When FAA finds that certificate holders have violated aviation regulations, it has the statutory authority to take appropriate action. FAA Order 2150.3A on compliance and enforcement provides guidance on the range of options available for responding to violations. The option chosen depends on such factors as the seriousness of the violation and the violator’s prior enforcement history and willingness to comply with regulations. FAA uses administrative actions to document incidents involving minor violations, to request future compliance, and—if appropriate—to document corrective actions violators have agreed to take. Legal actions, such as fines or certificate actions, are FAA’s strongest enforcement tools. While FAA uses certificate actions primarily against individual certificate holders (e.g., pilots, mechanics, or flight engineers), it can also take certificate action against such entities as airlines, air taxi operators, or repair stations. FAA can also refer cases to the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General or to the appropriate law enforcement agency for criminal prosecution. When FAA determines that the public interest and safety require the immediate suspension or revocation of an operator’s certificate, the agency can issue an emergency order. An emergency order revoking an operating certificate is the most severe enforcement action that FAA can take against a certificate holder. An emergency order is generally used when a certificate holder is not qualified and may make use of the certificate or demonstrates a lack of care, judgment, and responsibility by, for example, operating an aircraft while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. An emergency order takes effect immediately on issuance. The certificate holder does not have an opportunity to contest the order before it is issued, and, unlike nonemergency certificate actions, the emergency order remains in effect while the certificate holder appeals. Emergency orders can be appealed to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the U.S. Court of Appeals. (See app. II for more information on the process for appealing FAA’s emergency and nonemergency certificate actions.) FAA used emergency orders in a small percentage of its enforcement cases. FAA regions varied in their use of emergency orders to initiate certificate actions; these differences appear to result in part from differences in enforcement practices. Nearly 60 percent of the emergency orders revoked or suspended pilot certificates or the medical certificates pilots must also have. Of the cases FAA initiated using emergency orders, over three-quarters ultimately resulted in a suspension or revocation of the certificate. Of the 137,506 enforcement cases closed in fiscal years 1990 through 1997, FAA initiated 3 percent using emergency orders. The actual number of emergency orders ranged from a low of 322 in fiscal year 1990 to a high of 573 in fiscal year 1996. On average, FAA closed 468 cases annually in which it had initiated enforcement action using emergency orders. (See table 1.) Since fiscal year 1990, emergency orders have been used to initiate an increasing proportion of certificate actions. As FAA shifted to using administrative actions to handle less serious enforcement cases, its use of certificate actions decreased. Because the number of emergency orders remained relatively constant, emergency orders came to represent a larger proportion of the remaining certificate actions. (See table 1.) According to the Assistant Chief Counsel in the Enforcement Division, the proportion of certificate actions initiated using emergency orders grew largely because, beginning in 1990, FAA used administrative actions more frequently to handle many less serious violations, which decreased the number of certificate actions. Thus, fewer cases are now handled as certificate actions, but they are the more serious cases. FAA used emergency orders to initiate 18 percent of its certificate action cases, on average, for fiscal years 1990 through 1997, but three regions initiated from 28 to 38 percent of their certificate actions using emergency orders. (See table 2.) These differences among the regions reflect, among other things, (1) unusually high numbers of emergency orders to suspend or revoke medical certificates in the Eastern, Western-Pacific, and Southwest regions and (2) large numbers of emergency suspensions of mechanic certificates in the Southwest region. While most regions issued no more than a handful (one to five) of emergency orders to revoke or suspend medical certificates each year in fiscal years 1990 through 1997, the Southwest region averaged nearly a dozen annually, and the Eastern and Western-Pacific regions averaged almost 25. (See table 3.) Officials at these offices and at FAA headquarters were unsure why these regions initiated so many more emergency orders on medical certificates than did the other regions. Differences in enforcement practices in FAA’s regional offices apparently may affect whether emergency orders are used to revoke or suspend a medical certificate. One regional counsel suggested that the staff in her region were simply efficient in processing these cases, while in other regions, the certificates of pilots that do not meet requirements may simply be allowed to expire. (Medical certificates must be renewed every 6 months to 3 years, depending on the type of pilot.) Another regional counsel suggested that some regions may handle medical certificate cases as nonemergency certificate actions. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification suggested that the higher numbers of medical certificates suspended or revoked using emergency orders in certain regions may reflect the larger population of pilots in those regions. We agree that regions that have a higher number of pilots might have proportionately higher numbers of emergency orders against pilots’ medical certificates. However, we do not believe this fully explains the differences among FAA’s regions. For example, the Southern region, which FAA officials told us had the largest number of general aviation pilots, had only one-sixth as many emergency revocations or suspensions as the Western-Pacific and Eastern regions. FAA was better able to clarify why the Southwest region issued nearly 40 percent (174) of the 442 emergency orders to revoke or suspend mechanic certificates in fiscal years 1990 through 1997. Other regions revoked or suspended mechanic certificates between 6 and 75 times during this period. According to the information provided by the Flight Standards Service in FAA headquarters and the legal staff in the Southwest region, many of these cases resulted from problems with a designated examiner with delegated authority from FAA who did not properly administer tests to ensure that mechanics were qualified. His actions necessitated the reexamination of nearly 200 mechanics; those who did not retake or did not pass the examination had their mechanic certificates suspended on an emergency basis. The 3,742 emergency orders to revoke or suspend aviation certificates in fiscal years 1990 through 1997 affected both individual pilots and mechanics and aviation entities such as repair stations and airport operators. Of the emergency orders, nearly 60 percent affected pilots by revoking or suspending 1,563 pilot certificates and 625 medical certificates. FAA also issued emergency orders to revoke or suspend 442 mechanics’ certificates and 118 certificates of the operators of air carriers, air taxis, airports, and other aviation entities. (See fig. 2.) These numbers reflect the number of certificates issued—there are many more pilots (622,261 during 1996) than air carriers or air taxis (3,057 during 1996). In addition, pilots must have at least two types of operating certificates—pilot and medical. (See app. III for annual data on FAA’s use of emergency orders by certificate type.) Pilot (1,563) Medical (625) Mechanics (442) 3% Operators (118)1% Repair stations (56) FAA used emergency orders to initiate certificate action against a similar proportion of private pilots and pilots holding commercial and air transport certificates. (See table 4.) FAA issued emergency orders to commercial pilots nearly 75 percent more often than it did to air transport pilots, although the number of pilots in each group is similar—129,187 commercial pilots and 127,486 air transport pilots in 1996. According to FAA’s Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification, it is not surprising that a smaller proportion of air transport pilots, particularly those flying for major airlines, receive emergency orders because they have more initial training and more extensive recurrent training on a regular basis than do commercial pilots. A high percentage of the certificate actions initiated using emergency orders ultimately resulted in revocations or suspensions. Of the 2,311 certificate revocations initiated using emergency orders in fiscal years 1990 through 1997, 86 percent resulted in the individual’s or entity’s losing the certificate. Specifically, 72 percent of the emergency revocations ultimately resulted in the certificate’s being revoked, and an additional 14 percent led to a suspension of the certificate. Less than 4 percent of the actions initiated as emergency revocations ultimately resulted in the case being dropped (no action). Similarly, of the 1,431 certificate suspensions initiated using emergency orders, 62 percent ultimately resulted in the suspension of the certificate, an additional 2 percent resulted in revocation, and 6 percent were ultimately dropped (no action). (See table 5.) While the final resolution of 240 of the cases could not be determined from the available data, the vast majority of the remaining cases were resolved by allowing the certificate to expire or by having operators successfully complete a reexamination of their qualifications. (See app. V.) According to FAA officials in the Enforcement Division in the Office of the Chief Counsel and in Flight Standards, the high numbers of emergency orders that were upheld for suspension and revocation reflects the fact that the agency takes emergency orders, particularly revocations, very seriously and is reluctant to initiate them without clear and convincing evidence. The Acting Director and other staff in the Flight Standards Service, the Assistant Chief Counsel in FAA’s Enforcement Division, and the nine regional counsels strongly agreed that emergency revocations are used in cases in which individuals or entities lacked the qualifications for the certificate or demonstrated a lack of care, judgment, and responsibility by, for example, falsifying material aviation records or operating aircraft while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The Acting Director of the Flight Standards Service said that requests to initiate emergency revocations against individuals are scrutinized at the local and division levels within Flight Standards before being referred to legal staff for action. Additionally, regional legal and program office staff provide information in cases against air carriers and repair stations to the Office of the Chief Counsel and the Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification for review and concurrence.