A proposal to create an independent not-for-profit air traffic control corporation moves to the House floor for consideration after the Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee February 11 approved the measure as part of a sweeping FAA reauthorization package. The committee approved the bill, HR.4441, the Aviation Innovation, Reform and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act, 32-26 largely along party lines, with the exception of two key General Aviation Caucus members—co-chair Sam Graves (R-Mo.) and Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.).

The approval followed a nearly 10-hour “markup” session where the committee sorted through 75 amendments covering everything from seat-pitch/size requirements, the use of vapes/e-cigarettes on aircraft and a number of measures aimed at the ATC proposal itself.

A number of the amendments—including some of those accepted by the committee—came from Graves and Rokita, as the bill’s author, T&I chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) sought to seek a compromise and allay concerns of some of the proposal’s opponents. The key accepted measures included one to alter the structure of the ATC corporation’s governing board to add seats for a business aviation representative and an aircraft manufacturer representative. The committee agreed to a clarification that fractional and aircraft management operations are non-commercial, which would exempt them from user fees and continue their excise-tax contribution. Air taxis in Alaska were exempted and the board’s charter was altered to ensure that it acts in the best interest of the public.

Other approved amendments of interest to general aviation include a measure that ensures the aircraft registry will remain open in case of a government shutdown and a requirement for the FAA to ensure it has enough designated pilot examiners.

Failed amendments include an effort to replace the ATC proposal with an alternative that would reform the FAA’s procurement policies and take the trust fund “off budget,” thereby shielding it from the starts and stops of the congressional appropriations process. Also failing was an amendment to require unanimous consent of the board for decisions affecting access and an attempt to add a seat on the board for an airports representative.

Shuster hailed the bill’s approval, saying it “provides the transformational reform necessary to bring our antiquated air traffic system into the modern era.” Noting that more than half of the amendments were approved, he added, “Today’s open process led to many improvements to the legislation.”

But the bill’s opponents were unconvinced. “We’re profoundly disappointed that user fees are still part of this legislation,” said AOPA president Mark Baker. “AOPA simply won’t accept user fees in any form on any segment of general aviation. And while there are some very positive provisions for GA in this proposal, user fees are a non-starter for us.”

“This bill has reached a critical milestone in its journey toward becoming the law of the land,” NBAA president and CEO Ed Bolen said. “That means it is imperative for all of us in the business aviation community to underscore our grave concerns about turning over the air traffic control system to a board dominated by the big airlines."

The coalition of consumer interests recently organized as Americans Against Air Traffic Privatization was pointed in its opposition following the bill’s passage: “This is what a bad week in Washington looks like. Chairman Shuster has rammed through misguided policy in a literally smoke-filled room despite valid concerns from fellow legislators, aviation workers, groups and thousands of concerned passengers. Americans deserve a real debate over a proposal that hands over control our air traffic control to the airline industry.”

Shuster has indicated he is hoping to bring the bill to the floor as soon as possible. But while Shuster has long been credited with his deal-making abilities, the bill still faces an uphill battle to win full House passage. A number of lawmakers outside the committee, including the bipartisan leadership of the House Appropriations Committee and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), have expressed strong opposition to the plan. Pompeo penned an op-ed piece in the February 11 issue of Capitol Hill insider news publication, The Hill, reiterating, “Congress is considering taking a sledgehammer to the FAA. This proposal would not only remove congressional oversight and diminish public input; it also has the potential to cause serious problems for American aviation.” Also, the House Ways and Means Committee must pass separate legislation that would facilitate the funding piece of the proposal.

The Senate also would need to agree to the proposal, but key law authorizers in the chamber have been watching the activity in the House closely before taking a position. Like their House counterparts, Senate appropriators have come out in opposition.