PDF(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)Tip?
109th Congress Report
SENATE
2nd Session 109-225
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 382
AGE 60 RULE
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 65
DATE deg.March 30, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred ninth congress
second session
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Virginia
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine BARBARA BOXER, California
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Lisa Sutherland, Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Deputy Staff Director
Kenneth Nahigian, Chief Counsel
Margaret Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
109th Congress Report
SENATE
2nd Session 109-225
======================================================================
AGE 60 RULE
_______
March 30, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Stevens, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 65]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill joint resolution deg. (S.
65) TITLE deg. to amend the age restrictions for
pilots, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
without amendment deg. with amendments deg.
with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and
recommends that the bill joint resolution deg. (as
amended) do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of this legislation, as reported, is to direct
the Secretary of Transportation to adopt the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard or recommended
practice on age restrictions for commercial air carriers'
pilots-in-command from age 60 to age 65.
BACKGROUND AND NEEDS
Domestic policy
Since 1959, Federal regulations have specified that
individuals age 60 and older may not serve as airline pilots on
any flight operations covered under Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 121 (c). The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) adopted, what is commonly referred to as, the ``Age 60
Rule'' in 1959 because of concerns that a safety hazard was
presented by aging pilots in air carrier operations.
The Age 60 Rule has been a matter of considerable debate
since the final rule was adopted. In 1959, airlines and pilots
were engaged in a disagreement over mandatory retirement
policies imposed by the airlines, typically set at age 60. The
early 1960's was the onset of the age of commercial jets and
several airlines contended it was in their economic best
interest to recruit young pilots leaving the military who had
flown jet aircraft rather than training its older, more senior
pilots to transition from piston-engine airplanes to jet-
powered airplanes. Senior pilots who had been forced into
retirement based on these company policies filed grievances.
Although an arbitrator sided with the pilots and ordered that
they be reinstated, management at one major commercial airline
refused to abide by the decision and continued to enforce their
age 60 retirement policy. This and other grievances led pilots
to strike during the holiday travel season of 1958. To end the
strike, the disagreeing airline agreed to many of the pilots'
demands. However, the issue of a maximum age limit for pilots
was not settled.
The airline in question took its case for pilot age limits to
the FAA, writing that it may be necessary for the regulatory
agency to set a suitable retirement age. To bolster the
argument for age limits, the airline provided the FAA with data
showing that younger pilots required fewer hours of flight
training to transition from propeller to jet airliners than
older pilots and were more likely to successfully complete the
training.
As a result, two proposals were subsequently considered by
the FAA; one to set a maximum age of 55 for pilots to receive
certification to fly jet aircraft, and a second to set an age
limit of 60 for all airline pilots. An expert panel was
convened to review the proposals and the supporting data
provided by the airline, and recommended favorably on adopting
both recommendations, but eventually dropped the recommendation
to limit jet type-ratings to pilots under the age of 55.
However, when the FAA's legal counsel reviewed the proposal, it
found that the training data did not provide a compelling
argument for setting a maximum age for airline pilots, and
recommended that the FAA instead focus on available medical
knowledge in setting a maximum age for pilots. The FAA did so,
and on December 5, 1959, published a final rule that went into
effect on March 15, 1960, establishing that a pilot could no
longer fly in airline operations upon reaching age 60.
The Age 60 Rule was justified on the basis of medical
concerns over progressive deterioration of important
physiological and psychological functions and the risk of
sudden incapacitation. The FAA asserted that incapacitation
could not be accurately predicted in an individual by available
medical tests and criteria. Furthermore, the FAA noted that age
is associated with other factors even more difficult to measure
and predict including the loss of ability to: perform highly
skilled tasks rapidly; resist fatigue; maintain physical
stamina; perform effectively in a complex and stressful
environment; apply experience, judgment, and reasoning rapidly
in new, changing, and emergency situations; and learn new
techniques, skills and procedures.
The FAA followed standard rulemaking procedures including an
opportunity for public comments and justified the rule as a
safety measure. Since then, opponents have criticized the rule
as being arbitrary. Some believe that the circumstances under
which the rule was adopted have contributed to the longstanding
controversy.
In the late 1990's the number of pilots and types of
operations subject to the Age 60 Rule was expanded when the FAA
phased-in requirements to enhance the safety of scheduled
commuter operations and bring them under the more stringent
rules of Part 121. Under those requirements, all commuter
turbojets and commuter turboprop aircraft with 10 or more
passenger seats were required to operate under the same rules
as air carriers flying larger aircraft, including the Age 60
Rule. During the transition, pilots over the age of 60 that had
been flying for commuter airlines were permitted to continue to
do so up until December 20, 1999. Today, Part 121 operations
covers scheduled passenger operations of jet and turboprop
aircraft having a seating capacity of 10 or more passengers and
all-cargo aircraft with a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or
greater. Under the Age 60 Rule, airlines are not permitted to
use pilots age 60 and older in these operations.
Opponents of the Age 60 Rule presented the following
arguments to the FAA: the rule has no basis in fact; refusal to
repeal the rule would constitute arbitrary and capricious
action by the FAA that would violate the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act; refusal to repeal the rule
without evidence of a need to retain it in the interest of
public safety is inconsistent with Federal policy against age
discrimination; and repeal of the rule would have a positive
economic impact on the U.S. air carrier industry.
The FAA believes that a review of all of the comments and
relevant literature reveals that scientific or medical studies
do not provide a definitive answer to the age 60 issue. In
1995, the FAA said that it could not be assured that raising
the age 60 limit would maintain or raise the level of safety
that the Age 60 Rule offers, and on that basis, the FAA
retained the rule. Without further medical evidence to compel
the FAA to modify its position, it is apparent any change to
the rule requires a legislative mandate.
International policy
ICAO is a specialized agency of the United Nations. It is
comprised of 188 Contracting States, including the United
States. ICAO policies are recommended standards and practices,
not binding on contracting States.
Currently, ICAO's Standards and Recommended Practices states
that ``an age limit of 60 years is established for pilots
engaged in scheduled international air services or non-
scheduled international air transport operations for
remuneration or hire. It is a Standard for the pilot-in-command
and a Recommendation for the co-pilot.'' Most developed
countries do not adhere to this age limitation for pilots.
In 2003, ICAO conducted a survey questioning its membership
on the continuing validity of the 60 year upper age limit for
airline pilots with the aim of harmonizing their Contracting
States policies.
In 2004, ICAO received 116 replies from 112 States and four
international organizations. Over 81 percent considered it
appropriate to increase the upper age limit. Various age levels
between 62 and 68 were considered appropriate; a significant
majority favored 65 years.
In 2005, following the survey results, a State letter was
sent to all Contracting States proposing to change the upper
age limit to age 65 with two modifications: (1) if the pilot-
in-command is older than 60 years, the other flight crew
members must be younger than 60; and (2) airline pilots over
age 60 must undergo health examinations every 6 months. ICAO
speculates that the earliest date at which the amendment would
become applicable is November 2006.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
On January 24, 2005, Senators Inhofe, Stevens, and Burns
introduced S. 65, a bill to amend the age restrictions for
pilots.
On July 19, 2005, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Subcommittee on Aviation held a hearing on the
FAA Age 60 Rule. Representatives from the FAA, Aerospace
Medical Association, Air Line Pilots Association, Southwest
Airlines Pilot's Association, Allied Pilots Association, and
JetBlue Airways Corporation testified about the issues
regarding the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots.
On November 17, 2005, the bill, S. 65, was ordered to be
reported favorably with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the Senate from the Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee by voice vote in the presence of a
quorum.
ESTIMATED COSTS
In compliance with subsection (a)(3) of paragraph 11
of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee
states that, in its opinion, it is necessary to dispense with
the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of that subsection
in order to expedite the business of the Senate. deg.
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
December 6, 2005.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 65, a bill to amend
the age restrictions for pilots.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan
Carroll.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Enclosure.
S. 65--A bill to amend the age restrictions for pilots
S. 65 would direct the Secretary of Transportation to amend
federal regulations that prohibit pilots over the age of 60
from operating federally regulated commercial aircraft. Under
the bill, that age limit would be increased to 65 years. Based
on information from the Federal Aviation Administration, CBO
estimates that the proposed change would not significantly
affect federal costs. The bill would not affect direct spending
or revenues.
S. 65 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Megan Carroll.
This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
Number of persons covered
Due to the bill as reported, former pilots who have been
forced to retire because of the current mandatory retirement
age, but are younger than 65 years of age, would no longer be
subject to the prohibition and would potentially be eligible to
fly as a commercial airline pilot. Pilots under the age of 60
would eventually have the option to fly for a longer period of
time.
Economic impact
Due to the bill as reported, some older pilots may decide to
continue flying beyond their expected Age 60 retirement dates,
and thus continue to earn a salary. Some younger pilots may not
be promoted as quickly if more senior pilots continue flying.
Airlines may incur the additional costs of employing some of
their most senior pilots for five additional years. Those
additional costs would be offset, at least in part, when the
airlines are able to forego the costs of training younger
pilots to replace those who otherwise would have retired
because of the Age 60 Rule. If a pilot shortage were to affect
small and rural communities, the bill as reported may
economically benefit those communities by increasing the supply
of pilots.
The bill as reported may cause air carriers to incur the
costs of additional or more stringent medical, cognitive, or
proficiency testing for pilots who have reached the age of 60.
Privacy
Within the air transportation system, the overriding need to
ensure safety has long been settled with respect to pilots'
expectations of privacy. Pilots who choose to fly beyond their
60th birthdays may be subjected to additional certification
testing or crew pairing standards.
Paperwork
Under the bill as reported, the FAA would incur additional
paperwork associated with the change in the current age limit.
In addition, air carriers and the FAA may have additional
paperwork as a result of new crew standards. Under section 3,
the National Transportation Safety Board would be subject to
additional paperwork associated with reporting safety
implications, if any.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Modification of FAA's Age 60 Rule
The Secretary of Transportation would be directed to adopt
the ICAO standard or recommended practice within 30 days after
the effective date of action taken by the ICAO Secretariat in
November 2006.
The Secretary would be only authorized to adopt the new
modification if it is consistent with a previously agreed upon
Air Navigation Commission directive. That directive would allow
commercial carriers pilots-in-command to fly up to their 65th
birthday, if the co-pilot is 60 years old or younger.
Section 2. Applicability
Pilots who have previously been terminated or had cessation
of employment at a commercial air carrier because of the Age 60
restriction would be able to seek re-employment at a commercial
air carrier. However, pilots would not be able to file suit to
gain re-employment and cannot file suit to reclaim seniority
under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized
bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in
commercial operations.
Section 3. Reporting requirement
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), within two
years of the modification, would submit a report to both Senate
and House authorizing committees of jurisdiction concerning the
effects, if any, the modification has on aviation safety.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS INOUYE, ROCKEFELLER, DORGAN, CANTWELL,
LAUTENBERG, AND PRYOR
On July 19, 2005, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation held a hearing to examine the FAA's Age 60
rule which raised a number of concerns about moving forward on
legislation to alter existing FAA regulations that prohibit a
pilot from engaging in Part 121 operations if the pilot has
reached his or her 60th birthday.
On November 17, 2005, the Committee approved the bill by
voice vote in Executive Session. Despite this action we
continue to have serious concerns regarding the repeal of the
Age 60 rule (14 CFR 121.383(c)). Any changes to this long-
standing safety regulation should be approached cautiously to
ensure that any potential risk is minimized and commercial
flight remains consistent with existing safety parameters.
Congress provided the FAA air safety regulatory authority for
U.S., which the agency has consistently exercised in an
impartial manner to ensure that the safety of the nation's air
transportation system is its primary mission. As noted in the
agency's testimony at the hearing, the FAA can not assure
Congress that changing the Age 60 rule will maintain or raise
the current level of safety. In fact, their most recent
empirical studies completed in 2004 continue to indicate that
there appears to be a relationship between pilot age and
accident rate.
Over the past 45 years, the FAA has thoroughly and
comprehensively reviewed its findings on the Age 60 rule on
numerous occasions. They continue to believe that the Age 60
rule remains the best determination that can be made of a time
when a general decline in health-related functions and overall
cognitive capabilities have reached a level where decrements in
a pilot's performance may jeopardize safety. In addition,
several U.S. Courts of Appeals have reviewed the Age 60 rule
and studies related to the rule, and have uniformly denied
petitioners' challenges.
The bill would effectively delegate U.S. safety decisions to
an international body, despite the fact that the FAA has long
been considered the world leader in aviation safety. In fact,
the FAA has never delegated the discharge of its safety
responsibilities to an international organization. We also will
need to look carefully at how physicals pre-age 60 and post-age
60 are performed. Many of the nations that currently allow
pilots over the age of 60 to pilot for their commercial
airlines have stricter recurring flight medical examinations
than are currently conducted in the U.S. If Congress moves
forward with legislation regarding the Age 60 rule, this matter
must be adequately addressed prior to altering existing
regulations.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the bill as
reported would make no change to existing law.
