[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 48 (Thursday, March 25, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3449-S3451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Frist):
  S. 722. 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.


                        Emergency Revocation Act

 Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been involved in the 
aviation industry for over forty years. In that time, I have logged 
roughly 8,000 flight hours and have had my share of flight challenges 
in all sorts of weather and conditions. For instance, in 1980 during a 
humanitarian mission to Dominica, I led ten airplanes through hurricane 
David to deliver medical supplies to the island. As recently as 1991 I 
piloted a Cessna 414 around the world reenacting the same flight of 
Wiley Post sixty years earlier. I mention this to establish my 
credentials as someone who is an experienced pilot. As such, I have a 
great respect for the important job that the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) does to make our air system the safest and best in 
the world. Notwithstanding my admiration for the job that the FAA does, 
I believe there are some areas of FAA enforcement that need to be 
examined. One such area is the FAA's use of ``emergency revocation''.

[[Page S3450]]

  After talking with certificate holders and based on my own 
observations, I believe the FAA unfairly uses this necessary power to 
prematurely revoke certificates when the circumstances do not support 
such drastic action. 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 out of 
work until the issue is adjudicated.
  Simply put, 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 when safety is not an 
issue, would be to adjudicate the revocation on a non-emergency basis 
allowing the certificate holder continued use of the certificate.
  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 FAA have the 
ability to ground unsafe airmen or 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 has been Bob Hoover.
  Bob is a highly regarded and accomplished 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 examined Bob personally) his medical certificate was 
reinstated only after then Administrator David Henson intervened. 
Unfortunately, Bob is not out of the woods yet. His medical certificate 
expires each year. 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 twelve months.

  Bob Hoover's experience is just one of many. I have visited with 
other 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, Ted had no complaints registered against him or his flying. In 
January 1995 the FAA suspended his examining authority as part of a 
larger FAA effort to respond to a problem of falsified ratings. The 
full National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) exonerated Ted 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. Remember, an 
emergency revocation means you lose your certificate immediately, so in 
most cases this means the certificate holder loses his source of 
income. Fortunately in Ted's case, his employer put him on a desk job 
while the issue was adjudicated.
  Like most, I have questioned how an alleged 17\1/2\ year old 
violation in the Stewart case could constitute an emergency; 
especially, since Ted had 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 Ted. 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.

  Another example is Raymond A. Williamson who was a pilot for Coca-
Cola Bottling Company. 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 I have reviewed, 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, 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 to pursue an 
``emergency'' revocation.
  I obviously cannot read the collective minds of the NTSB, 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.
  At my request, the General Accounting Office (GAO) did a study of 
emergency revocation actions taken by the FAA between 1990 and 1997. 
The most troubling result of the GAO study is that during time frame 
studied, 50 percent of the emergency renovations were issued four 
months to two years after the violation occurred. In only 4% of the 
cases was the emergency revocation issued within ten days or less of 
the actual violation. In fact, the median time lapse between the 
violation and the emergency order was a little over four months (132 
days).
  Clearly, at issue is ``what constitutes an emergency?'' After working 
with industry representatives, I believe we have come up with a 
balanced and prudent approach to answer that question. Today I, along 
with Senators Murkowski, Burns, Grassley, Breaux, Stevens, Crapo and 
Frist am introducing a bill which will provide a certificate holder the 
option of requesting a hearing before the NTSB within 48 hours of 
receiving an emergency revocation to determine whether or not a true 
emergency exists. The board will have to decide within five days of the 
request if an emergency exists. During the board's deliberation, the 
certificate will be suspended. Should the board decide an emergency 
does not exist, the certificate holder will be able to use his 
certificate while the issue is adjudicated. Should the board decide an 
emergency does exist, the certificate will continue to be suspended 
while the issue is adjudicated.
  Not surprisingly, Mr. President the FAA opposes this language. They 
also opposed changes to the civil penalties program where they served 
as the judge and jury 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.
  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.
  In closing, this bill will provide due process to certificate holders 
where

[[Page S3451]]

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.
                                 ______