Aviation Bills Currently on the Books in Sacramento

Are you aware of what your elected officials are up to? The following information is public record and is available for review on the web site listed below. Time for all of us to get involved and watch what our elected officials are proposing. 3. AB 530 (Mullin): ?Aviation: Noise?: This bill would, in subsequent legislation, require each airport served by an airline, to mitigate airport noise through a collaborative program between the airport and airlines to reach operating performance goals in compliance with the airport noise standards administered by the Department. Assembly member Mullin is chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Aviation and the Airline Industry, and held a hearing in Brisbane on February 27, 2003 on this issue. This bill did not pass out of its house of origin by the January 31, 2004 deadline. It will be deleted from the next report.

4. AB 694 (Levine): ?Use Tax: Vehicles, Vessels, and Aircraft?: This bill will make a ?rebuttable presumption? that an aircraft purchased outside of California (CA) will be subject to CA?s use tax, under any of the following circumstances: a) It was purchased by a CA resident; b) It was subject to the CA property tax during the first 12 months of ownership; or c) It was used or stored in CA more than ? the time during the first 12 months of ownership. This presumption may be ?controverted? by documentary proof that the aircraft was purchased for use outside of CA during the first 12 months of ownership. If the aircraft is used in interstate or foreign commerce, it will not be subject to the bill. The bill will provide for an exemption for aircraft brought into California for the purpose of repair, retrofit, or modification, if the work is completed, and less than 25 hours of air time has been logged by the aircraft owner, or an agent designated by the owner who is operating the aircraft. If more than 25 hours is logged, then the aircraft will be subject to the use tax. There will not be a grace period allowed for avoidance of the use tax. AB 694 is in the ?Inactive? file on the Senate Floor.

7. AB 920 (Nakano): ?Real Estate Disclosures: Nuisance: Local Government?: AB 2776, Chapter 496 of the Statutes of 2002, established a city or county disclosure requirement for real property in the vicinity of an airport influence area, effective January 1, 2004. AB 920 would provide, after January 1, 2005, unless a city or county adopts a different or additional disclosure form, that an ?Airport Influence Area? map disclosure, or notice of an airport within two statute miles, would satisfy the requirement for disclosure of airports in transfers of real property. AB 920 was returned to the Judiciary Committee from the Senate Floor.

13. SB 541 (Torlakson): “Motor Vehicle Fuel License Taxes?: Existing law imposes an excise tax on aviation gasoline of $.18 per gallon, which was effective January 1, 1994. If the price of gasoline were below $1.80 per gallon, this bill would raise the tax each year according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with the rate for 2004 calculated for the period between 1994 and 2003. The author estimated the tax would now be $.215 per gallon. In FY 2001-02, 28.8 million gallons of aviation gasoline were purchased in California. Using that amount of fuel, the increase could have generated an estimated $1 million annually. SB 541 failed passage in the Senate Committee on Transportation, but was granted reconsideration. This bill did not pass out of its house of origin by the January 31, 2004 deadline. It will be deleted from the next report.

18. SB 981 (Soto & Romero): ?Petroleum Pollution Cleanup and Prevention Act of 2003?: Due to air quality problems associated with the transportation fuels, including those used for internal combustion engines in aircraft, this bill would impose a fee of $.30 per barrel of crude oil that is consumed in the state. The revenues would be sent to the Children?s Health and Petroleum Pollution Remediation Trust Fund, to provide funding for children?s health and other mitigation programs. This bill did not pass out of its house of origin by the January 31, 2004 deadline. It will be deleted from the next report.

20. SB 1095 (Chesbro) and AB 1800(Oropeza): Budget Act of 2004)? This bill calls for the transfer of $745,000 from Aeronautics funds to the General Fund. The transfer will decrease the State?s potential to fund future FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) matching grants, A&D safety projects and Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning (ALUCP) projects. The 2004/05 budget has potentially 14 safety projects estimated at $2,615,444 and 17 ALUCP projects estimated at $2,303,090. AIP grants are matched at 5%, so the transfer would potentially cause the State to lose up to $14.9m in Federal funds. Depending on the number of AIP matching grants needing funding. SB 1095 is now in the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review. AB 1800 is now in the Committee on Budget.

For more information go to: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/htmlfile/legislation.php