Legislative Report

Report from the Hill

The second session of the 102nd Congress has convened, and AOPA has greeted legislators with a full agenda of issues important to general aviation. Among the most critical this year will be legislation renewing authorization of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. As always, this is sure to generate lively debate and will serve as a primary vehicle for promoting causes advocated by AOPA and the rest of the aviation community.

For 1992, AOPA's chief objective is legislation to address the product liability woes plaguing GA. Because of longstanding obstacles to tort reform, AOPA is taking a fresh approach — advancing a package of initiatives that will help stimulate the production of affordable aircraft.

Congress will also take up legislation to renew the FAA's controversial Civil Penalty Assessment Demonstration Program. To ensure fairness and an objective appeals process for pilots subject to FAA enforcement action, AOPA will advocate that appeals in civil penalty cases should be transferred from the FAA to the National Transportation Safety Board. No issue in recent memory has stirred such strong opinions within the aviation legal community (see " Pilot Counsel: An Outline of FAA Enforcement Procedures," December 1990 Pilot).

Other major initiatives include ongoing technical or regulatory issues — including auxiliary flight service stations (XFSSs), research into alternative aviation fuels, tax issues, and proposals to shoot down aircraft suspected of drug-smuggling activity. AOPA's success during the past year suggests that 1992 will be challenging and productive. Here is a roundup of the most important congressional issues AOPA members faced during 1991.

Clean Air Act — Ban on New Aircraft Engines

While fuel prices increased dramatically as a result of hostilities in the Persian Gulf, several long-term fuel availability problems emerged during 1991 that seriously threatened the future of general aviation. Chief among these was the possibility that production of new aircraft engines would be banned by recent amendments to the Clean Air Act. Consequently, AOPA launched a major initiative to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency would correctly interpret Section 226 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

Section 226 prohibits the manufacture, sale, or introduction into commerce of any "nonroad" engine produced after model year 1992 that requires leaded gasoline. A superficial reading of this new legislation suggests that it could ban the production of aircraft engines. In fact, that is how some EPA officials initially interpreted it. But AOPA maintained that the ban does not apply to GA aircraft engines because nonroad emissions and aircraft emissions are addressed separately under other provisions of the Clean Air Act. We argued, therefore, that Congress intended the same distinction under Section 226.

Our efforts focused on the powerful House Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by Representative John D. Dingell (D-MI), who is among the most influential members of the House of Representatives. He emphasized that there was no compelling evidence that anyone in Congress had intended for the engine ban to apply to aircraft. Through AOPA's efforts, Dingell's voice was joined by other key players — including the Democratic and Republican leadership of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over most aviation matters in the House. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), chairman of the Senate subcommittee that controls the EPA's budget, also provided valuable assistance, writing to EPA Administrator William Reilly and urging that the ban should not be applied to GA.

AOPA's intensive lobbying efforts with Congress as well as the FAA and the Department of Transportation paid off. In September, the EPA issued a formal legal interpretation of Section 226 that agreed in every respect with AOPA's argument. The EPA concluded that Congress did not intend to apply the ban to GA aircraft.

While we won this battle, the GA industry has learned an important lesson. The legitimate environmental and economic reasons to "get the lead out" of aviation gasoline will continue to grow. With political and technical leadership from AOPA, the industry has moved aggressively during the past year to develop alternative aviation fuels that do not require lead. The outlook is optimistic — and success is vital to the long-term viability of GA.

Auxiliary Flight Service Stations

The FAA's network of FSSs is the vital link on which general aviation pilots rely to obtain critical preflight and enroute weather information. Under the FAA's FSS modernization program, the 317 FSSs existing in 1981 were to be closed and consolidated into 61 new automated FSSs (AFSSs). Roughly 120 of the 317 original stations are still operating, but all the remaining sites were scheduled to be closed during the next two years.

One of AOPA's most significant successes in many years is the new XFSS program. Congress passed legislation during 1990 mandating that the FAA develop a system of manned XFSSs to supplement the services of the 61 AFSSs. The new XFSSs are located in areas of unique weather or operational conditions. In November 1991, the FAA finally responded to pressure from Congress and announced that supplemental services would continue to be provided to pilots at 46 sites in the continental United States and Alaska. AOPA's technical staff is working closely with the FAA on implementation of the plan.

In the meantime, legislation was passed in 1991 to ensure that Congress and the pilot community are allowed ample time to review the list of proposed auxiliary sites and the level of service to be provided at the new XFSSs. The legislation was sponsored by senators Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Mikulski. Supported by AOPA, the Stevens/Mikulski legislation prohibits the FAA from closing any existing FSS until nine months after the date in November when the FAA officially announced its proposed list of XFSSs.

Drug Interdiction — Shoot Down or Force Down

AOPA has defeated several attempts during the past three years to enact legislation authorizing law enforcement officials to shoot down aircraft suspected of drug-smuggling activity. The latest attempt came in July 1991, when AOPA turned back plans by Representative Lawrence Coughlin (R-PA) to attach his version of "shoot-down" legislation to major U.S. Coast Guard legislation. AOPA has opposed shoot-down legislation because of the potential for tragedy resulting from mistaken identity.

A new twist was added in 1990 when Bush Administration officials proposed legislation that would authorize federal law enforcement officials to order suspected aircraft to land. AOPA viewed this "force-down" proposal as less onerous than shoot-down, but the force-down legislation was flawed because it did not require any suspicion of criminal activity, raising the possibility that innocent pilots could be ordered to land and might be subject to severe criminal and civil penalties for failing to obey an order to land.

AOPA sought for more than a year to amend the force-down legislation to specifically require suspicion of criminal activity before an aircraft could be ordered to land. We encountered strong opposition from the U.S. Customs Service and the Coast Guard — suggesting the possibility that what law enforcement agencies actually sought was authority to randomly order GA aircraft to land.

AOPA finally secured a favorable modification of the proposal. In the final week of the congressional session, a House and Senate Conference Committee reached agreement that reasonable suspicion of drug-smuggling activity must be established before a federal law enforcement officer will be permitted to order aircraft to land. Leading the effort to amend the force- down measure were House aviation subcommittee Chairman James L. Oberstar (D- MN) and Representative James M. Inhofe (R-OK), AOPA 238902. Before Congress adjourned, the House approved the compromise crime legislation crafted by the Conference Committee, but the legislation stalled in the Senate, where conservative Republicans objected to several provisions of the bill that were unrelated to the force-down.

Even if the larger crime bill should fail to gain final approval, our position on the force-down issue is very strong now that there is general agreement on an acceptable measure. Passage of carefully limited force-down legislation will greatly reduce the possibility that our old nemesis, the shoot-down, will ever be enacted.

Appropriations

AOPA has continued to improve its working relationship with the powerful House and Senate Appropriations committees, which determine each year how much money will be made available for the FAA to spend on capital improvement projects, other FAA programs, and operation of the air traffic control system. The appropriations process offers AOPA an annual opportunity to influence the amounts that will be allocated for various FAA programs and how that money will be spent.

Despite severe federal budget constraints, the transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1992 calls for a record FAA budget of $9.34 billion. Congress places a high priority on spending to support the national air transportation system, and the aviation community has fared reasonably well as a result. AOPA lobbied for two special funding initiatives that were included in the FY92 appropriations legislation.

First, $635,000 was set aside to enable the FAA to resume its research into alternative fuels for GA aircraft. Prior to 1988, the FAA's Technical Center in New Jersey had conducted promising alternative fuels research. Because of political and market pressures to develop a fuel to replace the 1OOLL avgas burned by most GA aircraft, AOPA urged Congress to revive the FAA research program this year.

AOPA also lobbied for $2.2 million in earmarked funds to improve charting for terminal control areas and other controlled airspace. Pilots are already beginning to see the concrete results of AOPA's past initiatives to earmark dollars for charting improvements. For example, AOPA focused its efforts during 1990 on a program to enhance the ability of pilots to use loran for navigation. Three-letter identifiers now appear on VFR sectional charts next to each airport name. This helpful improvement is a direct result of AOPA's work in the appropriations process to implement useful near-term technical benefits for the membership.

Dodging a Bullet — The Gas Tax Increase

Through an odd combination of circumstances, general aviation faced the possibility of an unintended tax increase during 1991.

As congressional leaders sought to hammer out new highway funding legislation over the summer, an attempt was made to increase the highway gasoline tax by 5 cents per gallon. The federal avgas tax is calculated using a complex formula linked to the rate of tax imposed on highway fuel. Consequently, the tax increase would have applied to avgas, even though that was clearly not the intent of those who proposed it.

The House Ways and Means Committee drafted legislation that would have required pilots to pay the tax increase at the pump and then apply for a rebate. A rebate system would place a huge administrative burden on the government, with absolutely no revenue benefit. In fact, it would cost the government money.

Opposition from AOPA contributed to growing efforts to stop the increase — efforts that were already under way by groups with a direct interest in the highway tax. But the lesson was learned, and AOPA is now lobbying the tax-writing committees in Congress to overhaul the formula for calculating the avgas tax. By eliminating the existing link with the tax on highway fuel, we can avoid the possibility of unintended or unnecessary tax increases for aviation.

Airman and Aircraft Identification

The FAA has proposed substantial modifications to existing airman and aircraft identification procedures in response to the 1988 omnibus drug bill, wherein Congress sought to enhance ID procedures in order to assist law enforcement officers in controlling airborne drug smugglers.

The FAA's proposed regulations promise to place substantial administrative burdens on individual pilots — as well as the agency itself. The FAA's Airmen and Aircraft Registry in Oklahoma City is years behind in recordkeeping capability and computer technology, and the Oklahoma City budget is one of the first to suffer when the FAA is forced to implement spending cuts.

AOPA has argued that there is a better and less burdensome way to improve airman and aircraft ID procedures. For example, we do not believe it is necessary to require a new photo ID of every pilot, as the FAA has proposed. AOPA recommends that the FAA merely require pilots flying internationally to carry a driver's license, passport, or other existing form of standard photo ID. After all, it is those flying internationally whom law enforcement officials seek to identify. These existing forms of photo ID are already recognized universally as appropriate ID.

In response to AOPA's concerns, the leadership of the Senate aviation subcommittee wrote to then-FAA Administrator James B. Busey in June. Subcommittee Chairman Wendell H. Ford (D-KY) and ranking Republican John McCain (R-AZ) urged Busey to consider less burdensome alternatives — including AOPA's proposals. Meanwhile, AOPA is continuing efforts to persuade House leaders that there are more effective ways of improving identification procedures for both airmen and aircraft.

Product Liability

AOPA has continued to support efforts by Representative Dan Glickman (D-KS) and Senator Nancy L. Kassebaum (R-KS) to relieve product liability costs for general aviation manufacturers. The legislation has consistently faced major obstacles in Congress, and 1991 was no exception. The outlook for passage of the Glickman and Kassebaum legislation is increasingly poor.

The longstanding obstacles to product liability reform have caused AOPA to begin rethinking the problem. Frankly, passage of product liability legislation alone will not achieve the objective of ensuring the future availability of affordable aircraft. It will help, but it is not a complete answer to the problems of the industry. AOPA is seeking to identify other ways in which to stimulate the production of affordable GA aircraft.

For 1992, we are exploring a package of possible legislative initiatives that, individually or in combination, will help foster our fundamental objective. For example, AOPA has consistently advocated the concept of new aircraft certification rules creating a Primary category aircraft as one way of reducing manufacturing costs for the producers of basic models of GA aircraft. In addition, working with Congress, perhaps a package of small-business incentives could be developed that would help attract entrepreneurs to the industry. Also, there might be key components of the product liability bill itself that, if proposed separately, would stand a better chance of passing than the existing legislation in its entirety.

These are some of the possibilities AOPA is considering. The downward spiral of our industry continues, and we must develop creative approaches to reverse the trend.

Veterans' Flight Training

Legislation sponsored by Senator Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD), AOPA 830658, was passed in 1989, authorizing vocational flight training benefits for veterans eligible under the Montgomery GI Bill. AOPA has been the major proponent of reinstating vocational flight training benefits, which were terminated by Congress in 1981.

During 1990, AOPA supported an additional effort by Daschle to expand the program to include veterans eligible under the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP). When 1991 opened with Operation Desert Storm and heightened concern regarding veterans' programs, Daschle took advantage of the opportunity and attached his flight training legislation to a comprehensive veterans' benefits package, which sailed through Congress during the early months of the year.

Daschle is not finished. AOPA supports his proposal to make solo flight training expenses eligible for reimbursement. Currently, only dual instruction expenses are reimbursable. AOPA will continue to work with the senator to ensure the success of this worthwhile vocational program for veterans.

These were the most significant congressional issues for general aviation during 1991. AOPA members can take pride in the credibility of their association on Capitol Hill, as we who represent AOPA members before Congress take pride in the grass-roots influence of 300,000 active and well-informed members.

States' Rites

Report from the statehouse

BY DAVID B. KENNEDY

The past year was surprisingly successful for AOPA on the state level, considering the poor economy and the continuing ripple effect on state governments of the massive federal budget deficit. The states are struggling with major fiscal concerns, reflected by the large number of tax and budget issues with which AOPA was involved during 1991. Yet general aviation weathered the storm — faring well in most states where pilots and aircraft owners were targeted for tax increases or other potentially adverse budgetary actions.

For 1992, AOPA expects state fiscal problems to worsen, and that spells trouble. But AOPA members can also expect continued successes on positive issues such as airport zoning and efforts to restructure existing tax schemes and improve funding for GA airports. A review of AOPA's state activities in 1991 can shed light on what we might expect in 1992.

During 1991, AOPA participated in efforts to restructure the aviation fuel tax in Alabama. Legislation was introduced that would have changed the method used to calculate the avgas tax.

Currently, pilots in Alabama pay a fuel tax based on the need to collect $600,000 annually — an artificial cap placed by law on aviation funding. The rate is adjusted at specific intervals in order to achieve this amount. The current tax on avgas is 3 cents per gallon. This is a cumbersome system to administer and results in an unstable tax rate for AOPA members.

The proposed legislation would have set the tax at a fixed rate of 5 cents per gallon. It would also have removed the $600,000 cap on the department of aeronautics' funding, allowing all the aviation tax money collected to be used for aviation improvements in Alabama.

The legislation did not pass, mostly due to strong opposition from the air carriers. AOPA will continue to work for passage of this important proposal.

As in many states facing major revenue shortfalls, the California legislature looked to numerous tax increases and budget cuts in an effort to achieve a balanced budget.

Funding for aviation programs would have been cut drastically under some of the bills considered. One proposal would have repealed the exemption from the state sales tax on jet fuel purchased by the airlines. AOPA has favored this idea for some time, but under this proposal, the money generated by repealing the exemption would have been diverted to other state uses rather than to the state aeronautics account. Worse still, the legislation would have also diverted the money generated by the sales tax on noncommercial jet fuel to the general fund. Under present law, these dollars are dedicated to the state aeronautics account. Working with other aviation interests in the state, AOPA was able to prevent this diversion. We will continue to work to have the revenue generated by the sales tax on commercial jet fuel used for aviation purposes.

California was one of several states to consider a luxury tax similar to the federal luxury tax imposed by Congress in 1990. Legislation was introduced that would have taxed the sale of new GA aircraft at the rate of 5 percent of the value in excess of $100,000. The legislative vehicle for the luxury tax was a wide-ranging revenue bill, and AOPA was able to have the sections that contained the luxury tax dropped.

Airport land use is always a controversial issue in California. As one legislative aide put it, airports are "LULUs" — that is, "Locally Unpopular Land Uses." This past year, AOPA worked to defeat or modify several bills that would have adversely affected GA airports in the state. One proposal would have prevented any airport development within 2 miles of a school. AOPA Regional Representative Joe Crotti worked with the California Division of Aeronautics to have this legislation modified to require consideration of such airports in the planning process for schools that might be affected by development. This should help reassure those concerned with the safety of schools while still allowing airports to meet growing capacity demands.

For the second consecutive year, AOPA opposed legislation that would exempt Los Angeles County from California's innovative airport land-use planning laws. Governor George Deukinejian vetoed similar legislation in 1990. Sixteen airports would have been exempted — including major facilities at Torrance, Hawthorne, Long Beach, and Van Nuys. Exempting Los Angeles County would send the wrong message to local governments throughout the state concerning the importance of public airports. By requiring localities to properly plan for land use surrounding airports, both the continued viability of an airport and the safety of the surrounding neighborhood can be ensured. California's new governor, Pete Wilson, followed the lead of his predecessor and vetoed the lead of his predecessor and vetoed the bill.

After several years of effort, GA scored a major victory when the Colorado legislature passed and Governor Roy Romer, AOPA 514757, signed legislation directing that the from the sales tax on jet fuel be used for aviation purposes. The major sponsor was state Representative Lewis Entz, AOPA 307796, who, along with state Senator Tillman Bishop, worked hard to dedicate these funds to aviation. AOPA joined with the Colorado Airport Operators Association, the Colorado Pilots Association, and other parties in promoting this legislation. The Colorado aviation community had fought for years to secure tax money for aviation to which it is entitled under the state constitution, which provides that "[a]ny taxes imposed upon aviation fuel shall be used exclusively for aviation purposes." Unfortunately, the approximately $8 million in revenue generated each year by the tax on jet fuel was being directed to the state general fund. In late 1990, the Colorado attorney general ruled that the revenue from the sales tax did, in fact, have to be dedicated to aviation purposes. In the final legislation, a deal was struck that provides that the revenue from the jet fuel sales tax will be split — with 75 percent going back directly to the airport that generates it and 25 percent going into a state aviation fund. This new package should generate $2 million annually in much-needed capital to improve the state's GA airport system.

After several years of trying, a reasonable increase in the aviation fuel tax was passed in Idaho. The tax was increased by two cents to 4.5 cents per gallon. The tax increase is intended to help fund badly needed airport improvements. Many pilots in Idaho supported this effort because they knew the money would go to benefit aviation. AOPA was in a difficult position with regard to this tax increase. We had endorsed the effort in the past. Unfortunately, AOPA was not able to support any state fuel tax increases this year, in light of the federal aviation fuel tax increase unfairly imposed on GA in 1990. We were able to work with the Idaho Bureau of Aeronautics, however, to ensure that the tax increase would be applied to both GA and the commercial airlines. Much credit must be given to Bill Miller, Idaho's director of aeronautics, for his efforts on this legislation.

In a last-minute budget ploy, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad acted to divert money from 28 dedicated trust funds in order to offset Iowa's budget deficit. Among the dedicated funds raided was the aviation fund. Under current law, state taxes on aviation fuel are dedicated to improving the aviation system in Iowa. By diverting money from the aviation fuel tax fund to mask the budget deficit, the governor broke faith with every user of the Iowa aviation system. The state attorney general issued an opinion declaring that the line item veto that the governor employed to accomplish the trust fund diversion would likely be found to be beyond his line item veto authority. AOPA is working in concert with other groups to review possible legal remedies to address this issue. These dollars are sorely needed to satisfy the growing demands on Iowa's aviation system, and we feel compelled to take strong action on behalf of our members.

AOPA successfully opposed a proposed aviation fuel tax increase in Maryland, which, like many states, faces a sizable budget deficit. Prominent lawmakers had said for nearly a year that 1991 would be the time to increase the highway fuel tax to pay for road improvements. In fact, an increase in all transportation was sought in 1991, including a 2-cent increase in the 5- cents-per-gallon aviation fuel tax. AOPA contacted its 6,000 Maryland members, asking them to urge their representatives to oppose the aviation fuel tax increase. As the legislative session progressed, it became clear that there was not enough support for a fuel tax increase among state legislators. After several attempts to report the legislation out of committee, the supporters of the proposal gave up. After last year's fight, it is clear that we will continue to face the possibility of a tax increase in Maryland. AOPA will work to assure that any increase is reasonable and that all aviation taxes are dedicated to aviation.

AOPA continued its support of efforts to dedicate aviation taxes to aviation purposes in Massachusetts. Legislation was introduced during 1991 that would have dedicated registration fees on aircraft to an aviation fund. AOPA contacted state legislators, suggesting that this legislation was positive but did not go far enough. We feel strongly that all state taxes on aviation — including aviation fuel taxes, as well as aircraft registration fees — should be dedicated to improving the aviation infrastructure. While the legislation was not passed this year, we will continue to work for its enactment.

During 1991, AOPA continued its efforts to dedicate some or all of the revenues from the jet fuel sales tax in Missouri to aviation purposes. AOPA supported legislation in 1990 that would have dedicated 30 percent of sales tax revenues, or $4.2 million. Unfortunately, that proposal failed. In 1991, legislation was introduced to authorize the legislature to dedicate up to $5 million. The legislation was passed and signed by the governor. The good news is that the measure permits dedication of jet fuel sales tax revenue. The bad news is that it does not require it. The next phase will be to persuade the legislature to act on this new authority and make additional funds available to airports. AOPA is already engaged in an effort with the Missouri Aviation Division to secure these new funds.

Legislation was again introduced in 1991 that would have tripled aircraft registration fees in New Mexico. This proposal is advocated by the New Mexico Aviation Division but strongly opposed by AOPA. We could see no reasonable justification for imposing such a heavy burden on the aviation community. The House Transportation Committee held the bill until the legislature adjourned, thus killing it for the second consecutive year. This issue may arise again in 1992.

AOPA successfully opposed legislation in North Carolina that would have imposed a state luxury tax at the rate of one third of the federal luxury tax paid on the sale of a GA aircraft. As with this and several other state- level luxury-tax proposals, we were able to convince the legislature of the serious impact such a tax would have on the new aircraft market.

Legislation was passed in Oklahoma to address the issue of false registration of aircraft in order to conceal true ownership. This stems from the legitimate concern that drug smugglers often seek to disguise aircraft ownership. AOPA recognizes that southern-tier states, such as Oklahoma, are engaged in the front-line struggle against the illegal drug trade, and AOPA endorses tough measures to combat the problem. But a distinction must be made between efforts to conceal the ownership of aircraft as part of a criminal venture and relatively harmless conduct, such as neglect or mistake, which results in a faulty registration. The Oklahoma legislation was flawed in this respect. AOPA contacted the legislature to point out where the legislation could be modified to protect the innocent aircraft owner. Our comments were incorporated in the final legislative package, and the problem was solved.

The Ohio legislature passed House Bill 15, authorizing the Ohio Department of Transportation to regulate the construction of tall structures in the vicinity of airports. AOPA was a strong supporter of this legislation. The bill, introduced by Representative E. J. Thomas, AOPA 912680, faced numerous obstacles — not the least of which was that Thomas was sent as an Air Force reservist to the Persian Gulf in middle of the legislative session. With the help of several colleagues, he was able to keep the bill on track. AOPA is an aggressive advocate of state laws that limit the establishment of obstructions to the navigable airspace and control land use in the vicinity of airports. State laws regulating the establishment of tall structures are vital to ensure adequate safety. Tall structures that extend into the navigable airspace represent a clear danger to aviation safety and the well- being of persons and property on the ground.

In 1991, Oregon's new administrator of aeronautics, Paul Myerhoff, proposed a penny-per-gallon avgas tax increase, to 4 cents per gallon. He also proposed to increase the jet fuel tax by half a cent per gallon, to a total of 1 cent per gallon. Because of its national implications and because the federal avgas tax was increased in 1990, AOPA was not able to support this proposal. We did urge the legislature, however, to give strong consideration to the views of local pilots. A number of state organizations endorsed the legislation, including the Oregon Pilots Association. As the bill was considered by the legislature, the airlines mounted a lobbying effort in opposition, and it was ultimately defeated. We anticipate that it will be introduced again in the next legislative session. The Oregon Division of Aeronautics also sought to restructure aircraft registration fees to include more aircraft, and it proposed a modest increase in pilot registration fees. Money raised from these fees is used to support the department's aviation promotional programs and its search and rescue efforts. Previously, aircraft older than 20 years were only subject to a nominal fee. Due to the aging of the GA fleet, the fee was not bringing in enough revenue to support the department's programs. Similarly, the pilot registration fee was not producing sufficient income. Like the fuel tax increase, these changes were endorsed by state pilot groups, and both passed.

As the Rhode Island legislature wrestled over how to reduce the state's budget deficit, aviation fuel became a target for a tax increase. Legislation was introduced that would have removed the exemption for aviation gasoline from the state's motor fuel tax. Under current law, pilots can apply for a refund of the motor fuel tax, which they pay at the pump. AOPA strongly opposed the legislation to abolish the refund, and it was defeated. If the state budget continues to fall short, it is certainly possible aviation will be a target again.

In one of the hardest fought state legislative battles of the year, AOPA and local helicopter operators in eastern Tennessee overcame a proposal to restrict helicopter operations. Legislation was introduced that limited commercial helicopter operators to landing or taking off only from public airports. The legislation would have placed undue restrictions on the operations of commercial operators and would have infringed on the FAA's authority to regulate airspace. AOPA Regional Representative Bob Minter worked with the Helicopter Association International and helicopter operators to stop this legislation. Unfortunately, the sponsors of the bill were able to push it through the legislature, and the governor signed it. When local officials attempted to enforce the ban, however, the state attorney general ruled that the law could not be enforced because it went beyond the state's authority — as we had argued all along.

The Texas legislature convened this year in its biennial session, and the Department of Aviation was back with its proposal to impose a tax on aviation fuel. None of the several fuel tax bills — which proposed new taxes ranging up to 4 cents per gallon — were approved. AOPA might consider a reasonable fuel tax in the future to be a way of increasing resources for airport development in Texas — provided AOPA members do not object to paying such a tax and that all the revenues are dedicated to aviation purposes. AOPA's 10-year battle in Texas over personal property taxes on aircraft continued in 1991, mostly on the legal front. We are seeking to ensure proper interpretation of legislation supported by AOPA and passed in 1989 that exempts all non-income-producing personal property from personal property taxes. AOPA scored a major victory when it won a lawsuit against the city of Dallas on this important issue. Dallas elected to exercise a local option provision under the legislation to continue to tax automobiles and aircraft but no other articles of personal property. AOPA sued to ensure that the local option is interpreted to mean that either all non-income-producing personal property must be taxed or none at all. The court ruled in AOPA's favor, and it appears Dallas will not appeal. AOPA will carry the ruling to the handful of other jurisdictions in Texas that persist in singling out aircraft for this unfair taxation.

The participation of individual AOPA members is largely responsible for the successes AOPA has scored in the state legislatures. For example, in Colorado, as House Bill 1028 — the vehicle to accomplish the redirection of fuel tax revenues from the general fund to the aviation account — worked its way through the legislative process, it faced numerous obstacles. At one critical point, AOPA contacted each of its more than 5,000 Colorado members, asking them to urge the legislature to direct this money to aviation purposes. The response to our request was outstanding. Colorado AOPA members sent a clear message to the legislature and the governor that this was a crucial matter to them. This issue is another prime example of the grass-roots power of AOPA membership.

David B. Kennedy is AOPA's director of legislative affairs.

State Taxes on Avgas

As is obvious from the following list, state avgas taxes vary widely — from none in Texas and .008 cents per gallon in Oklahoma to a whopping 26 cents per gallon in Rhode Island. The disparities may not be as great as it seems, though, because some states offer rebates. The rebate may be small and hard to collect, but the persistent pilot can perhaps recoup a few hundred dollars each year. To find out if your state offers a rebate and the process for collection, contact your state aviation department or agency (see p. 27 of the 1992 edition of AOPA's Aviation USA).

• Alabama — 3 cents per gallon
• Alaska — 4 cents per gallon
• Arizona — 5 cents per gallon
• Arkansas — 5 percent
• California — 16 cents per gallon
• Colorado — 6 cents per gallon
• Connecticut — 2.5 percent
• Delaware — 19 cents per gallon/rebate available
• Florida — 6.9 cents per gallon
• Georgia — 4 percent, plus additional tax in some counties
• Hawaii — 1 cent per gallon
• Idaho — 5.5 cents per gallon
• Illinois — 6.25 cents per gallon
• Indiana — None, if purchased at a registered FBO; otherwise, 15 cents per gallon/rebate available
• Iowa — 8 cents per gallon
• Kansas — 4.25 to 5.25 percent, depending on the city
• Kentucky — 15 cents per gallon
• Louisiana — 3 percent
• Maine — 19 cents per gallon/rebate available if sales tax is also paid
• Maryland — 5 cents per gallon/rebate available for manufacturers, agricultural, government, air carrier, etc.
• Massachusetts — 10 cents per gallon or 10 percent, which ever is greater
• Michigan — 4 per cent, plus 3 cents excise tax
• Minnesota — 5 cents per gallon for 0 to 50,000 gallons, rate decreases after 50,000
• Mississippi — 6.4 cents per gallon/rebate available for political subdivisions such as U.S. government, state, schools, etc.
• Missouri — 11 cents per gallon/rebate available for commercial agricultural use
• Montana — 1 cent per gallon
• Nebraska — 5 cents per gallon
• Nevada — 20.5 cents per gallon, plus up to 10 cents per county/rebate available for offroad use, which equals the amount of tax paid less the dealer's collection allowance
• New Hampshire — 4 cents per gallon
• New Jersey — 12.5 cents per gallon/ 10.5 cents rebate available
• New Mexico — 16 cents per gallon/partial rebate available for off-road use
• New York — 8 cents excise tax/rebate available
• North Carolina — 4 percent, with local option of another 1.5 per cent
• North Dakota — 8 cents per gallon/4 cents rebate available
• Ohio — 21 cents per gallon/rebate available if sales tax is also paid
• Oklahoma — .008 cents per gallon
• Oregon — 3 cents per gallon
• Pennsylvania — 3 cents per gallon
• Rhode Island — 26 cents per gallon/rebate available
• South Carolina — 5 percent
• South Dakota — 6 cents per gallon
• Tennessee — 4.5 percent
• Texas — None
• Utah — 4 cents per gallon/3 cents rebate available
• Vermont — 15 cents per gallon/ rebate available for military and government
• Virginia — 5 cents per gallon
• Washington — 6 cents per gallon/agricultural rebate available
• West Virginia — 20.35 cents per gallon
• Wisconsin — 6 cents per gallon
• Wyoming — 5 cents per gallon