiana Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Section

Airport development tasks performed by the Aeronautics Section are designed to promote the efficient and effective development of local facilities and to bring about a balanced state aviation system consistent with the development goals and objectives of the Indiana State Aviation System Plan.

Major activities under airport development include, but may not be limited to: 1) the identification of local and/or regional aviation development issues; 2) the development of individual Airport Master Plans, Airport Layout Plans, Environmental Assessments, Part 150 Noise Compatibility studies, metropolitan/regional system plan studies; 3) documentation of needed airport improvements identified in Airport Master Plans, Airport Layout Plans, regional system plan studies, and the Indiana State Aviation System Plan; 4) inclusion of eligible projects in the Indiana Airport Capital Improvement Program; and 5) policy and technical recommendations aimed at protecting airport environments and the State's citizens from incompatible uses.

Source: Indiana Department of Transportation, World Wide Web page, 1998.

The substantial economic effects of airports are both direct and indirect. A report entitled The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy, Update 1993 found that U.S. air transportation generated $771 billion in economic activity or 5.9 percent of gross national product in 1993. In a 1995 study, Oklahoma identified 231,000 jobs and $10.2 billion worth of aviation economic activity statewide. Colorado estimated a total of $14.3 billion in economic activity and 246,000 jobs could be attributed to state aviation activity. Recognizing the importance of air travel to economic viability, states in rural America annually strive to preserve a federal program called Essential Air Service that subsidizes airline service into areas that otherwise would be unprofitable.

Homeowners Must Endure Noise

Homeowners who lived three miles north of a Denver International Airport runway sued the city, claiming that the noise from planes flying over their property was so disturbing that it constituted a "taking" or damage of their property rights. A "taking" occurs when a governmental entity takes or damages property for a public purpose without just compensation to the owner. The noise interrupted conversations and woke them at night. Vibrations from the planes shifted wall hangings off-center. The trial court and the Colorado Court of Appeals rejected the claim.

The first question considered by the court was whether the homeowners had a protected property interest. Generally, an owner has a property interest in airspace above the land. The right of aircraft to fly over the land limits this property interest. "Navigable airspace" is that airspace above the minimum altitude for flights as determined by FAA regulations. The land in question is in an agricultural area and the navigable airspace is 500 feet above the property. Therefore, anything under that level is considered to be the property of the landowner. The offending planes flew at over 1,000 feet when they crossed the property, so the owners had no protected property right. The court also found that the inconvenience suffered did not amount to damages that merited compensation.

Many states have passed legislation that provides economic development funds for airports and aviation facilities. For instance, on April 7, 1998, the governor of Kentucky signed House Bill 444, creating the Kentucky Aviation Economic Development Fund. Beginning July 1, 2000, any receipts collected from sales or use taxes on aviation jet fuel will be deposited in the fund. The fund also may receive other appropriations, grants or federal funds. The Transportation Cabinet is charged with using these funds for the development, rehabilitation, and maintenance of publicly owned or operated aviation facilities and for other aviation programs that will benefit publicly owned or operated aviation facilities.

A major function of state aviation agencies is to administer state and federal funds for local airport construction. Although funding for airport development projects comes from a variety of places, there are four traditional sources: airport cash flow, revenue and general obligation bonds, Airport Improvement Program grants, and user fees (called passenger facility charges; see table 1, p. 5). States collect airport development funds from various user taxes, including passenger charges, fuel taxes, or airline registration and licensing fees. State projects that are eligible for federal funds often work in partnership with the FAA and local government in matching grant programs.

Improving Compatibility Between Airports and Neighboring Communities: What Can the Airport Operator Do?

As the second busiest general aviation airport in the country, Centennial Airport, southeast of Denver, Colorado, recognized the need to ease the conflict between airport development and the community. Centennial encourages public awareness, community involvement, noise abatement procedures, public disclosure/avigation easements, and property acquisition. In regard to public awareness, Centennial suggests that people must be informed before they buy property near an airport. Centennial also offers a noise complaint line for neighboring landowners; requests pilots to fly "neighborly" and change traffic patterns so as not to interfere with the public; and when possible attempts to acquire land around the airport to use for purposes other than real estate development.

Source: Scott Brownlee, Development Manager, Centennial Airport, Colorado, May 1998.

Airport Land Use Compatibility and Noise

Notwithstanding the economic development associated with airports and aviation, airport expansion often intensifies airport noise and other conflicts between airport and residential land uses. States and communities have responded, however, with local zoning measures such as overlay zones, "avigation" easements, and real estate disclosure requirements. Overlay zones include various zoning and use requirements for airports; avigation easements grant rights for aircraft passage over a specific property; and real estate disclosure statements inform prospective buyers of an airport's location near a property site or identify a property site that is encumbered by an existing avigation easement. Recent legislation in Oregon and Washington requires local governments to discourage incompatible land uses around airports. The Oregon law empowers the Land Conservation and Development Commission to require local governments to enact airport compatibility land use rules and amend their comprehensive plans to reflect such rules. Maryland gave cities authority to preserve land for airport use-a power counties already had.

Maintaining Safe Airspace Around Airports

Before building an airport, consideration of the airspace surrounding the airport is made. The FAA has prescribed standards for the height of objects near airports in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Title 14, Part 77, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace," defines a system of imaginary surfaces around an airport, through which no fixed object or structure should penetrate. The surfaces include the primary surface, approach surface, transitional surface, horizontal surface, and conical surface. When the FAA is notified of a proposed structure that may interfere with one of these surfaces, the proposal is evaluated to determine if the proposed structure will adversely affect the existing airspace uses in the area. If a negative effect is found, several things may be done. The FAA may recommend to the planning jurisdiction that the proposed structure not be built or that the structure have identifying marks, such as lighting or other means, to enhance the structure's visibility.

The FAA relies on state and local governments to enact and enforce zoning laws, and may make recommendations to local land use authorities. Although state agencies also can regulate the location, height of structures, and use of land near public airports with similar standards, states vary on the level of authority they delegate to local officials to develop zoning plans. The FAA assists local governments through regulations that promote noise compatibility planning for residential areas near airports and provide criteria for communities to obtain funding for noise insulation to protect homes from the effects of airport noise.

In 1997, Arizona passed House Bill 2491, codified as Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-8485, which was enacted in response to the need for more noise mitigation policies. The statute allows the governing body of a political subdivision to designate as an airport influence area all property in the vicinity of an airport that currently is exposed to certain aircraft noise levels. This law requires disclosing to prospective homeowners the existing aircraft noise levels that may affect a property located in the vicinity of an airport.

A key problem with noise arises when airport noise occurs in a jurisdiction that does not control the airport. Cooperation is essential in such cases. To address noise, traffic impact and other extra-jurisdictional issues, the California Legislature in 1997 specifically authorized cities to establish intercounty land use commissions for any intercounty airport.

Aviation Safety

State and local governments-often assisted by the federal government-work to ensure the safety of aircraft, pilots and airports, as well as airspace around airports. States are heavily involved in the registration and certification process of state airports, aircraft and pilots. Most state aeronautic divisions require private and public landing facilities to receive site approvals. State aviation agencies specifically require private and public airports to undergo annual safety inspections. Through periodic airport inspections, state agencies ensure airport compliance with state and national safety requirements. In 1995, for instance, Florida conducted safety inspections at more than 700 airports.

The role of state agencies in the development of navigational aids-such as weather operation stations-greatly affects the safety of airports. Nationwide, states are continuing to test, adopt and operate automated technologies consistent with FAA standards. States are actively involved in research, education and service programs that improve air travel. Technological advancements help to increase airport capacity and safety.

Safety Services Profile: Michigan Department of Transportation

The department both regulates and promotes safe aviation. Regulatory functions include enforcement of the Aeronautics Code licensing requirement for public use airports-heliports-seaplane bases, airport managers, flight schools, aircraft dealers and registration of aircraft. In conjunction with the inspection of airports for compliance with state licensing requirements, data is collected for inclusion in the National Airport Safety Data program. Safety promotion includes supplementing federal navigational aids to provide statewide capability for all weather en route navigation at and above 1,000 feet above the ground. In addition to all weather en route navigation, this program provides navigation and weather information necessary for safe all weather approaches to airports that are not served by FAA systems. To maximize the effectiveness of air transportation, this program includes an active accident prevention program and conducts training programs to enhance the safe and cost-effective operation of the state aviation infrastructure.

Source: Michigan Department of Transportation, World Wide Web page, 1998.

Flying while Intoxicated

Forty-seven states (all but Delaware, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island) have enacted some form of legislation that prohibits flying while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, to complement federal requirements (see appendix B). The FAA prohibits pilots from flying within eight hours after consuming alcohol or with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .04 percent or higher. It is left to states, however, to require that pilots be tested for intoxication, and state laws vary widely. In most states, the law provides that if a pilot is charged with flying under the influence, he or she may have to pay a fine, spend time in jail and refrain from flying in that particular state's airspace.

The National Transportation Safety Board believes that for states to effectively assist in any corrective action, the flying while intoxicated laws need to be more comprehensive. This would include, for example, laws that establish specific guidelines regarding BAC and implied consent provisions to obtain biological specimens for toxicological tests. Seventeen states adhere to the .04 BAC level, four are at .10 and 26 set no numeric BAC level. In addition, only 24 states report the results of toxicological tests to the FAA for potential action against a pilot's certification to fly.

Finance Trends in Aviation

The need for new partnerships and innovative policies is clear to address the continuing changes in the aviation environment. Although funding is more plentiful now, the recent past was a time of fiscal constraint. Federal aviation financing programs have been placed under pressure as the administration and Congress have acted to eliminate the federal deficit. In the face of fiscal constraints, states and municipalities have tried to keep pace with innovative financing mechanisms, while maintaining aviation requirements. In addition, the FAA anticipates that airports may face additional costs in capital improvements, environmental mitigation programs and heightened security requirements. The use of block grants, privatization of aviation functions and state revolving loan funds are three methods that federal and state government have employed to meet both growing fiscal challenges and the need for greater efficiency. These trends in aviation funding are discussed below.

State Block Grants

In 1987, Congress directed the FAA to select three states to participate in a state block grant program designated for small airports. Since then, the number of states participating in block grants has continued to grow. A 1996 GAO report indicated that states participating in the block grant program (Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin) were able to provide a range of services previously performed by the FAA. Pennsylvania and Tennessee now are participating, as well. These functions included assisting airports to prepare long-range plans for airport development, overseeing AIP funds, implementing federal security mandates and other regulations. The pilot states and the FAA administrators both agreed that the overall program was successful. Their achievements include reduced paperwork and elimination of duplicate responsibilities at the state and federal levels. The 1996 GAO report included survey findings that indicated 80 percent of nonparticipating states expressed interest in the program. Factors that led to state success in AIP Block Grant Programs include:

Agencies had prior experience with their own state-funded airport improvement program.
Inspection programs already were in place when states assumed their responsibilities.
A sufficient number of staff members were available to coordinate the program.

State aviation agencies are urging Congress to allow additional states to become block grant participants.

Privatization

Privatization refers to shifting all or parts of governmental functions and responsibilities to the private sector. Many airports have recognized the opportunities of private-public partnerships. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, nearly 75 percent of airport financing projects are provided by local and private funds. The private sector plays an integral role in financing such projects through investments in many of the concession services that traditionally are provided by public entities. One method of privatization has been the outsourcing of specific operations, including food services. For example, Pittsburgh International Airport was able to increase nonaeronautic revenue from $23 million in 1991 to $66 million in 1995 after outsourcing selected services to private companies. A recent Council of State Governments report names Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Illinois, South Dakota and West Virginia as states that have some degree of privatized airport services.

Since public airports receive federal and state funds, have access to tax exemptions, and are subject to regulatory controls, the process of selling or licensing local airports requires participation by all levels of government. The privatization of public airports also threatens tax exemptions and federal funding that is available exclusively to airports that are owned by state or local governments. Despite the complexity of the privatization process, the possible sale or lease of commercial airports to private companies has generated considerable attention in recent years. One reason for the increased attention to privatization projects is that the federal government could reduce funds appropriated for airport development as more public airports continue to sell or lease their facilities to private entities that are not eligible for certain federal grants. Starting in December 1997, Congress authorized a pilot test, through the FAA, to ease certain constraints that blocked privatization. To date, Brown Field near San Diego (a general aviation airport) and Stewart International in New York (a non-hub airport) have applied.

State Revolving Funds

State revolving funds, successfully used to finance water and surface transportation infrastructure, are used in two states for aviation projects. A revolving loan fund is capitalized by federal and/or state money and provides loans to specified entities for specified purposes. Interest and principal payments are used to provide additional loans. The Florida Legislature established a revolving loan program in 1985 within the State Transportation Trust Fund that has provided, to date, loans totaling nearly $200 million to airports for land acquisition, runways and taxiways to increase capacity, airport access projects, and international terminal projects. Some $43 million in loans currently is outstanding. The fund is capitalized by a $.069 per gallon tax on aviation fuel. Some of the loans are later repaid through airport improvement program grants, but the state funds the loan program itself.

Because the New Hampshire courts found that New Hampshire's airport development programs often neglected rural areas, the legislature responded by passing SB 180, which created the Rural Airport Capital Revolving Loan Fund. This fund provides money to rehabilitate rural airports that are not eligible for AIP funds under the State Aeronautics Capital Improvement Plan. The New Hampshire legislature appropriated $750,000 to the Department of Transportation for the first fiscal year, 1996-1997.

State infrastructure banks (SIB), established for surface transportation projects in several states, are another possible source of aviation funding. Ohio has authorized its SIB to use state funds to finance aviation projects.

Federal AIP grants currently cannot be used to capitalize state revolving funds, although some have endorsed the idea. According to the GAO, some federal and state aviation officials and some in the bond rating and underwriting community believe such an approach would help smaller airports-that often have trouble obtaining affordable debt financing-obtain additional funds. These officials note that revolving loan funds also can expedite construction and reduce construction costs by providing money up front, rather than incrementally, as is the case with AIP grants. In the absence of federal money to capitalize revolving loan funds, Florida and New Hampshire provide examples of how states can use alternative financing to develop smaller airport infrastructure.

Changes in Technology

As states move toward stricter regulation of safety standards, aviation agencies also will need to adapt to rapid technological changes in the aviation industry. Shorter design cycles and advancing technology will complicate the inspection process for aeronautics agencies. Federal and state agencies may require engineers with higher levels of education to perform safety inspections. In order to create a safe airport system, aviation agencies will need to coordinate the wide variety of skills in their inspection teams. For instance, a recent performance report regarding FAA safety and inspection operations engineers concluded that a wide variation exists in their skill and education levels. Rapid changes in the aeronautics industry could challenge aviation personnel to raise work standards and require quality technical training.

The reduction in the FAA's overall budget has reduced the funding available for technical training. According to the GAO, technical training has been reduced by $53 million. Technical training includes flight training for safety inspectors who oversee commercial and private pilots and training on new and existing air traffic equipment for controllers and mechanics.

National Association of State Aviation Officials

Founded in 1931, the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO) is one of the oldest aviation organizations in the United States. The states first established NASAO to ensure uniformity of safety measures, to standardize airport regulations and to develop a truly national air transportation system that is responsive to local, state and regional needs. Since its founding, NASAO has been unique among aviation advocates, representing state government aviation agencies that serve the public interest in all 50 states, Guam and Puerto Rico. NASAO members organize, promote and fund a wide variety of aviation programs across the nation as the role of state programs and the responsibilities of the state aviation agencies expand.

The NASAO Washington, D.C., staff presents the views of the states to Congress and the administration. It works very closely with the Department of Transportation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Transportation Research Board and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It has a memorandum of understanding with the Federal Aviation Administration. The staff maintains relationships with aviation groups and similar associations such as the National Governors' Association. In addition, the NASAO Center for Aviation Research and Education manages the FAA's Airport Safety Data Program and plays a role in promoting aviation education programs that are developed by state agencies and other organizations.

Regarding equipment, state aviation agencies currently are addressing problems related to the compatibility of ground control equipment with aircraft controls. Airports require capital investments in their ground control systems to direct newer, more sophisticated aircraft. Many airports also require more capital investments to build landing areas that can accommodate larger aircraft. Although new technologies lead to greater safety in air travel, maintaining outdated equipment to direct new aircraft will result in the inefficient use of labor from federal and state inspectors. The FAA's goal is to ensure that all FAA systems are Year 2000 compliant by June 30, 1999. Contingency plans are being developed to deal with system outages due to Year 2000 issues.

Air Traffic Control

Both air traffic control systems and pilots will benefit from the development of navigation based on global positioning systems (GPS), which allow air traffic controllers to exactly monitor the location of an aircraft through satellite radio signals. GPS also will allow pilots to navigate their aircraft better in reduced visibility and to fly more direct routes, saving fuel, time and money. In the meantime, a new system-Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS)-will be deployed in Boston starting in 1998. It is a sweeping upgrade of current air traffic computers and display systems.

Airline Service

Both federal and state governments are seeking better service from airlines. The U.S. Department of Transportation tracks information about airline on-time arrivals, baggage problems and consumer complaints and issues the monthly Air Travel Consumer Report. Consumers file their complaints with the Aviation Consumer Protection Division. Since deregulation, states have no authority over air carriers' rates, routes or service.

In August 1998, the California Legislature adopted Senate Joint Resolution 30, sponsored by Senator Betty Karnette. Karnette's measure requests the president and Congress to require the FAA to mandate minimum service standards for domestic airlines, including, but not limited to, on-time performance, lost baggage, overbooking, overcrowded airplanes and overcrowded terminals. She listens to the complaints of fellow travelers; many are constituents in her Los Angeles area district. By introducing the resolution, Karnette wanted to send a message to Congress and the airlines that customers need to be considered. She says, "this is a serious issue and it is absurd the way customers are treated."

In April 1998 the U.S. Department of Transportation announced new enforcement procedures for airlines that demonstrate anticompetitive practices. The dominance of individual large airlines at major hub cities has prompted public concern over unfair pricing of airline tickets and other anticompetitive practices.

Florida Seeks Changes in Federal Funding Legislation

Florida needs an estimated $6 billion for airport improvements during the next 10 years just to keep pace with anticipated growth. At the national level, the amount needed for airport investment approaches $10 billion per year. The primary sources of airport funding-airport bonds, passenger facility charges and the Airport Improvement Program-do not come close to meeting these needs. Together, these sources provide only about $6 billion annually for all the nation's airports.

Florida Secretary of Transportation Thomas F. Barry Jr. sent seven recommendations to Florida's congressional delegation in April. The key points recommended to Congress are:

• Increase the passenger facility charge (PFC) ceiling from $3 to a minimum of $6. PFCs have provided funds for airports to complete development projects, but current legislation restricts the PFC program from growing beyond the $3 level approved in 1990.

• Reinstate the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) portion of the Federal Aviation Administration authorization at a minimum level of $2.35 billion annually for five years. The AIP should return to a multi-year authorization. Airports cannot plan for capital development when they are uncertain from one year to the next about whether the program will be authorized and at what level.

• Increase state apportionment funds by a minimum of 1.5 percent to a level of 20 percent with the increase available to fund essential planning activities. The state apportionment section of the AIP is the primary source of federal funds for smaller airports. As needs grow for airport improvement funding for all sizes of airports, federal funds are not sufficient to reach most of the smaller airports.

• Emphasize AIP flexibility in the new authorization. Federal Aviation Administration district offices should be able to adjust the federal funding priority system consistent with state priorities.

• Replace the fixed cap on AIP discretionary funding with an indexed ceiling. Discretionary funds should grow as project costs grow. The ceiling for these funds should be indexed to some measure of inflation such as the Construction Cost Index.

• Assure that each state will receive a minimum of 95 percent of Airport and Airway Trust Fund revenues collected in the state. The busiest regions of the nation are the ones that generate the largest Airport and Airway Trust Fund revenues and also are the ones that need improvement funding the most.

• Reaffirm that all existing federal grant assurances must remain in effect for their full term. When an airport receives a federal grant, the airport provides assurances that the facility will remain open. Local governments should continue to honor these assurances.

Source: Florida Flyer, Florida Department of Transportation, Spring 1998.

Rural Air Service

A vexing problem for states is how to encourage and maintain scheduled air service to small communities. Affordable airline service is important to the economic vitality of small communities and rural areas. Airline companies find it difficult, however, to extend service to smaller markets and still make a profit, particularly if the area already is served by another carrier.

One alternative is government financial subsidy to guarantee air service. Many states have studied the concept, but no state currently offers subsidies. The federal government operates the Essential Air Service (EAS) program that provides annual subsidies of between $20 million and $30 million to carriers that serve small markets.

The EAS program grew from the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which allows airlines to introduce, increase, and reduce or eliminate service to existing markets. Under EAS-administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation-certain communities that had received scheduled air service before passage of the act are guaranteed specified levels of "essential air service." DOT may authorize federal subsidies to compensate a carrier for providing essential air service in otherwise unprofitable or minimally profitable markets.

An airline that provides essential air services is required to notify DOT 90 days in advance of termination of or reduction in service. Continuation of existing service may be required until a replacement carrier is found, but in that event DOT must compensate the carrier for actual losses sustained in continuing service to the community during this period.

Some have criticized the EAS spending as "pork barrel." A Reason Foundation analyst argues, for example, that individuals who wish to fly to and from remote areas should pay the full cost themselves. Others argue that the EAS distorts market signals.

A bill introduced in the 105th session of Congress by Representative Bill Barrett of Nebraska would allow states to create an EAS-type program to develop small community air service markets within the states. Communities that receive subsidized air service appreciate the service, but EAS is an imperfect solution. Public-private partnerships can bring air service to small communities in a deregulated setting, and have shown promise in such places as Vail, Colo.; Waterloo, Iowa; Jackson, Miss.; Columbia, S.C.; Amarillo, Texas; and Newport News, Va.

Conclusion

Flying has grown safer and more popular over the years. The FAA estimates that by the year 2008 the number of passengers on the nation's air carriers will approach 1 billion. Increased air travel also has pressured the federal government to pursue a "zero accident" goal. Although increased technology and stricter safety measures cannot eliminate the human element as a factor in aviation accidents, air travel is much safer and more efficient today than in the past due to the success of new ground control equipment and innovative aircraft systems.

The expanding aviation industry creates many benefits for its respective communities. Benefits such as economic development and the convenience of air travel must be weighed against the problems of noise pollution and regional infrastructure deficiencies. In the past, the FAA has been the principal agency directing aviation-related policies and guidelines. However, states are expanding their roles in transportation-related issues that benefit overall state development. Legislatures are requiring their aeronautics divisions to identify state interests in air transportation and create focused aviation policies for the states. Infrastructure development projects are an important part of the expanding state role in aeronautics because they benefit regional and state economic development without affecting interstate regulations. The proliferation of airports and increased air traffic will create more aviation-related responsibilities and challenges for the federal, state and local governments in the future.

References

Adams, Gary. "Guest Editorial-Airport Goals: A New Approach." NBAA Digest (April 1996).
Air Transport Association. Airline Handbook. Washington, D.C.: ATA, 1995.
Air Transport Association, World Wide Web page, http://www.airtransport.org.

American Airlines vs. Wolens, 115 S. Ct. 817 (1995).
Bowers, Faye. "A Year After ValuJet Crash, Public Pushes Airline Safety." The Christian Science Monitor, (May 9, 1997).
Brownlee, Scott. "What Can the Airport Operator Do?" Presentation at the Denver Regional Council of Governments' Airport-Land Use Compatibility Workshop, Arvada, Colo., May 1998.
California Commission on Aviation and Airports. "Aviation and Airports: Who Is Responsible?" Report to the California State Legislature, Sacramento, March 31, 1991.
Civil Air Patrol. 1997 Annual Report to Congress.

Council of State Governments. Private Practices: A Review of Privatization in State Government. Lexington, Ky.: CSG, 1998.
Cutler and Stanfield, L.L.P. Land Use Compatibility: A Guide to Local Control of Land Use Around Airports. Denver, Colo.: Cutler and Stanfield Guide Series, May 1998.
Dempsey, Paul Stephen. "Denver's New Airport Finally Takes Wing." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy (Spring 1998).
Denver Regional Council of Governments. Airport Compatible Land Use Design Handbook. Denver, Colo.: DRCOG, May 15, 1998.
Federal Aviation Administration. Challenge 2000: Recommendations for Future Aviation Safety Regulations. Washington, D.C.: FAA Office of Policy, Planning, and International Aviation April 1996.

---. Aviation Safety System (available on the Internet, http://www.faa.gov/publicinfo.htm).

---. Airport Development Needs and Financing Options. Washington, D.C.: FAA National Civil Aviation Review Commission, June 1997.

Florida Department of Transportation. Florida Flyer (Spring 1998).
Karnette, Betty. Telephone interview with author. June 18, 1998.
Kiehl Hendrickson Group. Minneapolis, Minn. Information provided to authors.
Leib, Jeffrey. "No Commuter Air Competition on Horizon." Denver Post (Sept. 6, 1998).
Michigan Aeronautics Commission. Meeting minutes, May 8, 1996, and Sept. 24, 1996.
National Association of State Aviation Officials and National Governors' Association. The States and Air Transportation. Silver Spring, Md.: NASAO and NGA, February 1989.

---. World Wide Web page, http://www.nasao.org (includes links to all state aviation agencies).

National Transportation Safety Board. Public Release Document SB 97-03. Washington, D.C.: NTSB, February 21, 1997.

---. Safety Recommendation of Flying While Impaired. Washington, D.C.: NTSB, Dec. 17, 1992.

---. State Laws Relating to Flying While Impaired (table). Washington, D.C.: NTSB, Sept. 20, 1995.

---. Federal Family Assistance Plan for Aviation Disasters. Washington, D.C.: NTSB, April 9, 1997.

Payson, William, and Steven Steckler. Expanding Airport Capacity: Getting Privatization Off the Ground. Los Angeles, Calif.: Reason Foundation, July 1992.
Phillips, Don. "NTSB: FAA 'contributed' to cause of ValuJet crash." Washington Post (August 20, 1997).
Tagliareni, Russ. Florida Dept. of Transportation, Aviation Office. Interview with author, Sept. 10, 1998.

Thompson vs. City and County of Denver, No. 97CA0234, 1998 Colo. App. LEXIS (May 14, 1998).
Transportation Research Board. Future Development of the U.S. Airport Network. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, 1988.
U.S. General Accounting Office. Airport Improvement Program: State Block Grant Pilot Program is a Success. GAO/T-RCED-96-86. Washington, D.C.: GAO, March 1996.

---. DOT's Budget, Challenges Facing the Department in Fiscal Year 1997 and Beyond. GAO/T-RCED-96-88. Washington, D.C.: GAO, March 1996.

---. Airport Development Needs: Estimating Future Costs. GAO/RCED-97-99. Washington, D.C.: GAO, April 1997.

---. Airport Financing: Funding Sources for Airport Development. GAO/RCED-98-71. Washington, D.C.: GAO, March 1998.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. "Vice President Al Gore joined by Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and Federal Aviation Administrator Jane F. Garvey, Announce 'New Safety Program Unveiled: Safer Skies-A Focused Agenda'." Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOT, April 14, 1998. Press Release.
Vallin, Travis. Interview with author, Sept. 9, 1998.
Weichmann, Alan. "Aircraft Operational Requirements." Presentation at the Denver Regional Council of Governments' Airport-Land Use Compatibility Workshop, Arvada, Colo., May 1998.

Appendix A. NCSL Aviation Policy

The development and preservation of a balanced system of airports, which is responsive to the needs of all sectors of the nation, is the mutual responsibility of federal, state and local governments. The primary responsibility of the federal government is the regulation of air commerce and control of navigable airspace in the interest of safety and efficiency. The National Conference of State Legislatures believes that any proposal that addresses capacity, land use zoning, noise, and other quality of life issues must involve state oversight and consultation.

Finance

Trust Fund-The current surplus in the Airport and Airways Trust Fund should be reduced. As a means of insuring full expenditure, NCSL supports the removal of the Trust Fund from the federal unified budget. The current spending caps and categorization imposed on domestic discretionary programs is causing arbitrary funding reductions in important state aviation programs. Consideration should also be given to establishing the Federal Aviation Administration as an independent agency as a means of protecting Trust Fund money.

Fee Structure-Federal aviation taxes are acceptably structured to equitably distribute the financial burden on all users. All aviation user fees should be directed to the Airport and Airways Trust Fund and should accrue to the benefit of aviation users. Any federal aviation fees collected from airline ticket taxes that are diverted to non-aviation purposes, should be rededicated or repealed. NCSL supports federal grant assurance provisions barring diversion of airport revenue to non-airport purposes.

Federal efforts to limit state and local fee structures are opposed. NCSL supports the continuation of Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) as a supplementary revenue source for airports. Proceeds generated from PFCs should be permitted for financing projects which preserve or enhance safety, security, capacity, noise mitigation, as well as the costs of federal mandates. When there are challenges to airport compliance with federal law governing rates and charges to airport and aeronautical users, NCSL supports a mediating role for the U.S. Department of Transportation. Airport authorities should have discretion in determining reasonable fees to support legitimate airport operations.

Revolving Loan-The creation of a revolving loan program to address state needs outside the existing program framework should be treated as a viable option for supplementing current funding levels.

Taxation-Federal tax laws should continue to exempt airport municipal bonds from federal taxation. Any new federal taxes should be assessed on users on a equitable basis and dedicated to those statutorily authorized purposes.

Planning-Funding should be available to states from the Trust Fund for aviation-related transportation planning activities.

Regulation

In principle, NCSL supports the deregulation provided in the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. However, there are continuing questions regarding the impact of deregulation on service and safety. NCSL recognizes the findings and recommendations of the National Commission for a Strong and Competitive Airline Industry relative to the cost and efficiency of airline service in the aftermath of deregulation.

Intrastate Service-The federal government is urged to reassess those provisions of the airline deregulation law that allow the federal government to reduce the ability of the states to regulate fares and routes of intrastate air carriers. Congress should reverse this unwarranted preemption of state authority, and take specific action to affirm state regulatory authority over airline advertising practices.

Safety-An examination should be made of other provisions of law that pertain to the ability of the state to regulate or enforce safety standards and practice.

Discrimination-NCSL continues to support air travel equity for all travelers regardless of any physical handicap. The regulation of this matter is necessary to ensure nondiscriminatory treatment of qualified disabled individuals consistent with safe transportation of all passengers on air carriers.

Air Carrier Operations-The U.S. Department of Transportation should undertake a study of the high density rule to reevaluate the slot allocation process at hub airports. Such an examination should assess airline capacity, competition, fares and service at affected airports.

Preemption-Federal preemption of state regulatory authority over air carriers should not be extended to include the surface transportation component of an air carrier's operations.

Development

NCSL supports a coordinated national plan of development which accommodates state plans for investment. Such a plan should consider the relative advantages of establishing regional hubs to alleviate capacity problems. Such hubs-known as "wayports"-may offer an efficient and effective way to address the growing problem of airport congestion. The development of wayports could be an important economic benefit to many rural and depressed areas, as well as a cost-effective means of providing additional airport capacity. NCSL urges federal support of actions to investigate the feasibility of wayports.

As part of the National Airspace System Plan development process, the FAA should make every effort to increase necessary personnel and expedite equipment purchases and installation. The utilization of automated flight service centers should be carefully reviewed and implemented only where weather, geographic location and safety considerations reasonably allow.

The economies of many parts of the country are dependent on the modernization of the nation's aviation system. Federal policies should support state efforts to address capacity problems through expansion. The military airport convention program should allow for utilization of all facilities made available due to base closure. The U.S. Department of Defense conversion process should incorporate state review.

Federal Aid Program

Structure-There should be established a fixed term of office for the office of FAA Administrator. This would inject more programmatic stability.

Essential Air Service (EAS)-The EAS program was reauthorized to continue assistance in the transition to a deregulated environment by providing incentives for carriers to provide air service to small and medium-sized communities for a ten-year period. NCSL believes this commitment should be honored and adequate funds should be appropriated to meet the authorized EAS subsidies. Where EAS is terminated, proper notification to the affected community should be required.

Research and Development-Increase federal support for research and development of facilities and equipment to meet the demands of the next century's air travelers. Reforms in the FAA technology procurement process should be considered.

Administration-The state block grant program should be extended and expanded so that all states are eligible to participate.

Noise mitigation-The national noise policy should allow for airport authorities to require reasonable noise reductions beyond those required by federal regulations. NCSL supports continued federal funding of noise compatibility projects.

Mandates-Federal funding should be made available to offset the costs of federal mandates imposed on airports relative to security and the environment.

Effective July 1998

Appendix B. State Laws That Relate to Flying While Impaired (as of Sept. 20, 1995)

Provisions				Flying While Impaired Law
State	Implied Consent	BAC Level	FAA Report	Code Section	Year
Alabama				AL Code ss 4-2-79
Alaska	Yes	0.10, >0.04 no FWI	Yes	AK Stat. 2.30.030	1994 (amdt)
Arizona	Yes	0.04	Yes	AZ RS Ann. 28-1750
Arkansas	Yes	0.04	Yes	AR RS 27-116-101	1993
California	Yes	0.04	Yes	CA PUC 21407.5
Colorado	Yes	0.04	Yes	CO RS 41-2-101
Connecticut				CT GS Ann.15-77
Delaware
Florida				FL S Ann.860-13
Georgia	Yes	0.04	Yes	GA C Ann.6-2-5.1
Hawaii	Yes	0.02/0.04	Yes	HI RS 263A-1	1991
Idaho	Yes	0.04	Yes	ID Code 21-112(a)
Illinois				IL RS ch.15 1.2/22.43d(a)
Indiana				IN C Ann. 8.21-4-8
Iowa				IA C Ann. 328.41
Kansas	Yes	0.10	Yes	KS S Ann.3-1001
Kentucky	Yes	0.04	Yes	KY RS ch 183	1992
Louisiana	Yes	0.10	Yes	LA RS Ann. 14:98
Maine	Yes	0.02/0.04	Yes	ME RS Ann. tit.6ss.202	1993
Maryland				MD C Ann. 5-1000
Massachusetts	Yes	0.10	Yes	MA GL Ann. CH90 ss.44
Michigan	Yes	0.04	Yes	MI C Ann. 259. 185(1)
Minnesota	Yes	0.04	Yes	MN S Ann. 360.0752
Mississippi				MS C Ann. 61-11-1
Missouri	Yes	0.04	Yes	HB 562 Sec 8.1	1993
Montana	Yes	0.04	Yes	MT Cann.67-1-204(7)	1987
Nebraska	Yes	0.05	Yes	NE RS 28-1465
Nevada				NV RS Ann. 493.130
New Hampshire	Yes	0.04	Yes	NH RS Ann. 422.34
New Jersey				NJ S Ann. 6:1-18
New Mexico				NM S Ann. ch 64
New York				NY GBL 245(7)
North Carolina				NC GS 63-27(a)
North Dakota				ND Cent. C. 2-03-10(02)
Ohio				OH C Ann
Oklahoma	Yes	0.04	Yes	OK S Ann.tit. 3 ss.301
Oregon				OR RS 193.160
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina	Yes	0.04	Yes	SC C Ann. 55-1-100
South Dakota				SD CL Ann. 50-13-17
Tennessee	Yes	0.04	Yes	TN C Ann. 42-1-201	1994
Texas				TX RCS Ann.art46f-3(2)
Utah	Yes	0.04	Yes	UT C Ann.ss2-6-101	1993
Vermont				VT S Ann.tit.5 ss.427
Virginia				VA C Ann. 5.1-13
Washington				WA RC Ann.47.68.220
West Virginia	Yes	0.04	Yes	WV C 29-2A-11(a-f)	1995
Wisconsin				WI S Ann. 114.09(1)
Wyoming				WY Stat 10-6-103(A)
Total	24	.02/.04-2,.04-17,.05-1 .10-4	24

Source: National Transportation Safety Board, 1995.

Visitor counts for this page.

Environment, Energy and Transportation Program

The State Role in American Aviation Policy

Transportation Series No. 9

Contents