Theoretically, the FAA could issue rules that the staff deemed to be the appropriate terms to control airlines, airmen or repair stations. Congress, however, is the source of the agency’s powers when it enacted the Act in 1958 (49 USC §40101 et seq.); by prescribing limits in this statute, the legislature mandated what the FAA may do in issuing regulations and what is not authorized.
Every old and new Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) must be measured against the specific language of this Act. If the Congress authorized the proposed FAR, then the new rule is clearly legal. If, however, the House and Senate considered and rejected a new restriction, there is very strong legislative history that the rejected limitation should NOT be introduced by the FAA.
ARSA has submitted a number of well-considered, extremely well argued comments on the FAA’s NPRM, Air Carrier Contract Maintenance Requirements . The FAA would be wise to carefully review and analyze the association’s document.
One of its most salient criticisms is regarding non-certificated facilities. The Congress considered a §310 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009, HR 915, 111th Congress, Non Certificated Maintenance Facilities. As ARSA notes, the specific language rejected by the legislature was adopted by the FAA as a proposed regulation.
This is but one of many examples that are legislatively inappropriate and/or inconsistent and/or confusing and/or overbroad or contrary to the FAA’s safety mandate . Upon a fair review of the Congressional mandate, the FARs in place and the FAA’s overall safety mandate; a clearer regulation to be adopted is ARSA’s §121.368.Share this article: