« PrécédentContinuer »
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:
A B111 To Amend Title 49, United States Code, To Provide Additional
One Farragut Square, South
July 1, 1980
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.
is vitally interested in H.R. 7488 and the impact this bill will have
on the business aircraft operator and the nation's economy.
President of NBAA, I speak for the Association and its members.
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
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.
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,
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.
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.
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
In addition, it is common for one basic prohibited act to
constitute a violation of several different related regulations.
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.
violations may be multiplied by each flight conducted by the uncerti
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