A quick update on AB 48, The California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009.
In an email, Kyle Precourt, (Field Representative Office of Assemblymen Martin Garrick) has said that he is currently working with Assemblyman Garrick’s Legislative Director, Joe Patterson, and other legislative offices in Sacramento to obtain relief for flight schools.
In the coming weeks, AB 1889, a bill which would make adjustments to AB 48’s provisions, will be addressed by the Senate. This bill, which has already been passed by the Assembly, does not include an exemption for flight schools at this time. However, it may be amended by the Senate Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development, where it is scheduled to be heard on June 28th
What Can You Do?
Letters and phone calls from our industry will be important as the process moves forward. This is a good time to contact your State Senator and make sure they are aware of the issue, and understand what is at stake for your business.
In summary, the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) held a hearing on the implementation of the new regulations for private postsecondary schools. There were large numbers of advocates for the flight school industry in attendance, most of whom spoke about the impact the new fees and regulations will have on their businesses. Several groups and individuals requested that the flight school application deadline be moved from August to January, to provide enough time for a permanent solution to be reached.
The BPPE has maintained all along that they do not have the authority to exempt schools, change deadlines, or to make substantive changes to the regulations. While they are not unsympathetic to your cause, their contention is that each provision is specifically written into AB 48, and must be enforced as such.
There is no evidence of any direct action that will be taken as a result of the hearing. However it does serve as a platform for the flight school industry (and the rest of the state’s general aviation pilots…..Ed) to make their grievances known to your State Senator.
Please contact me in the future with any additional concerns or information. I will continue to keep you informed of any new developments.
Office of Assemblyman Martin Garrick
Discussion Points For Speaking to Your California Assemblyperson
First – PLEASE be polite, unemotional and to the point-
- AB48 was a complete surprise to the California Aviation community and should not have included flight schools or flight instructors. AB1889 should be amended to exclude flight schools and independent flight instructors
- Flight Schools and independent flight instructors are very small businesses which cannot afford the unwarranted fees associated with AB48 ($5k to register plus $3k per location, $1K annual renewal fees, $3.5K five year renewal fees, and annual percentage of business is simply unjust).
- It is unfortunate that 15-30 people were swindled by a flight school, however, AB48 will result in thousands losing their jobs when flight schools and independent flight instructors shut down their businesses
- Aviation contributes $250,000,000 per year to the state in taxes alone. That amount will drop dramatically if flight schools and independent flight instructors are included in AB48
- The state’s 70,000 active pilots will be unable to adhere to the FAA’s annual and bi annual training requirements without flight schools and independent flight instructors
- The Legislature has an opportunity to do the right thing here and fix this (state created) problem, and the state’s aviators expect them to do it
More on Fixing AB48
For the past two months members of California’s flight training industry, local, state, and national aviation associations have been agonizing over the imminent effect of the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009. You may recall the LRAA Update message I sent on May 13th highlighted the recent discovery of the Act’s devastating impact on flight training in the state if it were left unchecked — not only on formal “flight schools” but possibly on independent flight instructors as well.
This week, Assembly Member Roger Niello (R-5th) will amend Assembly Bill 1140 to include a provision that will prohibit the Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education from regulating aviation training activities for a period of one year and require the Legislature to hold public hearings to determine the degree to which state regulation of this activity is necessary.
While this seems like a logical act to us, the bill’s passage is not guaranteed. It will take a measure of visible action and engagement by you. So, once again, I am asking you to contact your personal Legislative Representatives asking them to support Assembly Bill 1140 (as amended) when it comes to a vote. The NATA has provided a sample letter you may use as a guide in composing your comments and it will be available for viewing and downloading on the LRAA website by midnight tonight!
Please do not delay! The State Legislature will be on recess beginning July 2! Written letters, sent by fax or hand delivered to the Representative’s office are very effective. Alternatively, most representatives have an email address or a form on their personal website through which you may submit comments. Even a brief telephone call to the Representative’s office can be an important method of communicating your thoughts. In this process, numbers matter so your contact, no matter how formal or in depth, will mark a tally toward supporting the passage of AB1140 (Niello).
Also, for your information, this bill will be heard before the Senate Health Committee on Wednesday, June 30th. (Yes, that’s where AB1140 resides as its primary function was to deal with “diagnostic imaging services” … Rep. Niello is helping us by amending his bill to include the 1-year aviation training exemption.)
If you have any questions,drop by the online California Aviation Instruction Providers Forum and ask your question there.
Lincoln Regional Aviation Assn.