AOCI is convinced that criminal sanctions are truly inappropriate and unneeded

when these other options are available.

3. ROLE FOR DISTRICT COURTS

Section 6 of H.R. 7488 would amend section 903 (b) of the Federal Aviation Act to limit the present jurisdiction of U.S. District Courts to hear cases appealed from adverse decisions of the FAA (and of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)). Unless an FAA enforcement action involves an exclusive rights issue or civil penalties total $10,000 or more, the finding of the FAA and NTSB as to an airport proprietor's liability and the amount of civil penalties due could not be judicially reviewed during a suit for collection by the Federal Government.

At present, an airport proprietor is able to get a trial de novo on FAA's findings and penalties in the District Court system prior to fines being levied. This judicial trial would be precluded by H.R. 7488.

Based on published FAA explanatory materials, AOCI is not convinced that the existing practice of having the District Courts assess and levy civil penalties needs to be amended. More specifically, our members do not believe that, if they disagree with the FAA and NTSB as to their liability and the appropriate amount of any civil penalties, they should be foreclosed from litigating those issues during the judicial process.

Non-Safety Issues

Although airport safety and security issues have received primary focus in AOCI's review of the Administration's legislation because they are the subject of discrete FAA regulations, the increase in civil penalties from $1,000 to $25,000 per violation would also apply, under H.R. 7488, to non-safety issues such as the Section 308(a) statutory prohibition against airport operators granting certain exclusive rights at their facilities.

A serious question can be raised as to the appropriateness of such higher maximum penalties when safety is not at issue. It could appear that the sole purpose for the higher limit in these cases would be to economically coerce airport proprietors into concurrence with prevailing FAA staff views. We do not believe that the higher civil penalty should be applicable to non-safety situations, such as current efforts to induce Orange County (CAL) to adopt without further delay a complex slot auction system for carriers. A $25,000 per day civil penalty possibility could eliminate all options remaining available for that airport sponsor save capitulation to FAA wishes.

CONCLUSION

In summary, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7488 is much broader than is widely understood and would greatly impact, adversely and unnecessarily, AOCI member airports which are making good faith, reasonable efforts to comply with all FAA requirements. Until such time as the Administration can demonstrate that the existing compliance scheme for air carrier airports is ineffective for lack of adquate penalties or enforcement mechanisms, we oppose the enactment of this highly controversial proposal.

Thank you.

69-632 0-80--20