When Two-For-One Isn’t Such A Good Deal

It was one of those offhanded remarks that for some reason stuck with me. In fact I don't even remember who said it or the circumstances under which it was said but I think I remember it because of the, uh, makeup of those in attendance. I can't remember who they were but they were captains of aviation industry and they were talking about the 2024 election—back in about 2022.

Now, I of course have no idea who they ended up voting for but I doubt there was a single Biden vote (it was 2022, remember?) in there. But you'd never know that from the furrowed brows and grim looks as they talked about the coming "change in government," as it was described.

Certainly they couldn't accurately foresee the landslide and the immediate post-election activity of the future second-term, once removed, president, and that's not what concerned them. They were resigned to the resurrection of a scheme that, so far in 2024, hasn't been mentioned and they were all thinking about how to address it.

They were talking about the so-called "Two-For-One Rule" executive order that Donald Trump signed in 2017 that would require all government agencies to eliminate two existing regulations for every new one they propose. If you're among those who believe Americans are over-regulated, which is virtually everyone, it sounds like a great way to get rid of pointless red tape. If you run a complex global business that needs a nimble bureaucracy as a partner it's a nightmare.

Part of the ethic of the 2017 rule is that size matters. If a large and complex rule is proposed, two rules of equal bulk must hit the shredder. There are a number of big bulky rules working their way through the bureaucracy, all of them vital to the future viability of U.S. aviation and its stature in the international market.

For example, the FAA squeaked its new rules for the training and design of advanced air mobility aircraft through at NBAA-BACE in October. It runs almost 900 pages and is considered a landmark piece of rulemaking. If the two-for-one rule was in effect, the FAA would have had to find 1800 pages of "old" regs in a weird form of red tape payback. Any ideas on what that might have been?

Well, chances are you won't have to wait too long to find out. Assuming the 2017 order comes back it will probably be just in time for the final rule on the Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC), an overhaul of Light Sport regs that a lot of companies are counting on to breathe new life into the light aircraft industry. There will be a lot of pages and given the experience with the old Light Sport rule it would be nice to get this one more right. But will those drafting all the complexities be distracted or constrained by the regulatory version of BOGO?

I think what gets missed in the call for deregulation that will be a theme of the next four years is that regulations are crafted in consultation with the stakeholders like those folks who were talking about it a couple of years ago. They spend thousands of hours writing letters, talking on the phone and yes, arm twisting politicians trying to make sure the new rules reflect what's needed for their business.

Introducing an entirely arbitrary standard for the creation of those rules makes no sense, regardless of how appealing it may sound.