Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

Notice of FAA final rule for re-registration/renewal of aircraft

Whether you own, manage, insure or finance aircraft you may have an interest in this overhaul of the FAA Civil Aircraft Registry.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued its final rule regarding the Re-registration and Renewal of U.S. registered aircraft.  Due to the strict timeline, we wish to share this notice with you in a timely manner.  The rule applies to currently registered aircraft.

You may locate a full copy of the FAA final rule online at:  http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-17572.pdf

The FAA has enacted the final rule regarding the Civil Aircraft Registry which has been under consideration for several years.  For reasons including record keeping and investigation for law enforcement and government agencies, the registration of aircraft, previously without expiration, will now be required every 3 years.  To bring currently registered aircraft into compliance, a schedule for re-registration has been provided by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Important notes:

We urge you to keep your address record current with the FAA due to the issuance of important notices regarding registered aircraft.

Aircraft registered after October 1, 2010 will expire 3 years from the last day of the month which the Certificate of Registration was issued.

Notice by mail

The FAA will issue notices of expiration via US mail 180 days prior to the expiration.  The 180 day notice will allow a 90 window to comply allowing the FAA what is expected to be timely processing of the renewal of registration prior to the expiration date.

Owners must be aware, those who have not re-registered or renewed aircraft during the 90 day filing window will receive a 2nd notice at the end of the 90 day filing window.  The FAA will continue accepting the renewal documents after the 90 day window as passed, but there is a greater chance the re-registration or renewal will not be completed prior to the expiration of same.

The FAA will issue a 3rd notice to aircraft not re-registered within the compliance period.  The notice will state that the aircraft has been grounded.

Staying informed

The FAA will post lists reporting the aircraft as they move through the various stages of re-registration and renewal.

A schedule for renewal as determined by month in which the Certificate was issued is available in the printing of the final rule.  Please see page 15 of 16 at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-17572.pdf to review the compliance schedule.

Return of Certificates

Aircraft owners who sell their aircraft will no longer be required to return Certificates of Registration to the FAA.  Invalid Certificates of Registration should be destroyed.

Online Renewal

Re-registration and renewal will be available online and by mail.  The FAA will post necessary forms at http://registry.faa.gov/renewregistration.  Please note the FAA will include a unique code on the mailed notice which the owner will need to renew the aircraft registration online.  Online renewal  is possible when no changes to registration are required.

Risk of Loss of N-Number

30 days following the expiration of the registration of an aircraft, the FAA will send a notice to the owner directing re-registration of the aircraft within 60 days.  If an owner fails to comply with re-registration deadlines the FAA will cancel the N-number for the aircraft.  The N-number will remain unavailable for assignment for 5 years.

Fee schedule

The fee schedule for re-registration and renewal is as yet to be determined. The suggested fee is $45.00 (USD)

Comments

Despite the grumbling and aggravation of countless aircraft owners, the rule will accomplish the reduction in error rate of the Civil Aircraft Registry from 36.5% to 5.7%.  This reduction in error is of great benefit to those in law enforcement and in the civil sector including insurers, financiers, attorneys, brokers and buyers etc.

Please feel free to contact our office with any questions or concerns you may have regarding this final rule.

Battle Over Airport Noise Ordinances Goes Bi-Coastal

A battle over the authority of a local municipality to enact aircraft noise ordinances is shaping up simultaneously on both the “left coast” (California) and the “right coast” (Florida). In California, the city of Santa Monica has appealed an FAA decision that prohibited the city from banning certain jets from operating at the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO). The city adopted an ordinance in March 2008, banning Category C and D jets (e.g. Gulfstreams, Challengers, and some Citations) based on what the city called “safety issues.” The FAA issued a cease and desist order on April 24th, the day that the ordinance was to go into effect, and a District Court granted the FAA a temporary restraining order which stopped the ordinance from being enforced. The city then appealed the FAA decision and the case will soon be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.

Both AOPA and NBAA have been actively involved in the dispute (which has been going on for more than 7 years) and each will file briefs as amicus curiae or “friends of the court” with the D.C. Circuit. Kathy Yodice, legal counsel for AOPA, explained why this issue is important to the national “alphabet” aviation groups, and why they are weighing in on this issue: “The implications of this case extend beyond the instant dispute between the city and the FAA, and any decision by this court could potentially affect how similar circumstances are treated elsewhere . . . If the city of Santa Monica is allowed to implement its desired bans, such precedent could provide airport sponsors nationwide with a basis to implement restrictions at a publicly funded airport, an action that should and always has been within the exclusive province of the FAA.”

Meanwhile, back here in Florida, a similar battle is brewing at the Vakaria Airport which proves AOPA’s point. Although the Valkaria Airport (X59) is owned and operated by Brevard County, it sits within the Town of Grant-Valkaria. The Town (which is located between Melbourne and Sebastian on the east coast of Florida) passed an ordinance that prohibited commercial flight training/instruction at the airport and prohibited commercial flight training/instruction schools from being located at the airport. Like Santa Monica, the Town cited noise and safety concerns as the basis for its ordinance claiming that homeowners have been “victimized and harassed by the
noise associated with certain low flying aircraft over or near their property.”

After passing the ordinance, the Town asked the FAA if it could enforce the ordinance and the FAA was unequivocal in pointing out that it could not. In its August letter to the Town, the FAA cited the abundant legal authority giving the FAA the sole and exclusive authority to regulate “airspace use, management and efficiency, air traffic control, safety, navigational facilities, and the regulation of aircraft noise at its source.” Based on this authority, the FAA advised the Town that the ordinance is not enforceable because, among other things, the Town is not the “proprietor” of the airport: “Nonproprietor jurisdictions such as the Town of Grant- Valkaria have no role in determining the legal requirements affecting the operation of the airport or airport development. This would include prohibiting the basing of commercial flight schools and flight instruction at the Airport for purposes of controlling aircraft noise and safety.” It is presently uncertain whether the Town will appeal the decision, or whether the airport proprietor (Brevard County) will take steps to enact regulations that mirror the ordinance adopted by the Town.

These two battles provide us with an example of federal preemption of state and local law, as discussed in an article that appeared in the Fall, 2008, edition of Florida Aviation Business (“Pre What? The Fight Over Federal Preemption and What it Means to You”). As we have seen at the Naples Municipal Airport, the power of the FAA is not unlimited, and a municipality can enact “reasonable” regulations to reduce aircraft noise at an airport that is owned and operated by the municipality. In such cases, the FAA may not withhold airport improvement grants based on the FAA’s determination that the municipality violated grant assurances. The problem for both Santa Monica and Valkaria airports, however, is that the ordinances the municipality wishes to enact will most likely be found to be unreasonable and discriminatory. That is so because the ordinances prohibit one activity, while another similar activity has precisely the same noise and/or safety impact.

Nevertheless, the process underway at Santa Monica (and possibly Valkaria) airport provides an excellent example of the process of FAA/federal preemption at work. A municipality enacts an ordinance, the FAA decides that the ordinance is either expressly preempted and/ or unreasonably discriminates against certain flight activities, the municipality appeals, and the D.C. Circuit decides the issue. We know how the process turned out at Naples, and it will be important to monitor the outcome of the Santa Monica and Valkaria disputes. While it might appear on the surface that only aviation businesses at Santa Monica and Valkaria will be affected by the outcome of these disputes, there is no question that the entire aviation industry will be adversely impacted if the FAA loses either one of these battles. This is one time that it might serve all of us to cheer, rather than jeer, the FAA.

Aviation Insurance Newletter for Fall 2009

TOPICS INCLUDE:

BAD GAMBLE: LESSONS FROM AN INDEMNITY CLAIM THAT WENT SOUTH

OVER-60 PILOTS: THE IMPACT OF AGE ON SAFETY AND RISK FACTORS

LOOKING BACK: FOLLOWING THE HISTORY OF FRONTIER AIRLINES

Wojciechowicz v. United States

Click here to read the articles in this newsletter.

Florida Aviation Law Update Newsletter for Fall 2009

TOPICS INCLUDE:

FILE A LIEN: THE EQUITY IN AIRCRAFT CAN GET YOU YOUR MONEY

ONLINE TRAINING: WEIGH IN ON PILOTS EARNING ONLINE CREDENTIALS

LOOKING BACK: FOLLOWING THE HISTORY OF FRONTIER AIRLINES

BIO-DIESEL AS ONE SOLUTION TO OVERCOMING THE FUEL PRICE ISSUE

THE AIRCRAFT BROKERAGE MARKET

THE ROBBINS EQUITAS LAW FIRM WILL NOT ATTEND NBAA THIS YEAR

Click here to read the articles in this newsletter.