NATA News

"This survey clearly demonstrates the high, unnecessary costs, delays and obstacles aviation businesses suffer due to the FAA's inconsistent interpretation of the federal aviation regulations," said NATA President James K. Coyne. "The FAA absolutely must find a way to provide consistent regulatory guidance and interpretation."

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been commissioned by Congress to conduct a study on how inconsistent regulatory interpretations are costing the FAA and the aviation industry millions of dollars in resources and raising serious concerns about unified safety standards.

NATA conducted its survey in response to numerous members' reports of having experienced varying interpretations of federal aviation regulations (FARs) by the agency's Regional, Aircraft Certification (ACOs) and Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs) and to be able to provide specific information to the GAO as it conducts its study.

According to survey respondents, many affected companies continue to be challenged by regulatory interpretations that vary from one inspector within one FSDO or ACO, to another. These varying interpretations of how to achieve or demonstrate compliance with the FARs are estimated by the respondents to cost general aviation businesses hundreds of millions of dollars annually when previously approved actions are subjected to "re-interpretation." The results of the survey showed:

• 87% of respondents stated that their businesses have experienced problems due to inconsistent or incorrect interpretations by local FAA inspectors.
• 57% believe that an inconsistent or incorrect local FAA position had safety consequences for their business. Members rated the safety significance as very serious (17%); serious (40%); somewhat serious (35%); not too serious (8%).
• 85% stated they have experienced delays in response by the FAA that have interrupted their ability to do business.
• 75% believe that the delay or denial for a new safety program was related to an incorrect or inconsistent interpretation. In resolving discrepancies, 23% said it took up to 90 days; 20% said up to 120 days; 19% said more than 121 days and 36% said their issue still is unresolved. 

"Inconsistent compliance interpretations of the FARs are not only costly for the industry, they also demonstrate a shortcoming in the FAA's ability to coordinate its workforce and ensure that the decision-making abilities vested in inspectors are respected across all divisions of the agency," said Coyne.

A compilation of the survey results is available by clicking here.

To view NATA’s Action Call and to learn how to contact your U.S. Senators, please click here.

To view the Dear Colleague letter sent to all members of the U.S. Senate, please click here.

“As you may know, the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides funding for the planning and development of public-use airports listed in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Airports eligible for AIP funding must be included in the NPIAS which is determined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Such airports are considered to be significant to national air transportation,” the later states.

In addition, the letter clarifies the district difference in AIP funding for large and small airports. Large airports that are eligible for AIP funding can receive a maximum of $22 million annually, whereas small airports receive a maximum of $150,000. AIP funding is a necessity for large and urban airports as well as small and rural airports throughout the country.

To read NATA’s response to the USA Today article, please click here.

To review the proposed funding levels for fiscal year 2010 for the House-passed version of the Transportation and Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, please click on the link below.

Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, House and Urban Development Appropriations Bill

Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill

In December 2008, the TSA issued a Security Directive (SD) to the directors of airports serving commercial air carriers. The SD mandated that any individual requiring unescorted access to the airport operations area (AOA) of an airport had to apply for an airport-issued identification media. While the SD was troublesome for many airports throughout the country, one of the major concerns was the use of an SD to promulgate regulations where no imminent threat existed. Instead, the TSA should have approached the issue through the federal rulemaking process or notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). By following the federal rulemaking process, the TSA would have enabled those affected by the proposed rule to voice their concerns and offer suggestions on the best methods for securing the AOA.

Representatives Mica, Graves, Ehlers, and Petri were successful in adding an amendment to H.R. 2200, the TSA Reauthorization Bill that passed the House on June 4, 2009. The amendment, much like the bill they just introduced, required the TSA to go through the federal rulemaking process after an SD has gone into effect for more than 90 days. The intent was to address security directives issued without imminent threat. The U.S. Senate does not have intentions to vote on H.R. 2200 this year, therefore a stand-alone bill was introduced with the hopes of Senate support and ultimately timely passage.

To view a copy of the legislation, please click here.

Illustrated data show that fatalities have continuously decreased for three consecutive years. Even so, the NTSB vows to “press hard” to continue the decreasing trend. “While the statistics reveal an encouraging trend line, there is still much work to be done to ensure that fewer families each year will face losing a loved one in a transportation accident,” said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman.

Total transportation fatalities in all modes fell from 43,384 in 2007 to 39,397 in 2008, with a significant reduction in highway fatalities, rail and pipeline. However, aviation fatalities increased slightly from 550 to 572, with general aviation accidents attributing to 87% of aviation deaths.

For further information on the released statistics, tables and charts, visit:

Aviation Accident Statistics: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm

Table: http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2009/2007_2008%20fatality%20stats%2024sep09.pdf

Chart: http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2009/piechart2008.pdf

• Greenhouse Gas Reduction Programs
• Research
• Transition and Adaptation
• Reducing Global Warming Pollution
• Program Allocations

Much like the ACESA, this draft would create a “cap-and-trade” program that would institute a cap on GHG emissions and require emitters to purchase or trade emission credits. The draft is over 800 pages in length and is available for download here. NATA staff will be reviewing this proposed legislation and will release a detailed report on its provisions in the coming weeks.

The full text of the NPRM is available from the EPA website.

Conference negotiations between the House and the Senate on H.R. 915/S.1451, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2009 is likely before the end of the year. Each bill contains a provision requiring additional FAA oversight of foreign repair stations. More specifically, H.R. 915, which passed the House on May 21, 2009, includes a provision requiring the FAA to certify that all Part 145 certificated foreign repair stations are inspected at least twice a year and requires those organizations to introduce mandatory drug and alcohol testing if they maintain aircraft operated by U.S. airlines. Further, S. 1451, which has not yet been voted on in the Senate, contains similar language regarding repair station inspections but makes an exception if "a bilateral aviation safety agreement is in place that allows for comparable inspection by local authorities."

The proposed regulation would eliminate a reciprocal audit provision of the U.S.-European Community Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement, or “BASA,” and would unnecessarily raise costs for EU-based repair stations. The potential job loss to U.S. repair stations is high if the companies that hold a U.S.-based EASA Part 145 repair station certificate lose the reciprocal audit capabilities between the FAA and EASA.

Contact your Members of Congress by visiting NATA’s Legislative Action Center. NATA’s Legislative Action Center provides association members with a quick and easy way to email letters directly to Members of Congress in their state.

Click here to view a form letter that may be used to contact Members of Congress or their staff.

For more information, please contact Eric R. Byer.