TSA can order immediate revocation of a FAA pilot license

[ornithopter]

From Yahoo:

U.S. Tightens Air Security Rules, Pilots Complain
Fri Jan 24,10:12 PM ET


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. regulators issued a rule on Friday giving them the authority to immediately revoke, suspend or deny licenses to pilots or professional credentials to other aviation workers deemed a security risk by the government.

The rule, which was issued without prior public notice or comment and took effect immediately, builds on similar steps ordered by Congress in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, airline hijack attacks to more closely monitor the aviation industry.

Critics, from commercial pilots to those who fly small planes, complained the new regulation was overly broad and could result in arbitrary decisions.

"These rules beg many questions as to the rights of pilots," said Phil Boyer, president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

That group represents general aviation interests.

Commercial pilots also questioned the regulation, saying it was heavy handed.

"This rule clearly crosses the line separating legitimate security measures from secretive, unaccountable government conduct," Duane Woerth, president of the largest commercial pilots union, the Air Line Pilots Association (news - web sites), said in a statement late Friday.

The rule would permit the Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) to revoke the airman certificate of pilots, mechanics, and dispatchers determined a security risk by the Transportation Security Administration.

Those workers must have that credential for employment in the industry.

"While the rule spells out in clear detail the process by which the revocation would occur, there is absolutely no discussion of standards, procedures, or criteria by which the TSA might make a determination that an individual is a 'security threat,' Woerth said.

He also criticized the appeal process as a "virtually empty exercise."

Airline pilots, mechanics, and other airline workers are already required to clear a 10-year criminal background check with fingerprinting, the pilots' union said.

The government is soliciting public comments after the fact and could modify the regulation at a later date.

[akerosid]

This is a potentially very serious infringement of rights, particularly given that the TSA doesn't give any firm guideline as to what constitutes suspicious behaviour or who is "deemed" a "security risk".

For example, if I take a photograph at a US airport, which is frowned on by the TSA/FAA (although neither has ever declared to be illegal/forbidden in writing), I could conceivably have my licence revoked.

The constitutionality of such a provision would probably be successfully challenged, but before it introduces such regulations, the TSA would need to set out in writing what it will regard as suspicious - and explain the reasons for its suspicions.

This kind of heavy handedness not only goes beyond security, but it is actually very damaging to security, because it is done without thinking and as a result, alienates those who should be its allies in ensuring security.

[Max Angle]

The Land of the Free, yeah right.

[JJflyer]

Just another reason for a foreigner like me to get the JAA ATPL.
I am currently flying with a FAA ATP. A proficiency check is getting increasingly difficult to get approvals with a short notice, particularly important for contract pilots.

Just a matter of time before they come up with a rule or rules that will make it impossible or impractical for non US citizens to obtain A FAA licence. I am sure that flight schools are hurting allready and some gone out of business, but how many will go bust in the future?

Any light at the end of the tunnel... Can´t see any.

[Elliot Moose]

I don't know. The whole thing sounds fairly reasonable to me--considering some of the stuff that they have declared unilaterally since 9/11. As a non-US citizen, the paranoid one in the not quite circular office REVOKED my licence privileges for some time last year simply because I didn't hold citizenship. Then they let us have our licences back so we could fly, but only if we (and our company) get a security check. Now we get a security check every time we do any kind of recurrent training or checkride or the ride isn't legal. That did a whole lot of good for national security, I'm sure! As if I'm going to worry about having a current licence to embark on some terrorist scheme. I can see it now "Sorry boss, but I can't fly that suicide mission today because my 61.58 is past due and I can't get a security clearance to do the training!"

Don't even get me started on the whole train the rent-a-cop deal that's supposed to make rocket scientists out of the barely literate in two easy days! I don't mean to sound condescending to the illiterate here, but really, wouldn't it have been better to train a couple of them at each airport PROPERLY rather than rubber stamping ALL of them at EVERY checkpoint and getting nothing out of it?

A clear case of the incompetent being led by the stupid IMHO--but I'm not pointing fingers!;)

[I. M. Esperto]

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/9_05a/complete/182508-1.html.
NEW RULE GIVES TSA POWER OVER PILOTS...
If he wants to, Transportation Security Administration head Adm. James Loy
can now have your airman's certificate pulled, or prevent you from obtaining
one -- and he doesn't have to tell you why. For now, it seems you'll just
have to trust TSA officials when they say that the new rule that makes it
possible is only a "technical change" and it'll only affect you if you pose
a security threat. "If you're not a threat to aviation security, this
doesn't have anything to do with you," TSA spokesman Brian Turmaile told
AVweb. Mind you, the exact definition of a security threat you may find a
bit ... undefined. More...


...TSA CALLS THE TUNE...
Under the rule, the FAA will immediately suspend the certificate (or hold
the relevant certificate applications in abeyance) of a pilot, mechanic or
flight instructor the TSA deems a possible security threat. Grounds for
suspicion include posing a threat to transportation or national security, a
threat of air piracy or terrorism, a threat to airline or passenger
security, or a threat to civil aviation security. If the TSA Assistant
Administrator for Intelligence suspects a certificate holder of any of the
above, he fires a letter off to the individual and the FAA and the
certificate is suspended as soon as the letter is received by the FAA -- no
questions asked. More...


...NEW RULES JUSTIFIES 11 ALREADY SUSPENDED...
So far 11 certificates, which have long since been revoked, seem to be the
only targets of the rule. Last Aug. 14, the TSA told the FAA that 11 people
it suspected of being security threats had FAA-issued airman certificates
and asked that they be revoked. On Aug. 20, the FAA issued "emergency orders
of revocation," which took effect immediately. On reviewing the method by
which the certificates were pulled, Turmaile said TSA lawyers recommended
changing the process. FAA spokesman Greg Martin said none of the 11
certificate holders is a U.S. citizen and none of them is even allowed in
the U.S. More...


...ALPHABETS WORRY THERE'LL BE MORE
EAA and AOPA reaction was swift and centered on the possibility of abuse of
the new rule. "We at EAA understand the mission of TSA but the process, as
written, leaves room for abuse by those in the future who may not exercise
the proper due diligence," said EAA President Tom Poberezny. He said there
is no clear definition of what constitutes a security threat and noted the
lack of access, by the accused, to any classified documents used to justify
the certificate revocation. Both groups worried that the TSA has the sole
authority to adjudicate a certificate holder's appeal. "With all due regard
to national security, we're deeply concerned that the rules appear to permit
taking away a pilot's license without an independent review," said AOPA
President Phil Boyer. More...

[jetjockey696]

Quote....

In the Federal Register Friday, you'll be able to see that you can be knocked out of the air -- just like that -- if the TSA alleges that you pose a 'security risk.' Pilots will be immediately grounded; mechanics, DERs -- everybody who holds a certificate of any kind from the FAA -- can be immediately out of a job.

The TSA will notify you that you are considered a 'security risk.' It will notify the FAA; and the FAA will immediately suspend your ticket(s), pending your 'appeal.'

You will then have to convince the TSA (which already declared you a 'security risk') that you are not a 'security risk,' without your knowing why they think you are such a risk. Then, when the TSA issues its final ruling, the FAA will revoke your papers.

We wanted some confirmation on this, and called the TSA. Chris Rhatigan, in the press office there, said, "You may have to talk to the FAA on that."

We read her a part of the summary, which says, "This final rule expressly makes a person ineligible to hold FAA-issued airman certificates if the Transportation Security Administration notifies the FAA in writing that the person poses a security threat."

As we continued reading, and noted that the TSA was calling the shots, she said, "Hold on a second." She returned, and said, "This [determination that you're a security threat] comes from an intelligence database." OK -- so, how do we know how big a threat, or how it's determined that one even is such a threat? "We don't tell people how to get on to that database," she said. In other words, if you're denied your certificate, you won't be able to find out why -- just that someone, somewhere, thinks you're a 'security risk.'

Ms Rhatigan informed us that everything would be spelled out in the NPRM, and that we'd have to wait until Friday, to see what was getting published in the Federal Register. Well, folks the law goes into effect Friday. No NPRM. No discussion. Decree. Tough.

Well, we have an advance copy of that law. The document's "explanation" is merely procedural; there is no underlying reasoning explained; and the airman is simply screwed, without recourse.

First, you're grounded -- no questions asked. Then you can start the 'appeal' process.
Here's how it works: the TSA will notify the purported 'security risk' that he is considered a 'security risk,' and the FAA will immediately ground the flier/mechanic/etc. The accused can then tell the TSA that he's not a 'security risk;' but, without knowing on what basis the determination was initially made, the accused is defending himself, blindfolded. The TSA is then the final arbiter of determining whether the accused (whom they have already declared a 'security risk,' while possibly taking away his means of making a living and likely ruining his reputation) actually is a 'security risk.'

ALPA's Initial Reaction
John Mazor, spokesman for ALPA, the largest pilots' union, told ANN that his organization is taking a close look at the NPRM. It was too early to say anything definitive (we had told the union of this NPRM just minutes earlier); but he was willing to say, "As described, it has some disturbing implications." He assured us, "ALPA's security people are interested in studying the NPRM."

Part II

We reported yesterday that the FAA was rolling over, and allowing the TSA, in the interest of 'national security,' to tell the FAA who can have pilot training, who can fly an aircraft, who can design an aircraft, who can work on an aircraft, who can build an aircraft, etc.

We, at first, thought (based on the preliminary look we got) that there would at least be a public comment period before the hammer came down. Even though the document has pages of information, and even a cutoff date, concerning how public reaction can be gathered, this is no NPRM -- it's the law.

Here's how this usurpation of 'government by the people' is explained:
"This action is being taken without providing the opportunity for prior notice and comment, and it provides for immediate effectiveness upon adoption. The Administrator has determined this action is necessary to prevent a possible imminent hazard to aircraft, persons, and property within the United States. The FAA, after consultation with the TSA, has determined that this action is necessary to minimize security threats and potential security vulnerabilities to the fullest extent possible. The FAA, TSA, and other federal security organizations have been concerned about the potential use of aircraft to carry out terrorist acts in the United States since September 11. The FAA now believes it is appropriate to provide expressly by rule that an individual determined by the TSA to be a security threat is ineligible for airman certification. This rule thus codifies the fundamental and inherently obvious principle that a person who poses a security thr eat should not hold an FAA-issued airman certificate.

"The FAA finds that notice and comment are unnecessary, impracticable, and contrary to the public interest, pursuant to section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)..."

Note that the FAA is merely rubber-stamping the TSA's diktat. The FAA goes to great lengths to ensure that unqualified people don't get certificates, and that qualified people work hard to maintain them. The TSA, with no need to answer to anyone, can now tell the FAA that the FAA has to rescind that certificate, and the FAA will do so immediately.

We asked the FAA.
We talked briefly with Paul Takemoto, a spokesman at the FAA, who got stuck trying to explain what's going on. He explained the procedure quite clearly. [It's clearly written.] We wanted to understand, though, how the TSA could simply make the FAA irrelevant.

How, please tell us, can a person avoid being placed on that 'security threat' list?

He said, "If the TSA tells the FAA that the person poses a security threat -- you'll have to go to the TSA on what constitutes a security threat."

We did go to the TSA,
...and were told, ""This [determination that you're a security threat] comes from an intelligence database."

OK -- so, how do we know how big a threat, or how it's determined that one even is such a threat? "We don't tell people how to get on to that database," was the TSA's spokeswoman's terse reply.

So, let me get this straight -- the TSA says you're a security threat, and the FAA yanks your license. You are then unemployed, and a pariah in your former workplace, and you must defend yourself (to the TSA). The TSA won't tell you why you're a suspect; you're just supposed to convince that agency, the agency that has already tagged you, that you didn't do, plan, talk about, or think... something. Yes -- that's how it is.

The FAA doesn't have any review authority at all. As Mr. Takemoto said, "We're totally at the mercy of the agency that is responsible for aviation security. They are responsible for security; we are not."

"You have no review?" we asked, incredulously. "Correct," he said.

Recap:
The TSA maintains a secret database, containing secret information, from secret sources. If it determines that you are a 'threat to security,' it tells you (and the FAA) that it considers you a threat, and your ticket is suspended immediately. (If you're a student, your training is suspended, immediately.) You may then, without knowing any specifics about the TSA's concern, "defend" yourself, and try to convince the TSA that its original assessment is wrong. When the TSA finds that, no, it didn't make any mistake, the FAA will revoke your certificate, and you're finished.

The TSA doesn't need to prove anything, present any evidence, or even check its facts. It answers to no one. Since you don't know why they're after you, you can't refute their dark database. You're not 'innocent until proven guilty;' you're just out of luck, out of a job, and out of options. The FAA won't do anything to defend you, or even listen to you. It doesn't have any more clue than you have; it's just a rubber stamp, for our growing police state.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AOPA

Congressionally ordered TSA and FAA security rules go into effect
TSA can order immediate revocation of a pilot license

Jan. 23 — The FAA and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) tomorrow will publish "direct final rules" that permit FAA to immediately suspend, revoke, or refuse to issue an airman certificate of anyone that TSA has determined poses a threat to transportation security. The agencies issued the rules under the authority Congress gave them when it passed the Aviation Transportation Security Act of 2001 and directed TSA and FAA to "make modifications in the system for issuing airman certificates related to combating acts of terrorism."

"AOPA solidly supports every reasonable action to prevent terrorist acts, but these rules beg many questions as to the rights of pilots," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "AOPA's legal and technical staff will examine them letter by letter to understand all of the implications, and in the coming days, we will formulate the right response to the comment period that follows, rather than precedes, this form of rulemaking."

The new rules go into effect immediately since the agencies issued them as a direct final rule without prior public notice or comment. However, the agencies are soliciting public comments after the fact and may modify the rules. Members are encouraged to comment and copy the association.

The rules establish procedures for notifying the airman and an appeal process. U.S. citizens may ultimately appeal to the head of TSA, while foreign citizens have lesser appeal rights.

TSA said that perhaps one person per year might be flagged as a security threat.

Initial analysis indicates that the Transportation Security Administration holds the sole authority in a pilot appeal. AOPA has historically fought to ensure that more than one agency is involved in adjudicating certificate revocations.

"With all due regard to national security, we're deeply concerned that the rules appear to permit taking away a pilot's license without an independent review," said Boyer.

[Tinstaafl]

Doesn't the USA constitution or an amendment provide protection? 'Due process', a right to face one's accusers & to know the accusation etc etc?

Methinks the USA in its bid to ensure your liberty & freedoms is removing them.

[akerosid]

I logged onto the TSA website a few days ago, when this was made knowing, to find out what parameters could be used to determine whether a person was a security risk. I haven't had a reply and after reading the above, I doubt if I'll be receiving one.

Much of the behaviour which might label one as a security risk is, of course, obvious, BUT there may be activities (and I gave the example of aviation photography, which the TSA/FAA frowns on) which are perfectly innocent but which the TSA deems a security risk. Moreover, the failure to set out exactly what causes an individual to have his/her livelihood taken away means that it (a) very difficult for others to avoid that behaviour in future, and (b) very difficult to know whether the "suspicious" activity is actually a constitutionally protected activity, e.g. freedom of speech/expression. If I say something against the TSA, what's to stop them moving against me and using what I said as a pretext, especially if they don't have to reveal their reasons.

Of course, the draconian and one sided nature of this law is such that it is highly likely that it will be subject to a constitutional challenge.

The sad thing about it is that it deflects attention away from the good and important work the TSA should be doing; by going to these extremes, the agency is simply going to turn those with whom it should be working - the public, the industry and airline employees - against it; can it REALLY be effective in these circumstances. Would you be inclined to report anything to such an agency?

Time for focus. Instead of fighting the real targets, the TSA has only succeeded in making new and unnecessary obstacles for itself.

[Elliot Moose]

And we all thought Joe McCarthy was Dead!:rolleyes:

I know it sounds trite, but that's exactly the circular reasoning that was used waaaaaayyyyyyy back then.

[S76Heavy]

Anytime now, the TSA will be marching in the streets wearing their brown shirts and singing songs..:(

The USA is quickly turning into a totalitarian state while claiming to fight dictators worldwide.. I won't be going there anymore, if I can help it. So I will spend my hard-earned pennies elsewhere.

What does this mean for for foreign aircrew on foreign licences flying foreign aircraft?

[JJflyer]

I watched George JR give his address on CNN last night. Reminded me more of old Soviet Union Communist party meetings, exception being that what ever this clown said right side of congress stood up and applauded him... and left did not. Party lines evident? Every one had flag pin on their suit jacket ala the old Soviet style when that bunch wore red flag pins.

In one post here on PPRuNe it was said that Europeans are not Anti-American but anti Bush administration. I agree 100%.
On 911 the whole civilized world was behind USA and mostly supported with the actions taken in Afganistan and around the world. The Bush administration with their foreign policy has been able to drastically reduce that support.

As for the FAA licences. I hold one. I will get JAA ATPL as quick as I am able to. Thats the only way to take TSA and the idiots out of the equation. I am sure that they will come up with rules for non US licenced aircrew flying non N-reg aircraft that will make life difficult.
I would not be surprised if they come up with a requirement for foreigners holding FAA licences to attend an "Interview" in the US embassy or consulat (At their own Expense) of the country of resident to determine ones "Threat status":rolleyes: or other stupid rules.

[Iron City]

Agree that there has been a lot of heavy handed and ignorant actions in the name of security. FAA has rolled over on a lot of this after doing what it could.


On the other hand, 4 airliners were turned into cruise missiles and used to kill thousands of people. Nobody can say something can never happen anymore and now the world is experiencing the effects of such an insane act.

Where is the balance point? I don't know but some people will use the situation to expand their authority and power, which is what we need to be afraid of as much (or more actually) than some nut job terrorists

[SLT]

I hold a UK ATPL and a JAA ATPL - what are my rights under these new laws?? I operate regularly to the US as do hundreds of other non-US pilots. I guess in theory, the TSA and FAA can keep their sticky paws off my hard-earned licences as they are UK issued and no concern of the FAA/TSA. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some loophole in there somewhere that provides for non-US licence holders to be carted off and clapped in irons while their appeal is heard in the slowness of time. It would be interesting to know precisely what our rights are.

I was told by one of our senior Captains the other day - "I'm glad I'm ending my career and not just starting it, the way things are going". Me thinks he was right!!!! :rolleyes:

[Ignition Override]

It looks like the TSA has become both "too big for its britches" and needs something new to show Congress in order to ju$tify its bloated existence. Talk about bureaucratic egos running amok...Only a few weeks ago, one of the group of suspiscious, wanted men, who the government claimed entered the US illegally, was interviewed by NBC News at his shop in Pakistan-having never entered the US in recent years.

I'm now beginning to wonder which could be worse-Hillary Clinton as President (what an awful thought, with Hanoi Jane or Janet Reno nominated to be Sec. of State) or a GOP-induced Big Brother mentality (but remember, the GOP claims that it dislikes big, strong government; well folks, somebody sure f****d up now), justified by 9/11. So much has happened to the airlines, partly to soothe the concerns of our citizens with big headlines somewhere, not too long before the next Presidential re-election campaign begins with both political groups' "Distortion Committees" operating at Max. Takeoff EPR. Notice how many major airlines are based in (Bush's) Texas; United, which might not have ever received the govt loan anyway, due to massive losses, is not based in Texas.

The GOP might lose lots of support if this trend towards bureucracies with limitless powers continues, and their Congressional majority is not very large. Thank goodness that the Lott-McCain Airline Arbitration Bill might have already been sunken; just an accidental pun, because Lott is from the ship-building town of Pascagoula, MS. The perfumed arrogance of both Senators McCain and Lott towards US airline pilots and ignorance of the professional/career risks faced by pilots is truly something to behold. McCain almost rhymes with cocaine.

[Airbubba]

Some of the 911 hijackers were not even Saudis, don't know why the feds would be concerned...

_____________________________________________


U.S. Bars 2 Saudi Pilots, Says
They Posed a Security Threat

Transportation Safety Agency Has Revoked
Several Licenses Using Contested New Rules

By STEPHEN POWER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


WASHINGTON -- The federal government has quietly barred two Saudi Arabian Airlines pilots from flying in the U.S. on the grounds that they "pose a security threat," sparking the first test of a controversial new rule that allows authorities to take away flying licenses without disclosing any evidence.

The Transportation Security Administration's cases against Maan Hassan Zarie and Tarek Hassan Jifry stem from the agency's new responsibility to conduct so-called threat assessments of all pilots, mechanics and flight instructors authorized to work or fly in the U.S. The men deny being threats and are appealing the ruling.

The 2001 Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which created the TSA in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, authorizes the agency to bar anyone found to be a threat from flying or working in the industry. Procedures for revoking or suspending such individuals' Federal Aviation Administration "airmen's certificates" were issued last month without public notice. They allow the process to be conducted under extraordinary secrecy, infuriating pilot groups.

The TSA has been conducting such assessments for months. In August the agency had 11 individuals' certificates revoked without publicly announcing the actions. Several of those revocations have been reversed, a TSA spokesman said, while others are under review. A record of the actions against the two Saudi Airlines pilots only emerged because they challenged the government before the National Transportation Safety Board; The Wall Street Journal has reviewed copies of the appeals.

The cases have surfaced at a delicate time for U.S.-Saudi relations. Saudi leaders only recently have begun hinting that they will provide limited use of their airspace and bases for a potential U.S. invasion of Iraq. Saudi Arabia has been criticized for being too lax in regulating charities alleged to finance terrorists. Of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, 15 were Saudis.

The U.S. government first moved against the two pilots in August, when it declared the matter an "emergency" and revoked their certificates. The pilots challenged the actions over the following five months. "The sole basis for that revocation was a conclusory letter" from the TSA stating that each was a "security threat," attorneys Thomas Whalen and Evelyn Sahr told the NTSB. But over the next five months "neither the FAA nor the TSA provided any evidence," the attorneys said.

Then, on Jan. 24, the TSA and the FAA jointly issued an unusual set of rules codifying how the government would revoke or suspend airmen's certificates. The rules were issued without advance notice, giving the public no chance to comment beforehand. The agencies said the rules needed to be put in place immediately to "prevent imminent hazard to aircraft, persons and property within the United States." In issuing the rules, the agencies for the first time disclosed their actions against 11 holders of airmen's certificates, but without revealing their names, nationalities or professions.

The same day, the FAA withdrew its emergency revocation orders against Messrs. Zarie and Jifry and instead filed emergency suspensions against them. Suspensions usually allow for the return of certificates within several months, while revocations typically last a year, experts say. But in these two cases, the FAA said it was suspending their certificates "for an indefinite period."

The FAA told the men in letters that the suspensions were in the interest of "safety in air commerce or air transportation and the public interest" because the TSA "has determined that you pose a security threat." The TSA hasn't disclosed why it considers them security threats, and under the Jan. 24 rules, it doesn't have to.

In publishing the new rules, the government said disclosing such information "could jeopardize sources and methods of the intelligence community ... possibly giving a terrorist organization or other group a roadmap of the course and progress of an investigation."

"These decisions are made based on intelligence and threat information that we receive from a variety of sources," said TSA spokesman Robert Johnson.

Little is known about the backgrounds of the two pilots, including their citizenship status. A spokesman for the Justice Department, which oversees the FBI, said the department has "no information to indicate" that either man is wanted by the department. A spokesman for the Washington office of Saudi Arabian Airlines declined to comment. An official with the Saudi embassy in Washington, which was closed Thursday for the Muslim holiday of hajj, didn't return phone calls. The men's lawyers, Mr. Whalen and Ms. Sahr -- who both work in the Washington office of Condon & Forsyth LLP -- declined to comment through an assistant.

Four days after the men's certificates were suspended, their lawyers appealed to the NTSB. The attorneys said in letters to the NTSB that their clients are "in no way a threat to national or aviation security." They argued the FAA had no grounds for classifying the government's action as an "emergency" because when their certificates were revoked in August, neither man was "flying to or from the United States." The appeal letters imply that the pilots have effectively been grounded overseas as well, asserting that each "has been denied his livelihood as a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines." Many overseas authorities grant pilot licenses based on whether applicants are certified to fly in the United States, aviation experts say.

On Feb. 4, the NTSB's chief administrative-law judge, William E. Fowler Jr., refused to overturn the suspensions, saying that under federal law he "must assume the truth" of the government's assertion that the men are security threats. The cases are now before another NTSB administrative-law judge, whose office said Thursday that a hearing can't be held until the government reveals its evidence against the men, which it so far has declined to do.

Some pilots' groups Thursday declined to comment on the case. But they have argued vociferously since the Jan. 24 rules were announced that the government is going overboard in its attempt to ferret out terrorists within their industry. The pilots are lobbying Congress and the Bush administration to rewrite the rules, arguing that they deprive individuals of due process and don't give the accused a full opportunity to rebut the charges against them.

The new rule "is rooted more in '1984' than in Sept. 11, 2001," said the Air Line Pilots Association, representing 66,000 pilots at 42 airlines in the U.S. and Canada. It "apparently lowers the bar to mere suspicions that are not the result of the kind of due process that most Americans would expect before they are branded as a security threat."

The TSA defends the rule, insisting revocations will be issued sparingly, but also says its procedures could change as TSA officials review comments that are now coming into the agency from the public. In justifying the new rule last month in the Federal Register, it said the 11 revocations resulted from an examination of 1.35 million airmen's certificates issued over the past 10 years. At the time, the agency said that seven of those 11 individuals "are in the process of responding" to a threat assessment notice, presumably including Messrs. Zarie and Jifry. An FAA spokeswoman said Thursday night that three of the seven have had their certificates reinstated.

"The majority of individuals holding airmen's certificates have nothing to worry about," said Mr. Johnson.

Updated February 14, 2003 12:20 a.m. EST

[Squawk7777]

Justification for Immediate Adoption

This action is being taken without providing the opportunity for
prior notice and comment, and it provides for immediate effectiveness upon adoption. The Administrator has determined this action is necessary to prevent a possible imminent hazard to aircraft, persons, and property within the United States. The FAA, after consultation with the TSA, has determined that this action is necessary to minimize security threats and potential security vulnerabilities to the fullest extent possible. The FAA, TSA, and other federal security organizations have been concerned about the potential use of aircraft to carry out terrorist acts in the United States since September 11. The FAA now believes it is appropriate to provide expressly by rule that an individual determined by the TSA to be a security threat is ineligible
for airman certification. This rule thus codifies the fundamental and
inherently obvious principle that a person who poses a security threat should not hold an FAA-issued airman certificate.

The FAA finds that notice and comment are unnecessary,
impracticable, and contrary to the public interest, pursuant to section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Section 553(b) of the APA permits an agency to forgo notice and comment rulemaking when "the agency for good cause finds * * * that notice and public procedures thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' The use of notice and comment prior to issuance of this rule could delay the ability of the FAA to take effective action to keep persons found by the TSA to pose a security threat from holding an airman certificate. Further, the Administrator finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this final rule effective immediately upon publication. This action is necessary to prevent a possible imminent hazard to aircraft, persons, and property within the
United States.

there's already an appeal - see here (http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf84/231650_web.pdf) (need Adobe Acrobat Reader)