ACPAC Modernization Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 5, 2026
Bottom line
The bill expands the explicit purview of the Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee to include ticket agents and removes a prior limitation concerning their treatment under the committee's termination provisions.
What it actually does
This bill, the 'ACPAC Modernization Act,' amends Section 411 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. It explicitly adds 'ticket agents' to the scope of the Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee (ACPAC) in subsection (b). Concurrently, it removes the phrase 'ticket agents,' from subsection (i), which deals with the committee's termination, thereby modifying how ticket agents are considered in relation to the committee's ongoing existence and mandate. The overall effect is to ensure ACPAC's continued or clarified authority over consumer protection issues involving ticket agents.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is a necessary modernization to ensure that the Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee can effectively address consumer issues across the entire air travel ecosystem, including those involving ticket agents. They contend that explicitly including ticket agents and removing any prior termination-related carve-outs for them will strengthen consumer protections and provide a more comprehensive advisory framework for the Department of Transportation.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that expanding the committee's scope to include ticket agents, particularly by altering termination provisions, could lead to unnecessary regulatory burdens or extend the life of a committee beyond its intended sunset for specific issues. They might contend that existing regulations or other oversight bodies are sufficient to address consumer protection concerns related to ticket agents without modifying ACPAC's mandate.
The bill text is very short and straightforward to read, but understanding its full implications requires some knowledge of the underlying statute it amends.
Section 2(1) and 2(2)
Modification of Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee Scope and Termination
This provision makes two key changes to the Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee (ACPAC). First, it explicitly adds 'ticket agents' to the list of entities or areas that the committee is mandated to address or include in its scope, as outlined in subsection (b) of the original Act. Second, it removes the phrase 'ticket agents,' from subsection (i) of the original Act, which governs the committee's termination. This dual amendment ensures that ticket agents are fully integrated into ACPAC's ongoing advisory and consumer protection functions, removing any previous limitations related to their consideration during the committee's termination.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that explicitly including ticket agents within ACPAC's mandate is crucial for comprehensive consumer protection in the modern aviation landscape. They contend that many consumer issues arise from interactions with ticket agents, and having ACPAC provide advice on these matters will lead to better policies and a more responsive regulatory environment. Removing any termination-related limitations ensures this oversight is ongoing.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that the existing regulatory framework already provides sufficient oversight for ticket agents, and that adding them to ACPAC's specific mandate, especially by altering termination clauses, could create redundant processes or extend the committee's life for issues that could be handled elsewhere. They may also express concern about potential new compliance burdens for ticket agents stemming from ACPAC's recommendations.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire for comprehensive consumer protection in air travel with potential concerns about regulatory scope and administrative burden. While it aims to close potential gaps in oversight, it could also be seen as expanding the reach of an advisory body into areas that some might argue are already adequately regulated or should be handled by other means.
The bill strikes 'ticket agents,' from subsection (i) of Section 411 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
Section 2(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing law by reference. It is not necessarily evasive, but it does require external research to fully understand.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this amendment is a technical correction or clarification necessary to align the committee's termination provisions with its expanded scope, ensuring consistency in its mandate regarding ticket agents.
Case against: Critics might argue that without the full context of the original subsection (i), the precise implications of this change are opaque, making it difficult for stakeholders to fully assess its impact on the committee's longevity or specific authorities.
Estimated impact: The impact is primarily on the administrative and advisory scope of the ACPAC, clarifying its ongoing authority over ticket agents.