wrote:
Speed of implementation?

There is stuff in there proposed 1998 and the ELT stuff was proposed
in 2006.

The time period within which a proposal is placed before the public for
consideration is distinct from the grace period between when a regulation
is announced and when it becomes effective. I'm not sure why you think
there should be a correlation.

Four years under consideration doesn't seem to merit two months grace
period, given the likely cost involved. It could have mandated the
prohibition for the end of the year, for example. Or twelve months. They
didn't.

The bottom line is nobody in aviation was paying any attention to what
the FCC has been proposing to do for the past twelve years.

Vogons.

The FCC, like all government agencies, is supposed to be a servant of the
people. It should not be up to civilian aviation to look out for its best
interests in this case because it should be an operational imperative of
the FCC to accept the demands of the people since it is allegedly servant,
not master.

Shouldn't an agency that purports to be a servant of the people do a better
job of alerting the affected parties? Why is it considered the people's
fault that they didn't pay attention to the minutia of proposed regulation
and never the fault of the agency in question?

Lastly, the FCC document is interesting in that the rationale uses appeals
to authority based on internal dialogs with other government agencies.