[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 76 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5356-S5357]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Craig, and Mr. 
        Hutchinson):
  S. 842. A bill to provide for the immediate application of certain 
orders relating to the amendment, modification, suspension, or 
revocation of certificates under chapter 447 of title 49, United States 
Code; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                revocation of certifications legislation

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been working with representatives 
of the aviation industry on legislation that will address a problem 
with the Federal Aviation Administration. Let me, first of all, say 
that back in real life I have been a professional pilot for some 40 
years. I am a little bothered, too, at some of the things taking place 
in the aviation industry. I have seen great injustice done many, many 
times, having to do with the emergency revocation powers of the FAA. In 
a revocation action, brought on an emergency basis, the certificate 
holder loses use of his certificate immediately, without an 
intermediary review by an impartial third party. The result is that the 
certificate holder is grounded and, in most cases, is out of work until 
the issue is adjudicated. I believe the FAA unfairly uses this 
necessary power to prematurely revoke certificates when the 
circumstances do not support such drastic action. A more reasonable 
approach, Mr. President, when safety is not an issue, would be to 
adjudicate the revocation on a nonemergency basis, allowing the 
certificate holder to continue use of his certificate.
  Please don't misunderstand me. In no way do I want to suggest that 
the FAA should not have emergency revocation powers. I believe it is 
critical to safety that the FAA can ground unsafe airmen and other 
certificate holders. However, I also believe that the FAA must be 
judicious in its use of this extraordinary power. A review of recent 
emergency cases clearly demonstrates a pattern by which the FAA uses 
their emergency powers as standard procedure rather than an 
extraordinary measure.
  Perhaps the most visible case is that of Bob Hoover, who happens to 
probably be the best pilot in America today. He is up in age. I have 
watched him and have been in a plane with him. He can set a glass of 
water on the panel of an airplane and do a barrel roll without spilling 
any of the water. He is highly regarded as an aerobatic pilot. In 1992, 
his medical certificate was revoked based on alleged questions 
regarding his cognitive abilities. After getting a clean bill of health 
from four separate sets of doctors--just one of the many tests cost Bob 
$1,700--and over the continuing objections of the Federal air surgeon, 
who never even examined Bob Hoover personally, his medical certificate 
was reinstated only after then-Administrator David Henson intervened. 
And I want to take this opportunity to tell David Henson what a great 
job he did for aviation, and for one person.
  Unfortunately, Bob Hoover is not out of the woods yet.
  His current medical certificate expires on September 30, 1997. Unlike 
most airmen who can renew their medical certificate with a routine 
application and exam, Bob has to furnish the FAA with a report of a 
neurological evaluation every 12 months.
  It is a very expensive and unnecessary process.

[[Page S5357]]

  Mr. President, Bob Hoover's experience is just one of many. In a way, 
his wasn't as bad, because some of them do this--like professional 
airline pilots--for a living.
  I have several other examples of pilots who have had their licenses 
revoked on an emergency basis. Pilots such as Ted Stewart who has been 
an American Airlines pilot for more than 12 years and is presently a 
Boeing 767 captain. Until January 1995, Mr. Stewart had no complaints 
registered against him or his flying. In January 1995 the FAA suspended 
Mr. Stewart's examining authority as part of a larger FAA effort to 
respond to a problem of falsified ratings. The full NTSB board 
exonerated Mr. Stewart in July 1995. In June 1996, he received a second 
revocation. One of the charges in this second revocation involved 
falsification of records for a flight instructor certificate with 
multiengined rating and his air transport pilot [ATP] certificate 
dating back to 1979.
  Like most, I have questioned how an alleged 17\1/2\-year-old 
violation could constitute an emergency; especially, since he has not 
been cited for any cause in the intervening years. Nonetheless, the FAA 
vigorously pursued this action. On August 30, 1996, the NTSB issued its 
decision in this second revocation and found for Mr. Stewart. A couple 
of comments in the Stewart decision bear closer examination. First, the 
board notes that:

       The administrator's loss in the earlier case appears to 
     have prompted further investigation of respondent . . .

  I find this rather troubling that an impartial third party appears to 
be suggesting that the FAA has a vendetta against Ted Stewart. This is 
further emphasized with a footnote in which the Board notes:

       [We,] of course, [are] not authorized to review the 
     Administrator's exercise of his power to take emergency 
     certificate action . . . We are constrained to register in 
     this matter, however, our opinion that where, as here, no 
     legitimate reason is cited or appears for not consolidating 
     all alleged violations into one proceeding, subjecting an 
     airman in the space of a year to two emergency revocations, 
     and thus to the financial and other burdens associated with 
     an additional 60-day grounding without prior notice and 
     hearing, constitutes an abusive and unprincipled discharge of 
     an extraordinary power.

  Joining with me today is John Breaux of Louisiana. John has a 
constituent, Frank Anders who has taken the lead gathering other 
examples of FAA abuses with regard to their emergency revocation 
authority. One in particular is Raymond A. Williamson who was a pilot 
for Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Like Ted Stewart, he was accused of being 
part of a ring of pilots who falsified type records for vintage 
aircraft.
  As in all of the cases received by my office, Mr. Williamson biggest 
concern is that the FAA investigation and subsequent revocation came 
out of the blue. In November 1994, he was notified by his employer--
Coca-Cola--that FAA inspectors had accused him of giving illegal check 
rides in company owned aircraft. He was fired. In June 1995, he 
received an emergency order of revocation. In over 30 years as an 
active pilot, he had never had an accident, incident, or violation. Nor 
had he ever been counseled by the FAA for any action or irregularities 
as a pilot, flight instructor or FAA designated pilot examiner.
  In May 1996, FAA proposed to return all his certificates and ratings, 
except his flight instructor certificate. As in the Ted Stewart case, 
it would appear that FAA found no real reason pursue an emergency 
revocation.
  Mr. President, I obviously cannot read the collective minds of the 
NTSB board, but I believe a reasonable person would conclude that in 
the Ted Stewart case the Board, believes as I do, that there is an 
abuse of emergency revocation powers by the FAA.
  This is borne out further by the fact that since 1989, emergency 
cases as a total of all enforcement actions heard by the NTSB has more 
than doubled. In 1989 the NTSB heard 1,107 enforcement cases. Of those, 
66 were emergency revocation cases or 5.96 percent. In 1995, the NTSB 
heard 509 total enforcement cases, of those 160 were emergency 
revocation cases or 31.43 percent. I believe it is clear that the FAA 
has begun to use an exceptional power as a standard practice.
  In response, I and Senators Craig, Hutchinson, and Breaux are 
introducing legislation that would establish a procedure by which the 
FAA must show just cause for bringing an emergency revocation action 
against a certificate holder. Many within the aviation community have 
referred to this needed legislation as the Hoover bill.
  Not surprisingly, Mr. President, the FAA opposes this language. They 
also opposed changes to the civil penalties program where they served 
as the judge, jury, and executioner in civil penalty actions against 
airmen. Fortunately, we were able to change that so that airmen can now 
appeal a civil penalty case to the NTSB. This has worked very well 
because the NTSB has a clear understanding of the issues.

  Our proposal allows an airman within 48 hours of receiving an 
emergency revocation order to request a hearing before the NTSB on the 
emergency nature of the revocation. NTSB then has 48 hours to hear the 
arguments. Within 5 days of the initial request, NTSB must decide if a 
true emergency exists. During this time, the emergency revocation 
remains in effect.
  That means that the pilot does not have his certificate and cannot 
fly an airplane. In many cases, this is a means of a living. But that 
is for 7 days.
  In other words, the certificate holder loses use of his certificate 
for a maximum of 7 days. However, should the NTSB decide an emergency 
does not exist, then the certificate would be returned and the 
certificate holder could continue to use it while the FAA pursued their 
revocation case against him in an expedited appeal process as provided 
for by the bill. If the NTSB decides that an emergency does exist, then 
the emergency revocation remains in effect and the certificate holder 
cannot use his certificate while the case is adjudicated.
  This bill is supported by: the Air Line Pilots Association, 
International; the Air Transport Association; the Allied Pilots 
Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; the Experimental 
Aircraft Association; National Air Carrier Association; National Air 
Transportation Association; National Business Aircraft Association; the 
NTSB Bar Association; and the Regional Airline Association.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated March 11, 
1997, to me from the above mentioned organizations be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   March 11, 1997.
     Hon. James M. Inhofe,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Inhofe: The undersigned associations and 
     organizations endorse and support your proposed legislation, 
     the FAA Emergency Revocation Act of 1997, to reform the 
     Federal Aviation Administration enforcement process in an 
     important respect.
       It has become apparent to us in recent years that the FAA 
     has significantly increased its use of its emergency 
     authority to immediately suspend or revoke airmen, air 
     carrier, and air agency certificates, thereby avoiding the 
     automatic stay of such action provided by law pending appeal 
     to the National Transportation Safety Board. This legislation 
     will accord due process to certificate holders by providing a 
     more adequate forum for promptly adjudicating the 
     appropriateness of the FAA's use of this authority. The 
     forum, the same one which will adjudicate the merits of the 
     FAA action, will also adjudicate, on a more timely basis, 
     whether aviation safety requires the immediate effectiveness 
     of a certificate action. The effect will be that in an 
     appropriate case, a certificate holder will be able to 
     exercise the privileges of its certificate while an FAA 
     certificate action is on appeal, all without compromise of 
     aviation safety.
       We thank you for introducing this legislation, and we look 
     forward to working with you toward its passage.
           Sincerely,
         Air Line Pilots Association, International; Allied Pilots 
           Association; Experimental Aircraft Association; 
           National Air Transportation Association; NTSB Bar 
           Association; Air Transport Association; AOPA 
           Legislative Action; National Air Carrier Association; 
           National Business Aircraft Association; Regional 
           Airline Association.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in closing, this bill will provide due 
process to certificate holders where now none exists, without 
compromising aviation safety. This is a reasonable and prudent response 
to an increasing problem for certificate holders. I hope our colleagues 
will support our efforts in this regard.
                                 ______