on a general reluctance and/or failure by both industry and the FAA to work issues of inconsistent regulatory ap- plication through to a final resolution. The report also noted that timeliness of decisions and the “fear of retribu- tion” contribute to accepting inconsis- tent regulatory application. The ARC’s major recommenda- tions were that the FAA: (1) consoli- date all of its policy and guidance into a single master electronic database resource, (2) use standardized decision-making methodology, (3) establish a Regulatory Consistency Communications Board (RCCB), and (4) standardize regulatory training. Since the report’s submission, the FAA has provided updates to NATA’s Maintenance Committee and other ARC members on what it is doing to satisfy the ARC recommendations. One recent FAA action was its draft FAA Order FS 8000.RCCB, Regulatory Consistency Communication Board (RCCB), published for comment earlier this year, projected for final publication by early 2017. As outlined in the draft order, the RCCB will be comprised of FAA rep- resentatives from AFS, AIR, and the Office of the Chief Counsel. The RCCB will provide clarification to internal and external stakeholders on ques- tions related to inconsistent interpre- tation and application of regulations. The RCCB will review all issues submitted. However, issues of in- consistency that do not require input from multiple policy offices will not be addressed through the full RCCB process. For example, if a question Aviation Business Journal | 4th Quarter 2016 brought to the RCCB can be answered by a single policy division, e.g., the Aircraft Maintenance Division (AFS- 300), the RCCB may direct the issue to that office for a response. At the same time, the RCCB does not replace other processes currently available to both internal and exter- nal stakeholders. According to the draft order, the RCCB will not accept submissions that should be directed to other FAA programs, processes, or initiatives, such as petitions for exemptions, petitions for rulemak- ing, request for legal interpretation, safety hotline complaints, or sub- missions under the Consistency and Standardization Initiative. According to the RCCB Order, in- dustry can expect resolution of issues brought to the RCCB. The RCCB chair and the FAA personnel working on RCCB issues are accountable to pro- vide clear and consistent answers in an appropriate amount of time. The response timeframe will be based on several factors, including complexity and safety risk. The results can come in many forms, e.g., revising internal policy documents and/or external advisory material. Of course, there is always a possibility that a regulation could be changed as a result of the RCCB’s work. Anyone can submit an issue from industry as well as internal FAA submissions. Issues submitted to the RCCB should be: 1. Inconsistencies in and be- tween regulations, policy, and related documents primarily in and across FAA’s Flight Standards Service (AFS) and Aircraft Certification Service (AIR). 2. Complex inconsistencies, which require input from more than one policy office, service, or line of business within the FAA. 3. Inconsistencies resulting from personal or regional interpretations and applica- tion of a rule, that is, “rule creep” or rulemaking by policy application. As mentioned, the response time can vary. However, according to the draft order, the RCCB will provide an acknowledgment of receipt within five working days of submission. A memo documenting the final resolution of RCCB issues will be posted in the FAA’s Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS). RCCB memos are not policy docu- ments, they only document the actions taken by the RCCB to address an issue. For example, if Order 8900.1 changed due to an RCCB issue, the RCCB memo will discuss that change. However, stakeholders must still refer to current guidance for decision-making support, and not to the RCCB memo. In 2015, the FAA asked the avi- ation associations that participated in the Consistency of Regulatory Interpretation ARC to provide current examples of regulatory application inconsistencies. The intent of this call for issues was to allow the FAA to Continued on page 52 49
