Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am J. J. Corbett, Vice President

Council International (AOCI).

Federal Affairs, of the Airport Operators

The Airport Operators Council International is the association of the governmental bodies which own and operate the principal airports served by the scheduled airlines in the United States as well as in many countries abroad. Our U.S. member airports annually enplane more than 90% of the domestic and virtually all of the U.S. international scheduled airline passenger and cargo traffic. In addition, our local government members operate many reliever and other general aviation facilities which supplement the larger airports in their communities and regions. (A listing of our United States members is attached.)

We appreciate the opportunity to testify for AOCI's United States members on H.R. 7488, legislation proposed by the Administration to increase civil penalty limits for violations of Federal Aviation Regulations and agency orders, and to provide additional criminal penalties for violations of aviation safety regulations.

Our membership, Mr. Chairman, is strongly opposed to this legislation for fear of its potentially disasterous--however carefully unadvertised-impact on community airport sponsors. Surprisingly, the language of the Administration bill would not be limited to increasing penalties on shoddy "cockroach corner" aircraft operators who find the $1,000 current maximum fine an inadequate deterrent to compliance with FAA aviation safety regulation. As introduced, H.R. 7488 would apply to airport security and safety programs and to non-safety issues such as exclusive rights at airports.

We are concerned that the greater impact of the proposal would not be an increase in airport proprietor safety measures--which we think are pretty good already. Rather, H.R. 7488 is a grant of power to FAA so economically coercive in its effect that no airport proprietor could financially afford to dispute an FAA interpretation on a non-safety matter

(such as exclusive rights issues) for fear of the dire economic consequences of being held to

be wrong. The FAA position would prevail by economic pressure alone.

The three areas of FAA enforcement activity where the Administration's proposal

would impact directly upon airport proprietors are these:

1. FAR Part 107, Airport Security, issued under authority of section

316 (b) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended;

2. FAR Part 139, Airport Safety Certification, issued under

authority of sections 610 (a) (8) and 612 of the Federal Aviation

Act of 1958, as amended; and the

3. Statutory prohibition against granting certain exclusive

rights at airports, under section 308 (a) of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958, as amended.

1. INCREASED CIVIL PENALTIES

Section I (a) of H.R. 7488 would amend section 901 (a) (1) of the Federal Aviation Act to increase from $1,000 to $25,000 the maximum civil penalty that could be imposed for each violation of FAR Parts 107 and 139 and of section 308 (a) of the Act, and of orders issued pursuant to that statutory authority.

We are perplexed by FAA's attempt to greatly increase civil penalties on governmental airport sponsors without any stated justification either in the section-bysection analysis which accompanied the bill, in the DOT Secretary's transmittal letter or in the Administrator's speeches.

In each instance, H.R. 7488 is justified solely as FAA's effort to update a forty-year old maximum $1,000 civil penalty to a level ($25,000) that would be an effective economic deterrent to those "many commercial (aircraft) operators which assume the $1,000 civil penalty as a cost of doing business and continue to operate illegally at substantial profits."

This justification just doesn't apply to airport proprietors. First, there is no profit motive for safety or security violations in the governmental airport sponsor as there could be in the private sector. Second, fines and penalties imposed by FAA have not been seen simply as a "cost of doing business" but oftentimes require line-by-line appropriations by city councils. Thirdly, the $1,000 existing ceiling on single violations is more than enough, historically and currently, to minimize the types of employee negligence that have been the subject of past civil penalties. Last year, for example, FAA imposed a national total of $15,650 in civil penalties against fewer than two dozen airport sponsors for security viclations (out of a total of 420 regulated airports) and the median civil penalty was about $500.

Frankly, in reviewing the records of past safety and security civil penalty actions against airport proprietors, we could find no one in FAA who believed that an increase in civil penalty limits is needed to deter the kinds of airport employee violations as now occur. They concur with us that airports were simply not excluded from the broad language in H.R. 7488.

There are other issues here as well. Many airport sponsors believe that the proposed $25,000 ceiling on violations is so high as to be subject to abuse because the limit doesn't fit the offenses to which it would be applied. To even theoretically envision the threat of a $25,000 civil penalty for "not closing the gate securely after lawn was mowed" is as inappropriate as trying to maximize highway safety by setting the fine at $25,000 for driving with only one headlight operating. The civil penalty just doesn't fit the offense.

2. IMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES

Section 3 of H.R. 7488 would amend section 902 (a) of the Federal Aviation Act to authorize the imposition of criminal penalties for any employee or official of an air carrier airport who "knowingly and willingfully" fails or refuses to make required reports to FAA or who falsifies or alters airport records or files false reports or records, or fails to keep required data in connection with FAR 139, Airport Safety Certification.

In each instance, a criminal penalty of not more than one year imprisonment and a fine of not more than $25,000 could be imposed for each violation. And, if the violation is a continuing one, each day of the violation is a separate offense.

In this instance, as well, there has been no justification offered by the Administration for proposing criminal penalties for FAR Part 139 airport certification

violations.

AOCI members do not believe that criminal penalties are needed for effective FAA enforcement of their obligations, as equally effective compliance mechanisms are already available. First, the possibility of criminal prosecution would completely change the cooperative relationship between FAA and the airport sponsor now working together jointly for better aviation safety. (An adversarial relationship could not be avoided when criminal penalties are possible.) Secondly, the possibility of a community's having its Airport Operating Certificate suspended or revoked is a most effective deterrent to shoddy safety practices, as is the possibility of legal liability resulting from gross employee negligence.

Lastly, of all certificate holders under Title VI, the airport sponsor alone has an additional tie to the Federal Government--ADAP--which fosters safe airport operations. Specifically, the sponsor is constantly aware that its continued eligibility for ADAP grants is conditioned upon its being in "compliance" with its past grant agreements. Under the Airport and Airway Development Act, as amended, and its FAR Part 152 ADAP Regulations, a sponsor has to give FAA its written assurance that "The Sponsor will operate and maintain in a safe and serviceable condition the Airport and all facilities therein which are necessary to serve the aeronautical users of the Airport...."