Response Time

[rajflyboy]

Its safe to say that gunfyter is doing some dreaming on this new 135 reg on rest!!

 

[gunfyter]

http://www.airlinepilots.com/fatigue/Fatigue022.htm​

RESERVE AND STANDBY ASSIGNMENTS​

Current regulations do not specifically cover the issue of reserve time and standby duty. Within the air transportation industry two types of generic reserve assignments have developed. ​

One type, usually referred to as "standby reserve," is essentially the same as a duty period, and as discussed below would be treated as duty for duty period limitation and rest requirement purposes. The other type, here called "reserve time" is not considered part of a rest period and is not considered part of a duty period and therefore would be dealt with separately under this proposal. Proposed § § 121.477 and 135.265 provide reserve assignment requirements.​

Under the proposal a standby duty period must be scheduled in accordance with proposed § § 121.473, 121.475, or 135.263. A standby duty ends when the duty period associated with a subsequent flight assignment ends or the flight crewmember is relieved from standby duty for a scheduled rest period.​

​

Standby duty periods are assigned because the air carrier believes that some time within that period the flight crewmember will be needed for a flight assignment and must report for flight assignment within less than 1 hour of being notified. Standby duty also includes time when a flight crewmember is required to report to and remain at a specific facility (e.g., airport, crew lounge) designated by a certificate holder. Usually flight crewmembers are assigned to standby duty at the airport. In addition, since the industry has indicated that they treat standby as duty, this proposed definition should not impose any additional burdens on certificate holders. It is because of the momentary anticipation of a flight assignment, which prevents a pilot from planning for adequate rest, that standby assignments are treated as duty periods.​

The proposed standby duty period would be treated as a duty period that is associated with flight, regardless of whether the flight crewmember is ever assigned to flight time during that standby duty period or not. Standby duty periods would be scheduled in accordance with proposed duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and rest requirements. A standby duty period commences when the flight crewmember is placed on standby duty and ends when the flight crewmember is relieved of duty, whether that duty is standby or flight. Following standby duty, the flight crewmember must be scheduled for and must receive the same amount of rest as he or she would receive if he or she accumulated flight time, even if there is no actual flight time.​

Reserve time is a period of time when a flight crewmember is not on duty but nonetheless must be available to report upon notice for a duty period. During reserve time a flight crewmember typically goes about his or her off duty routine, obtaining rest as needed during each 24 hour period. Reserve time is not considered part of a rest period, is not considered part of a duty period, and is not considered assigned time. Reserve time ends when the crewmember is released, the crewmember is notified of a future duty period assignment and released from all further responsibility until the report time for that assignment, or the crewmember reports for a duty period. The certificate holder must allow the flight crewmember a minimum of 1 hour to report.​

Often flight crewmembers are on reserve for days at a time and are given 10 or more hours notification prior to a duty period assignment. However, there are times when a flight crewmember is given fewer than 10 hours notification and may not be completely rested. Some flight crewmembers arise early in the morning and may have been awake for many hours at the time they receive notification of an evening flight. These flight crewmembers may not have an opportunity for a complete rest period before the flight assignment. The same may be true of a flight crewmember who does not awaken until the middle of the afternoon and receives fewer than 10 hours notification of a duty period which starts after midnight.​

Since it is difficult to predict when an individual flight crewmember sleeps and when he or she awakens, no attempt has been made in the proposal to correlate the amount of notice a flight crewmember should receive with the time of day. Rather, the emphasis is placed on the flight crewmember's receiving enough notice to provide an opportunity for rest before the duty period assignment. If a flight crewmember receives at least 10 hours notice there would be enough time for the flight crewmember to be fully rested before reporting for a duty period of 14 hours. However, under proposed § § 121.477(b) and 135.265(b), when flight crewmembers receive fewer than 10 hours notice for a duty period assignment, there is a reduction in the length of that duty period. ​

While it could be possible for a flight crewmember to receive 10 hours rest before being placed on reserve and then given 10 hours of notification in order to serve a 14-hour duty period, the FAA believes that efficient crew scheduling will minimize the possibility of this happening. Table 3 shows for each proposed amount of notification time the proposed corresponding duty period limitation.​

...​

Under either reserve time assignment option, the flight crewmember must be notified of which option has been selected before the beginning of the reserve time assignment.​

Although NASA recommends a predictable and protected 8-hour sleep opportunity (2.6.2), the FAA believes that the above described options are practical and in most instances will provide at least an 8-hour rest opportunity. Either the flight crewmember is provided an opportunity for a full 10-hour rest period or, in the case of a short notice, the flight crewmember's duty period is limited, or the flight crewmember is able to plan each day with the certain knowledge there will be a minimum 6-hour period for undisturbed rest. Thus, these options would protect against excess fatigue without eliminating the objective of the reserve system and without placing a significant economic burden on the industry.​

There have been a number of complaints stating that in some cases pilots were unable to obtain enough rest because they were given a reserve assignment immediately following a duty period and then were called for duty before they had received an adequate rest. While under these proposed rules such a practice would be a violation because of the requirement for a minimum rest period between duty periods, the FAA has included in proposed § § 121.477(b) and 135.265(b) a requirement that a flight crewmember must be given a 10-hour rest period before beginning a reserve time assignment. Sections 121.483(c) and 135.271(c) state that required rest periods can occur concurrently so this proposed requirement may not require an additional rest period.​

The FAA believes that both of these methods of handling reserve time assignments would provide more flexibility, would be less costly for certificate holders, and would be more likely to ensure adequate rest than the current rules. Under the lookback provision in the current rules, for instance, a flight crewmember on reserve could not take a flight assignment unless he or she had a scheduled rest period in the previous 24 hours. There have been situations in which certificate holders have professed experiencing difficulties in implementing rest requirements for flight crewmembers on reserve. Recognizing this, the FAA has developed this proposal. However, if this proposal on reserve time assignments is not issued as a final rule, the FAA intends to ensure that the current rule, as interpreted, is being correctly implemented.​

 

[rajflyboy]

Proposed is the key wording.
When it becomes reality then we can all stop dreaming.

I do hope this new proposal becomes a reg. It is great news to all of us who are in the corporate aviation world. No more 24/7 reserve stuff would be nice. Lets keep the fingers crossed.

Gunfyter >>> Thats a cool Avatar you got there.

 

[gunfyter]

The reason it is proposed is to CLARIFY. The current rules require what I have been saying but POI's and FSDOs have FAILED to enforce.

Thats why this last line from the FAA once again....

if this proposal on reserve time assignments is not issued as a final rule, the FAA intends to ensure that the current rule, as interpreted, is being correctly implemented. (why aren't they doing so now?)

As interpreted means as the FAA Chief Counsel has interpreted... NOT YOUR POI or local FSDO.

The FAA representative who is in charge of this rewrite of FAR 135, is the SAME PERSON who was in charge of final issue of FAR part 91 K.... That should give you an idea of what the Reserve and Duty language in the upcoming Rewrite of 135 will look like.

The Gang of Thieves representing the Fractional providers were very SHOCKED with the Rest and Duty language in 91K. So much so that it looks like ALL Fractional companies plan on operating under FAR 135. The very thing they tried to avoid by operating Part 91 and proposing the new rule FAR 91K.

135 operators are about to receive the Same Shock. Monthly meetings on Rest and Duty for the rewrite of FAR 135 goes on every month in Dallas.

The BS is about to end

The 135 operators are scared and have their own Gang of Theives trying to influence the final rules now.
see:
http://www.enews-letter.com/12all/p_v.php?mi=126&nl=2&ei=jerry%40navillus-design.com

Excerp:

"...An additional working subgroup, focused exclusively on contentious FAR 135 flight-duty-rest issues, will have an "extra" meeting in Dallas 10-12 August -- with RACCA participants in attendance. This group's recommendations will be presented to the ARC at the August meeting...."

Believe me they are VERY CONCERNED! Concerned you might be properly rested when you fly and it will cost them money.

 

[rajflyboy]

Time will tell I guess.

Thanks for all your research. You must be a research committee guy!

 

[gunfyter]

Thanks to the former Executive Jet Aviation MEC member and current BBJ PIC who petitioned the FAA 13 years ago.


from http://www.nemspa.org/flt-duty.html

On November 25, 1991, Mr. Thomas T. Gasta, a captain on
turbo-jet aircraft, petitioned the FAA to amend the definitions
in part 1 of the FAR to include a definition of rest that would
ensure that a rest period is free from restraint and free from
responsibility for work. Mr. Gasta's particular concern is to
ensure that reserve time is not considered rest.

The FAA has considered each of these petitions for
rulemaking in preparing this NPRM.

So,

If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read while in Rest without having to worry about being ASAP'd on a popup 135 charter flight... Thank a Netjets pilot.

 

[pilotyip]

Reserve time non-rest/non-duty

Exactly what the reg says, reserve in not rest. What are we talking about. Is it gun guy wants it to read Reserve is duty? That would be change in the regs.

91.1057 (a) Reserve status ......remains within a reasonable response time of the aircraft as agreed between the flight crewmember and the program manager. The flight crewmember maintains a ready means (i.e. pager or telephone watch) whereby the flight crewmember may be contacted by the program manager. Reserve status is not part of any rest or duty period.

If this is the sample of the proposed change in the 135 Regs, then it almost the same thing that is going on right now. We just have new hires sign an agreement as a condition of employment. An agreement that states they will be in the building in 25 minutes from being altered in a reserve status and they live within 7 miles of the field while in a reserve status. To my understanding that would fully, meet the requirements of Part 91K. As I stated early on in this thread there is a twilight zone of a period that is non-duty and non-rest, it is called Reserve status in 91K

 

[gunfyter]

What you failed to realize is that you cannot be in Reserve status indefinitely.

While in Reserve you can do as you have written above. Lets say you have been in Reserve for 4 hours. An IMMEDIATE trip pops up. You NOW have 10 hours to complete the trip.

Or you have been in reserve for 4 hours. A trip for tomorrow pops up. You may be contacted by the company and assigned the trip and 10 hours of REST before the trip.

Or you are in Reserve. 14 hours passes and no Trip pops up. You must be place in ASSIGNED REST. You are TOAST you cannot FLY again until you have received 10 hours of Rest during which the Company MAY NOT contact you and you have no responsibility to contact the company or respond to calls or pages.

Bottom line is if you are Flying a 135 trip. You must be able to LOOK BACK and find 10 hours of REST. Rest that does NOT include time you were held in Reserve. You have 14 hours (NOT OF DUTY) but of time from the END OF REST to complete your 135 assignment. REST ENDED as soon as Reserve begins.

 

[pilotyip]

Not what the 91.1057 (a) says

You are wrong, and BTW without management you would not be flying an airplane for a living.

 

[gunfyter]

Yes that IS what it says!

First lets review what REST means...
(8) Rest period means the time period free of all restraint
or duty for a certificate holder and free of all responsibility
for work or duty should the occasion arise. "Free of all
restraint" and "free of all responsibility" would include, but
not be limited to, accepting phone calls, being required to carry
a beeper, or being required to contact the air carrier. If a
flight crewmember is not serving in assigned time, reserve time,
standby duty or a duty period, that crewmember would be in a rest
period.

So as you can see, Reserve time does not count as rest.

Once you are on reserve for 14 hours logic and mathematics tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to FLY Part 135 flights. Because you look back and you do not find 10 hrs of REST.

Why keep someone on Reserve for 14 hours then? ... In order to contact that pilot to Notify him of his next rest period and start of Duty or Reserve.

Not only do you need 10 hours of Rest to be ON DUTY... You need 10 hours of REST to be in RESERVE! That is if the purpose of the Reserve is to accept a FAR 135 flight!


Once You have been in reserve for 14 hours... The only assignment you can accept is ANOTHER 10 hours of REST before you fly a 135 trip. You may NOT go out on an immediate popup trip... or any trip until you receive another assigned 10 hours of REST.

 

[gunfyter]

You are wrong, and BTW without management you would not be flying an airplane for a living.

Thats fine I just want management to obey the FARs.

You might think I am wrong but I am not. If you don't want to see the Rest Rules clarified the way I have explained it, the best thing to do is get a Representative on that ARC committee that is negotiating the language with the FAA now. AIRNET has....

 

[WillowRunVortex]

Wow Gun,,,I think your getting O'l YIP worked up a bit. You are exactly right on and its the management types over there at YIP that are shakin in there Sporty's pilot boots that the regs will actually be interpreted correctly from now on in the on demand charter community. Bunch of Cool Aide drinkers......

 

[gunfyter]

They have plenty of time to shake in their boots I guess. It is reported:

Once in final form (probably in the second quarter of 2005) the ARC's recommendations must make their way through FAA development into a proposed rule, DOT, and OMB review, and publication as an NPRM with opportunity for public comment -- so the results are not likely to be published as the "new" Part 135 for five years.



I do not know if that means we have to wait that long for enforcement (by the FAA) of the rules as they exist now. However, being fortunate enough to be in a union shop we know that we will be living by them where I work. We already do for 135 flights and 91 will not be an option starting middle of next month.

 

[pilotyip]

not the FAR's right now

That is not the present rule, it is a rule that may apply in the future, like 5 years as you said. The Reserve being not rest/not duty fits just fine with present and proposed 135 crew rest.

 

[WillowRunVortex]

When the regs were revamped in 99 or 2000,,,when all the commuter guys were drillin holes in the ground,,,I was told by our POI at the time that the rules would be across the board to include on demand charter. They held a "special" meeting for all the owners over there at Will It Run,,,all of a sudden dudnt apply to on demand charter. See most of the POI's over at the willow run FSDO are ex freight dogs off that same airport. They are in the pockets of the owners cause they never thought they would make it to the FAA and they are management mentality now to preserve their positions,,,read,,,,less outfits operating----equals less FAA jobs at the Will It Run FSDO. Lots of money to be made over there with the blood sweat and tears of youngsters who will do ANYTHING to fly!

 

[gunfyter]

Actually, it is the present rule. It just has not been clarified in 135 as it has in 91K and 121.

You said
"Exactly what the reg says, reserve in not rest. What are we talking about. Is it gun guy wants it to read Reserve is duty? That would be change in the regs"

You remain confused. I never said that. Reserve is not duty. NEITHER IS IT REST.

135.267 d Each assignment under paragraph (b) of this section must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24 hour period that precedes the planned completion time of the assignment.

So if you have been on continuous RESERVE say for 24 hours... You cannot show me ANY REST ... therefore you CANNOT FLY. Now what I have just said CANNOT be construed as saying Reserve = Duty. But thats what YOU do. I am not saying that at all.

What I am saying is that if you are called for a flight while on Reserve... you cannot count that Reserve time as REST. Therefore any time spent in Reserve reduces the available time left over for Duty. If 4 hours were spent on Reserve... only 10 hours remains for Duty before another 10 hour REST PERIOD must be assigned.

If you are counting Reserve time as REST... You are violating this FAR. and the FEDS are NOT enforcing it so you are getting away with it.

 

[gunfyter]

United States Court of Appeals​

For the First Circuit​

http://www.law.emory.edu/1circuit/aug99/99-1888.01a.html​

No. 99-1888



AVIATORS FOR SAFE AND FAIRER REGULATION, INC.,



Petitioner,



v.



FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,



Respondent.





ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF

THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION











Before

Selya, Boudin and Lynch,​

Circuit Judges.​

John M. Edwards with whom John C. Blessington and Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP were on brief for petitioner.

Charles W. Scarborough, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, with whom David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Robert S. Greenspan, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, were on brief for respondent.







BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. Petitioner, Aviators for Safe and Fairer Regulation, Inc. ("Aviators"), is a trade association of about fifty on-demand air charter companies. It brings this case to challenge a so-called notice of enforcement policy issued by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") that purports to interpret, and to express its intent to enforce, a preexisting regulation governing how much rest pilots or other flight crewmembers must get between flight assignments.

Air charter companies furnish "air taxi" service to customers on demand rather than on a scheduled basis. The FAA regulates such companies under Part 135 of its regulations, 14 C.F.R. pt. 135 (2000). The regulation at issue in this case, id. ? 135.267(d), was adopted in its current form in October 1985 and aims to ensure that pilots have adequate rest for purposes of air safety, see 49 U.S.C. ?? 40101(d), 44701(a)(4)-(5) (1994 & Supp. II 1996). It states, in relevant part, that each flight assignment to unscheduled one- and two-pilot crews "must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour period that precedes the planned completion time of the assignment." 14 C.F.R. ? 135.267(d).

The term "rest" is not defined in the regulation. On several occasions, the FAA sought to refine the term through rulemaking but those efforts were abortive. (1) Then, on June 15, 1999, without prior notice or rulemaking proceedings, the FAA issued a "notice of enforcement policy." The notice said that it was merely reiterating the FAA's "longstanding interpretation of its regulations" concerning rest requirements and continued in pertinent part:

[T]he FAA has consistently interpreted the term rest to mean that a flight crewmember is free from actual work from the air carrier or from present responsibility for work should the occasion arise. Thus the FAA previously has determined that a flight crewmember on reserve was not at rest if the flight crewmember had a present responsibility for work in that the flight crewmember had to be available for the carrier to notify of a flight assignment.

Notice of Enforcement Policy, 64 Fed. Reg. 32176, 32176 (1999). The principal controversy centers upon how (and in one case whether) the notice resolves two different scenarios, which we shall refer to as the duty-to-report and the duty-to-be-available.

In the duty-to-report scenario, a crewmember who is nominally off duty has a responsibility during the period to leave a contact number, to be fit to fly, to take any telephone calls or other communications notifying him of a flight assignment, and to report for that assignment in a reasonable time (e.g., two hours). In the duty-to-be-available scenario, the same is true but the crewmember has the option to accept or decline a flight assignment that is offered during this off-duty period. It is easy to see why such arrangements would be attractive to an air taxi carrier.

Under either scenario, a call to the crewmember followed by an accepted assignment would (at some stage) terminate any "rest" that might otherwise be accruing. The crewmember, to be eligible for the assignment, would have to have met the "ten hours rest" quota based on "rest" that had already occurred. But the FAA's position in its notice as to the duty-to-report scenario (the duty-to-be-available scenario is a different issue) is that even if no call were made during this nominal off-duty period, none of the period would count as rest because the generic responsibility to leave a number, take calls, and report if assigned would negate "rest" for the entire period.

 

[gunfyter]

Aviators sought direct review of the notice under 49 U.S.C. ? 46110 (1994), which permits any person "disclosing a substantial interest in an order issued by" the FAA with respect to aviation safety matters to seek review in an appropriate court of appeals, id. ? 46110(a). The court of appeals has "exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, amend, modify or set aside any part of the order and it may order" the FAA to conduct further proceedings. Id. ? 46110(c). We consider first threshold issues as to our authority to review the notice; then, Aviators' procedural claim that the notice required notice and comment rulemaking; and last, Aviators' substantive attacks on the FAA's position.

1. The FAA does not directly dispute that its notice of enforcement policy constitutes an "order," but raises the issue obliquely, saying that it is merely giving advance notice of an intention to enforce the law. Whether a notice thus limited would be reviewable is beside the point; here, the FAA's "notice" adopts a firm interpretation of an existing regulation. The term "order" is read expansively in review statutes generally, 5 U.S.C. ? 551(6) (1994) (an "order" includes "the whole or a part of a final disposition, [including those] declaratory in form"), and this statute specifically, New York v. FAA, 712 F.2d 806, 808 (2d Cir. 1983); Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Goldschmidt, 645 F.2d 1309, 1313-14 (8th Cir. 1981). To that extent, the notice here qualifies as a reviewable "order," assuming other conditions (e.g., finality, ripeness) are met.

Several circuits (although not this one) have said that there must be "an administrative record" for agency action to be a reviewable order under section 46110. See, e.g., Green v. Brantley, 981 F.2d 514, 519 (11th Cir. 1993); City of Alexandria v. Helms, 728 F.2d 643, 646 (4th Cir. 1984). Yet almost all of these cases find that the requisite record need not be substantial so long as the agency's position is definitive and clearly expressed. See San Diego Air Sports Ctr., Inc. v. FAA, 887 F.2d 966, 969 (9th Cir. 1989) (a letter may suffice). In any event, an inadequate record is more likely to be a basis for setting aside final agency action than for refusing to review it. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 419-20 (1971).

The FAA does not contest the notice's finality--and with good reason. The notice is unquestionably final in a procedural sense: it is not a proposal to interpret a regulation, and there is no indication that the FAA plans to conduct further proceedings on this declaration. See Alexandria, 728 F.2d at 646. Rather, the FAA's principal challenge to our review at this time--its request that review be deferred until there is an actual enforcement proceeding in which objections might be raised in defense--is an argument properly considered under the rubric of ripeness. See Public Serv. Comm'n v. Patch, 167 F.3d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1998).

An issue is ripe for judicial review if it is "fit" for immediate review and delay would impose "undue hardship" on litigants. Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967). As to hardship, the FAA's notice promised "enforcement" (after a 180-day grace period that has already expired, 64 Fed. Reg. 32176, 32176 (1999)), not opportunities for negotiations or further clarification, and enforcement may include penalties up to and including the revocation of charters, 14 C.F.R. ? 13.19(b) (2000). Conversely, compliance may also require major changes in air taxi operations, and deferral of review would clearly threaten hardship. Cf. Lincoln House, Inc. v. Dupre, 903 F.2d 845, 847 (1st Cir. 1990).

With respect to fitness, the most common concern is whether a rule or order is framed in terms so general that only its application to specific facts (usually in an enforcement proceeding) would permit the court to make a reasoned judgment. Patch, 167 F.3d at 23. As to the duty-to-report scenario, we think that the FAA's position is plain enough from the language of its notice, (2) especially when read in light of prior statements (discussed below), and involves a clear-cut pattern of conduct that may arise frequently in air taxi operations. In this respect, the notice is well fit for review at this time.

The duty-to-be-available scenario is different. Although Aviators has presented a distinct pattern of conduct likely to be important to air taxi operations, we find no similar clarity in the notice (see note 2, below), or earlier interpretive letters (see note 6, below), to show how the FAA would resolve the scenario. True, one footnote in the FAA's brief, and its statements at oral argument, suggest that an unrequited duty-to-be-available is not "rest," but we are unwilling to bind the agency to the less-than-clear litigation position of its lawyers in deciding whether a controversy is fit for review. Cf. Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 212-13 (1988).

A final issue of "authority" which was not raised by the FAA--indeed, it commendably conceded the point at oral argument--deserves to be mentioned. The review statute, 49 U.S.C. ? 46110 (1994), imposes a sixty-day time limit on petitions for review unless "there are reasonable grounds for not filing by the [sixtieth] day" after the order, id. ? 46110(a). Here, the petition for review (filed August 6, 1999) is timely as to the notice of enforcement policy (issued June 15, 1999), but comes years after the order adopting the 1985 regulation at issue. Yet, as we will see, Aviators could be regarded in some respects as attacking the original regulation.

If so, this case arguably falls within the proviso of the statute permitting a later challenge where there are "reasonable grounds" for the delay. (3) Here, reasonable grounds probably exist for a deferred attack inasmuch as neither the original 1985 regulation nor accompanying commentary eliminated uncertainty as to how the FAA might resolve any of a number of scenarios (including the duty-to-report and the duty-to-be-available) that might arise in practice. Cf. Charter Township of Huron v. Richards, 997 F.2d 1168, 1172-73 (6th Cir. 1993); Greater Orlando Aviation Auth. v. FAA, 939 F.2d 954, 960 (11th Cir. 1991).

2. As the parties have briefed the issue, the first question on the merits is procedural: whether the FAA was required to conduct notice and comment rulemaking before issuing its notice of enforcement policy. If the FAA were altering or enlarging obligations imposed by a preexisting regulation, notice and comment rulemaking would be required, see Warder v. Shalala, 149 F.3d 73, 80-81 (1st Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 67 U.S.L.W. 3470 (U.S. Apr. 19, 1999) (No. 98-1131), but a mere "interpretation" can ordinarily be done without rulemaking, id. at 80; see also 5 U.S.C. ? 553(b)(B) (1994). Whether "ordinarily" means "always" is an interesting question. Cf. Dugan v. Ramsay, 727 F.2d 192, 196-98 (1st Cir. 1984) (rejecting agency "interpretation" without rulemaking); Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. FERC, 578 F.2d 289, 292-93 (10th Cir. 1978) (same).

 

[gunfyter]

To determine whether the FAA is altering or enlarging the 1985 regulation depends on the "meaning" of the original regulation (validity is a different question). See Warder, 149 F.3d at 80-81. The 1985 regulation, as applied to the scenarios at issue, supplies no very clear answer because it does not define "rest" or otherwise indicate how the FAA would resolve the duty-to-report scenario. See 14 C.F.R. 135.267(d) (1986); 50 Fed. Reg. 29306, 29311-14, 29317 (1985). Nor is help provided by a precursor regulation first codified in 1970 from which the key 1985 language was borrowed. See 14 C.F.R. ? 135.136(b) (1970); 34 Fed. Reg. 1443, 1444 (1969).

Of course, subsequent administrative interpretation is often treated as evidencing, or substituting for, a supposed "original" intent. See Mullins Coal Co. v. Director, 484 U.S. 135, 159-60 (1987). And the gist of Aviators' claim is that despite the open-textured quality of the 1985 regulation, it had been given meaning over time and had come to rest in a well-settled interpretation that is favorable to Aviators' cause, which the notice of enforcement policy mistakenly contradicts. A less extreme version is that at least the agency must give "reasons" why it is reversing an established position. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983); Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 59 F.3d 284, 290 (1st Cir. 1995).

As to the duty-to-report scenario, it is clear to us that there is no "reversal": the FAA has consistently maintained--in its interpretive letters, bulletins, and other statements--that an off-duty period encumbered by the threat of interruption from a mandatory assignment is not rest. For example, Flight Standards Information Bulletin 92-02 (Jan. 24, 1992) states that "the FAA has consistently interpreted its "nest" requirement to be satisfied only if the rest time is: determined prospectively . . . . A period of time during which a pilot has a present responsibility for work, if called, does not qualify as a rest period. This should be contrasted with a pilot who does not have a present responsibility to fly, when called." (4)

Admittedly, this position, whether in its most recent articulation in the notice, or in the FAA's previous explanations, is not as clear as it could be; (5) but it is clear enough. In fact, there are interpretative statements to the same effect preceding 1985. See, e.g., Letter from A.W. Lalle, Acting Associate General Counsel, FAA, to John F. Nevins, Air Line Pilots Association (Feb. 5, 1968) ("[W]hen a flight crewmember is required by the air carrier to hold himself available to call, it constitutes a restraint which interrupts the 24-hour period, which we have held should be free from a loss of freedom or restraint."). More important, there is no evidence that the FAA has ever said that the duty-to-report scenario did count as rest. The 1992 FAA bulletin on which Aviators relies, which we have just quoted, actually hurts its "reversal" claim.

Nor are we troubled by Aviators' argument that the FAA's current position on the duty-to-report scenario is inconsistent with a decision by the Eighth Circuit. See United States v. Ozark Airlines, Inc., 506 F.2d 526 (8th Cir. 1974). That decision construed a weekly rest requirement regulation, 14 C.F.R. 121.471(d) (1970), and inferred from the use of "duty" in other subsections that rest "from all further duty" meant rest from "duty aloft." Ozark, 506 F.2d at 237. "Duty aloft" was changed to "flight time" in the 1985 version of this regulation to make clear that "duty," for purposes of the rest requirements, was a broader concept than "duty aloft." See 14. C.F.R. ?? 121.471(a)-(c) (1986).

By contrast, the FAA has been much less consistent as to the duty-to-be-available scenario. The relevant interpretive letters appear not merely in tension, but at odds, (6) and on this point, the 1992 Bulletin is arguably helpful to Aviators. See Flight Standards Information Bulletin 92-02 ("A period of time during which a pilot has a present responsibility for work, if called, does not qualify as a rest period. This should be contrasted with a pilot who does not have a present responsibility to fly, when called."). But, as earlier explained, we still do not know for sure how the FAA would resolve this latter scenario. 3. This brings us to Aviators' substantive attacks, whether treated as attacks on the notice or on the regulation itself. Here, the FAA starts with a substantial advantage: the question how much rest flight crewmembers should be given to guard against pilot fatigue and what interruptions should count against satisfying the ten-hour rest requirement are technical issues involving safety where the agency's latitude is substantial. See 49 U.S.C. ? 40101(d), 44701(a)(4)-(5) (1994 & Supp. II 1996); see also Bargmann v. Helms, 715 F.2d 638, 641-42 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l v. Quesada, 276 F.2d 892, 898 (2d Cir. 1960). And absent a mistake of law, the standard of review is whether the agency's actions are arbitrary or capricious, 5 U.S.C. ? 706(2)(a) (1994), and whether any fact findings it made rest on substantial evidence, 49 U.S.C. ? 46110(c) (1994).

Nevertheless, Aviators says that the FAA admits that a brief, unexpected phone call from the carrier does not disturb rest so as to require the ten-hour clock to be restarted. See, e.g., Letter from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, FAA, to Albert C. Pod, Vice President, Executive Jet Management (Apr. 19, 1991). The FAA verified at oral argument that it has not disclaimed that position, and indeed, the language of the 1999 notice --"if the flight crewmember . . . had to be available for the carrier to notify of a flight assignment"--arguably would not be triggered by an unanticipated phone call. Aviators says that, in light of this concession, it is irrational to deny the "rest" label in the duty-to-report scenario when no call in fact occurs.

We do not agree. The agency is perfectly entitled to regard a single unexpected phone call as less of a psychological interruption to pilot rest than the continuing burden that exists in the duty-to-report scenario even when no call occurs. In the latter case, the pilot is effectively on a leash and knows that at any point (after ten hours) he may be summoned back to duty, for which he must remain "fit" to fly. Whether or not the FAA has drawn the line in the right place, the distinction drawn is not irrational.

 

[gunfyter]

Aviators' best claim is that there is no "explanation or evidence" in the record that excluding the duty-to-report time from "rest" is "necessary for, or even advances" safety. And, although the FAA has elsewhere referred to "scientific studies of fatigue," Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 60 Fed. Reg. 65951, 65951 (1995), it points to no evidence or even a thoughtful discussion of the specific issue either in the notice or in the order adopting the 1985 regulation. Instead, the FAA's brief offers an explanation. To remove the taint of post hoc rationalization, see State Farm, 463 U.S. at 50; Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1258, 1286 & n.19 (1st Cir. 1987), we note that the explanation is pretty obvious; the harder question is whether it is sufficient.

The FAA's commonsense explanation is this: given the purpose of the rest requirement to assure that the flight crew is refreshed and alert, anything that materially compromises a state of affairs conducive to rest threatens refreshment and alertness; and a flight crewmember who is on call and subject to the various duties imposed by the duty-to-report scenario is less likely to be as refreshed and alert as one who need not worry that a demand to fly may come at any time. This is plausible enough; neither administrators nor judges are expected to ignore the known realities of human existence. See, e.g., Texas E. Prods. Pipeline Co. v. OSHA, 827 F.2d 46, 49 (7th Cir. 1987) (affirming agency's "common sense reading" that a "hole in the ground is, after all, a hole in the ground").

The force of this commonsense explanation is reinforced by the fact of its long standing--at least fifty years. In 1949, the acting general counsel of the Civil Aviation Administration was asked for an interpretation of then-existing "relief from all duty" requirements. Letter from Robert P. Boyle, Acting General Counsel, Civil Aviation Administration, to Coordinator, International Field Office, Lima, Peru (April 22, 1949). The inquiry presented the following scenario: "[An air carrier] schedules a 'stand by' crew which must remain at home subject to immediate call as replacement in case any of the originally scheduled crew are unable, because of sickness, etc., to take the trip out as scheduled. This 'stand by' crew, if not called as a replacement on that day, is then scheduled as a regular crew for a trip on the following day." Id.

In response, the acting general counsel ruled:

This appears to be such a lack of freedom of restraint and release from duty as to prevent the full and free exercise of an opportunity to rest intended by the rest period provisions of the Civil Air Regulations. It is immaterial that the pilots are not required to report to the airport or actively engage in work for the air carrier during the period of the stand by schedule. The term "relief from duty" as used in the above-noted section means that the pilot must be relieved from either actual work for the air carrier or present responsibility for such should the occasion arise. A "stand by" schedule of the type described in the memorandum does not provide such relief from all duty with the air carrier.

Id.

Of course, without "evidence," we have no way of knowing just how much these stand-by duties do compromise rest. But agencies often make choices where no evidence can demonstrate a single right answer. Determining cut-off toxicity exposures in environmental regulation, see Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Tyson, 796 F.2d 1479, 1504-05 (D.C. Cir. 1986), or rates of return in utility cases, see Borough of Ellwood City v. FERC, 731 F.2d 959, 974-75 (D.C. Cir. 1984), are good examples. Where, as here, the agency's choice appears to be within a zone of reasonableness, a court will normally defer. See Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951); Consolidated Oil & Gas, Inc. v. FERC, 806 F.2d 275, 279 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

The more serious difficulty is the lack of an opportunity for Aviators or other opponents to offer such rebuttal commentary or evidence. But, of course, Aviators has not claimed to have medical studies or expert testimony to show that the restrictive reading serves little or no purpose: it says only that the FAA has failed to provide supporting evidence of its own. Perhaps Aviators can develop compelling physiological evidence or collect the testimony of affected pilots to show that duty-to-report time gives pilots as much "rest" as time at home with no overhanging responsibilities. If so, Aviators can file a petition tendering the evidence and asking the FAA to modify its regulation accordingly. 5 U.S.C. ? 553(e) (1994).

This is a close case and we have given careful consideration as to whether a remand might be warranted. But the FAA's position on duty-to-report time is on its face plausible even without evidentiary support; this position has been consistent over time, even assuming that enforcement has been lax; and there is no indication from Aviators that it could supply useful evidence if we did order a remand. The FAA should not assume that the duty-to-be-available scenario--only a step further down the road but a significant step since the crewmember could refuse the assignment--would automatically be sustainable on the same basis.

A somewhat different rationale for its narrow view of "rest" seems to be articulated in the FAA's brief in this court which might, if adopted by the agency itself, provide additional support for its position on the duty-to-report scenario and also apply equally to the duty-to-be-available scenario. The reasoning does not depend on the psychological burden of overhanging obligations but on the possible threat that recalling the flight crewmember to duty after the initial ten hours of rest could throw off the sleeping rhythms of pilots in an unacceptable way. (7) This concern, which the FAA itself may never have articulated, may or may not be substantial, and we express no opinion on the merits.

Last, Aviators says that the FAA's position is unreasonable and unfair because no corresponding rest requirements exist for fractional ownership programs, which allegedly compete with air taxi carriers but are governed by Part 91 of the FAA's regulations, 14 C.F.R. 91 (2000). This argument has not been well developed in this court; and there may be substantive differences in operations that justify the FAA's decision to regulate the two kinds of programs differently. But the FAA would have some explaining to do if the two sets of operations are pertinently the same, especially if there is a competitive relationship between them. Cf. Town of Norwood v. New England Power Co., 202 F.3d 392, 402-03 (1st Cir.), petition for cert. filed, 68 U.S.L.W. 3756 (U.S. May 30, 2000) (No. 99-1914).

However, agencies are not normally required to solve all similar problems at one time. See Mobil Oil Exploration v. United Distrib. Co., 498 U.S. 211, 231 (1991). The FAA is currently reviewing its regulation of those fractional ownership programs in separate proceedings. Aviators is free to argue its case in those proceedings, and if unsuccessful, it may seek review of that agency action under the same statute that enabled review in this case, 49 U.S.C. ? 46110 (1994), or file a petition for rulemaking to modify the current regulation (14 C.F.R. ? 135.267(d) (2000)) and spell out then the disparate impact claim in greater detail, 5 U.S.C. ? 553(e) (1994).

Accordingly, we sustain the FAA as to the duty-to-report scenario and treat as unripe Aviators' claims regarding the duty-to-be-available scenario. With respect to the latter, Aviators is free to seek a formal declaratory ruling from the FAA and to present its policy arguments and evidence to the agency. See 5 U.S.C. ? 554(e) (1994). While the agency has discretion to refuse such a ruling, that refusal is reviewable for abuse of discretion, see Intercity Transp. Co. v. United States, 737 F.2d 103, 106-07 (D.C. Cir. 1984); cf. DeNovellis v. Shalala, 124 F.3d 298, 313 (1st Cir. 1997), and we think that a refusal to tell Aviators in advance whether the scenario constitutes "rest" would itself require a lot of explaining.

The petition for review is denied to the extent stated and otherwise dismissed as presenting an issue unripe for review at this time.

It is so ordered.