Images de page
PDF
ePub

Mr. Riggs. My understanding is that they were going to stay under the present administrative procedures in some modified form.

Mr. SNYDER. I am advised that is not correct. They would go to district court.

Mr. Riggs. To be perfectly honest, I have not thought about that phase to take a position.

Mr. Fary. Does counsel have questions of the witness? If not, Mr. Riggs, thank you very much for your testimony.

Mr. Riggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Snyder.

Mr. Fary. Our next witness will be Mr. John Winant, president, National Business Aircraft Association. Your submitted statement, Mr. Winant, shall be made a part of the record in its entirety.

Statement referred to follows:

[blocks in formation]

A B111 To Amend Title 49, United States Code, To Provide Additional
Criminal Penalties For Safety Violations; To Increase Civil Penalty
Limits; And For Other Purposes.

STATEMENT

Of
JOHN H. WINANT

President
NATIONAL BUSINESS AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION, INC.

One Farragut Square, South
Washington, D. C. 20006

July 1, 1980

I.

INTRODUCTION

National Business Aircraft Association, Inc. (hereinafter

"NBAA"), is a not-for-profit corporation formed to promote the aviation

interests of those business entities operating aircraft as aids to the

conduct of their business.

One of the goals of NBAA is to advance

and maintain an enlightened understanding on the part of governmental

authorities of the business aircraft operator's problems.

It is also

one of NBAA's goals to assist in attaining wider recognition of the

fact that the aviation activities of the NBAA members are of primary

importance to the domestic economy of the nation.

Consequently, NBAA

is vitally interested in H.R. 7488 and the impact this bill will have

on the business aircraft operator and the nation's economy.

As

President of NBAA, I speak for the Association and its members.

It

is my hope that my comments will be of assistance to the Subcommittee

in gaining a perspective on the way that business aircraft operator views

this bill.

The bill has been proposed by the Federal Aviation

Administration (hereinafter "FAA") in an attempt to expand and

strengthen its safety enforcement authority.

The FAA has taken the

position that its present enforcement authority is inadequate to

deter violations of the provisions of the Federal Aviation Act and

the regulations promulgated thereunder.

While NBAA would be the last

to argue that the promotion of aviation safety is not a laudable

goal, the provisions of this bill are not necessary to achieve that

goal and, in fact, the provisions are overreaching.

The bill would place

a burden on the public economy and create detriment to private rights.

The FAA's existing enforcement authority is adequate as

long as the FAA will diligently and vigorously exercise that authority.

The FAA's existing authority has well served the ends of aviation

safety since the Act's enactment in 1958.

The principles of the

existing statute have served in good stead even longer because many

of them were in existence under the former Act of 1938.

The present

6111 would provide civil penalties and criminal penalties which are

far in excess of those required.

In addition to the prejudice to a po

tential violator faced with such consequences, the increased penalties

will serve to promote litigation, and an increased expenditure

of private as well as public funds.

For this and other reasons,

the

bill is inflationary.

In the current economy such inflationary

legislation must be avoided particularly when, as here, the bill is

of little or no value in promoting its intended goal.

II.

SECTION 1(a) --INCREASED CIVIL PENALTY AMOUNT

Section 1(a) of the proposed bill would amend Section

901(a)(1) of the Act, 49 U.S.C. $1471(a)(1), by increasing the amount

of the maximum civil penalty provided for in that section from $1,000 per violation to $25,000 per violation. The analysis of the bill

reports that past investigations of commercial operators have shown

that the existing penalty of $1,000 is an inadequate deterrent to

future violations, since many commercial operators accept this penalty

as a cost of doing business.

It is NBAA's considered opinion that

this position, and the proposed increase, are entirely unwarranted.

To the extent that the bill's analysis leads to the

impression that single $1,000 penalties are ordinarily levied against

commercial operators who are in violation of the regulations, the

analysis is misleading.

It is indeed a rare occasion on which an

action brought by the FAA charges only one violation.

The statute

itself provides that, if the violation is a continuing one, each day

of the violation constitutes a separate offense.

A common example

of the practical effect of this provision is the situation in which

a maintenance regulation requires a certain inspection of an aircraft

part after each 100 hours (or whatever period is provided) of operation.

Typically, every flight after the inspection was required but not per

formed constitutes a separate violation which gives rise to a separate

$1,000 penalty.

In addition, it is common for one basic prohibited act to

constitute a violation of several different related regulations.

An

example of this is the situation in which the holder of an air taxi/

commercial operator certificate uses the services of a pilot who does

not hold a commercial pilot certificate as pilot-in-command on a

flight for compensation or hire.

In such a situation, the operator

has violated 14 C.F.R. $135.95 (utilizing a pilot who does not hold

the appropriate certificate), 14 C.F.R. $343.137 (utilizing a pilot

who has not completed initial or recurrent training), 14 C.F.R.

$135. 293 (utilizing a pilot who has not passed required written or

oral tests), and possibly various other related regulations.

These

violations may be multiplied by each flight conducted by the uncerti

ficated pilot.

Aside from the situations in which several different related

regulations are violated by the same prohibited act, there are also

situations in which the applicable regulations are actually duplicative

« PrécédentContinuer »