Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
This bill (FROST Act) amends Title 49, U.S. Code to change how aircraft deicing equipment and fluid storage facilities are treated in the statutory definition of airport development, affecting eligibility for federal airport development programs. The text indicates a specific amendment to 49 U.S.C. §47102(3)(B)(v) related to deicing equipment and fluids, though the short statutory text provided is minimal.
Support vs concern over expanding federal funding for airports
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow statutory amendment to title 49 that uses a brief, conventional amendment instruction but lacks clarity and supporting detail.
This bill (FROST Act) amends Title 49, U.S. Code to change how aircraft deicing equipment and fluid storage facilities are treated in the statutory definition of airport development, affecting eligibility for federal airport development programs.
The text indicates a specific amendment to 49 U.S.C. §47102(3)(B)(v) related to deicing equipment and fluids, though the short statutory text provided is minimal.
Small, technocratic change with limited fiscal impact and low controversy; commonly enacted or folded into larger FAA packages.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow statutory amendment to title 49 that uses a brief, conventional amendment instruction but lacks clarity and supporting detail.
Support vs concern over expanding federal funding for airports
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Support vs concern over expanding federal funding for airports
Likely supportive overall because the change can fund safer, more environmentally responsible deicing infrastructure at airports.
Support hinges on ensuring environmental protections and that federal funds reduce pollution and protect workers, not simply subsidize airlines.
Generally favorable if the change improves safety and reduces environmental harm while remaining cost‑effective.
Would want clarity on costs, implementation details, and safeguards to avoid open‑ended spending or mission creep.
Skeptical because it appears to expand definitions that could increase federal grant spending and federal involvement in local airport infrastructure.
Might accept if limited, cost‑shared, and non‑burdensome to taxpayers.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Small, technocratic change with limited fiscal impact and low controversy; commonly enacted or folded into larger FAA packages.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Support vs concern over expanding federal funding for airports
Small, technocratic change with limited fiscal impact and low controversy; commonly enacted or folded into larger FAA packages.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow statutory amendment to title 49 that uses a brief, conventional amendment instruction but lacks clarity and supporting detail.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.