[Senate Hearing 114-109]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-109
FAA REAUTHORIZATION: CERTIFICATION AND U.S.
AVIATION MANUFACTURING COMPETITIVENESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS,
SAFETY, AND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 21, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-451 PDF WASHINGTON ; 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana
David Schwietert, Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, General Counsel
Jason Van Beek, Deputy General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire, MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
Chairman Ranking
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
ROY BLUNT, Missouri RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
MARCO RUBIO, Florida BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
TED CRUZ, Texas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
JERRY MORAN, Kansas TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin GARY PETERS, Michigan
DEAN HELLER, Nevada
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 21, 2015................................... 1
Statement of Senator Ayotte...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 2
Statement of Senator Moran....................................... 34
Statement of Senator Daines...................................... 36
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 38
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 39
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 41
Witnesses
Dorenda Baker, Director, Aircraft Certificaton Service, Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA).................................. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office.................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Peter J. Bunce, President and CEO, General Aviation Manufacturers
Association.................................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Dorenda Baker by:
Hon. Dean Heller............................................. 47
Hon. Cory Gardner............................................ 47
FAA REAUTHORIZATION: CERTIFICATION
AND U.S. AVIATION MANUFACTURING
COMPETITIVENESS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and
Security,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Kelly Ayotte,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Ayotte [presiding], Cantwell, Wicker,
Moran, Sullivan, Gardner, Daines, Klobuchar, Udall, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Ayotte. Good afternoon and welcome. Today's hearing
is one of several we are holding in preparation for this year's
Federal Aviation Administration's Reauthorization effort.
Last week, the full committee heard from the FAA
Administrator Huerta on a number of issues in relation to the
FAA Reauthorization effort including some testimony on the
certification process. Today, we will have the opportunity to
discuss the certification process in more detail and explore
any additional steps that need to be taken in order to best
support and enhance the safety of our National Aerospace System
and our nation's manufacturing competitiveness.
The United States is uniquely situated as a leader in the
global aerospace arena, and that is due to our innovative and
forward-thinking aerospace industry. We must encourage and
enable innovation so that we remain competitive. The government
should not be a roadblock either real or perceived to a safer
more efficient aerospace industry.
Civil aviation has been and remains a critical sector to
our Nation's economy. In fact, in Fiscal Year 2012, the FAA
reports that the aviation industry supported 11.8 million
American jobs and contributed $1.5 trillion in economic
activity to our GDP. In addition, civil aircraft manufacturing
continues to be the top net exporter in the United States and
has an estimated $53.4 billion in positive impact on the trade
balance for our country.
The United States National Airspace System remains one of
the safest in the world largely due to safety parameters
required by the FAA and the certification of aircraft designs
in reproduction. The certification process, however, remains
subject to criticisms of inefficiency and inconsistency that
can result in costly delays and ultimately reduce
competitiveness.
While safety is and must be the top priority, we need to
find ways to make the process more efficient, more consistent,
and more encouraging of new designs and products. New
technology can often mean safer technology. We must find a way
to encourage and enable the deployment of innovation and new
technology for the safety and benefit of civil aviation
customers and businesses.
Several areas remain problematic including the issue of
foreign civil aviation authority validation of FAA certificates
and the underutilization of the Organization Design
Authorization, or ODA, mechanism. In addition, inconsistent
regulatory interpretations remain an issue. For example,
different interpretations of regulations by different FAA
offices has, unsurprisingly, resulted in costly time delays for
new design approvals. I think this is something we can fix and
we must fix.
Today, we will hear from three witnesses and we very much
appreciate your being here today. Ms. Dorenda Baker, Director
of the Aircraft Certification Service at the FAA; Dr. Gerald
Dillingham, Director of Civil Aviation Issues at the Government
Accountability office--thank you, Doctor; and Mr. Pete Bunce,
President of General Aviation Manufacturers Association.
Thank you, Mr. Bunce.
Thank you for being here and I look forward to your
testimony. I'd like to now turn it over to my Ranking Member,
Senator Cantwell, who I know has also been keenly interested in
these issues.
Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for
holding this important hearing. And thank you to the witnesses
for testifying today. This hearing will cover a topic of
critical importance to American manufacturing and certainly to
the people in my state.
Our nation's economy depends on civil aviation, which
connects businesses and consumers around the globe. Here, in
the United States, civil aviation supports 11.8 million jobs
that account for $1.5 trillion in total economic activity. In
my home state, Washington, the aerospace manufacturing
industry, alone, supports 265,000 jobs, more than $69 billion
in gross revenues.
So aviation manufacturing is important to my state, but
it's also vitally important to our Nation's economy. The world-
class equipment and technology that is developed and
manufactured in this country continues to set the global
standard for safety and performance. We have become world
leaders in aviation manufacturing through innovation,
investment, a highly skilled workforce, an adaptable supply
chain, and a multifaceted export strategy.
Civil aircraft manufacturing is the number one U.S. net
exporter contributing $54 billion to our trade balance. Access
to foreign markets has allowed U.S. manufacturers to thrive. In
order to preserve this access to foreign markets,
manufacturers, suppliers, and their customers need
predictability and certainty in the Export-Import Bank. I hope,
while not within the jurisdiction of this committee, that we
get the Export-Import Bank reauthorized. This bank's charter is
set to expire on June 30 of this year, and we must ensure that
it is extended without interruption.
Foreign aviation manufacturers have access to their own
export credit agencies, and we should not put our manufacturers
at a disadvantage and take away tools that they need. The
government plays a critical role in support of manufacturers.
In order to keep our manufacturers competitive, we must ensure
that we have a regulatory regime that fosters innovation while
instilling global confidence in the safety and quality of our
products. This role also requires the FAA to actively engage
regulatory bodies and other nations in order to make sure that
the FAA certification will be accepted with minimal delays and
to make sure that we continue to focus on markets outside of
the U.S.
The FAA certification process evaluates the design,
production, and air-worthiness of all aircraft and aircraft
components, everything from engines to seatbelts. In that way,
the FAA serves as a regulator. It must ensure that every single
part of an aircraft satisfies the strict safety standards
before it enters the marketplace and national airspace. As the
FAA performs that important safety function, it must also
facilitate aviation design and manufacturing in the U.S.
through a certification process that is predictable and
efficient for business.
The FAA has faced a backlog of certification requests over
recent years, and, as a result, manufacturers have faced costly
delays. With an increasing number of new products expected to
be introduced over the next several years, the amount of
certification work before the FAA will greatly increase. In the
FAA Modernization Reform Act of 2012, we directed the FAA to
work with aviation stakeholders to review the current process
and to identify ways to increase efficiency and reduce cost. I
understand that the FAA has received recommendations from
industry and has set out to implement them.
So Dr. Dillingham, your report about how we are doing on
that will be very timely to this discussion this morning.
So I look forward to hearing about the FAA's progress in
reforming its certification process, improving its ability to
work with manufacturing, and, above all, continuing our safety
record. So I look forward to everyone's testimony today.
Again, Madam Chair, thanks for holding this important
hearing.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
And now, we will hear from our witnesses. First, from Ms.
Dorenda Baker, Director of Aircraft Certification Service at
the FAA.
Ms. Baker?
STATEMENT OF DORENDA BAKER, DIRECTOR,
AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION SERVICE,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
Ms. Baker. Thank you.
Chairman Ayotte, Ranking Member Cantwell, members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
today.
As the Director of the FAA's Aircraft Certification
Service, it is my responsibility to oversee the design,
production, and continued operational safety of aircraft,
engines, propellers, and articles. Overseeing the safety of the
world's largest fleet of aircraft while simultaneously
certifying innovative products and technologies is a challenge
but one that we recognize is vital to ensuring U.S. economic
growth.
As such, we continuously strive to improve the
certification process. Limited resources, advances in
technology, new entrants into the marketplace, and the
expanding globalization of aviation are all challenges that are
driving us to reexamine how we conduct business.
Since the 1920s, the FAA has relied on delegation to safely
leverage the government workforce. We apply safety management
principles and use risk-based decisionmaking to focus our FAA
resources. Today, 90 percent of our certification activity is
leveraged through delegation and we are working to streamline
the remainder. For example, we are developing a policy to take
advantage of the requirement for applicants to provide a
statement certifying their product is compliant with Federal
Aviation Regulations. This will allow us to further minimize
FAA involvement in the applicant's critical path to
certification and delivery of their products.
As for FAA's implementation of the initiatives responsive
to Section 312 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,
we have completed ten of the 14 initiatives and have made
significant progress on the remaining four. During
implementation of the Section 312 initiatives, it became clear
that not all of industry's concerns can be addressed at the
national level. Therefore, the FAA initiated additional
certification reform activities at the local, national, and
international level.
At the local level, we are reinvigorating concepts from the
Certification Process Improvement Guide. This guide was
developed in collaboration with industry over ten years ago to
improve cooperation and communication. Each company works with
their local office to define operating norms, develop an issue
resolution process, and identify individualized certification
priorities. Utilizing the same philosophy, the FAA will work
with individual companies to establish short and long-term
goals to help them to reach their vision for full utilization
of the Organization Designation Authorization, or ODA. The FAA
also collaborated with industry to create an ODA scorecard to
collect qualitative and quantitative data related to safety,
FAA involvement, and ODA holder compliance.
On a local level, the purpose of the scorecard is to
support constructive dialogue between FAA management and the
ODA holders about compliance, timeliness, and performance. At a
national level, the rollup of the scorecard metrics will allow
us to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of all ODAs,
help differentiate between national and local issues, and point
to areas where policy improvements are necessary. We are
kicking off a pilot program for the ODA scorecard with select
companies in the coming months.
Internationally, the FAA is a respected leader in aviation
safety. The aviation industry is made up of an international
web of networks and complex business arrangements that are
challenging our traditional regulatory model. Therefore, we are
working with our global partners to leverage our bilateral
agreements to facilitate the ever-changing needs of industry.
I just returned from Hong Kong where I met with
certification directors from ten aviation authorities in the
Asia Pacific region. We discussed common issues such as limited
resources and the velocity of change. We agreed that it is
imperative to continue to work together and use safety
management principles to support the global aviation industry.
Next week, I have a bilateral meeting with my counterpart
at the European Aviation Safety Agency. We are working toward
mutually recognizing each other's Technical Standard Orders.
This will allow for the sale of U.S. manufactured TSO articles
in Europe without further approval by EASA. We are also moving
to accept each other's classification and approval of low-risk
Supplemental Type Certificates. We expect to finalize the
agreement on both of these improvements by the end of this
year. Eliminating duplicative processes will reduce cost and
create time savings for both industry and the FAA.
In conclusion, the FAA has made progress on implementing
the requirements of Section 312; we are tracking the progress
of implementing initiatives, performance outcomes, and global
return on investment for the FAA and industry. We are conscious
of the fact that certification reform is essential for economic
growth of the United States, and we will continue our efforts
to use meaningful metrics in a data-driven approach to
continuously improve and streamline aircraft certification
without sacrificing safety.
This concludes my statement and I am happy to answer any
questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Baker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dorenda Baker, Director, Aircraft Certificaton
Service, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Senator Ayotte, Senator Cantwell, Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the
Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) role in the aircraft
certification process. As Director of the FAA's Aircraft Certification
Service (AIR), I am responsible for overseeing the design, production,
and continued operational safety of aircraft, engines, propellers, and
articles. Efficiently and effectively managing the safe oversight of
the largest fleet of aircraft in the world, while continuing to support
the innovation of new and novel technologies is a challenge, but one
that we recognize is vital to the economic growth of our country. The
U.S. aviation manufacturing industry provides the livelihood for
millions of Americans and is a dynamic and innovative industry that we
are proud to oversee.
FAA certification is vital to the production of aircraft and
aircraft components both domestically and internationally. Our
certification means that the product was thoroughly reviewed, tested,
and analyzed, and has been deemed to meet the stringent safety
standards we require. Certification is a dynamic process with both
industry and the FAA having important roles and responsibilities
critical to success. We are constantly working to improve the process.
Both in response to Congressional direction, and on our own initiative,
the FAA is working closely with industry to understand and respond to
their concerns in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
the certification process without compromising safety. Central to the
success of this effort is transparency. All parties need to know what
we are doing and why, as well as what is working and what is not. I
would like to share the FAA's vision on reforming the certification
process, what we have been doing in response to the 2012 FAA
reauthorization, and our efforts to drive certification reform at the
local, national, and international level.
Certification Reform Vision
In order to support the safest, largest, most complex aviation
system in the world, the FAA must continue to make our processes as
efficient and effective as possible, while also maintaining high
standards of safety. The future vision of AIR, or AIR:2018, aligns with
the FAA's Strategic Initiatives and shows where we want to go and the
type of work environment we want to create. Our vision is built around
four key focus areas: safety, people, organizational excellence, and
globalization. Certification reform is a key component of this vision.
It includes initiatives in response to the requirements set forth in
section 312 of the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and
Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), and internally driven activities to
improve several components of the current certification process.
As an organization, we are confronted with new challenges every
day: limited finite number of resources, new technologies, new entrants
to the marketplace, and the expanding globalization of aviation. In
order to address these challenges and the expectations of our
stakeholders and the general public, we are applying safety management
principles and using risk-based decision making to leverage our
partnerships and designees to make better decisions about where to
focus FAA resources. As a result, we are creating an agile,
collaborative organization that embraces technology and is a leader in
developing the future of aerospace.
Section 312 Implementation
Section 312 of the Act required the FAA to work with industry to
develop consensus recommendations on ways to improve efficiency and
reduce costs through streamlining and reengineering the certification
process without compromising safety. In response to this direction, the
FAA formed the Aircraft Certification Process and Review Aviation
Rulemaking Committee (ARC), which developed six recommendations that
resulted in 14 initiatives. To date, the FAA has successfully completed
10 of the 14 initiatives and is making significant progress on the
remaining four initiatives. Many of the initiatives are directly
related to FAA's efforts to expand the use of delegated authority and
implement a risk-based systems approach to the oversight of that
delegation system.
For example, as part of the FAA's ongoing commitment to improve
responsiveness to industry as it certificates new products, the FAA
replaced project sequencing with a new ``project prioritization''
process in September 2014. The new system prioritizes projects based on
their safety benefits and complexity, and allows more efficient
allocation of FAA's resources. In contrast to sequencing, project
prioritization offers applicants a commitment to a response time for
the review of compliance data based on the priority of the
certification project. Now, applicants are able to initiate projects
without delay. If an applicant is an Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) holder or is using an FAA-approved individual
delegated representative, they can immediately move forward with much
of the work required to certify the product.
The FAA plans to develop and track the metrics related to
implementing the 14 recommended initiatives in three phases: measuring
(1) the progress of implementing the initiatives throughout FAA, (2)
the outcomes of each initiative, and (3) the return on investment for
the FAA and industry resulting from implementing the initiatives as a
whole. The metrics for phase one have been developed and are contained
in the latest revision of the Section 312 Implementation Plan posted on
the FAA website.\1\ Transparency and accountability in FAA's
relationship with industry and a data-driven approach will make the
agency more effective and efficient, and drive certification reform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Section 312 Implementation Plan is updated every 6 months
and can be accessed at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/committee/browse/committeeID/
137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initiatives recommended by the Section 312 ARC are helping us
to identify and address national certification issues; however, we
recognize that these steps may not solve the problems experienced by
individual companies. Therefore, the FAA is reexamining how it conducts
business and implementing internally driven initiatives at the local,
national, and international levels.
Local Efforts
ODAs and individual designees play a vital role in the effort to
streamline the certification process. AIR currently oversees 71 ODAs
and more than 2,900 individual designees. The FAA is working with
individual companies to establish short-and long-term goals to help
them reach their vision of full utilization of ODA by reinvigorating
the Partnership for Safety Plans. These safety plans outline operating
norms, define a process for issue resolution, and identify
certification priorities; they are our foundation for setting common
expectations when working with a company and ensure that both sides are
held accountable. Revitalizing the safety plans will be a catalyst to
drive positive change, reinforce expectations for the highest levels of
regulatory performance, and reestablish the spirit of partnership for
our mutual long-term success.
In collaboration with the Aerospace Industries Association and the
General Aviation Manufacturers Association, we are also creating an ODA
scorecard that will collect qualitative and quantitative data related
to safety, FAA involvement, and ODA holder compliance. The scorecard
will facilitate constructive dialogue between FAA management and ODA
holders about compliance, timeliness, and any performance improvement
enhancements that may be needed. Once individual goals are established
through the reinvigoration of the safety plans, AIR will monitor how
ODAs are progressing towards individual company goals. A national
rollup of the scorecard data will also track progress by measuring the
overall efficiency and effectiveness of all ODAs.
National Efforts
As the commercial aviation safety rate indicates, FAA continually
strives to improve its performance in all areas, including
certification. The Office of Aviation Safety (AVS) is an ISO 9000
registered organization and requires a quarterly review of Quality
Management System (QMS) measures to gauge the overall health of AVS.
The QMS measures also monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the
certification process. Our goal is to efficiently certify products that
meet the safety requirements that the world recognizes as a gold
standard. QMS measures are designed to quantify our efforts to maximize
efficiency and minimize risk areas associated with the issuance of
domestic Type Certificates, Supplemental Type Certificates, and
Production Certificates.
The FAA is committed to continuous improvement, applying safety
management systems principles and using risk-based decision making to
determine the level of rigor necessary in each certification. For
example, in support of the FAA's NextGen implementation goals, the
agency issued a policy memo in March allowing ODA holders to conduct
certain certification projects without notifying the FAA in advance.
The policy contains criteria that, when met, alleviates the need for a
Project Notification Letter (PNL). Relieving industry from the PNL
requirement will result in time and cost savings to their design,
manufacturing, and production processes.
AIR also updated its training curriculum to improve training for
personnel assigned to oversee ODAs in October 2014. The enhanced
training includes an emphasis on auditing the ODAs to ensure they are
compliant with their agreed upon procedures. While expanding the number
of ODA holders is critical to the industry's view of how to streamline
certification, in order for FAA's staff to expand delegation, the
agency must be able to show that industry is compliant with its
regulatory responsibilities.
International Efforts
The FAA is a global leader in safety and efficiency. The global
transportation network is changing, however, and the growth of the U.S
aviation industry is expanding to global suppliers. We recognize the
importance of working across geopolitical boundaries and have adapted
our international efforts to maintain and enhance our leadership
position.
In FY 2014, the FAA launched the Asia Pacific training initiative
at the Singapore Aviation Academy to deliver targeted training to the
regional civil aviation authorities and industry with the delivery of
two courses--Cabin Safety Workshop and Changed Product Rule. This
regional training initiative is an efficient way of using the FAA's
resources while promoting the FAA's policies and procedures globally.
The training initiative helps achieve a consistent level of safety
across geopolitical borders and facilitates the export of U.S. products
and articles.
We are also working with our global partners to leverage our
bilateral agreements. This year we are working with the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) toward mutual recognition of European
Technical Standard Order Authorizations (TSOA) and FAA TSOAs, and to
accept classification of basic Supplemental Type Certificates without
further review. This will allow manufacturers of TSOA articles to sell
their products in Europe without further approval by EASA. The
agreement is expected to be finalized at the end of this year and will
eliminate duplicative processes, reducing costs through time savings
for both industry and the FAA.
The FAA also signed agreements with Transport Canada Civil Aviation
and EASA to promote rulemaking cooperation. The activities between the
U.S. and Canada under the Regulatory Cooperation Council encourage the
sharing of rulemaking experiences to promote cooperation and align
rulemaking requirements.
The FAA is working to enhance global manufacturing by working with
our global partners to provide reciprocal assistance in overseeing
manufacturing facilities. For example, the FAA and the Mexican
Direccion General de Aeronautica Civil (DGAC) are finalizing a Special
Arrangement to allow the Mexican DGAC to perform certain types of
certificate management activities on behalf of the FAA. A successful
Special Arrangement is already in place in Brazil. The FAA will
continue to leverage these arrangements as globalization of the
aviation industry creates more complex business partnerships.
Section 313 Implementation
The FAA is also making progress in response to section 313 of the
Act, which focused on the consistency and standardization of regulatory
interpretation. In an effort to remain transparent with our
stakeholders, the FAA posted an implementation plan for section 313 on
the FAA website.\2\ We have taken several steps to implement the
recommendations and we have closed two of the six initiatives in the
plan with the support of industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Section 313 Implementation Plan can be accessed at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/
index.cfm/committee/browse/committeeID/239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The highest priority initiative is to develop a single master
source for guidance organized by regulation. We are making progress in
reviewing our existing databases to assure the information is up to
date. In January, I participated in a demonstration of the proof of
concept for a tool that will link documents from multiple sources. I
was impressed with the system's capabilities; it will link the
regulatory material not only by regulation as requested by industry,
but also by concept in case the user does not know the regulatory
citation.
Unmanned Aircraft Systems
The FAA is also working tirelessly to safely integrate Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). The
2012 Act established the framework for this effort and tasked the FAA
with safely integrating civil UAS into the system by September 2015. We
have worked together with government partners and industry stakeholders
to complete milestones put forward by the Act. This includes long-term
planning for the future integration, collaborative research and
development with interagency partners and industry, and the
establishment of test sites and airspace for UAS research and
development and testing. As of April 9, the FAA has issued 137
exemptions under section 333 of the Act and is working to decrease
processing time for future exemptions.
In February, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that
would allow routine use of certain small UAS in the NAS. The proposed
rule would cover many potential small UAS operations and would offer a
flexible framework for the safe use of small unmanned aircraft, while
accommodating future innovation in the industry. Under the new
authority provided in section 333, it contains operational limitations
that will allow the entire category of small UAS to avoid airworthiness
certification and be subject to the least burdensome level of
regulation that is necessary to protect the safety and security of the
NAS. As proposed, the United States would have one of the most flexible
UAS regulatory frameworks in the world.
The FAA has successfully issued four UAS type certificates using
existing FAA certification processes and is currently working with five
other companies to type certificate their UAS using the FAA
certification process available for Special Class aircraft. This
process has sufficient flexibility to evaluate designs of aircraft of
various size, speed, intended use, and area of operation. The same
process is utilized for the certification of airships, gliders, and
very light aircraft, and enables the FAA and applicants to collaborate
together on appropriate certification requirements. It utilizes a risk-
based classification and certification approach to identify the
expected level of safety to determine FAA involvement and oversight.
The FAA is currently developing advisory material to assist applicants,
industry stakeholders, and the general public in understanding this
process. As the FAA gains experience in certificating UAS products, it
will continue to mature its policies and procedures to balance the
needs of our applicants and UAS owners and operators with its
responsibility to maintain safety in the NAS.
Conclusion
The FAA has made significant progress in implementing the
requirements in section 312 of the Act and the initiatives recommended
by the ARC to expand the use of delegated authority and establish a
risk-based, systems approach to safety oversight. The FAA shares the
Subcommittee's desire to streamline aircraft certification and will
continue to implement internally driven reform activities at the local,
national, and international levels.
To become more effective and efficient while maintaining and
improving aviation safety, the FAA must collaborate with industry and
improve transparency with stakeholders. When it comes to working
together with industry, we need to respect each other's goals. For the
FAA, the goal is a product that is compliant with the regulations.
Industry wants to find ways to get new and safer products to market
efficiently. For both of us, the safety of the aviation system is
paramount. We are working to find ways to be more sensitive and
responsive to industry's schedules without sacrificing compliance.
The FAA is tracking the progress of implementing the initiatives,
and will develop means to measure the performance outcomes and the
global return on investment for the FAA and industry as a whole. The
FAA will continue efforts to develop meaningful metrics and a data-
driven approach that promotes open, constructive dialogue, facilitates
positive change, and keeps both sides accountable for certification
reform.
This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer your
questions at this time.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Ms. Baker.
We will now hear from Dr. Gerald Dillingham, Director of
Civil Aviation Issues at the Government Accountability Office.
Thank you, Dr. Dillingham.
STATEMENT OF GERALD L. DILLINGHAM, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Dr. Dillingham. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Cantwell, distinguished members of the Subcommittee.
My statement today focuses on two areas. First, FAA's
reported progress in addressing congressional and industry
concerns about the certification process and the varying
interpretations of its own regulations. And second, the
challenges that U.S. companies face in obtaining foreign
approvals of their products and FAA's efforts to help address
these challenges.
As you are aware, in response to Sections 312 and 313 of
the 2012 FAA Reauthorization, FAA chartered two rulemaking
committees. One to address issues with the aircraft
certification process and another to address regulatory
consistency. Each committee produced six recommendations to
assist FAA in address the longstanding concerns in both cases.
Regarding the certification process recommendations. As Ms.
Baker has just testified, our review found that most of the 14
initiatives that FAA established to address the certification
process recommendations have been completed or are on track to
be completed within the next three years. The notable exception
to this progress is the initiative that is aimed at
reorganizing the regulation for certifying small aircraft. FAA
plans to issue a final rule in September 2017. This will be
about 2 years later than the original mandate.
And further, although FAA has established performance
metrics for all 14 initiatives, the agency has not developed
metrics to measure the overall effectiveness of its collective
efforts. These individual and overall metrics are essential in
helping the FAA and the industry determine whether these
initiatives are leading to improvements.
Turning to the regulatory consistency recommendations. FAA
recently published a detailed implementation plan for
addressing the six recommendations. According to the plan, FAA
closed two of the recommendations and plans to complete the
remaining four by July 2016. And although FAA has made progress
in this area, it is too soon to determine whether FAA's planned
actions adequately address the recommendations.
One of the longstanding challenges in this area has been
industry's concern about a lack of adequate communication and
involvement of stakeholders. However, more recently, FAA
officials told us that they plan to regularly brief the
stakeholders on their progress addressing the four remaining
recommendations.
Turning to the foreign approval of FAA certified aviation
products. The U.S. has historically been viewed as the gold
standard for approval of aviation products, with some countries
accepting FAA's approval as sufficient evidence that the
product is safe for use in their country. Some other countries,
however, do not accept FAA's certification, and these countries
are increasingly applying their own processes for approving
U.S. products.
Stakeholders told us that this practice often creates
uncertainty and costly delays for U.S. aviation companies in
delivering their products to foreign markets. Stakeholders also
pointed out that some of FAA's processes also contributed to
delays and increased costs in getting their products to foreign
markets. For example, stakeholders said they didn't think that
FAA gave high enough priority to assist in foreign approvals
and FAA sometimes lacks adequate resources and staff expertise
to effectively facilitate approvals unique to export approvals,
such as intellectual property concerns or export control laws.
Although FAA has several initiatives aimed at addressing these
and other challenges related to foreign approvals, FAA must
operate with due regard for national sovereignty and its own
resource limitations.
In summary: Although we can say that progress is being
made, some of the desired improvements to both the
certification and foreign approval processes will likely take
years to implement and requires sustained FAA and industry
commitment as well as continued congressional direction and
oversight.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dillingham follows:]
April 21, 2015
GAO Highlights
Aviation Certification
Issues Related to Domestic and Foreign Approval of U.S. Aviation
Products
Why GAO Did This Study
FAA issues certificates for new U.S.-manufactured aviation
products, based on Federal aviation regulations. GAO has previously
reviewed the efficiency of FAA's certification process and the
consistency of its regulatory interpretations. As required by the 2012
FAA Modernization and Reform Act, FAA chartered two aviation rulemaking
committees in April 2012--one to improve certification processes and
another to address regulatory consistency--that recommended
improvements in 2012. FAA also assists U.S. aviation companies seeking
approval of their FAA-certificated products in foreign markets. FAA has
negotiated BASAs with many FCAAs to provide a framework for the
reciprocal approval of aviation products. However, U.S. industry
stakeholders have raised concerns that some countries conduct lengthy
processes for approving U.S. products.
This testimony focuses on (1) FAA's reported progress in
implementing the aviation rulemaking committees' 2012 recommendations
regarding its certification process and the consistency of its
regulatory interpretations and (2) the challenges that selected U.S.
companies reported they have faced when attempting to obtain foreign
approvals of their products, and how FAA is addressing some of the
reported challenges. It is based on GAO products issued from 2010 to
2015, selectively updated in April 2015 based on FAA documents and
information from FAA officials and selected industry stakeholders.
What GAO Found
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has made progress in
addressing the Certification Process and the Regulatory Consistency
Committees' recommendations, but as GAO reported in January 2015,
challenges remain that could affect successful implementation of FAA's
planned actions.
FAA is implementing 14 initiatives for addressing 6
certification process recommendations. According to an April
2015 FAA update, 13 initiatives have been completed or are on
track to be completed, and 1 will not meet planned milestones.
In January 2015, FAA published a detailed implementation
plan for addressing six regulatory consistency recommendations.
According to the plan, FAA closed two recommendations--one as
not implemented and one as implemented in 2013--and plans to
complete the remaining four by July 2016.
While FAA has made some progress, it is too soon for GAO to
determine whether FAA's planned actions adequately address the
recommendations. However, industry stakeholders indicated concerns
regarding FAA's efforts, including concerns about a lack of
communication with and involvement of stakeholders as FAA implements
the two committees' recommendations. Since GAO reported in January
2015, FAA has been addressing these concerns.
In January 2015, GAO also reported that representatives of 15
selected U.S. aviation companies that GAO interviewed reported facing
various challenges in obtaining foreign approvals of their products,
including challenges related to foreign civil aviation authorities
(FCAA) as well as challenges related to FAA.
Reported FCAA-related challenges related to (1) the length
and uncertainty of some FCAA approval processes, (2) the lack
of specificity and flexibility in some of FAA's bilateral
aviation safety agreements (BASA) negotiated with FCAAs, (3)
difficulty with or lack of FCAA communications, and (4) high
fees charged by some FCAAs. Although FAA's authority to address
some of these challenges is limited, FAA has been addressing
many of them. For example, FAA created a certification
management team with its three major bilateral partners to
provide a forum for addressing approval process challenges,
among other issues. FAA has also taken action to mitigate the
challenges related to some BASAs by holding regular meetings
with bilateral partners and adding dispute resolution
procedures to some BASAs.
Reported FAA-related challenges primarily involved (1) FAA's
process for facilitating approval applications, which sometimes
delayed the submission of applications to FCAAs; (2) limited
availability of FAA staff for facilitating approval
applications; and (3) lack of FAA staff expertise in issues
unique to foreign approvals, such as intellectual property
concerns and export control laws. FAA has initiatives under way
to improve its process that may help resolve some of these
challenges raised by U.S. companies. For example, FAA has
initiated efforts to improve the robustness of its approvals-
related data to better evaluate its relationships with
bilateral partners, i.e., countries for which FAA has a BASA in
place. FAA is also addressing its resource limitations by
taking actions to improve the efficiency of its process.
______
Prepared Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director, Physical
Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Chairwoman Ayotte, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to testify on the status of the
Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) efforts to improve its
processes for certifying new aviation products for domestic use, and
the challenges faced by U.S. aviation companies seeking product
approvals in foreign countries. The 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform
Act required FAA to work with industry to resolve issues related to the
efficiency of FAA's certification processes and varying interpretations
and applications of its regulations in making compliance decisions
during certification.\1\ In response to the mandated provisions in the
2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act, in April 2012, FAA chartered two
aviation rulemaking committees--one to address certification processes
(the Certification Process Committee) and another to address regulatory
consistency (the Regulatory Consistency Committee)--which recommended
improvements in 2012. FAA also assists U.S. aviation companies in
getting their U.S.-certificated products approved for sale and export
to foreign countries. However, some U.S. industry stakeholders have
raised concerns that some countries do not accept the FAA certification
and conduct their own approval processes for U.S. products, which can
be lengthy and provide no additional safety benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. No. 112-95, Sec. Sec. 312 and 313, 126 Stat. 11, 66, 67
(2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My statement today discusses (1) FAA's reported progress in
implementing the aviation rulemaking committees' 2012 recommendations
regarding its certification process and the consistency of its
regulatory interpretations and (2) the challenges that selected U.S.
companies reported they have faced when attempting to obtain foreign
approvals of their products, and how FAA is addressing some of the
reported challenges. This testimony is based on several GAO products
issued since 2010,\2\ and selected updates of this work on FAA's
progress in implementing the committees' recommendations and addressing
foreign approval challenges, based on FAA documents and information
from FAA officials and selected industry stakeholders. Each of these
products contains detailed information on our objectives, scope, and
methodology for performing this work. The work on which this statement
is based was performed in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, Aviation Safety: Issues Related to Domestic Certification
and Foreign Approval of U.S. Aviation Products, GAO-15-327T
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 21, 2015); Aviation Manufacturing: Status of
FAA's Efforts to Improve Certification and Regulatory Consistency, GAO-
14-829T (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2014); Aviation Safety: FAA's
Efforts to Implement Recommendations to Improve Certification and
Regulatory Consistency Face Some Challenges, GAO-14-728T (Washington,
D.C.: July 23, 2014); Aviation Safety: Status of Recommendations to
Improve FAA's Certification and Approval Processes, GAO-14-142T
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 30, 2013); Aviation Safety: Certification and
Approval Processes Are Generally Viewed as Working Well, but Better
Evaluative Information Needed to Improve Efficiency, GAO-11-14
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Has Made Progress in Addressing the Certification Process and
Regulatory Consistency Committees' Recommendations
FAA Reports that Most of the Initiatives to Improve Its Aircraft
Certification
Processes Have Been Implemented, but It Is Too Early to Assess
Whether
Expected Outcomes Will Be Achieved
As you know, among its responsibilities for aviation safety, FAA's
Aircraft Certification Service (Aircraft Certification) grants
approvals (called type certificates) for new aircraft, engines, and
propellers. Certification projects, which involve the activities to
determine compliance of a new product with applicable regulatory
standards and to approve products for certificates, are typically
managed by one of Aircraft Certification's local offices (generally
known as aircraft certification offices, or ACOs).\3\ Figure 1 lists
the key phases in FAA's process for issuing certificates for aviation
products. As depicted in the figure, both the applicant company and
Aircraft Certification staff are involved in each phase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Aircraft Certification has local offices that serve geographic
areas across the United States for aircraft certification-related
activities: Anchorage, AK, Atlanta, GA; Boston, MA; Chicago, IL;
Denver, CO; Fort Worth, TX; Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; Seattle, WA;
and Wichita, KS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FAA. GAO-15-550T
Note: FAA staff involved may include managers, engineers,
inspectors, flight test pilots, chief scientific and technical
advisors, as well as an aircraft evaluation group from FAA's Flight
Standards Service. The aircraft evaluation group is responsible for
evaluating aviation products for conformance to operations and
maintenance requirements.
Studies published since 1980,\4\ our prior work,\5\ industry
stakeholders, and experts have long raised questions about the
efficiency of FAA's certification processes and varying interpretations
and applications of its regulations in making compliance decisions
during certification. Over time, FAA has implemented efforts to address
these issues, but as we reported in July 2014,\6\ they persist as FAA
faces greater industry demand and its overall workload has increased.
In 2013, FAA published a detailed implementation plan for addressing
the six certification process recommendations, and, in January 2015,
published a detailed implementation plan for addressing the six
regulatory consistency recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See National Academy of Sciences, Improving Aircraft Safety:
FAA Certification of Commercial Passenger Aircraft, National Research
Council, Committee on FAA Airworthiness Certification Procedures
(Washington, D.C.: June 1980); Booz Allen & Hamilton, Challenge 1000:
Recommendations for Future Aviation Safety Regulations (McLean, VA:
Apr. 19, 1996); RTCA Task Force 4, Final Report of the RTCA Task Force
4 ``Certification'' (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 1999; and Independent
Review Team Appointed by Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters,
Managing Risks in Civil Aviation: A Review of FAA's Approach to Safety
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2, 2008).
\5\ GAO-11-14 and GAO, Aircraft Certification: New FAA Approach
Needed to Meet Challenges of Advanced Technology, GAO/RCED-93-155
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 1993).
\6\ GAO-14-829T and GAO-14-728T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of April 2015, FAA has made progress in addressing the
Certification Process Committee's recommendations, but as we reported
in January 2015, challenges remain that could affect successful
implementation of the recommendations. FAA is implementing its plan for
addressing the 6 certification process recommendations, which involves
completing 14 initiatives. According to an April 2015 update that FAA
provided to us, 13 initiatives were completed or were on track to be
completed, and one will not meet planned milestones.\7\ Figure 2
illustrates the evolving status of the 14 initiatives based on the
update reported by FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The one initiative that will not meet planned milestones is
reorganizing the regulations for certificating small airplanes, 14
C.F.R. Part 23. FAA plans to issue the final rule by September 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO presentation of FAA information. GAO-15-550T
Note: Future completion shown in the figure indicates when an
initiative is planned to be completed.
a FAA delegates authority to organizations under the
organization designation authorization program to carry out certain
functions on behalf of the agency. 14 C.F.R. Part 183, Subpart D.
b Instructions for continued airworthiness include such
things as maintenance manuals and inspection programs for maintaining
operational safety of aviation products.
c Aircraft products and parts are certificated under 14
C.F.R. Part 21.
d The approval (i.e., validation) process is a form of
certification to establish compliance for aviation products designed
outside the country for which the products are being developed in order
to issue a type certificate for these products.
e Small airplanes are certificated under 14 C.F.R. Part
23.
As figure 2 above indicates, 5 of the 14 certification process
initiatives are related to improving FAA's organization designation
authorization (ODA) program.\8\ As of April 2015, FAA had completed
three of the five ODA-related certification process initiatives, while
the remaining two are expected to be completed by the end of 2015. In
January 2015, we noted that industry stakeholders had emphasized the
need for FAA to expand its use of the ODA program to better leverage
its available resources in other needed areas (e.g., staff and other
resources for processing foreign approval applications--which will be
discussed later in this statement). For example, one aircraft
manufacturer told us it is a practical necessity for FAA to expand its
ODA program to (1) better utilize private sector expertise to keep pace
with the growing aviation industry, (2) allow more aerospace products
to reach the market sooner, and (3) increase the efficiency of the
agency's scarce resources. According to the General Aviation
Manufacturers Association (GAMA),\9\ the key strength of ODA is FAA's
ability to delegate, at its discretion, certain certification
activities and test data reviews to qualified individuals or specific
manufacturers' employees. In doing so, FAA can leverage its resources
by delegating more of the lower priority work during the certification
process, thereby enabling FAA to better concentrate its limited staff
resources on the most pressing aspects of certification projects.
Another manufacturer noted that without expanded use of the program by
FAA, the additional cost associated with maintaining an ODA has begun
to outweigh the benefits of having the authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ FAA's ODA process is used to authorize organizations
(designees) to act on behalf of FAA in conducting some safety
certification work.
\9\ GAMA represents leading global manufacturers of general
aviation airplanes and rotorcraft, engines, avionics, and components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we found in July 2014, industry union representatives we spoke
to also reported concerns about the lack of FAA resources to
effectively expand the program.\10\ While one labor union agreed with
the concept of ODA, representatives had concerns related to expanding
the program in other areas because they contended that oversight of the
program required significant FAA resources. Furthermore, the
representatives told us that due to staffing shortages and increased
workload, FAA did not have enough inspectors and engineers to provide
the proper surveillance of the designees who had already been granted
this authority. However, as we reported in January 2015, it is too soon
for us to determine whether FAA's initiatives adequately address the
recommendations as intended, and in this case, specifically for
expanding the use of the ODA program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ GAO-14-829T and GAO-14-728T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Has Developed Plans to Address Recommendations to Improve the
Consistency of Its Regulatory Interpretations, but Progress Has
Been Slow
According to the January 2015 regulatory consistency implementation
plan, FAA closed two recommendations--one as not implemented and one as
implemented in 2013--and plans to complete the remaining 4 by July
2016. Table 1 provides a summary of the recommendations and FAA's plans
for addressing them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1.--Summary of the Federal Aviation Administration's Planned
Actions to Address the Regulatory Consistency Committee's
Recommendations, as of January 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Planned FAA action(s) Estimated completion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Master Source Flight March 31,
Guidance System Standards and Aircraft 2016
In its top priority Certification officials
recommendation, the plan to map or link
Committee recommended identified guidance
that FAA: documents to the
(a) review all guidance appropriate section of
documents to identify the Code of Federal
and cancel outdated Regulations where
material and possible, with the
electronically link the eventual goal of
remaining materials to creating a document
its applicable rule, management framework
and that encompasses all
(b) consolidate Aviation Safety
electronic guidance regulatory guidance
libraries into a master documents. Based on the
source guidance system, results of the document
organized by rule, to mapping process, Flight
allow FAA and industry Standards and Aircraft
users' access to Certification plan to
relevant rules and all determine the
guidance materials. requirements for an
electronic platform
that would accommodate
the search parameters
emphasized by external
stakeholders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Instructional Tools FAA plans to October 31,
for FAA Personnel for implement this 2015
Applying Policy and recommendation by
Guidance evaluating current
Noting multiple government best
instances where FAA practices and
guidance appeared to transitioning to a
have created comprehensive document
inconsistent management framework
interpretation and for drafting, revising,
application and and reviewing
confusion, the regulatory guidance
Committee recommended documents.
that FAA develop a
standardized decision-
making methodology for
the development of all
policy and guidance
material to ensure such
documents are
consistent with adopted
regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) FAA and Industry FAA plans to July 31,
Training Priorities and conduct a gap analysis 2015
Curriculums of existing training to
The Committee identify any
recommended that FAA, deficiencies. As part
in consultation with of this analysis, FAA
industry stakeholders, plans to review current
review and revise its available training to
regulatory training for ensure that it meets
applicable agency the needs of aviation
personnel and make the safety inspectors and
curriculum available to aviation safety
industry. engineers in applying
regulations in the
field and for safety
inspectors and
engineers with their
responsibilities for
rulemaking and policy
development/revision.
FAA plans to develop a
plan of action to
address any
deficiencies found
during the gap
analysis. This plan of
action is expected to
include appropriate
performance measures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Regulatory To address Recommendat
Consistency recommendation 4, FAA ion 4: June 30,
Communications Board plans to establish an 2016.
(RCCB) and (5) RCCB to begin Recommendation 5:
Regulatory Operations documenting, and Closed and not
Communication Center tracking policy implemented.
The Committee made two application and intent
similar recommendations questions in a
for FAA to consider: consistent manner. The
(1) establishing a RCCB is planned to be
Regulatory Consistency responsible for
Communications Board developing a policy
comprising various FAA question tracking
representatives that process that will be
would provide introduced internally
clarification on at the outset, with the
questions from FAA and goal of expanding the
industry stakeholders process to external
related to the industry stakeholders.
application of FAA does not
regulations and plan to address
(2) determining the recommendation 5.
feasibility of According to FAA
establishing a full- officials, the agency
time Regulatory has addressed the
Operations intent of this
Communication Center as recommendation with its
a centralized support plan to establish an
center to provide real- RCCB.
time guidance to FAA
personnel and industry
certificate/approval
holders and applicants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Clarity in Final According to Closed and
Rules officials, FAA implemented in 2013
The Committee considers this through a separate
recommended that FAA recommendation closed initiative,
improve the clarity of through the according to FAA.
its final rules by implementation of a
ensuring that each rulemaking
final rule contains a prioritization process
comprehensive and tool in 2013.
explanation of the Officials noted that
rule's purpose and how FAA rulemaking includes
it will increase other process elements
safety. that help ensure
clarity in final rules.
These elements include
the development of
rules by subject matter
experts as well as
multiple rounds of
review within FAA and
by the Department of
Transportation and the
Office of Management
and Budget.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO presentation of FAA information. GAO-15-550T
As we found in January 2015, while FAA has made some progress, it
is too soon for us to determine whether FAA's planned actions
adequately address the recommendations.\11\ However, in that report, we
also found that challenges remain that could affect the successful
implementation of FAA's planned actions. Industry representatives
continued to indicate a lack of communication with and involvement of
stakeholders as a primary challenge for FAA in implementing the
committees' recommendations, particularly the regulatory consistency
recommendations. However, FAA noted that the processes for developing
and updating its plans for addressing the certification process and
regulatory consistency recommendations have been transparent and
collaborative, and that FAA meets regularly with industry
representatives to continuously update them on the status of the
initiatives and for seeking their input. We also reported in January
2015 that several industry representatives told us that FAA had not
effectively collaborated with or sought input from industry
stakeholders in the agency's efforts to address the two sets of
recommendations, especially the regulatory consistency recommendations.
For instance, some stakeholders reported that FAA did not provide an
opportunity for them to review and comment on the certification process
implementation plan updates, and did not provide an opportunity for
them to review and offer input on the regulatory consistency
implementation plan. However, FAA reported meeting with various
industry stakeholders in October 2014 to brief them on the general
direction and high-level concepts of FAA's planned actions to address
each regulatory consistency recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ GAO-15-327T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since we reported in January 2015, FAA officials met with
stakeholders of the Regulatory Consistency Committee in March 2015 to
brief them and further clarify the plan to implement the regulatory
consistency recommendations. According to FAA, they are planning to
conduct quarterly briefings with the Committee stakeholders, starting
in June 2015, to provide updates on the progress for addressing the
four remaining recommendations. FAA officials also noted that while the
implementation plan lists a completion date of March 2016 for the
recommendation for developing the Master Source Guidance System--which
FAA calls the Dynamic Regulatory System--this completion date is
specifically for FAA's efforts to determine the feasibility of
including Office of Chief Counsel letters in the system.\12\ In terms
of completing the development of the system, the officials told us they
are currently ahead of the schedule outlined in the implementation plan
and are working on finalizing the design concept for the new system.
Once this process is completed, they would be able to provide a more
accurate completion date for deployment of the system. According to one
Committee stakeholder, it is important that FAA remain committed to
creating the Master Source Guidance System, which was the Committee's
primary recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ FAA plans to develop a master source guidance system with the
capability to consolidate information from Aircraft Certification's and
Flight Standards' electronic guidance libraries as well as legal
interpretations from the Office of Chief Counsel into a master guidance
system to allow FAA and industry users access. Specifically, the
Regulatory Consistency Committee recommended that this system be
searchable so that FAA and industry users can easily access relevant
rules and find the relevant guidance for the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected U.S. Companies Reported Challenges in Obtaining Foreign
Approvals, Which FAA Has Taken Steps to Address within
Sovereignty Constraints
In January 2015, we reported that, according to GAMA, the U.S. has
historically been viewed as setting the global standard for the
approval of aviation products internationally. Once U.S. aviation
companies obtain a type certificate from FAA to use an aviation product
in the United States, the companies often apply for approvals for the
same products for use in other countries.\13\ In 2012, the U.S.
aerospace industry contributed $118.5 billion in export sales to the
U.S. economy, with this sector remaining strong in the European markets
and growing in the emerging markets of Asia and the Middle East. Some
countries accept the FAA approval outright as evidence that the product
is safe for use in their country. Some other countries, however, do not
accept the FAA certification and conduct their own approval processes
for U.S. products, which can be lengthy, according to some U.S.
industry stakeholders. These stakeholders have raised concerns that
such practices provide no additional safety benefit and result in U.S.
companies facing uncertainty and costly delays in delivering their
products to foreign markets. FAA has taken steps to address these
concerns, but FAA's authority to address some of the challenges is
limited because each country retains control of its basic regulatory
framework for approving aviation products and ensuring the safety of
those products for use in their countries--effectively a recognition of
the sovereignty of each country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ FAA also approves foreign aviation products that are
manufactured in other countries for use in the United States as a
result of sales to U.S. customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As counterparts to FAA, other countries' civil aviation
authorities--which we will refer to as foreign civil aviation
authorities (FCAA)--approve domestically-manufactured aviation products
for use in their respective countries. FCAAs also approve U.S. aviation
products for use in their respective countries. These approvals are
typically conducted within the parameters of bilateral aviation safety
agreements (BASA), which are negotiated between FAA and other
FCAAs.\14\ BASAs represent bilateral partnership agreements that
provide a framework for the reciprocal approval of aviation products
imported and exported between the U.S. and other countries.\15\ Figure
3 outlines the general steps for obtaining approvals of U.S. aviation
products from FCAAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ According to FAA, it has 21 BASAs that affect 47 countries,
including one BASA with the European Aviation Safety Agency that covers
the European Union (EU) member nations.
\15\ It is important to note that a BASA with another country may
not include a technical agreement that would allow for the reciprocal
approval, or acceptance, of an aviation product between the two
countries. Thus, a BASA without a technical agreement would mean that
an FCAA would likely have to conduct its own certification of a new
U.S. product to approve it for use in that country. For more
information, see GAO-15-327T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO presentation of FAA information. GAO-15-550T
Note: This figure outlines the general steps for a sequential
approval process in which the company first seeks a type certificate or
supplemental type certificate from FAA. However, applicants may opt for
a concurrent approval process in which its aviation product undergoes
an FCAA's approval at the same time it undergoes the FAA certification
process. In fact, according to FAA, a number of foreign approvals are
issued the same day as the FAA certification.
U.S. Companies Reported that they Experienced FCAA-Related Process,
Communications, and Cost Challenges and FAA is Attempting to
Address These Challenges
Representatives of the 15 selected U.S. aviation companies we
interviewed for our January 2015 statement reported that their
companies faced challenges related to process, communications, and cost
in obtaining approvals from FCAAs. The processes involved included
FCAAs' individual approval processes as well as the processes spelled
out in the relevant BASAs. In our January 2015 statement, we identified
some efforts FAA is making to address these challenges, such as holding
regular meetings with some bilateral partners--i.e., countries for
which FAA has a BASA in place--and setting up forums in anticipation of
issues arising.
Reported FCAA process challenges. Of the 15 companies we
interviewed, representatives from 12 companies reported mixed
or varied experiences with FCAAs' approval processes, and 3
reported positive experiences. Thirteen companies reported
challenges related to delays, 10 reported challenges with
approval process length, and 6 reported challenges related to
FCAA staffs' lack of knowledge or uncertainty about the
approval processes, including FCAA requests for data and
information that, in the companies' views, were not needed for
approvals. FAA has taken actions aimed at alleviating current
and heading off future challenges related to foreign approval
processes. For example, in September 2014, FAA--along with
Brazil, Canada, and the EU--established a Certification
Management Team to provide a forum for addressing approvals and
other bilateral relationship issues. FAA also recently
established a pilot program that allows a U.S. company to work
concurrently with multiple FCAAs for obtaining approvals and to
identify key FCAA approval needs and ensure adequate FAA
support.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ According to FAA, this is a pilot program in which all of the
FCAAs to which Boeing submitted approval applications will meet jointly
with Boeing rather than each having separate meetings with Boeing.
Therefore, Boeing would be able to identify common needs from all of
the FCAAs for their approvals.
Reported issues related to some BASAs. Although
representatives from 11 of the 15 U.S. companies and the 3
foreign companies we interviewed reported being satisfied with
the overall effectiveness of having BASAs in place or with
various aspects of the current BASAs, representatives of 10
U.S. companies reported challenges related to some BASAs
lacking specificity and flexibility, 2 raised concerns that
there is a lack of a formal dispute resolution process, and 1
noted a lack of a distinction between approvals of simple and
complex aircraft. Companies suggested several ways to address
these issues, including updating BASAs more often and making
them clearer. FAA has taken action to improve some BASAs to
better streamline the approval process that those countries
apply to imported U.S. aviation products. For instance,
according to FAA officials, they meet regularly with bilateral
partners to address approval process issues and are working
with these partners on developing a common set of approval
principles and to add specific dispute resolution procedures in
the agreements with some countries. FAA officials also
indicated that they are working with longstanding bilateral
partners--such as Brazil, Canada, and the EU--to identify areas
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
where mutual acceptance of approvals is possible.
Reported Challenges in Communicating with FCAAs.
Representatives from 12 U.S. companies reported challenges in
communicating with FCAAs. Representatives from six U.S.
companies reported, for example, that interactions with
developing countries can be confusing and difficult because of
language and cultural issues. Representatives from two
companies noted that they hire local representatives as
consultants in China to help them better engage the Civil
Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) staff with their
approval projects and to navigate the CAAC's process. One
company's representative also reported having better progress
in communications with FCAAs in some Asian countries, such as
India Japan, and Vietnam, when a local ``third-party agent''
(consultant) is involved because it provides a better
relationship with the FCAAs' staff. Representatives from three
companies also reported that, in general, some FCAAs often do
not respond to approval requests or have no back-ups for staff
who are unavailable. They noted that potential mitigations
could include a greater FAA effort to develop and nurture
relationships with FCAAs. According to FAA officials, they are
working with the U.S.-China Aviation Cooperation Program to
further engage with industry and Chinese officials.
Reported Challenges Related to Foreign Approval Costs.
Representatives from 12 of the 15 U.S. companies and 2 of the 3
foreign companies indicated challenges with regard to approval
fees charged by FCAAs. They specifically cited EASA--the EU's
counterpart to FAA--and the Federal Aviation Authority of
Russia. For example, they noted that EASA's fees are very high
(up to 95 percent of the cost of a domestic EASA
certification)\17\--especially relative to the amount levied by
other FCAAs \18\--are levied annually, and are unpredictable
because of the unknown amount of time it takes for the approval
to be granted. The fees are based on the type of product being
reviewed for approval and can range from a few thousand dollars
to more than a million dollars annually. Representatives from
two companies also noted that EASA lacks transparency for how
the work it conducts to grant approvals aligns with the fees it
levies for recovering its costs.\19\ FAA officials indicated to
us that a foreign approval should take significantly less time
and work to conduct than the work required for an original
certification effort--roughly about 20 percent--and that they
have initiated discussions with EASA officials about making a
significant reduction in the fees charged to U.S. companies.
However, recently, FAA indicated that it is more important to
work with EASA to ensure its fees are commensurate with the
actual costs of the services being provided and those incurred
by EASA.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ EASA's March 2014 proposal to amend the Agreement between the
U.S. and the EU on cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation
safety notes that in principle, the EASA process for approval of
certificates issued by a country with which the EU has an appropriate
agreement should result in a different workload from the process
required for certification activities by that certifying country.
However, in the approval of U.S. products, EASA currently charges U.S.
companies up to 95 percent of the cost of conducting a domestic
certification of a similar European-manufactured aviation product.
\18\ For example, according to media reports citing information
obtained from Robinson Helicopter Company, EASA charged Robinson about
$1 million to approve the R66 helicopter while other FCAAs' charges
ranged from $2,709 (Argentina) to $178,000 (Russia). According to one
report, Robinson also noted that Canada--where it stated that the team
size and depth of review of the FAA certification was very similar to
that of EASA--levied a total fee of about $80,000 to certify the R66.
\19\ Pursuant to the regulation establishing EASA--Regulation (EC)
No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20
February 2008--EASA is financed primarily through fees paid for
certificates issued by the agency and charges for publications,
training, and other services.
\20\ According to FAA, this change in approach is based on Article
14 of the EU-U.S. BASA that states, in part, that each party shall try
to ensure that fees imposed by their ``technical agents'' on applicants
and regulated entities for certification and approval related services
under the agreement are just, reasonable, and commensurate with the
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Companies Also Reported FAA-Related Challenges, Which FAA Is
Taking
Actions to Address
As mentioned previously, FAA provides assistance to U.S. companies
by facilitating the application process for foreign approvals of
aviation products. Although FAA seeks to provide an efficient process,
companies we interviewed for our January 2015 statement reported
challenges that they faced related to FAA's role in this process. FAA-
related challenges cited by the companies we interviewed fell into
three main categories: process, resources, and staff expertise.
Process for facilitating foreign approvals. Most of the U.S.
companies in our selection (12 of 15) reported challenges
related to FAA's process for handling foreign approvals. These
included concerns about foreign approvals not being a high
enough priority for FAA staff, a lack of performance measures
for evaluating BASAs, and an insufficient use of FAA's
potential feedback mechanisms. For example, representatives of
three companies told us that sometimes FAA is delayed in
submitting application packets to FCAAs because other work
takes priority; one of these companies indicated that sometimes
FAA takes several months to submit packets to FCAAs. In another
example, representatives of four companies cited concerns that
BASAs do not include any performance measures, such as any
expectations for the amount of time that it will take for a
company's foreign approval to be finalized. With regard to FAA
using feedback mechanisms to improve its process for supporting
foreign approvals, representatives of one company told us that
applicant companies are not currently asked for post-approval
feedback by FAA, even though it would be helpful in identifying
common issues occurring with foreign approvals.
Available resources. Most of the U.S. companies in our
selection (10 of 15) reported challenges related to the
availability of FAA staff and other resources. These include
limited FAA travel funds and limited FAA staff availability to
process foreign approval applications. According to FAA
officials, FAA is responsible for defending the original type
certification and, more broadly, for handling any disputes that
arise with FCAAs during the foreign approval process.\21\ In
doing so, FAA is also responsible for working with an FCAA in
an authority-to-authority capacity, and communications should
flow through FAA to the applicant company. However,
representatives of five companies noted that due to a lack of
FAA travel funds, FAA staff are generally not able to attend
key meetings between U.S. companies and FCAAs conducted at the
beginning of the foreign approval process. These
representatives noted that this can complicate the process for
companies, which then have to take on a larger role in
defending the original type certificate issued for a product.
Representatives of two companies also noted that when there is
limited FAA staff availability at the time a foreign approval
application is received, it contributes to delays in obtaining
their approvals. In fact, the Certification Process Committee
made recommendations to encourage FAA to include the expansion
of delegation in its efforts for improving the efficiency of
its certification process. As previously discussed, FAA does
have initiatives under way related to expanding the use of
delegation, but concerns continue to exist about the lack of
FAA resources to effectively do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ According to FAA guidance, the implementing procedures for
BASAs are signed by the authorities (FAA and the respective FCAA), and
therefore the applicant should work through FAA if disputes occur with
the FCAA during the foreign approval process.
Staff expertise. Some of the U.S. companies in our selection
(7 of 15) reported issues related to FAA staff expertise. These
issues cited included limited experience on the part of FAA
staff in dispute resolution as well as limited expertise
related to intellectual property and export control laws. For
example, representatives of three companies told us that FAA
staff sometimes lack technical knowledge due to having little
or no experience with some aviation products, while a
representative of another company argued that increased
training for FAA staff in dispute resolution could be very
helpful, especially for disputes involving different cultural
norms. In another example, representatives of two companies
described situations in which FAA staff were ready to share
information with an FCAA that the applicant company considered
proprietary, until the company objected and other solutions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
were found.
In January 2015, we found that FAA has initiatives under way aimed
at improving its process for supporting foreign approvals that may help
address some of the challenges raised by the U.S. companies in our
review. Specifically, FAA's current efforts to increase the efficiency
of its foreign approval process could help address reported challenges
related to FAA's process and its limited staff and financial resources.
For example, FAA is planning to address its resource limitations by
focusing on improving the efficiency of its process with such actions
as increasing international activities to support U.S. interests in
global aviation, and by implementing its 2018 strategic plan, which
includes the possibility of allocating more resources to strengthening
international relationships. FAA has also initiated efforts to improve
the robustness of its data on foreign approvals, to further improve the
efficiency of its process for supporting these approvals. With more
complete data, FAA aims to track performance metrics, such as average
timeframes for foreign approvals, and to better evaluate its
relationships with bilateral partners.
As we concluded in January 2015, to its credit, FAA has made some
progress in addressing the Certification Process and Regulatory
Consistency Committees' recommendations, as well as in taking steps to
address challenges faced by U.S. aviation companies in obtaining
foreign approvals of their products.\22\ It will be critically
important for FAA to follow through with its current and planned
initiatives to increase the efficiency and consistency of its
certification processes, and its efforts to address identified
challenges faced by U.S. companies in obtaining foreign approvals.
Given the importance of U.S. aviation exports to the overall U.S.
economy, forecasts for continued growth of aviation exports, and the
expected increase in FAA's workload over the next decade, it is
essential that FAA undertake these initiatives to ensure it can meet
industry's future needs. It is also important that FAA continue to
demonstrate that it is making progress on these important initiatives,
as well as enhance its data tracking for monitoring the effectiveness
of its bilateral agreements and partnerships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ GAO-15-327T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going forward, we will monitor FAA's progress, highlight the key
challenges that remain, and identify potential steps that FAA and
industry can take to find a way forward on the issues covered in this
statement as well as other issues facing the industry. As we noted in
our October 2013 statement, however, some improvements to the
certification processes will likely take years to implement and,
therefore, will require a sustained commitment as well as congressional
oversight.\23\ We are hopeful that our findings in these areas will
assist this Subcommittee as it develops the framework for the next FAA
reauthorization act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ GAO-14-142T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairwoman Ayotte, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham.
We will now here testimony from Mr. Pete Bunce, President
of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association.
Mr. Bunce?
STATEMENT OF PETER J. BUNCE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, GENERAL
AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bunce. Chairman Ayotte, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
other members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity
to be able to come and testify before you today.
The General Aviation Manufacturers Association represents
88 global manufacturers of general aviation products, all the
way from the original equipment manufacturers for the aircraft
itself; engines; avionics; as well as down to third-tier
suppliers. In addition, the major repair, maintenance, and
overhaul facilities, globally, are members of GAMA.
We just recently commissioned PriceWaterhouseCoopers along
with several of our other general aviation's sister
associations to be able to do a study reading into this
reauthorization year of just what economic impact general
aviation has to the U.S. economy. And the recent numbers come
in are very telling: 1.1 million jobs and $219 billion annual
economic contribution here. So it is significant.
And as you both pointed out in your opening statements, 50
percent of the marketplace is overseas. Exports are huge to
this industry, and we want to keep that going. And your
interest in a lot of the export issues are very vital to us.
There is great challenges for us to be able to get through
the regulatory structure. As you know, we are one of the most
heavily regulated industries within the country, and that's why
we are so appreciative to be able to leadoff this hearing cycle
with being able to talk about certification because it is very
important. The process needs to be effective.
When the FAA worked with industries several years ago to
set up this Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), the
promise was if industry invested in it than we would get a
return in being able to apply a risk-based approach to be able
to do the standard routine things that manufacturers have done
for years in building aircraft; and then we could free up
resources to focus on the new and novel technologies out there.
To date, we have not fully realized the advantages of this ODA
and that is why your focus on this, both in the last
reauthorization bill and here at this hearing today, are
vitally important to us.
Now, to Ms. Baker's credit, her staff--and I know that the
senior leadership at the FAA is very much committed to driving
this change within the bureaucracy. But cultural change is
difficult. And, when you've got this ship and you've got to
start to steer it another way, this focus by this committee on
certification really, I think, gives the tools to Ms. Baker and
her leadership team at the FAA to tell the workforce we have
got to do business differently. Because, resources and
additional dollars are not going to keep flowing to the agency
so we've got to apply a risk-based approach and do business in
a different manner. And that gets to Dr. Dillingham's comments
about the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act.
In 2012, unanimous passage from the United States Congress,
not a single dissenting vote. Now, as Dr. Dillingham said,
2017, it is too long a time to get this rulemaking through the
cycle. The rulemaking process has broken down; it's not working
efficiently. Just two weeks ago, EASA, the European equivalent,
rough equivalent, of the FAA, announced their Advance Notice of
Proposed Amendment. So they're ready to move forward. And so,
we are behind on being able to realize the ability to get
safety-enhancing technology into light general aviation
products.
To help with the certification process, there are a lot of
things that we can do within this reauthorization. We can drive
the effective use of ODA; we can provide workforce with the
ability to strengthen their career path. If they're systems
engineering managers and they can look at overall safety
systems, we can help with training and ensure that the
workforce is effectively overseeing our products through safety
management oversight. We can have a constructive feedback
mechanism to this committee and other members of the Congress
from industry and from the FAA; being able to say, ``How's
industry doing on strengthening and streamlining the
certification process? How is the FAA doing?''
And I think, also, as we look toward the international
realm, as both Ms. Baker and Dr. Dillingham mentioned, getting
through the validation process, whether it's the FAA validating
other goods that are coming in here or other authorities being
able to validate our products, the system is not working the
way it should, especially when we have bilateral agreements.
And finally, I truly appreciate the leadership that both
the Chairman and the Ranking Member have paid toward Ex-Im Bank
reauthorization. A lot of people look at Ex-Im Bank and they
think, right away, they think Boeing and the tremendous
thousands of suppliers out there. But it effects everyone that
is producing general aviation products.
In Olney, Texas, there is this small company named Air
Tractor. They are the major employer in that town. Last year,
seven out of the eight aircraft they were producing for crop
dusting were all Ex-Im Bank financed, and I know Senator Moran
knows, the only place that two of the major aviation companies
in Kansas could make it in the last economic downturn is to get
financing for their products was Ex-Im Bank. So this is vitally
important to us.
So thank you very much for your support in that effort.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bunce follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter J. Bunce, President and CEO,
General Aviation Manufacturers Association
Introduction
Chairman Ayotte, Ranking Member Cantwell, distinguished members of
the Subcommittee; my name is Pete Bunce and I am the President and CEO
of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). Thank you for
allowing me to testify on behalf of GAMA and its member companies
today. GAMA represents over 85 companies that are the world's leading
manufacturers of general aviation (GA) airplanes, rotorcraft, engines,
avionics, and components and businesses that manage maintenance repair
stations, pilot training, and fixed-based operations facilities
worldwide. I applaud the leadership of the Subcommittee, as well as the
Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, for focusing on the
importance of aircraft certification activities. I look forward to
sharing with you our perspective on the current regulatory environment,
including ways that it can be strengthened to improve safety and
enhance efficiency in a globally competitive marketplace. With the
collective leadership of this Committee as well as the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and industry, I strongly believe that we can
sustain and grow valued GA manufacturing jobs that I'm so proud to
represent here today.
Why the GA Marketplace Matters
General aviation is vital to the fabric of our economy and plays an
important role in the Nation's transportation network and commerce. To
highlight the industry's total impact on the U.S. and individual state
economies, GAMA and seven other GA associations hired renowned auditing
firm PricewaterhouseCoopers to determine the overall contributions of
GA to the United States economy. The study found that GA provides 1.1
million in jobs (direct, indirect, induced, and enabled impacts) in the
U.S. and $219 billion in total economic output in the U.S. annually.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Contributions of General Aviation to the U.S. Economy in 2013,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, February 11, 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of this information, as well as illustrative stories of what
this means in communities of all sizes across the U.S., are provided in
``The Wide Wings and Rotors of General Aviation,'' which I've included
with my testimony. The narrative that accompanies the study shows
firsthand the many ways that GA is an integral part of our national
transportation system and its important role in our Nation's commerce.
But GA also provides an important lifeline for communities of all sizes
and scope in terms of lifesaving emergency medical flights, providing
connectivity to areas that are only accessible by air, fulfilling
humanitarian roles that are often crucial in nature, and economic
development.
General aviation manufacturing is a significant contributor to this
narrative. However, the marketplace for general aviation products is a
very competitive one globally, and certification and regulatory
processes and decisions can impact sales, revenue, and jobs. We need to
ensure that the wide wings and rotors of general aviation remain broad.
The Complex, Complicated Regulatory Environment We Face
As members of this Subcommittee know well, manufacturers cannot
bring any new aviation products to market without FAA certification
approval. FAA has previously stated it expects continuing challenges
associated with staffing, management of programs, and infrastructure
investment while at the same time manufacturers continue to invest in
the development of new aviation products and technologies. This reality
is exacerbated by recent fiscal pressures, including the 2013
government shutdown and the continued impact of budget sequestration.
Yet FAA and its employees have been slow to fully implement FAA-and
industry-endorsed recommendations. When fully implemented, these
process improvements will use FAA certification resources more
effectively and enhance industry's ability to complete certification of
their products in a more timely and predictable fashion. I'd like to
provide you with some tangible examples of how this can collectively
impact the ability of companies of all sizes and scope in bringing
their products to the marketplace.
While FAA management is fully committed to the development and
implementation of Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), which
strengthens and expands the effectiveness of the delegation program,
key benefits have been slow to be fully realized by many in industry
and the FAA. Manufacturers and the FAA have invested significant
resources in establishing and qualifying ODA organizations, including
the personnel, training, approved procedures manuals, and oversight
system. However, the practical implementation and use of ODA
authorizations have been inconsistent from one region to another and
even from project to project for the same manufacturer. Our members
regularly experience situations where their companies have obtained
full FAA ODA authorization to conduct specific technical compliance
activities but, on a project-by-project basis, the FAA engineers and
specialists choose to be directly involved and retain these activities
themselves and not utilize the available FAA-authorized ODA resources.
This inefficiency adds significant delay and cost to certification
programs--not only for those manufacturers that have an ODA, but also
for other standard certification projects that are waiting for FAA
support that rely on these same FAA resources. One of our companies has
calculated that a delay on a major aircraft certification project costs
it approximately $10 million each month.
Another issue is the ability to efficiently deliver FAA-certified
and U.S.-manufactured products to the international marketplace. This
is crucial given GA manufacturing exports have grown to as much as 50
percent of deliveries in any given year.\2\ The process by which
foreign aviation authorities issue validations of FAA Type Certificates
has become increasingly important, yet can be equally complex. Many of
our member companies have said that getting a validation in time to
meet an aircraft sale or fleet order is a white-knuckle experience that
is costly and impacts the ability of U.S. businesses to compete in the
global marketplace. Our member companies often pay a fee and in some
cases will spend tens of thousands of dollars satisfying a foreign
authority's review of the FAA approval. One manufacturer has shared
that of over 300 different projects that have needed foreign authority
approval, the average time for a validation has been 21 weeks where the
FAA's original certification took less than a year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 2014 General Aviation Statistical Databook and Industry
Outlook, GAMA, 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this track record, there should be an opportunity for FAA to
work with foreign authorities to reduce validation times substantially.
In addition, the effectiveness of bilateral agreements also varies
widely. For instance, one company experienced a range of 6 to 40 weeks
for validations with bilateral countries. These countries have the same
basic agreement with the FAA, but one takes almost seven times longer
to do the same job as another. At 40 weeks, that is sometimes longer
than it took for this company to develop and certify its product with
the FAA.
These examples are meant to provide illustration of the complex,
complicated global regulatory environment that GA manufacturers face in
getting their products to the marketplace. And they provide a tangible
example of why it is critical to the economic health of our country to
understand, address, and improve the current certification process.
The Current Flight Plan
As this Committee knows, the type certification process is
basically a verification review of thousands of individual discreet
compliance activities the manufacturer is required to undertake to show
that the design meets the safety standards established by the FAA. To
leverage its limited resources, and supplement them with the best
expertise available, the FAA can appoint and oversee industry
individuals or organizations authorized by the FAA as qualified to
support the FAA's verification review and issuance of product design
certificates and approvals.
One of the leading FAA initiatives, the ODA program, builds on
experience with past delegation activities that have been in place
since the FAA's beginning in the 1950s. FAA established ODA in 2005 to
improve the safety, quality, and effectiveness of delegation programs
and expand the use of organizational delegation to all type-
certificated products. This has the potential to significantly reduce
the FAA's administrative workload by appointing organizations with the
required qualification, experience, and management systems to supervise
the day-to-day activities of expert individuals authorized to perform
certification compliance verification activities. By shifting to a
systems safety oversight approach of these organizations, the
certification process can be more effective because the same FAA
resources can now focus less on routine detailed design reviews and
administrative supervision of individual designees and more on
effective safety oversight and safety-critical activities. This will
also enable the FAA to better support a continuously growing level of
aviation industry activity in an efficient and timely manner, reducing
delay and cost.
With this Committee's strong and essential support, progress is
being made to improve efficiencies and streamline the FAA's
certification process. There has been tremendous effort by FAA
leadership, industry, and Congress to better focus FAA resources on
safety-critical activities and system oversight, and better leverage
industry resources to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
certification process. We greatly appreciate the inclusion of Section
312, entitled Aircraft Certification Process Review and Reform, in the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95). Even now, over
three years after its enactment, this section is helping drive
implementation of several recommendations to improve the certification
process. We applaud you for your initiative in this area, and the clear
and consistent message that has been conveyed to stakeholders about the
importance of this reform.
Another example is the Small Airplane Revitalization Act (P.L. 113-
53), enacted into law because of the strong leadership of Senators
Klobuchar, Ayotte, Cantwell, Murkowski, and other members of this
Committee. This law is a critical first step to regulatory reform of
general aviation airplane design requirements to further streamline the
FAA certification process and enable real-world safety improvements in
general aviation. We can have the best research programs and the most
innovative technology, but if products cannot get to market, it is of
no benefit to manufacturers, users, or the cause of safety. We would
not have gotten this far without the support and leadership of the
members of this Subcommittee, as well as the leadership of the FAA and
other aviation authorities. With your support and continued oversight,
we are on the precipice of reforming the standards for certifying Part
23 airplanes throughout the world. Notably, the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) recently announced an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Amendment, which solicits public input into a rulemaking proposal to
achieve this objective. We are hopeful that as we approach
reauthorization, similar progress is forthcoming from the FAA in terms
of issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) sometime this summer
which is harmonized with EASA.
Although these FAA and industry initiatives and activities are
progressing, much more needs to be done to meet the necessary goal of
improving the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the certification
process and enhancing the competitiveness of aviation manufacturing and
exports.
The Way to Reach New Heights
As we approach the reauthorization of FAA programs, GAMA and our
member companies have worked diligently to identify ways that we can
continue to improve certification processes and the regulatory
environment and better leverage FAA safety resources. We've also
discussed and are currently working with FAA on concepts in these
areas. It is our belief that FAA is at a critical tipping point in
implementing successful reform of the certification process and this
Subcommittee has a crucial role to play in supporting meaningful,
constructive change at the agency. We strongly encourage policymakers
to work to reauthorize these policies and reforms in an expeditious
manner that avoids the extension delays of the past. I'd like to
briefly outline our priorities as you begin to reauthorize FAA programs
and policies. They include:
Full Utilization of Organizational Designation Authorization (ODA)
Although there continues to be progress, we hear from our
membership that they are not consistently experiencing the full benefit
or utilization of their ODA which means FAA is also not securing the
full benefits. To address this, we encourage policymakers to support
initiatives that will enable more effective use of ODA and government
resources. Specifically, we believe there needs to be a clearly defined
risk-based approach for FAA oversight of both ODA and certification
project activities. As stated earlier, companies with an ODA invest
time and capital to establish an ODA and obtain FAA approval and
authorization. In doing so, they are understandably frustrated when
individual FAA employees have complete discretion, without appropriate
rationale, to retain compliance activities on a project in an area
where the ODA has been granted authorization. This duplicative action
costs the company, as well as the government, time and resources that
could be better utilized elsewhere. We would support efforts that would
limit individual discretion to re-litigate ODA authorizations once
those authorizations have been approved by FAA. Simply put, the FAA
needs to stand by its approval of the ODA and allow the holder to
utilize its authorities to the fullest extent.
In addition, we believe that an improved issues resolution process
for significant certification process milestones will enable better
outcomes for both industry and FAA by ensuring that they are addressed
in a timely manner. This will provide needed predictability and
certainty.
As a final point, I want to underscore that full utilization of ODA
for individual projects still requires that FAA conduct its system
safety oversight of the ODA and its project activities to whatever
level the FAA deems appropriate, and to mandate corrective action as
necessary. FAA also still retains full discretion to be directly
involved in critical safety areas and novel technologies. Additionally,
FAA will continue to directly manage certification projects and oversee
individual designees for companies that do not establish an ODA due to
their size and scope of activities. In fact, ensuring ODAs are fully
utilized enables the FAA to devote resources and management to key
safety issues and the significant majority of applicants and companies
that do not hold an ODA. More effective use of these resources will
ensure better outcomes for both large companies that hold an ODA and
smaller companies in their need to get products to the marketplace in a
timely and predictable manner.
Supporting the Workforce
To successfully implement certification reforms, there will need to
be some changes to the skills mix of the FAA workforce. FAA has a
committed and capable workforce, but changes in training and job
opportunities are critical. We believe a focus in this area would help
facilitate this transition, provide the right incentives for employees,
and offer clear guidance and direction.
In this regard, we encourage the Committee to consider initiatives
that promote a more successful workforce by preparing FAA employees for
new and evolving roles and responsibilities in a systems safety
approach to certification and oversight. Job descriptions, training,
and performance objectives should be better aligned to support those
employees who conduct ODA oversight audits or participate in
organizational management teams. Additionally, we believe the
development within FAA of a systems engineering discipline with
appropriate training, compensation, grade level, and emphasis in
auditing will enhance the overall certification process by promoting a
system oversight area of emphasis within the workforce and the agency.
In this regard, we look forward to working with FAA, Congress, and
labor to ensure that appropriate training for new and existing
workforce is provided and that it meets the regulatory and fiscal
challenges of the future. We also believe that Congress should
encourage FAA and industry to develop knowledge-sharing exchanges and
other opportunities.
Recognizing Good Performance
Building on workforce initiatives, industry has supported the idea
of creating metrics to assess FAA and industry certification project
performance and ODA utilization, and provide feedback that could
benefit all stakeholders. When implemented, FAA could periodically
report to Congress on the data generated from these metrics. This would
enable FAA, and industry, to evaluate progress and meet improvement
goals and targets. Industry has also promoted the concept of a survey
of all certification project applicants that would provide objective
feedback on the overall performance and success of FAA certification
activities, including the use of available delegation and the timelines
and efficiency of the certification process. This will allow both
industry and the FAA to gain constructive, objective feedback in areas
where both parties are succeeding and also areas that need improvement.
International Engagement
Another priority for our membership is facilitating acceptance of
U.S.-manufactured and FAA-certified aircraft abroad. As mentioned at
the outset, increasingly countries are challenging the FAA
certification of aircraft and delaying the ability of manufacturers to
deliver their products by conducting redundant evaluations to verify
the safety of the design, even in cases where the U.S. has a bilateral
safety agreement. This can be a significant problem as we work to grow
exports because it causes further delays in the ability to deliver
products. FAA must actively engage internationally with other aviation
authorities to facilitate global acceptance of U.S. products type-
certificated by the FAA, which will significantly reduce industry and
regulator costs. We believe Congress can facilitate this objective by
encouraging FAA to exert strong, aggressive leadership in educating and
defending its certification policies and processes in the international
marketplace. In doing so, it will facilitate the acceptance of U.S.
products in the international marketplace.
Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative
Another critical certification challenge is transitioning the
piston aviation fleet operating today from leaded to an unleaded
aviation fuel. The general aviation community collectively recognizes
this is necessary to ensure aviation safety and the utility of the
significant U.S. fleet of general aviation aircraft, as well as address
the environmental challenges of lead emissions. With the support of
this Committee, as well as congressional appropriators, the FAA, and
the Administration, the collaborative government/industry Piston
Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) is making great progress in assessing
and qualifying candidate replacement unleaded fuels. Critical to this
transition is developing a pathway to certify the use of a replacement
fuel by the existing piston fleet in an effective and innovative
manner, and we look forward to working with the Committee on this
important initiative in FAA reauthorization.
Inconsistent Interpretation of Regulations
As a final point, our membership continues to experience problems
with the inconsistent interpretation of FAA regulations. For example,
in the flight standards arena one of our companies worked with the FAA
for more than two years to address an issue that resulted from the
reinterpretation of a long-held FAA policy. While trying to implement
the change, the company received inconsistent messages from the FAA
field personnel working to authorize, support, and oversee this new
requirement. After two years of frustration and inefficiency for this
company, FAA decided to return to the original policy that was
initially proposed for change.
GAMA also believes there are tremendous redundancies that must be
addressed. In the repair stations arena, companies receive multiple
paper and on-site audits on an annual basis. A company can receive four
or five paper audits a week from customers and then be visited by FAA
and other international authorities multiple times during the year. FAA
has taken recent steps at International Civil Aviation Organization to
raise the profile of these redundant and wasteful oversight activities,
but more must be done.
Notably, inconsistent regulatory interpretation was an area of
focus during the last reauthorization, as evidenced by Section 313 of
the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95), but only
recently has it become clear that progress on this issue may be
possible with additional Congressional direction. We encourage
policymakers to focus on two main areas, both of which were included in
the Section 313 Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) recommendations.\3\
The first is establishment of a Regulatory Consistency Communications
Board to promote constructive dialogue between the FAA and applicants
for the timely resolution of issues. As noted previously, finding ways
to mitigate and resolve issues is something we believe would be
beneficial and moreover promote safety. Second, we believe that
establishment of a Master Electronic Database Resource to provide FAA
and stakeholders searchable access to all relevant rules and related
policy and guidance would alleviate a lot of the inconsistencies in
interpretation found today and provide a basis for more timely
resolution of issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FAA Section 313 ARC Report--http://www.faa.gov/about/
plans_reports/modernization/media/Sec.313.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too often, FAA and industry resources are wasted because of a
breakdown in communications. These two initiatives will help address
this, and we are pleased that FAA recently indicated that it was
beginning to move toward implementation in these areas, as well as
others identified in the Section 313 ARC. In the context of the FAA
reauthorization, we want to ensure these objectives are fulfilled in a
comprehensive and timely manner.
Global Leadership for the Next Century
The aforementioned priorities are meant to outline ways we can move
forward to improve safety, better leverage resources, and increase
competitiveness in a complicated global marketplace. Maintaining global
competitiveness and leadership of both the FAA and industry is critical
for our Nation's aviation system and continued contribution to economic
strength.
Aviation safety, National Airspace System (NAS) efficiency, and
environmental progress depend on the success of aviation manufacturers
and aircraft operators. As manufacturers try to take advantage of more
markets, issues like trade and policy become even more important. It is
critical for the U.S. government and industry to advocate for policies
that will help underpin aviation growth in the global environment.
Growing international exports have helped sustain the GA industry
through the past five or six years. A decade ago, the U.S. typically
accounted for four out of five airplane sales, but in 2014 the market
was split: half of the U.S.-manufactured airplanes produced by GAMA's
members went to North American customers, and the other half went to
customers in other parts of the world.\4\ While Europe was our lead
market outside North America in 2014 at 16.4 percent of total unit
deliveries, the Asia-Pacific region is a close second at 13.7
percent.\5\ We have also seen the Latin American market grow strongly;
it now accounts for over 10.8 percent of the world's airplane sales.\6\
The helicopter market is leveraged even more outside the U.S., with
customer demand over the next five years accounting in Europe for 24
percent of projected deliveries, Latin America 19 percent, and the
Asia-Pacific region 14 percent, according to Honeywell.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 2014 General Aviation Statistical Databook and Industry
Outlook, GAMA, 2015
\5\ Ibid
\6\ Ibid
\7\ Honeywell Press Release--Honeywell Forecasts Steady Global
Helicopter Demand For Next Five Years--March March 1, 2015--http://
honeywell.com/News/Pages/Honeywell-Forecasts-Steady-Global-Helicopter-
Demand-For-Next-Five-Years.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the obvious importance and interest in the international
marketplace, GAMA strongly supports the reauthorization of the Export-
Import Bank of the United States (the Bank), which expires June 30,
2015. Failure to reauthorize the Bank would harm our companies by
taking away a valuable financing tool in the global marketplace. The
broad spectrum of GA manufacturing depends on Ex-Im, including
agricultural aviation.
The Bank is increasingly important to general aviation
manufacturing given that the export of general aviation aircraft has
increased significantly in recent years. Since 2012, the Export-Import
Bank of the United States has provided at least $1.9 billion \8\ in
financing guarantees for U.S.-based general aviation manufacturers to
facilitate the sale of their aircraft. If the Bank is not reauthorized,
we believe this will hamper our companies' ability to compete in the
international marketplace. While other countries' relevant agencies
will continue to finance aircraft sales for manufacturers in their
countries, U.S. companies would be without this support, thus creating
a competitive disadvantage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Source: Export-Import Bank
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank's work also supports small businesses that are aircraft
manufacturers and suppliers. Air Tractor, which is a small, employee-
owned company in Olney, Texas, manufactures agricultural and
firefighting aircraft and leverages the Bank as part of its export
transactions. Air Tractor has been able to increase its exports over
the past decade with the help of the Bank, and the company reached
record production in 2012.\9\ Its aircraft are delivered to customers
in Argentina, Brazil, China, Australia, and Spain through joint export
guarantees between the Bank and the Canadian equivalent, Export
Development Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ickert: Growing small business through exports, David Ickert,
Star-Telegram, March 20, 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAMA is open to constructive changes to improve the operation of
the Bank, but these changes must recognize the critical role the Bank
plays in maintaining domestic manufacturing jobs and decreasing our
trade deficit as we expand into emerging markets. To that end, we
applaud those on this Committee who have supported legislation that
will enable the Bank to continue to support businesses of all sizes and
scope that compete in the international marketplace and level the
playing field.
Conclusion
Chairman Ayotte and Ranking Member Cantwell, thank you for
providing me the opportunity to provide the Subcommittee an overview of
the importance of certification reform in maintaining and growing our
industry and U.S. competitiveness. GAMA companies are passionate about
these reforms because this is an area where, working together, we can
improve safety, become more competitive, and expand U.S. manufacturing
jobs. I appreciate the opportunity to outline these critical areas and
look forward to working with you on these issues in the context of FAA
reauthorization. I've been the President and CEO of GAMA for a decade
this year. While our focus continues to evolve, at the core we've
always worked to promote policies that benefit general aviation
manufacturers and their employees by striving to achieve the timeliness
and certainty needed to get their products to the marketplace.
Collectively, with the leadership of Congress as well as the FAA, we
have made significant strides, but there is much work ahead of us to
ensure this vital and important part of our economy can be sustained
and grow. Ten years later, I believe we are on the cusp of enabling our
industry to soar to new heights with the support of policymakers,
regulators, and industry.
Thank you. I would be glad to answer any questions that you may
have.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Mr. Bunce.
And let me just say, you know, I am glad to cosponsor this
effort. I was just at a New Hampshire company, New Hampshire
Ball Bearing, recently and, you know, they are a supplier who
benefits from Ex-Im Bank financing. And I think this is really
important. So hopefully we can have a long-term reauthorization
for this important financing mechanism for the industry.
And in my home state of New Hampshire, by the way, you know
36 companies over the last several years that have used it and
most of them are small. These are small businesses that are
using this kind of financing.
But let me focus on why we are here today, which is----
Ms. Baker, in listening to the testimony about the, from
Dr. Dillingham and now Mr. Bunce, on the small business
certification process and the fact that it is delayed until
2017 which really is not what we intended in the Congress in
terms of the passing with overwhelming support the Small
Business Revitalization Act; where is that and why is it going
to take so long? And can you tell us how we are going to get
that done sooner?
Ms. Baker. So Part 23 is the part for the smaller planes.
That rule is in process. It is very, very important to both the
administrator and myself. We have a lot of people that are very
anxious to get it out, just as Peter Bunce is and Dr.
Dillingham. We have to go through a particular process that is
governed by the Administrative Procedures Act and we have to
assure that we have a rule that is enforceable. We are going to
rewrite the entire regulation, which is really unprecedented
and we are going to change from the way that we write the rules
today, which are very, very prescriptive to performance-based
rules. So our attorneys are working really closely with us to
assure that we do this right.
We have to assure that there is not a lot of ambiguity in
the rules when we put them into performance-based regulations.
So right now, it is making its way through the process and is
expected to go out as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at the
end of this year. And that schedule is on the significant
rulemaking notice on the OST website.
Senator Ayotte. Well, we hope you guys can move it as fast
as you can because 17 seems a long way away given what we hoped
and how quickly this would happen.
One of the issues, you know, in hearing from what Mr. Bunce
had to say--at our hearing last week, Administrator Huerta
indicated that FAA culture may be a barrier to truly moving to
a risk-based decisionmaking system. Would you agree and what
efforts will you take to change this?
Ms. Baker. I think culture is a factor in almost any change
that you make.
What we are doing is trying to introduce tools so that the
employees are comfortable with understanding how you can assess
something from a risk perspective and we are having a lot of
outreach with training. And I do a telecon with my managers
every month and send out electronic mail to everyone in the
organization explaining that this is the direction that we are
going, that safety management systems are essential to the
direction that this government is actually going; and that we
can do this and it will be safe. And we'll just continue to
work with the employees so that we ensure that they understand
why it is we are moving in this direction.
Senator Ayotte. Can we get a sense on, in terms of ODAs,
exactly how, you know, how many companies are actually have
ODAs and are you planning to expand that list?
Ms. Baker. Yes. I was trying to get the actual counts.
Around 80 right now. There are a number of Organization
Designation Authorizations that aren't overseen by the aircraft
certification office because it is broad authority and some of
them are headed by the Flight Standards Service. They are
working well. There is room for improvement, as Peter said. And
we will continue to expand if the applicants that come in for
an Organization Designation Authorization are qualified. That
means they have to have experience with the regulations and are
set up in a manner that they can carry out the duties on our
behalf.
Senator Ayotte. So Dr. Dillingham and Mr. Bunce, what are
your thoughts on how we can expand the number of ODAs and move
forward?
And, you know, I know that, Dr. Dillingham, for you, this
is a little bit like Groundhog Day because we have been talking
about certification now for a number of series of hearings. And
so, any thoughts you have not only on the expansion of ODAs and
how we could better utilize that opportunity and meet the
objectives for it but what about just ideas so that we don't
have to keep coming back here to really make this a better
process?
Dr. Dillingham. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to go back to a couple of things that you said and
what Ms. Baker said. The idea of, one, going to risk management
as opposed to our old system of doing inspections. And what
that means is FAA is a risk averse culture and I think we all
want that, but there has to be some flexibility in there. But
what we are talking about now is moving from a time when
inspectors went out and kicked each tire to a place where they
are willing to step back and oversee the industry kicking those
tires and make sure those tires are kicked correctly. That is
what everyone is talking about as a culture change, and it
takes time. But I think, as I listened to everyone's statement
this morning, I think we are all saying that we are on that
path now, that the things that the Congress has put in place
through Sections 312 and 313 are the direction that we need to
go.
The fact that we have a certain number of ODAs, the first
way to expand their use other than add to the numbers is to
allow the ODAs to act. And that has been one of the big
drawbacks, is that, although people are designated ODA, FAA in
some cases still is doing the kick-the-tire thing and not
letting somebody else kick the tire. And not from the top, but
more from the middle management. Those who are actually out
there kicking the tires rather than the managers here in
Washington.
Mr. Bunce. Madam Chairwoman, I couldn't agree more with Dr.
Dillingham and Ms. Baker here. The Holy Grail right now is to
be able to make the ODAs work efficiently. And you have to have
a certain level of expertise, as Ms. Baker said, to be able to
have an ODA. But, once you've done this, you've demonstrated
that expertise, you should be able to use it.
So a lot of our industry right now--take for instance fly-
by-wire, you're very familiar with how that has been pioneered
in military aircraft. We've had it for many years now. Dating
back in, actually, to the 1970s with the F-16. As we
incorporate that into a rotorcraft and in fixed-wing, that's
new and novel to civil aviation. So we needed to free up
resources to be able to go and look at things like that. We
shouldn't be having a bunch of folks look into basic structure
or wing design or how you do the landing gear. Let's focus on
the new and novel and make that safe. And that's what ODA does.
It frees up resources, FAA resources, to be able to focus on
that.
The other big benefit of that too is that, as we make ODAs
efficient for the companies that have demonstrated that
capability, you free up resources for startup companies. We
don't want huge barriers to entry for the next person that has
a great idea or if we think about all the unmanned vehicles
that are going to be out there and the companies that are going
to producing those. We want them to have FAA resources to help
them along as they get their manufacturing processes up to
speed. So when we have a traditional company that has been
doing this for years and years and the FAA says, ``You have the
competency to do it, let's be able to use that ODA
effectively.''
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell?
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Bunce, I appreciate your focus on the Ex-Im Bank and
the export market in general. I also appreciate your statements
about the distribution of these jobs throughout America because
they are everywhere. I have a question related to that. I'm
seeing the business jet market increase $3.9 billion from 2012
to 2013 on a worldwide basis. My sense is we are seeing great
growth in this market as the rest of the world develops. Is
that correct?
Mr. Bunce. Senator, if you take it in the aggregate, that
is what it would appear to be. But a lot of those sales are for
a large cab in long-range aircraft because, as the world
becomes more interconnected, people in China want to be able to
do business in the U.S. or Europe or down in Africa. So that is
where the largest margins are; the bigger the airplane the
larger the margin is.
We still don't see the full recovery, as Senator Moran well
knows in his state, with those in the light to mid-market of
business jets and with turbo props. We have got gradual growth
there as well as in pistons. We were down last year on
rotorcraft. So although we are seeing the growth at the top and
it isn't across the board, and that's why certification is so
vital to us.
Senator Cantwell. Well, the point that I was going to make
is that this is a great market opportunity. But, if we think we
are alone in chasing it, other countries, other companies are
going to chase it. So our process here we want it to be right,
we want it to be safe, but we should spend as much time to get
it right. I don't know anything else that has that many jobs
attached to it that we are a lead exporter of those jobs. I
mean of those planes. So very important for us to get it right.
Why do you think there are regional differences because of
these organizational development authorities? Why do you think
there are differences? Is it expertise?
Mr. Bunce. It is very true. There are differences in
regions. I think it is the way our personnel system is set up.
I think that having the programs that Ms. Baker is putting in
place, again, with the backing of the United States Congress,
puts gravitas to trying to implement that change. But, still,
we have too many folks up there that have differing opinions on
how to administer whether it is an ODA or the importance of the
consistency in regulatory interpretation that you put in the
last bill, in 313, we're still seeing to much of that.
There's not consolidated guidance so a lot of times it
allows people to come up with their own option; this is their
own interpretation. And we, in industry, instead of fighting
that interpretation, we just say, ``Time is money. We got to
get this certified.'' So we just say, ``OK, we'll go ahead and
do it.'' Because there is also that fear that if you challenge
a regulator on this one, they are going to bite you on the next
one. And so, I know Ms. Baker----
Senator Cantwell. But aren't these the same issues? I mean
aren't they issues that each region could come up with the same
issues, because you are talking about the same, relatively
same, product? Right?
Mr. Bunce. Exactly. And that is why the plan that we are
working on cooperatively with the FAA allows for dispute
resolution. So if you have the industry and the regulator
deciding they have a difference of opinion, let's be able to
kick it up to a headquarters level and say, ``OK, here is what
the dispute is and there is no punishment or reciprocity in
being able to kick it up.''
If you have a disagreement, that is acceptable to raise an
issue. Also, a central repository of guidance. Right now, if
you try to go through all the advisory circulars and the
regulations and everything else, it is a mess. And it leads to
different interpretations by the workforce. It is not their
fault. It is just that there is a million places to look for
things and you don't always have it at your beck-and-call. So,
if we are able to get this central repository and be able for
all of us, on the certification side but also on the flight
standards side, to be able to reference, it helps the regulator
and helps----
Senator Cantwell. How much of this is driven by new
technology, new manufacturing techniques, or new product?
Mr. Bunce. It is driven a lot.
If the FAA doesn't have any more resources, and we know in
this environment it's very difficult for them to have more
bodies out there, technology is moving so quickly and that's
why this educational piece in the FAA reauthorization, if we
could get that passed and even to have an ability to have this
cooperative internship or sharing, and I know you have talked
about that where we've got an apprenticeship-type of
opportunity, that becomes very critical. Because we have got to
be able to have the regulator, knowing what this latest
technology is out there, to be able to regulate us properly.
So technology and the pace of change only exacerbates the
problem.
Senator Cantwell. Yes. I guess I look at this, and I see
big market opportunity, lots of jobs, lots of technology
integration, big culture to try to change. So you have two big
forces pitted against each other. I think we should spend as
much time as it takes to get this right.
But, you're right. The regional nature of it should be
pretty consistent, so if that is sharing data across ODAs or
something of that nature, but we should be able to answer this.
I'm a big proponent of bringing in anything we need to from the
academic side or other areas to answer these questions because,
as we try to keep pace ahead of innovation, we know we have to
figure out what are the ways at the FAA. I'm also a big
supporter of the centers of excellence, but you are not going
to have a center of excellence on every aspect of civil
aviation. So we need to figure out a way to help the pressure
here of keeping fast pace and yet keeping the FAA up to speed.
Thank you.
Mr. Bunce. Senator, if I just might add, in February Ms.
Baker allowed us to come in with many of our CEOs and we are
launching a test program, which is basically a scorecard. And
it was developed by a lot of her managers and regional
directors in the certification process along with industry
giving input. And we are actually going to have the FAA and
industry score how we are doing. Ms. Baker is launching the
pilot program now. And there are some subjective portions where
we can each rate how each other is doing but then, there is
very objective measurements to be able for us to look at and
allow this and then got up to FAA headquarters, and for us to
focus on and say, ``OK, these ODAs are working, these aren't.
What's wrong? What isn't working; and let's address those.''
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
My time has expired. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Ayotte. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Moran?
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Moran. Madam Chairman, thank you very much.
Perhaps a question to all three of you and whoever would
like to address it, but I want to highlight the importance of
this certification issue, particularly the ODA aspect of it.
But certification, in general, is a way that we are able to
have the latest technologies, the greatest advancements, and
also to compete in the global economy. We see this clearly in
the airplane manufacturing sector in Kansas. We are competing
in a global economy and we are delayed in getting our latest
products to market because certification is so cumbersome and
slow.
ODA was created, I think it came into existence about 2005
and it was seen, I think, as the savior, the solution to this
problem. I remember we had Secretary LaHood in Wichita; I don't
remember what year that was but it has been a number of years
ago, and this was the topic. And the Secretary, of course,
listened to Kansas manufacturers, American aviation, general
aviation industry and said, ``We are going to go back and solve
this problem.''
And it is the same explanation today as it was then when
Secretary LaHood was there and in every hearing or conversation
I've had with FAA officials, and it's something called
``culture'' or ``mentality.''
What is it? I mean what is the mentality? What's the
culture? Why can't we solve this problem? And perhaps the
question is, is there something in FAA reauthorization that we
are supposed to do that eliminates the ability for the culture
or mentality to thwart what we, as Congress, believe is a good
idea for the advancement of safety as well as innovation, as
well as the U.S. economy in the manufacturing of airplanes?
Ms. Baker. I will start.
I wanted to point out that the past reauthorization
actually added a few things that I think will eventually, or I
should say will show, some progress because one of the things
that we had to do was to change the order that governs
Organization Designation Authorizations. And it requires the
employees to document why they are retaining items where the
company is authorized to do the finding. And with the
scorecard, we'll be tracking that and then we'll be able to
have a get-well plan, per se. So if an employee is retaining it
for a valid reason, then the company and the employee can agree
to that and move on. If it is because of a personal preference,
it's going to be identified because they are going to have a
conversation about it. And, if it's something that we just need
to build a performance plan to get well so that we can grant it
to the organization, then we can do that too.
So I feel that the reauthorization that asked us to change
the order to cause the employee to document why they were
retaining, combined with the scorecard and the discussion that
we are going to have, is going to effectively move that culture
forward.
Senator Moran. When you use the word ``culture,'' what is
it that you are describing?
Ms. Baker. What I am describing is really a generalization,
as you probably guessed. There are people that have bought in.
They are ready to move forward. And then there are those that
are kind of living in the past. When I came into the
organization, we were literally looking at drawings, and
working with the company, we retained pretty much all of the
findings. We had individual designees that we would work with.
We had personal relations with them and we would delegate to
them on an as-needed basis. And so, it is moving the people
from the way of doing business in the past to the way we are
going to be doing business in the future.
Senator Moran. This is something more than concern that if
we utilize, if we, in a sense, outsource certification, that we
have less need for our jobs. It is something more than that?
Ms. Baker. Well, I think that is an underlying fear, but
what we are trying to convey is that there should not be a fear
of that. As Peter said, there is so much to be done. And
really, the things that our people will be working on, if we
delegate to the organizations, they'll be working on the more
exciting things anyway. They are going to be working on the new
technology; not the mundane test of a galley or, you know, just
basic engineering. They'll be looking at the new and novel
technology.
Senator Moran. Anything else, Mr. Bunce or anybody else,
about what needs to be included in reauthorization? If anything
additional to solve this issue?
Dr. Dillingham. Senator, I'm not sure exactly what may need
to be included in the reauthorization, but something that would
facilitate, maybe guarantee, that the path that the agency is
on now with industry, as Peter subscribed, and FAA working
together. I mean we are at a point of being sort of guardedly
optimistic, that we are at a tipping point that--we are at the
point now where, if what is onboard is in fact implemented, we
won't be here the next time in the same position that we are in
now.
Senator Moran. That's encouraging, I guess. After a number
of years, it's encouraging.
Mr. Bunce. And Senator, I would just add that I think we
can do some things in reauthorization of looking at career
development within the FAA. If you spent your whole life as an
engineer and you're this expert on aluminum structures and
that, you want to get into the weeds. It's human nature; you
want to do that.
What Ms. Baker and what we are trying to do is say, ``OK,
if you're managing an ODA, you should be a systems engineer.''
You should be able to look at the broad picture of a company
and say, ``OK, are they working effectively together?'' To be
able not only to produce a safe product but is everyone talking
to one another? Are we able to provide the right type of
oversight there so that that safety is never compromised? But
you do that in a systems approach. If that individual has as
good or better career this as the traditional engineer out
there and we provide the training to all those that are doing
this oversight, I think we can make a significant contribution.
Senator Moran. Chairwoman, thank you very much.
I'd just say that it's encouraging to hear somewhat
optimistic unanimity among the three witnesses today, that this
is changing and, as Dr. Dillingham says, we won't have this
question in the hearing a year from now.
I think that's what you said.
Dr. Dillingham. Yes, sir.
Senator Moran. All right. Thank you.
Senator Ayotte. Senator Daines?
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair.
We are proud in Montana to have a Boeing manufacturing
facility. We manufacture 737, 747, 767, 787 parts and
assemblies there. Great jobs, high-paying jobs. But I want to
elevate this discussion for a moment back to global
competitiveness and speed.
I understand Boeing right now has a $440 billion backlog.
We are competing directly now with Airbus and others. So this
is about American jobs. As someone who came from the private
sector, spent 28 years in business, speed is a comparative
advantage.
Ms. Baker, first question. How many people report through
to you? I mean you have a very big job as Director of
Certification. How many people do you have in your
organization?
Ms. Baker. Well, let's see. Right now, we have about 1,319.
Senator Daines. Plus or minus?
Ms. Baker. Total authorized. We don't have that many
onboard there is----
Senator Daines. Sure.
Ms. Baker.--1,290.
Senator Daines. And so, you are at the top of that----
Ms. Baker. Yes.
Senator Daines. 1,319 people.
Ms. Baker. Yes.
Senator Daines. So as the head of certification, what two
or three metrics do you look at that measure speed of
certification?
Ms. Baker. Well, that is what we are challenged by, as
Gerald has said. What we have done is worked with a number of
different types of metrics and we've always found that they
tend to----
Senator Daines. But let me just ask you. Do you have one
right now? Do you measure speed?
Ms. Baker. We measure speed by turn, turn times of
individual programs and individual cert plans, et cetera,
assuring that we are turning it back to the organization that
needs the information so that they can move forward. A lot of
the program is actually dictated by the speed at which the
company can move forward because they have got a lot of work to
do too. And they've got flight tests and a lot of things that
they have to complete. So we look----
Senator Daines. So are those measures, are they going down,
are they going up, or staying flat?
Ms. Baker. We are probably about flat. I think Peter may
agree with that. The reason being is that things are moving
faster but they are getting more complex. So we are getting
better at moving some things forward faster, but the problem is
is that the complexity of the designs has been increasing every
year.
Senator Daines. So my concern, of course, is that Airbus
has a backlog right now, Boeing has a backlog right now.
Ultimately, whoever can deliver those orders the fastest will
win the business. And I'm more concerned even going forward now
over the next three to 5 years, I think we're going to see a
good demand out there for these good American jobs.
So what steps are taking to ensure that these new aircraft
certifications will be done in a more timely manner?
Ms. Baker. Back to the scorecard. We are trying to ensure
that we delegate as much as we possibly can to the Organization
Designation Authorization; give them autonomy. And when we're
looking at the statistics, we do give them quite a bit of the
work. Much of the work now doesn't even come through the FAA.
The more that we can eliminate ourselves from that path-flow,
eliminate ourselves from the critical paths, the delivery of
the aircraft, the better it will be for industry.
Senator Daines. So as you look at your 1,319 employees, are
they held accountable at the individual performance level for
speed and turnaround time?
Ms. Baker. There are metrics in our--we are a quality
management system, we're EASA registered. And yes, they are.
Senator Daines. But I mean individuals. I mean, if I went
to one of your employees and said, ``Show me your last
performance review.'' And was one of your key measures there,
how quickly you turn around the process on your desk?''
Ms. Baker. Individually? Probably not as far as, you know,
you have to meet this 30 day metric. But of course, we would be
taking that into account to assure they are moving the projects
forward quickly and their organization or their office is
looked at and collected.
Senator Daines. Yes, and I don't pretend to want to come in
and manage your business. But having spent time having to do
cultural change in large organizations, I think it comes down
to holding individuals accountable; put what's most important
and, certainly, it's going to be safety and thoroughness of
these certifications. But it's not a trade up, I don't think,
between safe and thorough and speedy with the right approaches.
Mr. Bunce, given the response, does this alleviate or
address your concerns from the aviation manufacturing industry?
Mr. Bunce. Well, the proof will be in the pudding. We've
got to be able to see these initiatives that Ms. Baker is
putting forward that she's been cooperatively working with us
to be able to implement.
We had a lot of companies sign up for this to be able to
test out the scorecards. So as Ms. Baker said, between 70 and
80 ODAs out there, I think it's about 20 have signed up to be
able to look at the test program because they said, ``Let's get
at this, it can't happen soon enough.''
So that's, as Dr. Dillingham said, I hope that we won't
have to keep addressing this issue. But I do believe we are at
that tipping point. If we're going to drive change, we are at
the best place, and support of this committee is critical to
make----
Senator Daines. And if there are one or two recommendations
to boil it down and the most important thing that FAA can do
now to improve and speed up the certification process in terms
of changing this culture, what would they be?
Mr. Bunce. To be able to go and actualize the ODA, to be
able to allow it to function the way it was designed, and then
to be able to get this word out through training to the
workforce so that they say this is the way the U.S. Congress,
this is the way the FAA leadership, and this is the way
industry wants to go; we need to go ahead and make this change
and drive that cultural change to happen sooner than later.
Senator Daines. OK, thank you.
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
Senator Udall?
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Really
appreciate it and good to be here with the panel, and thank you
all for being here.
In New Mexico, the aviation industry, like the rest of the
economy, is working to recover and is in a struggling phase in
many cases. Thankfully, I think they are doing a little bit
better today than they were a couple of years ago. We continue
to be a mix of big and small business, everything between Aspen
Avionics, Eclipse Aerospace, and Honeywell. So you have a real
variety there. And my concern when agencies implement new
processes is always the change; how that change will impact
small business.
Ms. Baker, in working to improve the process, have you
looked at the impact of these changes on small business? Do you
believe that small business will be able to easily adapt to the
changes that you are making?
And I apologize if I'm repeating what others have already
asked, but thank you.
Ms. Baker. That's quite okay.
I think that the changes that we're making are going to
benefit small industry. And like Peter said, the thing is is
that if we can get a lot of the work delegated to these
larger--we'll have more time to spend with the smaller or
startup industries.
Senator Udall. Great.
Colonel Bunce, do you think everything has been covered in
terms of your smaller members of your association? Do you feel
from her testimony that they are looking out for these smaller
members that are out there?
Mr. Bunce. Well, Senator, I think if you take the two
companies you mentioned and the other company that we have in
New Mexico, obviously the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act is
important to them. And we are frustrated that the process is
taking longer than we believe it should. We would very much
like to see a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking this summer. We
think it's possible.
Just last week, all the technical standards were set up so
that an NPRM, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, could be
published. And this is significant. Take a company like Aspen.
Right now, if we get this right on the small aircraft, the
next step is to revitalize rotorcraft and Aspen plays a key
role in that. Right now, the way we're regulating the
rotorcraft industry is still in that old thought. It's not
efficient, and the sooner we get this in place for small
aircraft we can then use this new innovative-type of regulatory
structure for rotorcraft and then go to transport category
aircraft. Because this is the right way to go and it's global
rulemaking. We've got partnerships with all these other
authorities and Ms. Baker and her staff have been extremely
helpful for us.
So on the technical side, that work is complete. Now, it's
getting it through this rulemaking and the lawyers and that,
and we hope that through emphasis from this committee that we
can go and speed that process.
Senator Udall. Yes.
Ms. Baker, why can't we move the process along as he has
described? What's holding this up there?
Ms. Baker. Like I said, the actual rulemaking process is a
very deliberative process to make sure that it is done right.
So we do follow the Administrative Procedures Act, we have to
assure that the rule is not only technically accurate but
legally enforceable, it doesn't have ambiguity in it, and then
we have to do the economic analysis. And then, it goes through
a process of review. So like I said, we can get to the
technical result relatively quickly, but we do have a process
which we have to follow.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Dr. Dillingham, you have any comments on this?
Dr. Dillingham. No, sir. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate it.
Senator Ayotte. Senator Klobuchar?
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Well thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for
holding this hearing and to our Ranking Member Cantwell, as
well. This is really important. We care a lot about this in my
state. We have a hub, and we also make some planes in
Minnesota. So it means a lot, and I continue to push, as all of
you know, for the timely implementation of the Small Airplane
Revitalization Act, which I introduced with Senator Markowski
and it was signed into law in 2013. I know Senator Udall and
the Chairwoman asked some questions about the FAA's
certification process for new and replacement aircrafts and
parts. I just want to follow up with one question.
Mr. Bunce, in your testimony you indicated that the
European Aviation Safety Agency has published an Advanced
Notice of Rulemaking to rewrite the Part 23 regulations for the
light end of General Aviation Aircraft. Is Europe getting ahead
of the FAA on this initiative? How have the coordination
efforts been between these two regulators?
Mr. Bunce. Senator, again, thank you for your leadership on
being able to make the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act work.
And also, I appreciate your communications with Secretary of
Transportation because, as Ms. Baker said, to be able to get
this rule through we got go through DOT and then we got to get
it over to OMB and get it out.
Senator Klobuchar. A lot of initials. Sounds kind of scary.
OK.
Mr. Bunce. My impression, because Europe was part of this
whole rulemaking structure, that they are more nimble. As Ms.
Baker said, our process is a laborious to be able to get a rule
through the system, and I believe they are more nimble.
The Administrative Procedures Act, I can understand,
restricts the communication between the regulator and industry
when they get in this critical time. But one thing we're
hearing from the European side is that communication, they
called it ``going dark on the backside of the moon,'' that they
are isn't communication between the regulators right now
because of an interpretation of this act, which we don't think
it really makes sense. If we're going to try to do this
rulemaking and keep everybody connected in lock, step, and
harmonize, that we aught to have the regulators be able to
communicate with one another. We expressed that to the Deputy
Administrator and that but, so far, as of last week, we hadn't
heard that we are joined back up and working this together.
So I think that----
Senator Klobuchar. OK. I guess it's another, as my
colleagues have said, it's another reason to push the
publication of these proposed rules.
I cut you off though. Did you want to say something?
Mr. Bunce. No. And so, if you look at it in total, I think
Europe is ready to move out and they could do so. We're just
hoping that the FAA, if they get the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking out this summer, it brings them back in line and
then we have a chance of trying to get the final rule out by
the end of 2016 versus the later part of 2017.
Senator Klobuchar. Maybe I'll just continue on with that
global competition issue with you, Ms. Baker. What's the FAA
doing to ensure that we stay ahead of the game, not will go
beyond this rule now in terms of aircraft innovation and
manufacturing as well as safety?
Ms. Baker. Well, I think we're doing a lot of different
outreach. And one of the things we're doing is training in
Singapore. We set up an academy in Singapore to do training so
that we could convey to the authorities in that particular
region our rules and how we've developed them so that they will
then start to adopt ours.
When we look at new technology, we can work with the
authorities around the world and we come together to determine
how it is we are going to be regulating things like additive
manufacturing. You might have seen that coming. That was a
discussion item at our Asia bilateral partners meeting. We
talked about UAS. Those are all things that we are talking
collectively with the other authorities but taking leadership
roles where we can in organizations like ICAO or in groups like
RTCA or ASTM, where they are building the standards.
Senator Klobuchar. And is there currently a backlog within
the Aircraft Certification Service? Just, again, getting back
to some of these innovations and trying to move ahead in
America.
Ms. Baker. There's no backlog in the Aircraft Certification
Service's certification applications. One of the things in
Section 312 of the FAA Modernization Reform Act was to put in
place something other than the sequencing process, which had a
queue. We now have a prioritization process, which has no
weight. You can start your project immediately as soon as you
make application.
Senator Klobuchar. So, yes. So what you mean is you're
adjusting the process for reviewing certifications from some
kind of--what is it? Sequence prioritization? Is that right?
Ms. Baker. Well, yes. What we had originally was
sequencing. And so, you couldn't start your project until there
were resources available to work the project. The change that
we made, we realized that there was a lot of different things
that can be done in any one project. And really, the only time
that you need a specific resource from the FAA, if there's new
or novel technology, and there's a particular person with the
technical expertise that you need. So now we're prioritizing
based on that. So we give a commitment on when we will deliver
that resource to the individuals.
Senator Klobuchar. How is that being received across the
country?
Ms. Baker. We're going to have a review of it. It has been
in place for about 9 months now, and it appears to be working
really well.
Senator Klobuchar. It is just an interesting concept that
could maybe be used in other areas as well, not just within the
FAA.
All right, well very good. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
I think we just have a few follow-up questions here. One is
about the--oh. I just saw Senator Sullivan come in. So we'll
let him ask his questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think the panel is familiar with some of the issues that
we have in Alaska. Some of our unique issues with regard to
different communities that exclusively rely on air travel: 403
general aviation airports; 5,700 general aviation aircraft;
8,000 registered pilots. So I know that many of you are
familiar with some of these challenges, opportunities,
certainly that we see in Alaska both with regard to aviation.
Mr. Bunce, can you provide an update. I know that you're
familiar with the AvGas and the Piston Aviation Fuels
Initiative. This is something that, as you can imagine, we have
several concerns about with over 10,000 piston engine aircraft
registered in Alaska. This is the kind of rule that, you know,
has an enormous, enormous impact on particular states like mine
when it might not impact other states. I think 96 percent was
the last number I had of the Commercial Aircraft Fleet in
Alaska is piston-engined, aircraft that burn leaded fuel. Can
you give an update on this? This is a really important issue
for my state.
Mr. Bunce. Yes, Senator.
So we have had great support from the United States
Congress in this, what we call the ``PAFI Initiative,'' the
Pistons Aviation Fuels Initiative. And so, basically, right now
there is one distributor of lead in the world. Everybody is
relying on that one. And we use lead in the gas to be able to
go and make sure there's not, what's called ``detonation.'' Now
if you have that in your automobile, the engine block is very
robust. And when you hear knocking, that's detonation and
that's survivable on the road. And if something catastrophic
happened, you'd pull over. In aviation, the engine blows up.
That's a bad thing. So we have to have a very deliberate
process and that's what the PAFI is.
And so, we've got support from the FAA. They've gone in
each year in the last three budget cycles to be able to fund
it. Actually, the Congress has been very generous to be able to
go ahead and boost that because we know how important it is. So
we're doing a lot of that testing up at the tech center in New
Jersey. And right now, it is going well. Industry is providing
the fuels to test; also the engines to test them on.
The next step in that process is now to see whether we can
produce and in larger and larger quantities. The goal is to be
able to have this now unleaded fuel that, as we start to
produce it, we can go and comingle it with existing leaded fuel
until we get all the lead out of there.
The other good part of this process is the EPA, despite all
of the pressures that they get on it from the different groups,
has said because of the safety factor, let's let industry and
FAA work on this PAFI process, find a solution, and then, when
we have this solution, then we can go and implement the
regulatory whether it's an endangerment finding or whatever
that would be. Then to drive the whole industry to this new
fuel. It'll be kind of a, OK, now time is set. We have the
solution. Let's move forward.
So I feel very confident with your help that we'll be able
to have the solution of an unleaded fuel.
Senator Sullivan. So you think that's striking the balance
between, again, unique needs of states like Alaska and our
economy, the issue of safety that you mentioned, and the
environmental issues?
Mr. Bunce. Absolutely, sir.
And Alaska, as you said, is very unique. I fly up there.
When I'm on the ramp, you have these big round radial engines
still out there. And still, it is one we always, through this
testing program, we want to make sure we take into
consideration these large reciprocating engines out there to be
able to make sure they test without any problem in no matter
what type of temperature regimes, especially cold, to make sure
that we don't have any problem with this.
Senator Sullivan. Right.
I appreciate your knowledge on that issue and my office
will be following up with you for a little bit more detail on
those matters. Thank you.
I yield back my time, Madam Chair.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you very much.
I just had a couple of follow up questions. One was about,
to follow up on Senator Klobuchar question, I've heard from
stakeholders that this, the European version, EASA, if I
pronounce it correctly, could be actually exceeding our
standard in terms of being the gold standard and how quickly
and how effectively they're acting. In terms of approaching
certification. And so, I just wanted to get a thought.
What's your perspective, Mr. Bunce? Is it easier to deal
with the European regulators and are we falling behind overall
with this?
Mr. Bunce. Madam Chairman, I think we work very closely
with EASA. And actually, Patrick Ky, who is the Executive
Director of EASA, has exactly the same budget problems that Mr.
Huerta has. He's got constraints; the European Parliament is
trying to cut his budget. So many of the same issues that we
deal with. Their approach is a little bit different, their
rulemaking approach is different, and it's not as regimented or
in flexible as, I think, what we find here.
One of the things that does concern us as manufacturers is
the validation process. And we've talked a lot about certifying
product here in the U.S., but one of the other key things is,
when we go and now take that process over, let's say to Europe,
and you want to have an aircraft registered within the European
registry, that aircraft has to be certified by EASA. And so,
they basically take the work that the FAA has done and they
``validate'' it.
Unfortunately, that validation is taking way too long. And
in some cases, it's almost as long as it was in the
certification process here. And that's unacceptable especially
because we have a bilateral agreement that says, basically, we
trust each other's competencies. The same thing that if a
product is produced in Europe comes over here. The FAA uses
resources, but it should be a relatively fast process to be
able to go ahead and trust each other there.
And so, that is something that is very concerning to us. I
know that Ms. Baker, in fact, this conference that she met at
last week, they are trying to address that because it's wasting
too many resources. And there are four states of design:
Brazil, the U.S., EASA as the group for Europe, and transport
Canada. They all have bilaterals with each other. And we need
to leverage those better. And that is for commercial aircraft,
general aviation, fixed wing, and rotorcraft; and will be for
unmanned vehicles as well.
Senator Ayotte. So it's really on their end. We've already
certified and they just need to validate.
Mr. Bunce. Correct.
Senator Ayotte. So are they delaying that for competitive
reasons?
Mr. Bunce. I don't believe that it's for competitive
reasons. I believe that it is resources constraint but it's
also not a focused ability to realize the bilateral. And to say
the FAA did the work, our work should be just minor to check if
there are differences, let's say, in the regulation. That goes
for the FAA as well. If a European product comes this way, they
shouldn't be wasting a whole lot of resources to be able to
check that because we have an agreement that basically trusts
each other's competencies. And that's something that we do hope
we were able to put some focus on because it's important.
Senator Ayotte. Ms. Baker, do you have any thoughts on
this?
Ms. Baker. I think he has covered it well. It's kind of the
same problem that we have when our engineers are relying upon
an Organization Designation Authorization to do the work. You
go to Europe and they have engineers like we do that want to
double check what we're doing. So again, that too----
Senator Ayotte. Engineers checking the engineers?
Ms. Baker. Engineers checking the engineers, yes. And we
all know if you get engineers in the room, you can probably
have more questions than answers than you ever imagined.
So what we're doing, though, is through validation and
improvement processes, we're setting agreements between the two
authorities. And with this certification management team that
he's talking about, where Brazil and Canada are working, we're
setting up ways to work together so that we can do the similar
things as we're doing nationally; is measure how well we're
performing, how well we are doing at relying upon the other
authority.
As I said, when I was in Asia, we're all recognizing that
we're resource-limited. It doesn't make any sense to look at
someone else's work when you have a competent authority that's
already made the finding. And that's why we're starting out
small. With the TSO items, the Technical Standard Orders that I
talked about. At the end of this year, we hope to just
recognize each other's Technical Standard Order findings.
Meaning that we don't even look at them. We just accept it. We
don't even have to issue another approval. That'll save time
and it'll be really great for those that produce those types of
articles.
And then, for this, basically, little low-complexity STCs,
we will accept the determination made by the other authority
and then we will just sign off the approval without further
showing. So those are two really big steps towards this future
that we hope will alleviate the burden that he's discussing.
Senator Ayotte. Good.
And we both, obviously, have a mutual interest in our
industries thriving. So hopefully, we can leverage that to get
to a place where we're both recognizing each other's work more
quickly.
Senator Cantwell?
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Baker, in the first round I didn't get your thoughts
deep enough on this evolving technology and innovation
challenge. What are some of the things that you think we need
to do, to try to do, besides the structure that we've already
discussed, right now with the ODA? What are some of the other
ways that you think the FAA can make investment so that they
keep better pace with innovation?
Ms. Baker. First, we need to focus on the fact that the
ultimate responsibility of having a safe product and compliant
product is the manufacturers. So we need to work with them to
produce the regulations that they will certify the aircraft to.
We have a flexible system. We have something called ``special
conditions'' that will allow us to develop rules if they
present us something that isn't already reflected in the
regulations. And when we do that, it benefits us to go to
entities like Volpe or MITRE, work with RTCA or ASTM,
communities that have the expertise----
Senator Cantwell. You're talking, for everybody who may not
know, you're talking about standards setting bodies, so to
speak, loosely or structurally----
Ms. Baker. Right.
Senator Cantwell.--that help set standards for these parts
or certifications.
Ms. Baker. Right.
And they have a community that has the expertise. So what I
see us doing is being involved with them so that we get the
benefit of the expertise in industry.
We also found, when we were going through the lithium
battery issue, that we need to look outside of aviation,
because there's a lot of technology that's now coming into
aviation that has been in other aspects; other modes of
transportation, other IT applications. And we should be able to
go to organizations that have that expertise and have them work
along side us.
Senator Cantwell. And so, do we need to do more with those
organizations?
Ms. Baker. I think we do quite a bit already. And I think
just continuing to work with them to move forward. One thing
that is really important is communication. The industry comes
up with good ideas and they all want to keep them pretty much
to themselves until they bring them to market because it's
going to be a competitive advantage against their competitors.
So the earlier we can get involved at setting up the standards
that they'll have to comply with, the better. So the more
communication that occurs up front, the better off we all are.
Senator Cantwell. What about that, Mr. Bunce? You mentioned
your variety of companies that are part of your association.
Mr. Bunce. They are very competitive but at the same time,
when they meet in our association settings, they all recognize
that if they go and work with the authorities, all boats rise
at a high tide. So I think that's important.
One of the bottlenecks we're seeing is software. Both sides
of the Atlantic, we see that a lot. And the safety improvements
we can make with software is tremendous. There were a couple
high profile accidents that you're both familiar with last year
were where people were flying and they go hypoxic up at
altitude. They didn't realize that they loss conscientiousness
and the airplane just kept going. The fighters intercepted them
and they saw folks slumped over.
We have technology now that's able to do--it sends messages
to the pilots and if they don't respond, the airplane
automatically starts a fly down profile to get down where the
oxygen is available to them and hopefully can revive them. It's
not major changes, and actually the autopilot system, it's all
software driven. Those kinds of things are examples are really
safety-enhancing technologies that, if we could get through the
system fast, we reduce the price and then somebody can afford
to be able to buy this new software upgrade to be able to go
and have this new safety feature available. And there are many
examples.
And so, we're working with Ms. Baker's office on all of
these to be able, across the spectrum of aviation, to have this
rapid process where it reduces cost and we can retrofit older
aircraft with this technology and then include it in new
production.
Senator Cantwell. And you think there are participants from
these organizations in the standard-setting organizations to
have that kind of discussion?
Mr. Bunce. Absolutely.
And the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act is an example of
that. They all met last week in Europe and they provided the
technical standards. And when we can expand that to rotorcraft
and to transport category aircraft, they are able to keep,
refreshed, they technology as it comes but it doesn't restrict
them from having something proprietary and go through the old
process. And so, they actually have two ways, two avenues to do
it but we get world regulators and experts in industry all
together on a periodic basis to be able to review these
standards.
Senator Cantwell. Well, there's a little publishing thing
called the Internet so you can have a lot of discussion of
these issues in real time, which I think is very helpful.
Dr. Dillingham, how do we approach this, you know, some of
this as, again, the advent of technological changes happening
and then the certification process with another big effort by
the FAA of NextGen? So how do we integrate these two things?
Dr. Dillingham. I think the issue that you raise is a key
one--how can the U.S. proceed with innovations such as NextGen
and UAS integration? Both the NextGen and UAS situations
suggests that we move to a risk management approach to
technology and innovation so that we are not constrained by old
rules and regulations.
And when I say UAS, what comes to mind is Amazon. Amazon,
you know, is a bit of a technology leader, as far as UAS.
However, because of the way we operate here in the U.S., it
forced or pretty much forced Amazon to do some of its research
on UAS off-shore. Getting to a risk management approach and
looking at things differently is the way we're going to bring
innovation such as UAS more quickly into the marketplace.
NextGen is the same thing. We have to move to a performance-
based approach as opposed to a prescriptive kind of orientation
for ATC modernization.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I think these are big tasks and I
think we should, Madam Chair, continue to pay a lot of
attention to this because I think, as we were talking earlier,
these are big opportunities. Lots of jobs and, yet, our
competitiveness is going to depend on us getting this right. We
like the advent of these improvements to aviation. We want the
improvements but we certainly want the certification process to
be thorough but when we can learn from it, implement it across
the country in a more unified way. So anyway, I thank the
witnesses and I thank the Chair for this important hearing.
Senator Ayotte. I want to thank all of you. I agree with
Senator Cantwell. This is so important to our competitiveness
and our ability to innovate going forward. This was a very
helpful hearing from all of you as we work on the
reauthorization together. So I appreciate your being here today
and taking the time to help us with this issue.
The hearing record will remain open for two weeks. During
this time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the
record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit
their written answers to the Committee as soon as possible.
Again, thank you. And this hearing today is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dean Heller to
Dorenda Baker
Question 1. What ability does the FAA possess in terms of conflict
resolution between FAA approved Designated Engineering Representatives
(DERs) and applicants?
Answer. A DER acts on behalf of the FAA to find that design data
complies with FAA regulations. In a dispute with an applicant, it is
the responsibility of the FAA to determine if the DER's decision to not
approve a design was made in accordance with FAA policy (reference FAA
Order 8110.37E, Designated Engineering Representative Handbook,
sections 2-2 and 2-3). If the FAA determines the DER's decision is not
according to published policy, the FAA may override the DER and approve
the design.
Question 2. Are Designated Engineering Representatives required to
perform continuing annual proficiency evaluations similar to those
continuing evaluations required of pilots and mechanics?
Answer. Unlike pilots and mechanics, where proficiency evaluations
are conducted in the form of a practical examination, a DER's
performance is evaluated annually on work done over the past year. FAA
orders give specific instructions on what the DER must provide to the
FAA to verify their activity, and what the FAA must consider during the
formal evaluation (reference FAA Order 8100.8D, Designee Management
Handbook, Section 904). In addition to the annual performance
evaluation, the DER's FAA advisor conducts oversight and interacts with
the DER throughout the year on a continuing basis. Performance concerns
with a DER are often identified by FAA oversight and addressed as they
occur. In addition, DER's are required to attend training specific to
their discipline every two years.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cory Gardner to
Dorenda Baker
Question 1. Wait Times--Denver Regional Office:
In June 2014, at the request of my House office, the USDOT
Inspector General issued a report surrounding significant issues with
the FAA Denver Regional Office's processing of certifications. At that
time, the report stated that Denver had one of the longest waitlists in
the country with 42 applicants on the waitlist. The report outlines
that some applicants have waited three years on the FAA to complete the
certification process. The report notes that the Denver office had
issued only 6 certifications to new applicants over 4 years.
In conclusion, the Inspector General made four recommendations to
the FAA:
Clarify and disseminate Agency guidance that allows field
offices to establish priorities and pass over applicants when
specific resources are not available to perform the
certification.
Require the Northwest Mountain Regional Office to evaluate
resources across its district offices and determine whether
certification services can be shifted to other offices with
greater resource availability and assess the extent to which
this applies to other offices.
Develop a tracking number and sequencing system with CSOP to
enhance reporting and visibility of certification activities to
Flight Standards management.
Develop a standardized approach for District Offices to
continually monitor and evaluate whether resources are adequate
to initiate new certifications.
Can you explain why the Denver office has such poor performance
compared to some other regional offices?
Answer. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) cited a number of
issues in its report regarding the performance of the Denver office in
new operator certifications. The office had difficulty in determining
how many inspectors it needed to perform certification work and did not
request assistance from the regional office. The FAA also lacked a
standardized approach to prioritize and track new certificate
applications for air operators and repair stations. Instead, the FAA
utilized a first come-first served approach to performing
certifications, resulting in significant delays for many applicants if
more complex certifications were ahead of them in the queue. The OIG
also noted the FAA's guidance did not include a process that managers
could use to re-evaluate resources and initiate the certification of
waitlisted applicants. Finally, competing priorities and frequently
changing guidance from FAA headquarters and regional offices regarding
the Agency's certification policy resulted in workflow interruptions
and delay of new certifications.
Some of these concerns could be attributed to the uncertainty of
staffing and budget resources, and a focus on continued operational
safety. In addition, Denver has a greater and more diverse
concentration of activity compared to many field offices, particularly
within the Northwest Mountain Region.
The FAA concurred with the four recommendations proposed in the OIG
report. The OIG considered three of the FAA's responses to the issues
resolved, pending completion of planned actions. The FAA response to
one recommendation resulted in a request for additional information,
which the FAA provided. The actions the FAA committed to are now
complete.
Question 2. While the report did note that the FAA swiftly acted on
some of the recommendations made by the IG, at the time of printing,
not all had been addressed. Has the FAA acted on the recommendations
laid out in the Inspector General's report?
Answer. FAA's Flight Standards Service has completed action on all
four OIG recommendations. FAA sent a description of the actions taken
to the OIG for close out.
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) AFS-002-900-S1, effective April
9, 2015, addresses and provides requirements to field offices and
regional offices that comprehensively respond to all of the OIG
recommendations. This document is applicable to all regions. Northwest
Mountain Region aggressively implemented the requirements of the SOP in
addressing the OIG concerns.
The Denver ``waitlist'' decreased from 42 to 12. Moreover, FAA's
Flight Standards Service instituted a reporting system toward
certification accomplishment, which all regions report to the Director
of Flight Standards weekly.
Question 3. What is the current status of the processing of
certifications, wait times and total numbers, at the Denver FAA office?
Answer. Currently there are 12 applicants on the Denver waitlist.
The oldest of these has a wait time of approximately 9 months. In
addition, there are 3 completed certifications, 7 certifications in
progress, 6 certifications pending formal application, and 5
certifications which were transferred to another field office for
certification. 18 applications were terminated, either because the
applicant failed to successfully meet certification standards or
because the applicant no longer wanted to pursue certification.
[all]