The bill adds a statutory ban on using automatic dependent surveillance–broadcast (ADS‑B) data to identify aircraft for the purpose of levying fees or charges, and confines how air traffic controllers may use ADS‑B information. It also broadens an existing prohibition on the use of ADS‑B data in investigations to cover federal, state, local, territorial, and Tribal officials.
Separately, the bill creates new disclosure and use restrictions before a public‑use airport may impose landing or take‑off fees on ‘general aviation aircraft’: airports must publish cost, revenue‑diversification efforts, impact assessments, and timelines, and any fee revenue must be dedicated to airside safety projects. The FAA is authorized to issue implementing regulations and reporting requirements.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds 49 U.S.C. §44749 to bar any person or government entity from using ADS‑B broadcasts to identify an aircraft for assessing fees, limits controller use of ADS‑B to safety/efficiency or Secretary‑approved purposes, amends 49 U.S.C. §46101(c)(1) to extend an investigatory restriction to all government officials, and inserts 49 U.S.C. §40133 requiring airports to disclose fee rationales and restrict fee revenue to airside safety.
Who It Affects
Owners and operators of general aviation aircraft, public‑use airports that levy landing/takeoff fees, air traffic controllers and the FAA, and federal/state/local investigators who use aviation surveillance data. ADS‑B data aggregators and airport finance officers will face operational and compliance implications.
Why It Matters
The bill elevates pilot privacy and narrows a common data source for billing and investigations, while placing new transparency and earmarking requirements on airport fee policy. That combination reshapes how airports generate revenue and how authorities can use broadcast surveillance data.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill works through three legal levers. First, it creates a new provision in chapter 447 of title 49 that makes it unlawful for any person — including government agencies — to use ADS‑B transmissions to identify an aircraft for the purpose of assessing a fee or charging the aircraft owner or operator.
The statute also says air traffic controllers may use ADS‑B only to help track aircraft for safety and efficiency, or for other uses the Secretary of Transportation approves after notice-and-comment rulemaking. That gives controllers a clear baseline purpose while leaving the Secretary discretionary authority to authorize additional uses through a public process.
Second, the bill amends the investigatory limitation currently in 49 U.S.C. §46101(c)(1) to broaden who is barred from using ADS‑B data in investigations: it replaces language that referred only to the FAA Administrator with language that covers ‘any’ Federal, State, local, territorial, or Tribal official. Practically, investigators at multiple levels of government will be explicitly restricted from relying on ADS‑B to pursue investigations unless another legal pathway applies.Third, the bill adds a new section to chapter 401 that governs how public‑use airports may impose fees on general aviation aircraft.
Before levying such a landing or takeoff fee, an airport must publish (1) steps taken to reduce non‑airside costs, (2) steps to find non‑GA revenue, (3) cost estimates and the portion of GA fees devoted to airside safety projects with a timeline, and (4) an assessment of the fee’s effect on the local general aviation ecosystem (pilots, students, charities, businesses). The statute further requires that any revenue from GA fees be spent only on airside safety projects.
The FAA may issue regulations or reporting rules to implement these requirements.Taken together, the bill removes a routine data source for billing and most investigatory uses while imposing transparency and earmarking constraints on airport fee policy. The result is a legal architecture that privileges privacy and targeted safety spending but requires regulators and airports to reconcile restricted data access with operational and funding demands.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds 49 U.S.C. §44749(a), which forbids any person — including government agencies — from using ADS‑B data to identify an aircraft for assessing a fee or charge.
49 U.S.C. §44749(b) limits air traffic controllers to using ADS‑B for tracking, safety, and efficiency, or for other Secretary‑approved purposes following notice-and-comment.
It amends 49 U.S.C. §46101(c)(1) to bar not only the FAA Administrator but ‘any’ Federal, State, local, territorial, or Tribal official from using ADS‑B in investigations.
The bill creates 49 U.S.C. §40133, which requires public‑use airports to publish cost-reduction efforts, alternative revenue plans, airside project cost shares and timelines, and impact assessments before imposing GA fees.
Revenues collected from fees on general aviation aircraft must be used only for airside safety projects, and the FAA gets authority to promulgate implementing regulations and reporting requirements.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the Act's name as the 'Pilot and Aircraft Privacy Act.' This is a labeling provision only, but it signals the statute’s policy focus: protecting pilot and aircraft privacy in relation to ADS‑B broadcasts and setting priorities for fee use at public airports.
Ban on using ADS‑B to identify aircraft for fees and controller use limits
Adds a new statutory prohibition making it unlawful for any person, public or private, to use ADS‑B data to identify an aircraft for the purpose of levying a fee. The section separately constrains air traffic controllers to safety and efficiency uses, but creates a carve‑in for other uses the Secretary of Transportation may authorize after notice and public comment. Practically, operators and airports lose a straightforward, broadcast‑based method of matching overflights to fee assessments, and the Secretary gains a formal pathway to permit additional uses if justified through rulemaking.
Broadened prohibition on investigatory uses of ADS‑B
Rewrites existing language to expand the investigatory restriction from the FAA Administrator alone to all government officials at federal, state, local, territorial, and Tribal levels. The textual change has direct operational impact: it removes ambiguity about whether state or local investigators may rely on ADS‑B as an investigatory tool, and subjects nonfederal actors to the same statutory bar.
Preconditions and limits on fees for general aviation aircraft
Creates reporting and disclosure requirements that public‑use airports must satisfy before imposing landing or takeoff fees on general aviation aircraft. The statute specifies four categories of public information—cost containment efforts, alternative revenue pursuits, detailed airside project cost and fee allocation with timelines, and an impact assessment on the local GA community—and mandates that fee revenues be used solely for airside safety projects. The FAA is authorized to adopt regulations or reporting obligations to operationalize these requirements, which will determine administrative burdens and enforcement mechanisms.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Owners and operators of general aviation aircraft — The ban on using ADS‑B to identify aircraft for charges reduces the risk that routine broadcast data will be used to single out GA flights for per‑flight fees.
- Flight schools, charities, and GA businesses — The required impact assessments make fee decisions more transparent and force airports to consider effects on training, charitable flights, and small aviation enterprises before imposing fees.
- Pilots concerned about location privacy — The statutory prohibition narrows one avenue (public ADS‑B aggregation) by which third parties or governments could link aircraft broadcasts to billing or enforcement actions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Public‑use airport owners and operators — They face new pre‑fee disclosure obligations, potential administrative costs to produce assessments and timelines, and limits on revenue flexibility because GA fee income must be used only for airside safety.
- FAA and DOT — The agencies gain rulemaking and reporting responsibilities that could require staffing, oversight mechanisms, and dispute resolution resources to monitor compliance and adjudicate Secretary determinations.
- State and local investigators and enforcement entities — The explicit investigatory restriction may remove a low‑cost surveillance tool, potentially requiring alternative (and costlier) methods to collect aircraft movement evidence.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central trade‑off is between protecting individual and aircraft location privacy by constraining a widely available surveillance feed, and preserving operational, investigative, and financial flexibility for airports and authorities that rely on that feed for safety, oversight, and revenue allocation — a choice that forces one set of actors to absorb costs while protecting another's privacy.
The bill protects broadcasted ADS‑B signals from being the basis for charges and most investigatory uses, but its language opens practical ambiguities. It bars use of ADS‑B to ‘identify any aircraft in order to assess a fee,’ but does not expressly address whether aggregated or anonymized ADS‑B counts (for example, flight volumes used to allocate costs across airport users) are permissible.
Airports that currently rely on ADS‑B to reconcile operations with billing systems may need to change procedures, and some may attempt to substitute other data sources (tower logs, radar, contract tracking systems) that raise their own accuracy and privacy concerns.
On investigatory uses, extending the prohibition to state and local officials simplifies the rulebook but can impede safety and criminal investigations that historically relied on multi‑source aviation data. The bill creates a Secretary‑approved exception for controller uses beyond safety and efficiency, but leaves to rulemaking the boundaries of acceptable additional uses; that creates a period of legal uncertainty while agencies craft regulations.
Finally, restricting fee revenues exclusively to airside safety projects aims to prevent diversion of funds, yet may disadvantage airports trying to shore up non‑airside infrastructure or broader fiscal needs, potentially prompting higher fees elsewhere or deferral of non‑airside investments.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.