[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8362-S8363]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Ford, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Harkin, 
        Mr. Inouye, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Bryan and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 1089. A bill to terminate the effectiveness of certain amendments 
to the foreign repair station rules of the Federal Aviation 
Administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


               AIRCRAFT REPAIR STATION SAFETY ACT OF 1997

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
introduce legislation designed to address aviation safety concerns 
which arise out of the proliferation of aircraft repair facilities 
outside the United States which are used by airplanes that fly within 
our Nation every day. This legislation would change current regulations 
so that U.S. aircraft are repaired to the maximum extent possible by 
professional U.S. mechanics, properly trained and supervised, using 
certified parts. This bill also addresses the critical issue of 
substandard or uncertified airplane parts, known as bogus parts.
  I am pleased to be joined by 10 of my Republican and Democratic 
colleagues in introducing the Aircraft Repair Station Safety Act of 
1997, which is similar to a bill introduced by my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, Congressman Borski (H.R. 145) which currently has 135 
cosponsors.
  A key focus for many of us in the 105th Congress is aviation safety. 
As a member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I have 
worked with my colleagues to ensure that we spend the maximum amount 
possible on improving our aviation infrastructure for safety purposes, 
including altogether new runways, runway extension projects, and new 
generations of radar and landing systems. Air travel is an essential 
element of our lives, as millions of Americans use airplanes for 
personal and business trips. Our economy is deeply rooted in the 
success of our aviation system, which makes it even more critical that 
we take all necessary steps to enhance aviation safety.
  This legislation is intended to address a regulatory loophole created 
in November, 1988, when the Federal Aviation Administration promulgated 
new rules which weakened the restrictions on certification for foreign 
aircraft repair stations. The 1988 changes have resulted in a situation 
where FAA certification--the highest seal of approval in the world--is 
much too easy to obtain. Prior to those changes, a foreign repair 
facility had to demonstrate that there was a need to service aircraft 
engaged in international travel before they could get certified. But 
now, a station can receive FAA certification for the simple goal of 
attracting U.S. business. I am advised that repair stations in Tijuana, 
Mexico and Costa Rica applied for and received FAA certification even 
though few expect these locations to become new hubs for international 
travel. Instead, these facilities are becoming new hubs for stealing 
U.S. jobs and could potentially jeopardize aviation safety because of 
inadequacies in U.S. regulatory oversight.
  One example of where work performed on an aircraft at a foreign 
facility had significant repercussions within the United States was the 
1994 engine explosion and fire on a Valujet plane on the runway at 
Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport, which necessitated the 
evacuation of the 57 passengers. According to media reports, the work 
was done at a Turkish repair station that lacked FAA approval, and 
whose shabby business practices included plating over a cracked and 
corroded compressor disk. Had the explosion occurred in midflight, the 
results could have been catastrophic.
  When the 1988 regulations were adopted, the FAA expected that the 
number of foreign repair stations it certified would rise from the 
level of 200 to possibly 300 or 400. I understand that there are now 
nearly 500 such foreign aircraft repair stations with FAA 
certification. This comes at a time, however, when the FAA is having 
enough trouble inspecting domestic repair stations and enforcing 
aviation safety rules within facilities in the 50 States. I find it 
hard to believe that the FAA has sufficient resources to adequately 
investigate problems at the 480 foreign aircraft repair facilities in 
addition to its U.S. responsibilities.
  I am advised that one recent phenomenon is that foreign repair 
facilities are being used by some U.S. carriers on a contract basis as 
a means of holding down costs, and some have become what have been 
termed virtual airlines because so little maintenance and repair work 
is done in-house. Instead of aircraft repair work being done at 
relatively few sites, countless contractors and subcontractors 
domestically and abroad are now filling that function.
  I would note that the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security 
stated in its Final Report of February 12, 1997 that:

       Considerable attention has been given to the issue of 
     outsourcing of maintenance and other work, particularly in 
     the wake of the Valujet crash. The Commission does not 
     believe that outsourcing, in and of itself, presents a 
     problem--if it is performed by qualified companies and 
     individuals. The proper focus of concern should be on the 
     FAA's certification and oversight of any and all companies 
     performing aviation safety functions, including repair 
     stations certificated by the FAA but located outside of the 
     United States. (Emphasis added.)

  A problem is that under the current regulatory framework, foreign 
aircraft repair stations have not had to demonstrate legitimate need or 
to meet all the standards and procedures imposed on U.S. stations. For 
example, I am advised that domestic facilities and their employees must 
meet rigorous worker

[[Page S8363]]

surveillance standards including broad drug and alcohol testing 
requirements. Many other nations seeking to compete do not have these 
same requirements in place or the same level of enforcement. There is 
also a discrepancy between the requirement that certain mechanics at a 
U.S. facility are certified airmen and the absence of such a mandate on 
certified foreign repair stations. One would think that this 
requirement is important enough to be imposed wherever a plane which 
flies within our borders is repaired and maintained. Accordingly, this 
legislation provides that all standards imposed on domestic repair 
stations and their employees must be imposed on foreign facilities and 
their employees.
  In sponsoring this legislation, I am not attempting to deprive U.S. 
carriers of access to foreign repair facilities when necessary. 
Strategically based foreign repair stations have been part of our 
aviation network since 1949, when it was recognized that such stations 
were needed for the repair of U.S. aircraft operating outside our 
airspace. In addition, foreign manufacturers producing FAA-approved air 
frames or components have traditionally been allowed to support their 
products. Further, it is my intention that this legislation would not 
hinder the repair of U.S. aircraft abroad which do not operate within 
the United States.
  This legislation would not change these accepted practices, but would 
give the FAA the opportunity to revisit this issue by returning the 
regulations governing the certification of repair stations to what they 
were before November, 1988. This legislation is aimed at the 
proliferation of foreign FAA-certified repair facilities which exist to 
service aircraft that, except for the cheap labor and lower regulatory 
oversight, would never leave the United States.
  This legislation would also clamp down on the possibility that 
aircraft repair stations would knowingly use bogus parts instead of 
properly certified parts. The bogus airplane parts trade has become 
lucrative and gives real cause for concern. The FAA and law enforcement 
agencies have cracked down in recent years, resulting in 130 
indictments across the country as of May, 1997 of people suspected of 
being dealers of bogus airplane parts. In one troubling media account, 
when an American Airlines plane crashed in Colombia in 1995, salvagers 
extracted valuable components from the plane before even all the bodies 
were collected and the parts were offered for sale in Miami shortly 
thereafter. Under this bill, if a facility is found to have knowingly 
used bogus parts, the FAA will revoke its certification.
  In closing, I want to reiterate that the Aircraft Repair Station 
Safety Act of 1997 is a sensible approach to increased aviation safety. 
This is more than just a jobs issue; peoples lives and our economy are 
at stake. At a time when the FAA's resources are stretched thin, I do 
not believe it is in the public interest to continue to certify foreign 
aircraft repair facilities which we cannot observe or regulate 
adequately.
  I look forward to working with the members of the Senate Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation Committee on this issue, as well as the 
carriers, both passenger and cargo, which operate under current 
regulations and whom I hope will support this legislation.
                                 ______