After a major airline pulled out of the Rocky Mount/Wilson airport and a smaller commuter carrier replaced it, can the NC Department of Transportation use Article 7 of Chapter 63 aviation funds to support an airport authority's advertising campaign to attract more travelers?
Plain-English summary
W. G. Plentl, Director of Aeronautics at NCDOT, asked whether the Department could loan or grant state funds to the Rocky Mount/Wilson Airport Authority for an advertising campaign. The airport had seen a steep decline in use after airline deregulation, and a major passenger carrier had withdrawn. A smaller commuter service had moved in, and the Authority wanted to advertise the remaining service to attract travelers back.
The 1984 AG concluded that Article 7 of Chapter 63 does not authorize state funds for individual-airport advertising.
The argument for state funding looked at the general promotional authority in G.S. 63-65 and G.S. 63-66. Subsection 63-65 lets NCDOT engage in "related programs" for aviation safety, education, promotions, and long-range planning, alongside its loan and grant authority. Subsection 63-66 directs the Department to promote aviation safety and to conduct programs to "keep the people of the state properly informed with respect to aviation and to further aeronautics generally throughout the state."
The AG read these as authorizations for general statewide aviation promotion, not for individual-airport advertising. The contrast with G.S. 63-67 was decisive. Subsection 63-67 lists the specific activities for which loans and grants of state funds may be made: planning, acquiring, constructing, or improving airports, seaplane bases, or heliports; navigational facilities, easements, land acquisition, lighting, landing-strip marking, security systems, terminal improvements, and aviation safety hazard elimination. Promotional assistance to a specific airport is not on the list. The list reads as a closed-set authorization, and a category not on it is impliedly excluded.
The AG's bottom line: NCDOT can spend its own program dollars on statewide aviation promotion, but cannot pass through state loan or grant money to a specific airport authority for marketing.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1984. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. The state aviation funding framework in Chapter 63 has been amended multiple times since 1984, including changes to the eligibility list and the introduction of federal-funded grant pass-through programs administered through NCDOT. Modern airport-marketing funding sometimes flows through tourism development authorities, regional partnerships, and federal Small Community Air Service Development grants, none of which existed in their present form in 1984. A current funding question should be referred to NCDOT and a public finance attorney.
Historical context: what the AG concluded
The 1984 opinion is a model of expressio unius reading applied to a state-aid statute.
It separated general program authority from grant-recipient eligibility. NCDOT's own program activities (general aviation promotion under G.S. 63-66) are distinct from what NCDOT can fund downstream as loans and grants to airports. The statute gives NCDOT broad room for its own promotional work and a narrower room for funding airport-specific work.
It treated G.S. 63-67 as exhaustive. The list of eligible airport activities is "comprehensive," and the opinion treats omission of promotional assistance as legislative intent to exclude it. This is the classic expressio unius reading: when the legislature specifies, what it omits is excluded.
It honored the policy context. The opinion does not impute bad faith to the airport authority. The deregulation aftermath was real, and the funding request was sympathetic. But the AG saw the Article 7 framework as designed for physical infrastructure (terminals, runways, lighting, safety), not for market-development advertising.
It left state-promotional spending intact. NCDOT was not told to shut down its general promotion programs. The opinion just clarified that those programs run from NCDOT directly, not as pass-through grants to airports.
Background and statutory framework
Article 7 of Chapter 63 of the North Carolina General Statutes governs state aid to publicly owned airports. The article was structured around three interlocking provisions:
G.S. 63-65 authorized the Department of Transportation, "subject to the limitations and conditions of this article," to provide loans or grants of state funds to cities, counties, and public airport authorities for planning, acquiring, constructing, or improving publicly owned airports. The same section authorized "related programs" for aviation safety, education, promotions, and long-range planning.
G.S. 63-66 made the Department's general aviation promotion authority explicit. The Department "shall, subject to the availability of funds for the purpose, promote aviation safety throughout the state and conduct such promotional, educational and other programs as may be necessary to keep the people of the state properly informed with respect to aviation and to further aeronautics generally throughout the state."
G.S. 63-67 enumerated the specific activities for which loans and grants of state funds were available: airport, seaplane base, and heliport planning, acquisition, construction, and improvement; navigational facilities; easements; land acquisition; lighting; landing-strip marking; security systems; terminal improvements; and elimination of aviation safety hazards.
The Rocky Mount/Wilson Airport is jointly owned by the cities of Rocky Mount and Wilson and operated by an airport authority. The post-deregulation airline withdrawal that prompted the funding request was part of the early-1980s consolidation in the regional airline industry following the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.
Common questions
Could the airport authority pay for advertising out of its own operating revenue?
The 1984 opinion does not address the authority's own spending. It addresses only the question of whether state funds (Article 7 loans and grants from NCDOT) can be used for the purpose. An airport authority's authority to spend its own revenue on marketing is a separate question controlled by its enabling legislation and bylaws.
Could NCDOT itself include the Rocky Mount/Wilson Airport in a general statewide aviation promotion campaign?
Yes, on the opinion's reading. G.S. 63-66 authorizes NCDOT to "conduct" promotional programs that "further aeronautics generally throughout the state." A statewide campaign that happens to mention Rocky Mount/Wilson among other airports is a NCDOT activity, not a grant to the Authority.
What about federal funds passed through to the airport?
The opinion does not address pass-through of federal aviation funds. Federal grants to airports flow through their own statutory frameworks (the Airport Improvement Program, for example) and have their own eligibility rules. The opinion is limited to state-source loans and grants under Article 7.
Does the airport authority have any other state-funding avenue?
The 1984 opinion identifies Article 7 of Chapter 63 as the statutory home for state aid to airports and finds promotional grants are not within it. Other state funding sources (general appropriations earmarks, economic development grants, tourism authority funds) would have their own statutory frameworks and were not addressed.
Why does the statute draw the line this way?
The opinion does not speculate. The General Assembly's choice to fund infrastructure but not marketing reflects a judgment about what state aid should subsidize. Infrastructure has long-lived public benefits and is hard for a local government to finance alone; marketing is a recurring operational expense more naturally borne by the airport's user base.
Source
Citations
- N.C.G.S. § 63-65
- N.C.G.S. § 63-66
- N.C.G.S. § 63-67
Original opinion text
Requested By: W. G. Plentl, P. E., Director of Aeronautics, N.C. Department of Transportation.
Question: Does Article 7 Chapter 63 of the General Statutes Permit the N.C. Dept. of Transportation to Make Loans or Grants of State Funds to Publicly Owned Airports for Promotional Purposes?
Conclusion: No.
The factual background set forth in your request for an opinion is repeated below to clearly indicate the assumptions upon which this opinion is based.
The Rocky Mount/Wilson Airport has shown a steep decline in use for the past several years as a result of airline deregulation and the withdrawal of a major passenger air carrier. A smaller commuter air service has located at the airport, and the Airport Authority would like to institute an advertising campaign to inform the traveling public as to the availability of passenger service from the airport in an effort to increase public use of the facilities. The Airport Authority has requested a loan or a grant of State funds for this promotional purpose.
North Carolina General Statute 63-65 authorizes the Department of Transportation, "subject to the limitations and conditions of this article," to provide loans or grants of State Funds to cities, counties and/or public airport authorities for the purpose of planning, acquiring, constructing or improving publicly owned or controlled airport facilities. This statute also authorizes the Department to engage in "related programs" for aviation safety, education, promotions and long range planning.
North Carolina General Statute 63-66 provides that the Department shall, "subject to the availability of funds for the purpose," promote aviation safety throughout the state and conduct such promotional, educational and other programs as may be necessary "to keep the people of the state properly informed with respect to aviation and to further aeronautics generally throughout the state".
The references to promotional programs contained in the two above-referenced statutes clearly refers to efforts by the Department to encourage the efficient and safe use of aviation facilities throughout the state. There is no reference to these two statutes to promotional endeavors on behalf of an individual airport or airport authority.
The intent of the legislature not to provide funds for the promotional efforts of individual airports or airport authorities can be seen in the provisions of G.S. 63-67 which provides a listing of those activities for which loans and grants of State funds may be made. The activities for which loans and grants of funds are available include the planning, the acquisition, construction, or improvement of any airport, seaplane base, or heliport owned or controlled by any city, county or public airport authority. This statute goes on to say that eligible projects also include navigational facilities, easements, the acquisition of land, the construction of lighting, the marking of landing strips together with security systems, terminal improvements and the elimination of aviation safety hazards. The list of activities eligible for State aid contained in G.S. 63-67 is comprehensive and there is no mention in that statute for promotional assistance to public airports or airport authorities.
In conclusion, while Article 7 of Chapter 63 authorizes the Department of Transportation to engage in the general promotion of aviation and air safety throughout the State, the specific provisions of Article 7 would preclude loans or grants of State funds for promoting specific public airport facilities.
Rufus L. Edmisten
Attorney General
Thomas H. Davis, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General