[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 195 (Tuesday, November 17, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H5835-H5847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 8408) to direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration to require certain safety standards relating to
aircraft, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 8408
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Aircraft
Certification Reform and Accountability Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Safety management systems.
Sec. 3. Expert review of organization designation authorizations for
transport airplanes.
Sec. 4. Certification oversight staff.
Sec. 5. Disclosure of safety-critical information.
Sec. 6. Periodic reviews of organization designation authorizations.
Sec. 7. Limitations on delegation.
Sec. 8. Oversight of organization designation authorization unit
members.
Sec. 9. Integrated project teams.
Sec. 10. Oversight integrity briefing.
Sec. 11. Appeals of certification decisions.
Sec. 12. Employment restrictions.
Sec. 13. Professional development and skills enhancement.
Sec. 14. Voluntary safety reporting program.
Sec. 15. Compensation limitation.
Sec. 16. System safety assessments and other requirements.
Sec. 17. Flight crew alerting.
Sec. 18. Amended type certificates.
Sec. 19. Whistleblower protections.
Sec. 20. Pilot training.
Sec. 21. Nonconformity with approved type design.
Sec. 22. Implementation of recommendations.
Sec. 23. Oversight of FAA compliance program.
Sec. 24. Settlement agreement.
Sec. 25. Human factors.
Sec. 26. Technical corrections.
Sec. 27. Definitions.
SEC. 2. SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall initiate a
rulemaking proceeding to require each person who holds both a
type certificate and a production certificate issued under
section 44704 of title 49, United States Code, to adopt, not
later than the earlier of the date that is 180 days after the
issuance of the regulation required under this subsection or
the date that is 4 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, a safety management system consistent with the standards
and recommended practices contained in annex 19 to the
Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180) in
effect on the earlier of the date of the issuance of such
regulations or the date that is 4 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) Contents of Regulations.--The regulations issued under
subsection (a) shall, at a minimum, include provisions for
the Administrator's approval of, and regular oversight of
adherence to, a certificate holder's safety management system
adopted pursuant to such regulations.
(c) Deadline.--Not later than 12 months after the end of
the comment period for the proposed rule issued pursuant to
subsection (a), the Administrator shall issue a final rule
with respect to such proposed rule.
(d) Safety Reporting Program.--The regulations issued under
subsection (a) shall require a safety management system to
include a confidential employee reporting system through
which employees can report hazards, issues, concerns,
occurrences, and incidents. A reporting system under this
subsection shall include provisions for non-punitive
reporting of such items by employees in a manner consistent
with other confidential employee reporting systems
administered by the Administrator. Such regulations shall
also require a certificate holder described in subsection (a)
to submit a summary of reports received under this subsection
to the Administrator at least twice per year.
(e) Code of Ethics.--The regulations issued under
subsection (a) shall require a safety management system to
include establishment of a code of ethics applicable to all
employees of a certificate holder, including officers, which
clarifies that safety is the organization's highest priority.
(f) Protection of Safety Information.--Section 44735(a) of
title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``title 5 if the report'' and inserting the
following: ``title 5--
``(1) if the report'';
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) if the report, data, or other information is
submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to
section 2(d) of the Aircraft Certification Reform and
Accountability Act.''.
SEC. 3. EXPERT REVIEW OF ORGANIZATION DESIGNATION
AUTHORIZATIONS FOR TRANSPORT AIRPLANES.
(a) Expert Review.--
[[Page H5836]]
(1) Establishment.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall convene an
expert panel (in this section referred to as the ``review
panel'') to review and make findings and recommendations on
the matters listed in paragraph (2).
(2) Contents of review.--With respect to each holder of an
organization designation authorization for the design and
production of transport airplanes, the review panel shall
review the following:
(A) The extent to which the holder has implemented a safety
culture consistent with the principles of the International
Civil Aviation Organization Safety Management Manual, Fourth
Edition (International Civil Aviation Organization Doc. No.
9589) or any similar successor document.
(B) The effectiveness of measures instituted by the holder
to instill, among employees and contractors of such holder
that support organization designation authorization
functions, a commitment to safety above all other priorities.
(C) The holder's capability, based on the holder's
organizational structures, requirements applicable to
officers and employees of such holder, and safety culture, of
making reasonable and appropriate decisions regarding
functions delegated to the holder pursuant to the
organization designation authorization.
(D) Any other matter determined by the Administrator for
which inclusion in the review would be consistent with the
public interest in aviation safety.
(3) Composition of review panel.--The review panel shall
consist of--
(A) 2 representatives of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration;
(B) 2 employees of the Administration's Aircraft
Certification Service with experience conducting oversight of
persons not involved in the design or production of transport
airplanes;
(C) 1 employee of the Administration's Aircraft
Certification Service with experience conducting oversight of
persons involved in the design or production of transport
airplanes;
(D) 2 employees of the Administration's Flight Standards
Service with experience in oversight of safety management
systems;
(E) 1 appropriately qualified representative, designated by
the applicable represented organization, of each of--
(i) a labor union representing airline pilots involved in
both passenger and all-cargo operations;
(ii) a labor union, not selected under clause (i),
representing airline pilots with expertise in the matters
described in paragraph (2);
(iii) a labor union representing employees engaged in the
assembly of transport airplanes;
(iv) the certified bargaining representative under section
7111 of title 5, United States Code, for field engineers
engaged in the audit or oversight of an organization
designation authorization within the Aircraft Certification
Service of the Administration; and
(v) the certified bargaining representative for safety
inspectors of the Administration;
(F) 2 independent experts who have not served as a
political appointee in the Administration and--
(i) who hold either a baccalaureate or postgraduate degree
in the field of aerospace engineering or a related
discipline; and
(ii) who have a minimum of 20 years of relevant applied
experience;
(G) 4 air carrier employees whose job responsibilities
include administration of a safety management system; and
(H) 4 individuals representing 4 different holders of
organization designation authorizations, with preference
given to individuals representing holders of organization
designation authorizations for the design or production of
aircraft other than transport airplanes or for the design or
production of aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances.
(4) Recommendations.--The review panel shall make
recommendations to the Administrator regarding suggested
actions to address any deficiencies found after review of the
matters listed in paragraph (2).
(5) Report.--
(A) Submission.--Not later than 270 days after the date on
which the review panel is established, the review panel shall
transmit to the Administrator and the congressional
committees of jurisdiction a report containing the findings
and recommendations of the review panel regarding the matters
listed in paragraph (2), except that such report shall
include--
(i) only such findings endorsed by 10 or more individual
members of the review panel; and
(ii) only such recommendations described in paragraph (4)
endorsed by 18 or more of the individual members of the
review panel.
(B) Dissenting views.--In submitting the report required
under this paragraph, the review panel shall append to such
report the dissenting views of any individual member or group
of members of the review panel regarding the findings or
recommendations of the review panel.
(C) Publication.--Not later than 5 days after receiving the
report under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall
publish such report, including any dissenting views appended
to the report, on the website of the Administration.
(D) Termination.--The review panel shall terminate upon
submission of the report under subparagraph (A).
(6) Administrative provisions.--
(A) Access to information.--The review panel shall have
authority to perform the following actions if a majority of
the total number of review panel members consider each action
necessary and appropriate:
(i) Entering onto the premises of an organization
designation authorization holder described in subsection (a)
for access to and inspection of records or other purposes.
(ii) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, accessing
and inspecting unredacted records in the possession of an
employee or appointed political official of the
Administration.
(iii) Interviewing employees of such organization
designation authorization holder or the Administration as
necessary for the panel to complete its work.
(B) Disclosure of financial interests.--Each individual
serving on the review panel shall disclose to the
Administrator any financial interest held by such individual,
or a spouse or dependent of such individual, in a business
enterprise engaged in the design or production of transport
airplanes, aircraft engines designed for transport airplanes,
or major systems, components, or parts thereof. The
Administrator shall publicly post such disclosure on the
website of the Administration in a de-identified form.
(C) Protection of proprietary information; trade secrets.--
(i) Marking.--The custodian of a record accessed under
subparagraph (A) may mark such record as proprietary or
containing a trade secret. A marking under this subparagraph
shall not be dispositive with respect to whether such record
contains any information subject to legal protections from
public disclosure.
(ii) Nondisclosure for non-federal government
participants.--
(I) Non-federal government participants.--Prior to
participating on the review panel, each individual serving on
the review panel representing a non-Federal entity, including
a labor union, shall execute an agreement with the
Administrator in which the individual shall be prohibited
from disclosing at any time, except as required by law, to
any person, foreign or domestic, any non-public information
made accessible to the panel under subparagraph (A).
(II) Federal employee participants.--Federal employees
serving on the review panel as representatives of the Federal
Government and who are required to protect proprietary
information and trade secrets under section 1905 of title 18,
United States Code, shall not be required to execute
agreements under this subparagraph.
(iii) Protection of voluntarily submitted safety
information.--Information subject to protection from
disclosure by the Administration in accordance with sections
40123 and 44735 of title 49, United States Code, is deemed
voluntarily submitted to the Administration under such
sections when shared with the review panel and retains its
protection from disclosure (including protection under
section 552(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code). The
custodian of a record subject to such protection may mark
such record as subject to statutory protections. A marking
under this subparagraph shall not be dispositive with respect
to whether such record contains any information subject to
legal protections from public disclosure. Members of the
review panel will protect voluntarily submitted safety
information and other otherwise exempt information to the
extent permitted under applicable law.
(iv) Protection of proprietary information and trade
secrets.--Members of the review panel will protect
proprietary information, trade secrets, and other otherwise
exempt information to the extent permitted under applicable
law.
(v) Resolving classification of information.--If the review
panel and an organization designation authorization holder
subject to review under this section disagree as to the
proper classification of information described in this
subparagraph, then the deputy chief counsel of the
Administration shall determine the proper classification of
such information and whether such information will be
redacted.
(D) Applicable law.--Public Law 92-463 shall not apply to
the panel established under this subsection.
(E) Financial interest defined.--In this paragraph, the
term ``financial interest''--
(i) excludes securities held in an index fund; and
(ii) includes--
(I) any current or contingent ownership, equity, or
security interest;
(II) an indebtedness or compensated employment
relationship; or
(III) any right to purchase or acquire any such interest,
including a stock option or commodity future.
(b) FAA Authority.--
(1) In general.--After reviewing the findings of the review
panel submitted under subsection (a)(5), the Administrator
may limit, suspend, or terminate an organization designation
authorization subject to review under this section.
(2) Reinstatement.--The Administrator may condition
reinstatement of a limited, suspended, or terminated
organization designation authorization on the holder's
implementation of any corrective actions determined necessary
by the Administrator.
(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to limit the Administrator's authority to take
any action with respect to an organization designation
authorization, including limitation, suspension, or
termination of such authorization.
[[Page H5837]]
(c) Organization Designation Authorization Process
Improvements.--Not later than 1 year after receipt of the
recommendations submitted under subsection (a)(5), the
Administrator shall--
(1) report to the congressional committees of jurisdiction
on--
(A) whether the Administrator has concluded that such
holder is able to safely and reliably perform all delegated
functions in accordance with all applicable provisions of
chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations, and other orders or requirements of
the Administrator, and, if not, the Administrator shall
outline--
(i) the risk mitigations or other corrective actions,
including the implementation timelines of such mitigations or
actions, the Administrator has established for or required of
such holder as prerequisites for a conclusion by the
Administrator under subparagraph (A); or
(ii) the status of any ongoing investigatory actions; and
(B) the status of implementation of each of the
recommendations of the review panel, if any, with which the
Administrator concurs; and
(2) report to the congressional committees of jurisdiction
on--
(A) the status of procedures under which the Administrator
will conduct focused oversight of such holder's processes for
performing delegated functions with respect to the design of
new and derivative transport airplanes and the production of
such airplanes; and
(B) the Administrator's efforts, to the maximum extent
practicable and subject to appropriations, to increase the
number of engineers, inspectors, and other qualified
technical experts, as necessary to fulfill the requirements
of this section, in--
(i) each office of the Administration responsible for
dedicated oversight of such holder; and
(ii) the System Oversight Division, or any successor
division, of the Aircraft Certification Service.
(d) Non-Concurrence With Recommendations.--Not later than 6
months after receipt of the recommendations submitted under
subsection (a)(5), with respect to each recommendation of the
review panel with which the Administrator does not concur, if
any, the Administrator shall publish on the website of the
Administration and submit to the congressional committees of
jurisdiction a detailed explanation as to why, including if
the Administrator believes implementation of such
recommendation would not improve aviation safety.
SEC. 4. CERTIFICATION OVERSIGHT STAFF.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Administrator $27,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2021 through 2023 to recruit and retain
engineers, safety inspectors, human factors specialists, and
software and cybersecurity experts and other qualified
technical experts who perform duties related to the
certification of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and
appliances.
(b) Recruitment and Retention.--
(1) Bargaining units.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall begin
collaboration with the exclusive bargaining representatives
of engineers, safety inspectors, systems safety specialists,
and other qualified technical experts certified under section
7111 of title 5, United States Code, to improve recruitment
of employees for, and to implement retention incentives for
employees holding, positions with respect to the
certification of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and
appliances. If the Administrator and such representatives are
unable to reach an agreement collaboratively, the
Administrator and such representatives shall negotiate in
accordance with section 40122(a) of title 49, United States
Code, to improve recruitment and implement retention
incentives for employees described in subsection (a) who are
covered under a collective bargaining agreement.
(2) Other employees.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Administration shall improve recruitment of,
and implement retention incentives for, any individual
described in subsection (a) who is not covered under a
collective bargaining agreement.
(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to vest in any exclusive bargaining representative
any management right of the Administrator, as such right
existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.
(4) Availability of appropriations.--Any action taken by
the Administrator under this section shall be subject to the
availability of appropriations authorized under subsection
(a).
SEC. 5. DISCLOSURE OF SAFETY-CRITICAL INFORMATION.
(a) Prohibition.--Section 44704 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the
following:
``(e) Disclosure of Safety-Critical Information.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding a delegation described
in section 44702(d), the Administrator shall require an
applicant for, or holder of, a type certificate for a
transport-category aircraft covered under part 25 of title
14, Code of Federal Regulations, to submit safety-critical
information with respect to such aircraft to the
Administrator in such form, manner, or time as the
Administrator may require. Such safety-critical information
shall include--
``(A) any design and operational details, intended
functions, and failure modes of any system that, without
being commanded by the flight crew, commands the operation of
any safety-critical function or feature required for control
of an aircraft during flight or that otherwise changes the
flight path or airspeed of an aircraft;
``(B) the design and operational details, intended
functions, failure modes, and mode annunciations of autopilot
and autothrottle systems, if applicable;
``(C) any failure or operating condition that the applicant
or holder anticipates or has concluded would result in an
outcome with a severity level of hazardous or catastrophic,
as defined in the appropriate Administration airworthiness
requirements and guidance applicable to transport-category
aircraft defining risk severity;
``(D) any adverse handling quality that fails to meet the
requirements of applicable regulations without the addition
of a software system to augment the flight controls of the
aircraft to produce compliant handling qualities; and
``(E) a system safety assessment with respect to a system
described in subparagraph (A) or (B) or with respect to any
component or other system for which failure or erroneous
operation of such component or system could result in an
outcome with a severity level of hazardous or catastrophic,
as defined in the appropriate Administration airworthiness
requirements and guidance applicable to transport-category
aircraft defining risk severity.
``(2) Ongoing communications.--
``(A) Newly discovered information.--The Administrator
shall require that an applicant for, or holder of, a type
certificate disclose to the Administrator, in such form,
manner, or time as the Administrator may require, any newly
discovered information or design or analysis change that
would materially alter any submission to the Administrator
under paragraph (1).
``(B) Aircraft system development changes.--The
Administrator shall establish multiple milestones throughout
the certification process at which a proposed aircraft system
will be assessed to determine whether any change to such
system during the certification process is such that such
system should be considered novel or unusual by the
Administrator.
``(3) Flight manuals.--The Administrator shall ensure that
an aircraft flight manual and a flight crew operating manual
(as appropriate or applicable) for an aircraft contains a
description of the operation of a system described in
paragraph (1)(A) and flight crew procedures for responding to
a failure or aberrant operation of such system.
``(4) Civil penalty.--
``(A) Amount.--Notwithstanding section 46301, an applicant
for, or holder of, a type certificate that knowingly violates
paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection shall be liable
to the Administrator for a civil penalty of not more than
$1,000,000 for each violation.
``(B) Penalty considerations.--In determining the amount of
a civil penalty under subparagraph (A), the Administrator
shall consider--
``(i) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
violation, including the length of time that such safety-
critical information was known but not disclosed; and
``(ii) with respect to the violator, the degree of
culpability, any history of prior violations, and the size of
the business concern.
``(5) Revocation and civil penalty for individuals.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall revoke any
airline transport pilot certificate issued under section
44703 held by any individual who, while acting on behalf of
an applicant for, or holder of, a type certificate, knowingly
makes a false statement with respect to any of the matters
described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1).
``(B) Authority to impose civil penalty.--The Administrator
may impose a civil penalty under section 46301 for each
violation described in subparagraph (A).
``(6) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to affect or otherwise inhibit the
authority of the Administrator to deny an application by an
applicant for a type certificate or to revoke a type
certificate of a holder of such certificate.
``(7) Definition of type certificate.--In this subsection,
the term `type certificate'--
``(A) means a type certificate issued under subsection (a)
or an amendment to such certificate; and
``(B) does not include a supplemental type certificate
issued under subsection (b).''.
(b) Civil Penalty Authority.--Section 44704 of title 49,
United States Code, is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(f) Hearing Requirement.--The Administrator may find that
a person has violated subsection (a)(6) or paragraph (1),
(2), or (3) of subsection (e) and impose a civil penalty
under the applicable subsection only after notice and an
opportunity for a hearing. The Administrator shall provide a
person--
``(1) written notice of the violation and the amount of
penalty; and
``(2) the opportunity for a hearing under subpart G of part
13 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.''.
[[Page H5838]]
SEC. 6. PERIODIC REVIEWS OF ORGANIZATION DESIGNATION
AUTHORIZATIONS.
Section 44736 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Periodic Reviews.--
``(1) In general.--Not less than once every 7 years, the
Administrator shall conduct a comprehensive review of the
capability of each ODA holder for the design of an aircraft,
aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance pursuant to a
delegation by the Administrator under section 44702(d) to
meet the requirements of subpart D of part 183 of title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, based on the holder's
organizational structures, requirements applicable to
officers and employees, and safety culture.
``(2) Contents of review.--A comprehensive review under
this subsection shall include an assessment of the
effectiveness of, and organization-wide adherence to, an ODA
holder's procedures manual and voluntary safety reporting
system.''.
SEC. 7. LIMITATIONS ON DELEGATION.
Section 44702(d) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Administrator may not delegate a matter under this
subsection--
``(A) with respect to the certification of the design of a
novel or unusual design feature that results in a major
change to a type design, except when the Administrator
determines--
``(i) a matter is a routine task; or
``(ii) during the course of the certification process, that
a matter no longer relates to a novel or unusual design
feature; or
``(B) on the sole basis that the Federal Aviation
Administration lacks a sufficient number of personnel
qualified or with the requisite expertise to perform the
function.''.
SEC. 8. OVERSIGHT OF ORGANIZATION DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION
UNIT MEMBERS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 447 of title 49, United States
Code, as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``Sec. 44741. Approval of organization designation
authorization unit members
``(a) In General.--Beginning on the date that is 1 year
after the date of enactment of the Aircraft Certification
Reform and Accountability Act, each individual who is
selected on or after such date to become a member of an ODA
unit by an ODA holder engaged in the design of an aircraft,
aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance and performs an
authorized function pursuant to a delegation by the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration under
section 44702(d)--
``(1) shall be an employee, a contractor, or the employee
of a supplier of the ODA holder; and
``(2) may not become a member of such unit unless approved
by the Administrator pursuant to this section.
``(b) Process and Timeline.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall maintain an
efficient process for the review and approval of an
individual to become a member of an ODA unit under this
section.
``(2) Process.--An ODA holder described in subsection (a)
may submit to the Administrator an application for an
individual to be approved to become a member of an ODA unit
under this section. The application shall be submitted in
such form and manner as the Administrator determines
appropriate. The Administrator shall require an ODA holder to
submit with such an application information sufficient to
demonstrate an individual's qualifications under subsection
(c).
``(3) Timeline.--The Administrator shall approve or reject
an individual that is selected by an ODA holder to become an
ODA unit member under this section not later than 30 days
after the receipt of an application by an ODA holder.
``(4) Documentation of approval.--Upon approval of an
individual to become a member of an ODA unit under this
section, the Administrator shall provide such individual a
letter confirming that such individual has been approved by
the Administrator under this section to be an ODA unit
member.
``(5) Reapplication.--An ODA holder may submit an
application under this subsection for an individual to become
a member of an ODA unit under this section regardless of
whether an application for such individual was previously
rejected by the Administrator.
``(c) Qualifications.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall issue minimum
qualifications for an individual to become a member of an ODA
unit under this section. In issuing such qualifications, the
Administrator shall consider existing qualifications for
Administration employees with similar duties and whether such
individual--
``(A) is technically proficient and qualified to perform
the authorized functions sought;
``(B) has no recent record of serious enforcement action,
as determined by the Administrator, taken by the
Administrator with respect to any certificate, approval, or
authorization held by such individual;
``(C) is of good moral character (as such qualification is
applied to an applicant for an airline transport pilot
certificate issued under section 44703);
``(D) possesses the knowledge of applicable design or
production requirements in this chapter and in title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations, necessary for performance of the
authorized functions sought;
``(E) possesses a high degree of knowledge of applicable
design or production principles, system safety principles, or
safety risk management processes appropriate for the
authorized functions sought; and
``(F) meets such testing, examination, training, or other
qualification standards as the Administrator determines are
necessary to ensure the individual is competent and capable
of performing the authorized functions sought.
``(2) Previously rejected application.--In reviewing an
application for an individual to become a member of an ODA
unit under this section, if an application for such
individual was previously rejected, the Administrator shall
ensure that the reasons for the prior rejection have been
resolved or mitigated to the Administrator's satisfaction
before making a determination on the individual's
reapplication.
``(d) Rescission of Approval.--The Administrator may
rescind an approval of an individual as a member of an ODA
unit granted pursuant to this section at any time and for any
reason the Administrator considers appropriate. The
Administrator shall develop procedures to provide for notice
and opportunity to appeal rescission decisions made by the
Administrator. Such decisions by the Administrator are not
subject to judicial review.
``(e) Records and Briefings.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning on the date described in
subsection (a), an ODA holder shall maintain, for a period to
be determined by the Administrator and with proper
protections to ensure the security of sensitive and personal
information--
``(A) any data, applications, records, or manuals required
by the ODA holder's approved procedures manual, as determined
by the Administrator;
``(B) the names, responsibilities, qualifications, and
example signature of each member of the ODA unit who performs
an authorized function pursuant to a delegation by the
Administrator under section 44702(d);
``(C) training records for ODA unit members and ODA
administrators; and
``(D) any other data, applications, records, or manuals
determined appropriate by the Administrator.
``(2) Congressional briefing.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of the Aircraft Certification Reform
and Accountability Act, and every 90 days thereafter through
September 30, 2023, the Administrator shall provide to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate a briefing on the implementation
and effects of this section, including--
``(A) the Administration's performance in completing
reviews of individuals and approving or denying such
individuals within the timeline required under subsection
(b)(3);
``(B) for any individual rejected by the Administrator
under subsection (b) during the preceding 90-day period, the
reasoning or basis for such rejection; and
``(C) any resource, staffing, or other challenges within
the Administration associated with implementation of this
section.
``(f) Special Review of Qualifications.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the
issuance of minimum qualifications under subsection (c), the
Administrator shall initiate a review of the qualifications
of each individual who on the date on which such minimum
qualifications are issued is a member of an ODA unit of a
holder of a type certificate for a transport airplane to
ensure such individual meets the minimum qualifications
issued by the Administrator under subsection (c).
``(2) Unqualified individual.--For any individual who is
determined by the Administrator not to meet such minimum
qualifications pursuant to the review conducted under
paragraph (1), the Administrator--
``(A) shall determine whether the lack of qualification may
be remedied and, if so, provide such individual with an
action plan or schedule for such individual to meet such
qualifications; or
``(B) may, if the Administrator determines the lack of
qualification may not be remedied, take appropriate action,
including prohibiting such individual from performing an
authorized function.
``(3) Deadline.--
``(A) The Administrator shall complete the review required
under paragraph (1) not later than 18 months after the date
on which such review was initiated.
``(B) If the Administrator fails to complete the review in
compliance with subparagraph (A), the Secretary of
Transportation shall assume the responsibility for completing
the review.
``(C) The Secretary's completion of the review under
subparagraph (B)--
``(i) may not be delegated to the Administration; and
``(ii) shall be completed within 120 days of the date the
Secretary's assumption of responsibility following the
Administrator's failure to complete the review in compliance
with subparagraph (A).
``(4) Savings clause.--An individual approved to become a
member of an ODA unit of a holder of a type certificate for a
transport airplane under subsection (a) shall not be subject
to the review under this subsection.
[[Page H5839]]
``(g) Prohibition.--The Administrator may not authorize an
organization or ODA holder to approve an individual selected
by an ODA holder to become an ODA unit member under this
section.
``(h) Definitions.--
``(1) General applicability.--The definitions contained in
section 44736 shall apply to this section.
``(2) Transport airplane.--The term `transport airplane'
means a transport-category airplane designed for operation by
an air carrier or foreign air carrier type-certificated with
a passenger seating capacity of 30 or more or an all-cargo or
combi derivative of such an airplane.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2021 through 2023.
``Sec. 44742. Interference with the duties of organization
designation authorization unit members
``(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall continuously seek to eliminate
or minimize interference by an ODA holder that affects the
performance of authorized functions by members of an ODA
unit.
``(b) Prohibition.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any individual
who is employed by an ODA holder to commit an act of
interference with an ODA unit member's performance of
authorized functions.
``(2) Civil penalty.--
``(A) Individuals.--An individual shall be subject to a
civil penalty under section 46301(a)(1) for each violation
under paragraph (1).
``(B) Savings clause.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed as limiting or constricting any other authority of
the Administrator to pursue an enforcement action against an
individual or organization for violation of applicable
Federal laws or regulations of the Administration.
``(c) Reporting.--
``(1) Reports to oda holder.--A member of an ODA unit shall
promptly report any instances of interference experienced or
witnessed by such member to the office of the ODA holder that
is designated to receive such reports.
``(2) Reports to the faa.--
``(A) In general.--The ODA holder office described in
paragraph (1) shall submit to the office of the
Administration designated by the Administrator to accept and
review such reports any credible instances of interference
reported under paragraph (1).
``(B) Contents.--A report to the Administration under this
paragraph shall be submitted in a manner, at a time, and in a
form prescribed by the Administrator. Such report shall
include the results of any investigation conducted by the ODA
holder in response to a report of interference, a description
of any action taken by the ODA holder as a result of the
report of interference, and any other information or
potentially mitigating factors the ODA holder or the
Administrator deems appropriate.
``(C) Use of report.--The Administrator may use the
information submitted in a report under this paragraph,
including the actions taken by an ODA holder in response to a
report under paragraph (1), in determining whether to issue a
civil penalty pursuant to subsection (b) or whether such
civil penalty should be subject to a setoff or compromised.
``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to preclude a member of an ODA unit from
reporting an instance of interference reported under
paragraph (1) directly to the Administration. Each ODA holder
shall provide notice to each member of such holder's ODA unit
stating that such individual may report an instance of
interference reported under paragraph (1) directly to the
Administration.
``(d) Definitions.--
``(1) General applicability.--The definitions contained in
section 44736 shall apply to this section.
``(2) Interference.--In this section, the term
`interference' means--
``(A) blatant or egregious statements or behavior, such as
harassment, beratement, or threats, that a reasonable person
would conclude was intended to improperly influence or
prejudice an ODA unit member's performance of his or her
duties; or
``(B) the presence of non-ODA unit duties or activities
that conflict with the performance of authorized functions by
ODA unit members.''.
(b) Lateral Communications.--
(1) Contact with administration.--The Administrator shall
ensure that employees of the Administration with
responsibility for aircraft certification functions may
directly contact non-managerial employees of an aircraft
manufacturer for consultation regarding the certification of
aircraft design, production, and other matters.
(2) Prohibition.--It shall be a violation of section
44736(a)(2)(C) of title 49, United States Code, for a
manufacturer to prohibit employees from contacting any
employee of the Administration or otherwise impose any
condition, restriction, or penalty (including by requiring
prior notice to or the approval of any supervisor or manager)
with respect to such contact, except that such manufacturer
may institute reasonable, company-wide policies requiring
documentation of communications regarding aircraft design or
production between the manufacturer's employees and
Administration employees.
(c) ODA Program Enhancements.--Section 44736 of title 49,
United States Code, is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A) by striking the semicolon and
inserting ``; and'';
(ii) by striking subparagraph (B);
(iii) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a period;
(iv) by striking subparagraph (D); and
(v) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B);
and
(B) in paragraph (3) by striking ``shall--'' and all that
follows through the end and inserting ``shall conduct regular
oversight activities by inspecting the ODA holder's delegated
functions and taking action based on validated inspection
findings.''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking clause (i) and redesignating clauses (ii),
(iii), and (iv) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii),
respectively;
(ii) in clause (i) as redesignated by inserting ``, as
appropriate,'' after ``require'';
(iii) in clause (ii) as redesignated by inserting ``, as
appropriate,'' after ``require''; and
(iv) in clause (iii) as redesignated by inserting ``when
appropriate,'' before ``make a reassessment'';
(B) by striking subparagraph (B);
(C) in subparagraph (F) by inserting ``, when
appropriate,'' before ``approve''; and
(D) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), and (F)
as subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E), respectively.
(d) Technical Corrections.--
(1) Section 44737.--Chapter 447 of title 49, United States
Code, is further amended by redesignating the second section
44737 (as added by section 581 of the FAA Reauthorization Act
of 2018) as section 44740.
(2) Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 447 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking the item relating to the second section
44737 (as added by section 581 of the FAA Reauthorization Act
of 2018); and
(B) by inserting after the item relating to section 44739
the following new items:
``44740. Special rule for certain aircraft operations.
``44741. Approval of organization designation authorization unit
members.
``44742. Interference with the duties of organization designation
authorization unit members.''.
(3) Special rule for certain aircraft operations.--Section
44740 of title 49, United States Code (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)), is amended--
(A) in the heading by striking the period at the end;
(B) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``chapter'' and
inserting ``section'';
(C) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``(1)'' the second
time it appears; and
(D) in subsection (c)(2) by adding a period at the end.
SEC. 9. INTEGRATED PROJECT TEAMS.
(a) In General.--Upon receipt of an application for a type
certificate for a new transport airplane, the Administrator
shall convene an interdisciplinary integrated project team
responsible for coordinating review of such application.
(b) Membership.--In convening an interdisciplinary
integrated project team under subsection (a), the
Administrator shall appoint employees of the Administration
with specialized expertise and experience in the fields of
engineering, systems design, human factors, and pilot
training, including, at a minimum--
(1) not less than 1 designee of the Associate Administrator
for Aviation Safety whose duty station is in the
Administration's headquarters;
(2) representatives of the Aircraft Certification Service
of the Administration;
(3) representatives of the Flight Standards Service of the
Administration;
(4) experts in the fields of human factors, aerodynamics,
flight controls, software, and systems design; and
(5) any other subject matter expert whom the Administrator
determines appropriate.
SEC. 10. OVERSIGHT INTEGRITY BRIEFING.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall brief the congressional
committees of jurisdiction on specific measures the
Administrator has taken to reinforce that each employee of
the Administration responsible for overseeing an organization
designation authorization with respect to the certification
of aircraft perform such responsibility in accordance with
safety management principles and in the public interest of
aviation safety.
SEC. 11. APPEALS OF CERTIFICATION DECISIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 44704, of title 49, United States
Code, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Certification Dispute Resolution.--
``(1) Dispute resolution process and appeals.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall issue
an order establishing--
``(i) an effective, timely, and milestone-based issue
resolution process for type certification activities under
subsection (a); and
``(ii) a process by which a decision, finding of compliance
or noncompliance, or other act of the Administration, with
respect to compliance with design requirements, may be
appealed by a covered person directly involved with the
certification activities in dispute on the basis that such
decision, finding, or act is erroneous or inconsistent with
[[Page H5840]]
this chapter, regulations, or guidance materials promulgated
by the Administrator, or other requirements.
``(B) Escalation.--The order issued under subparagraph (A)
shall provide for--
``(i) resolution of technical issues at pre-established
stages of the certification process, as agreed to by the
Administrator and the type certificate applicant;
``(ii) automatic elevation to appropriate management
personnel of the Administration and the type certificate
applicant of any major certification process milestone that
is not completed or resolved within a specific period of time
agreed to by the Administrator and the type certificate
applicant;
``(iii) resolution of a major certification process
milestone elevated pursuant to clause (ii) with a specific
period of time agreed to by the Administrator and the type
certificate applicant;
``(iv) initial review by appropriate Administration
employees of any appeal described in subparagraph (A)(ii);
and
``(v) subsequent review of any further appeal by
appropriate management personnel of the Administration and
the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety.
``(C) Disposition.--
``(i) Written decision.--The Associate Administrator for
Aviation Safety shall issue a written decision on each appeal
submitted under subparagraph (A)(ii), stating the grounds for
the decision of the Associate Administrator.
``(ii) Report to congress.--Not later than December 31 of
each calendar year through calendar year 2025, the
Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate a report summarizing each appeal resolved under this
subsection.
``(D) Final review.--
``(i) In general.--A written decision of the Associate
Administrator under subparagraph (C) may be appealed to the
Administrator for a final review and determination.
``(ii) Decline to review.--The Administrator may decline to
review an appeal initiated pursuant to clause (i).
``(iii) Judicial review.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, neither a final determination of the
Administrator under clause (i) nor a decision to decline to
review an appeal under clause (ii) shall be subject to
judicial review.
``(2) Prohibited contacts.--
``(A) Prohibition generally.--During the course of an
appeal under this subsection, no covered official may engage
in an ex parte communication with an individual representing
or acting on behalf of an applicant for, or holder of, a
certificate under this section in relation to such appeal
unless such communication is disclosed pursuant to
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Disclosure.--If, during the course of an appeal under
this subsection, a covered official engages in, receives, or
is otherwise made aware of an ex parte communication, the
covered official shall disclose such communication in the
public record at the time of the issuance of the written
decision in accordance with subsection (g)(1)(C), including
the time and date of the communication, subject of
communication, and all persons engaged in such communication.
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Covered person.--The term `covered person' means
either--
``(i) an employee of the Administration whose
responsibilities relate to the certification of aircraft,
engines, propellers, or appliances; or
``(ii) an applicant for, or holder of, a type certificate
or amended type certificate issued under this section.
``(B) Covered official.--The term `covered official' means
the following officials:
``(i) The Executive Director or any Deputy Director of the
Aircraft Certification Service.
``(ii) The Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory
Operations of the Aircraft Certification Service.
``(iii) The Director or Deputy Director of the Compliance
and Airworthiness Division of the Aircraft Certification
Service.
``(iv) The Director or Deputy Director of the System
Oversight Division of the Aircraft Certification Service.
``(v) The Director or Deputy Director of the Policy and
Innovation Division of the Aircraft Certification Service.
``(vi) The Executive Director or any Deputy Executive
Director of the Flight Standards Service.
``(vii) The Associate Administrator or Deputy Associate
Administrator for Aviation Safety.
``(viii) The Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration.
``(ix) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration.
``(x) Any similarly situated or successor FAA management
position, as determined by the Administrator.
``(C) Major certification process milestone.--The term
`major certification process milestone' means a milestone
related to the type certification basis, type certification
plan, type inspection authorization, issue paper, or other
major type certification activity agreed to by the
Administrator and the type certificate applicant.
``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall apply to the communication of a good-faith complaint by
any individual alleging--
``(A) gross misconduct;
``(B) a violation of title 18; or
``(C) a violation of any of the provisions of part 2635 or
6001 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 44704(a) is amended by
striking paragraph (6).
SEC. 12. EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS.
(a) Disqualification Based on Prior Employment.--An
employee of the Administration with supervisory
responsibility may not direct, conduct, or otherwise
participate in oversight of a holder of a certificate issued
under section 44704 that previously employed such employee in
the preceding 1-year period.
(b) Post-Employment Restrictions.--Section 44711(d) of
title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Post-Employment Restrictions for Inspectors and
Engineers.--
``(1) Prohibition.--A person holding a certificate issued
under part 21 or 119 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, may not knowingly employ, or make a contractual
arrangement that permits, an individual to act as an agent or
representative of such person in any matter before the
Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2-year
period--
``(A) served as, or was responsible for oversight of--
``(i) a flight standards inspector of the Administration;
or
``(ii) an employee of the Administration with
responsibility for certification functions with respect to a
holder of a certificate issued under section 44704(a); and
``(B) had responsibility to inspect, or oversee inspection
of, the operations of such person.
``(2) Written and oral communications.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), an individual shall be considered to be acting
as an agent or representative of a certificate holder in a
matter before the Administration if the individual makes any
written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate
holder to the Administration (or any of its officers or
employees) in connection with a particular matter, whether or
not involving a specific party and without regard to whether
the individual has participated in, or had responsibility
for, the particular matter while serving as an individual
covered under paragraph (1).''.
SEC. 13. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SKILLS ENHANCEMENT.
(a) In General.--The Administrator shall--
(1) develop a program for regular recurrent training of
engineers, inspectors, and other subject-matter experts
employed in the Aircraft Certification Service of the
Administration in accordance with the training strategy
developed pursuant to section 231 of the FAA Reauthorization
Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-254; 132 Stat. 3256); and
(2) to the maximum extent practicable, implement measures,
including assignments in multiple divisions of the Aircraft
Certification Service, to ensure that such engineers and
other subject-matter experts in the Aircraft Certification
Service have access to diverse professional opportunities
that expand their knowledge and skills.
(b) Implementation.--The Administrator shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, ensure that actions taken
pursuant to subsection (a)--
(1) permit engineers, inspectors, and other subject matter
experts to continue developing knowledge of, and expertise
in, new and emerging technologies in systems design, flight
controls, principles of aviation safety, system oversight,
and certification project management;
(2) minimize the likelihood of an individual developing an
inappropriate bias toward a designer or manufacturer of
aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances;
(3) are consistent with any applicable collective
bargaining agreements; and
(4) account for gaps in knowledge and skills between
Administration employees and private-sector employees, as
identified by the exclusive bargaining representatives
certified under section 7111 of title 5, United States Code,
for each group of Administration employees covered under this
section.
SEC. 14. VOLUNTARY SAFETY REPORTING PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall begin
collaboration with the exclusive bargaining representatives
of engineers, safety inspectors, systems safety specialists,
and other subject matter experts certified under section 7111
of title 5, United States Code, to implement a confidential
voluntary safety reporting program, in a manner that is
consistent with other voluntary reporting programs
administered by the Administrator. The program shall include
provisions addressing, at a minimum--
(1) participation in all facets of the program by the
exclusive bargaining representatives for employees identified
in the matter preceding this paragraph;
(2) protections for frontline employees from adverse
employment actions related to their participation in the
program;
(3) identification of exclusionary criteria; and
(4) creation of a corrective action process in order to
address safety issues that are identified through the
program.
(b) Negotiations.--If the Administrator and the
representatives described in subsection (a) are unable to
reach an agreement
[[Page H5841]]
collaboratively, the Administrator and such representatives
shall negotiate in accordance with section 40122(a) of title
49, United States Code, to reach agreement on the terms and
conditions of such a program.
SEC. 15. COMPENSATION LIMITATION.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an employee of
the Administration may not receive an adjustment to the
employee's compensation solely on the basis of the employee's
performance in meeting or exceeding a deadline related to the
completion of certification functions.
SEC. 16. SYSTEM SAFETY ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall issue such
regulations as are necessary to amend title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations, and any associated advisory circular,
guidance, or policy of the Administration, in accordance with
this section.
(b) System Safety Assessments and Other Requirements.--In
developing regulations under subsection (a), the
Administrator shall--
(1) require an applicant for an amended type certificate
for a transport airplane to--
(A) perform a system safety assessment with respect to each
proposed design change that the Administrator determines is
significant, with such assessment considering the airplane-
level effects of individual errors, malfunctions, or failures
and realistic pilot response times to such errors,
malfunctions, or failures related to such change;
(B) update such assessment to account for each subsequent
proposed design change that the Administrator determines is
significant; and
(C) provide appropriate employees of the Administration
with the data and assumptions underlying each assessment and
amended assessment; and
(2) work with other civil aviation authorities representing
states of design to ensure such regulations remain harmonized
internationally.
(c) FAA Review.--Appropriate employees of the Aircraft
Certification Service and the Flight Standards Service of the
Administration shall review each system safety assessment
required under subsection (b)(1)(A), updated assessment
required under subsection (b)(1)(B), and supporting data and
assumptions required under subsection (b)(1)(C), to ensure
that each such assessment sufficiently considers the matters
listed under subsection (b)(1).
SEC. 17. FLIGHT CREW ALERTING.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall fully
implement National Transportation Safety Board
recommendations A-19-11 and A-19-12 (as contained in the
safety recommendation report adopted on September 9, 2019).
(b) Prohibition.--Beginning on the date that is 2 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator
may not issue a type certificate for a transport-category
aircraft unless--
(1) in the case of a transport airplane, such airplane
incorporates a flight crew alerting system that, at a
minimum, displays and differentiates among warnings,
cautions, and advisories, and includes functions to assist
the flight crew in prioritizing corrective actions and
responding to systems failures; or
(2) in the case of a transport-category aircraft other than
a transport airplane, the type certificate applicant provides
a means acceptable to the Administrator to assist the flight
crew in prioritizing corrective actions and responding to
systems failures (including by cockpit or flight manual
procedures).
SEC. 18. AMENDED TYPE CERTIFICATES.
(a) Review and Reevaluation of Amended Type Certificates.--
(1) International leadership.--The Administrator shall
exercise leadership in the creation of international policies
and standards relating to the issuance of amended type
certificates within the group of international civil aviation
authorities known as the Certificate Management Team.
(2) Reevaluation of amended type certificates.--In carrying
out this subsection, the Administrator shall--
(A) encourage Certificate Management Team members to
examine and address any relevant covered recommendations (as
defined in section 22) relating to the issuance of amended
type certificates;
(B) reevaluate existing assumptions and practices inherent
in the amended type certificate process and assess whether
such assumptions and practices are valid; and
(C) ensure, to the greatest extent practicable, that
Federal regulations relating to the issuance of amended type
certificates are harmonized with the regulations of other
international states of design.
(b) Amended Type Certificate Report and Rulemaking.--
(1) Report on certificate management team efforts.--Not
later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Administrator shall submit a report to the congressional
committees of jurisdiction on the efforts by the Certificate
Management Team to modify and harmonize policies and
regulations relating to the issuance of amended type
certificates.
(2) Initiation of action.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall revise
and improve the process of issuing amended type certificates
in accordance with this section. Such action may include the
revision of guidance, the initiating of a rulemaking, or such
other action as the Administrator determines necessary to
implement this section.
(3) Contents.--In taking an action required under paragraph
(2), the Administrator shall--
(A) consider--
(i) the findings and work of the Certificate Management
Team and other similar international harmonization efforts;
(ii) any relevant covered recommendations (as defined in
section 22); and
(iii) whether a fixed time beyond which a type certificate
may not be amended would improve aviation safety; and
(B) establish the extent to which the following design
characteristics should preclude the issuance of an amended
type certificate:
(i) A new or revised flight control system.
(ii) Any substantial changes to aerodynamic stability
resulting from a physical change that may require a new or
modified software system or control law in order to produce
positive and acceptable stability and handling qualities.
(iii) A flight control system or augmented software to
maintain aerodynamic stability in any portion of the flight
envelope that was not required for a previously certified
derivative.
(iv) A change in structural components (other than a
stretch or shrink of the fuselage) that results in a change
in structural load paths or the magnitude of structural loads
attributed to flight maneuvers or cabin pressurization.
(v) A novel or unusual system, component, or other feature
whose failure would present a hazardous or catastrophic risk.
(4) Deadline.--The Administrator shall finalize the actions
initiated under paragraph (2) not later than 3 years after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) International Leadership.--The Administrator shall
exercise leadership within the International Civil Aviation
Organization and among other civil aviation regulators
representing states of aircraft design to advocate for the
adoption of requirements equivalent to those described in
this section.
SEC. 19. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.
Section 42121 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Prohibited Discrimination.--A holder of a certificate
under section 44704 or 44705 of this title, or contractor or
subcontractor of such holder, may not discharge an employee
or otherwise discriminate against an employee with respect to
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment
because the employee (or any person acting pursuant to a
request of the employee)--
``(1) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to
provide (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be
provided to the employer or Federal Government information
relating to any violation or alleged violation of any order,
regulation, or standard of the Federal Aviation
Administration or any other provision of Federal law relating
to aviation safety under this subtitle or any other law of
the United States;
``(2) has filed, caused to be filed, or is about to file
(with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be filed a
proceeding relating to any violation or alleged violation of
any order, regulation, or standard of the Federal Aviation
Administration or any other provision of Federal law relating
to aviation safety under this subtitle or any other law of
the United States;
``(3) testified or is about to testify in such a
proceeding; or
``(4) assisted or participated or is about to assist or
participate in such a proceeding.'';
(2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Nonapplicability To Deliberate Violations.--
Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to an employee of
a holder of a certificate issued under section 44704 or
44705, or a contractor or subcontractor thereof, who, acting
without direction from such certificate-holder, contractor,
or subcontractor (or such person's agent), deliberately
causes a violation of any requirement relating to aviation
safety under this subtitle or any other law of the United
States.''; and
(3) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e) Contractor Defined.--In this section, the term
`contractor' means--
``(1) a person that performs safety-sensitive functions by
contract for an air carrier or commercial operator; or
``(2) a person that performs safety-sensitive functions
related to the design or production of an aircraft, aircraft
engine, propeller, appliance, or component thereof by
contract for a holder of a certificate issued under section
44704.''.
SEC. 20. PILOT TRAINING.
(a) In General.--Chapter 447 of title 49, United States
Code, as amended by section 8, is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``Sec. 44743. Pilot training requirements
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Administrator's determination.--In establishing any
pilot training requirements with respect to a new transport
airplane, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall independently review any proposal by the
manufacturer of such airplane with respect to the scope,
format, or minimum level of training required for operation
of such airplane.
[[Page H5842]]
``(2) Assurances and marketing representations.--Before the
Administrator has established applicable training
requirements, an applicant for a new or amended type
certificate for an airplane described in paragraph (1) may
not, with respect to the scope, format, or magnitude of pilot
training for such airplane--
``(A) make any assurance, whether verbal or in writing, to
a potential purchaser of such airplane unless a clear and
conspicuous disclaimer (as defined by the Administrator) is
included regarding the status of training required for
operation of such airplane; or
``(B) provide financial incentives (including rebates) to a
potential purchaser of such airplane regarding the scope,
format, or magnitude of pilot training for such airplane.
``(b) Pilot Response Time.--Beginning on the day after the
date on which regulations are issued under section 20(b)(5)
of the Aircraft Certification Reform and Accountability Act,
the Administrator may not issue a new or amended type
certificate for an airplane described in subsection (a)
unless the applicant for such certificate has demonstrated to
the Administrator that the applicant has accounted for
realistic assumptions regarding the time for pilot responses
to non-normal conditions in designing the systems and
instrumentation of such airplane. Such assumptions shall--
``(1) be based on test data, analysis, or other technical
validation methods; and
``(2) account for generally accepted scientific consensus
among experts in human factors regarding realistic pilot
response time.
``(c) Definition.--In this section, the term `transport
airplane' means a transport-category airplane designed for
operation by an air carrier or foreign air carrier type-
certificated with a passenger seating capacity of 30 or more
or an all-cargo or combi derivative of such an airplane.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 447 of
title 49, United States Code, is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``44743. Pilot training requirements.''.
(c) Expert Safety Review.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall initiate an
expert safety review of assumptions relied upon by the
Administration and manufacturers of transport-category
aircraft in the design and certification of such aircraft.
(2) Contents.--The expert safety review required under
paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a review of Administration regulations, guidance, and
directives related to pilot response assumptions relied upon
by the FAA and manufacturers of transport-category aircraft
in the design and certification of such aircraft;
(B) a focused review of the assumptions relied on regarding
the time for pilot responses to non-normal conditions in
designing such aircraft's systems and instrumentation;
(C) a review of revisions made to the airman certification
standards for certificates over the last four years,
including any possible effects on pilot competency in basic
manual flying skills;
(D) consideration of the global nature of the aviation
marketplace, varying levels of pilot competency, and
differences in pilot training programs worldwide; and
(E) a process for aviation stakeholders, including pilots,
airlines, inspectors, engineers, test pilots, human factors
experts, and other aviation safety experts, to provide and
discuss any observations, feedback, and best practices.
(3) Report and recommendations.--Not later than 30 days
after the conclusion of the expert safety review pursuant to
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall submit to the
congressional committees of jurisdiction a report on the
results of the review, any recommendations for actions or
best practices to ensure the FAA and the manufacturers of
transport-category aircraft have accounted for pilot response
assumptions to be relied upon in the design and certification
of transport-category aircraft.
(4) Termination.--The expert safety review shall end upon
submission of the report required pursuant to paragraph (3).
(5) Regulations.--The Administrator shall issue such
regulations as are necessary to implement the recommendations
of the expert safety review that the Administrator determines
are necessary to improve aviation safety.
(d) Call to Action on Airman Certification Standards.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall initiate a
call to action safety review of pilot certification standards
in order to bring stakeholders together to share lessons
learned, best practices, and implement actions to address any
safety issues identified.
(2) Contents.--The call to action safety review required
under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a review of Administration regulations, guidance, and
directives related to the pilot certification standards,
including the oversight of those processes;
(B) a review of revisions made to the pilot certification
standards for certificates over the last four years,
including any possible effects on pilot competency in manual
flying skills and effectively managing automation to improve
safety; and
(C) a process for aviation stakeholders, including aviation
students, instructors, designated pilot examiners, pilots,
airlines, labor, and aviation safety experts, to provide and
discuss any observations, feedback, and best practices.
(3) Report and recommendations.--Not later than 90 days
after the conclusion of the call to action safety review
pursuant to paragraph (1), the Administrator shall submit to
the congressional committees of jurisdiction a report on the
results of the review, any recommendations for actions or
best practices to ensure pilot competency in basic manual
flying skills and in effective management of automation, and
actions the Administrator will take in response to the
recommendations.
(e) International Pilot Training.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation, the
Administrator, and other appropriate officials of the
Government shall exercise leadership in setting global
standards to improve air carrier pilot training and
qualifications for--
(A) monitoring and managing the behavior and performance of
automated systems;
(B) controlling the flightpath of aircraft without
autoflight systems engaged;
(C) effectively utilizing and managing autoflight systems,
when appropriate;
(D) effectively identifying situations in which the use of
autoflight systems is appropriate and when such use is not
appropriate; and
(E) recognizing and responding appropriately to non-normal
conditions.
(2) International leadership.--The Secretary, the
Administrator, and other appropriate officials of the
Government shall exercise leadership under subsection (a) by
working with--
(A) foreign counterparts of the Administrator in the
International Civil Aviation Organization and its subsidiary
organizations;
(B) other international organizations and fora; and
(C) the private sector.
(3) Considerations.--In exercising leadership under
paragraph (1), the Secretary, the Administrator, and other
appropriate officials of the Government shall consider--
(A) the latest information relating to human factors;
(B) aircraft manufacturing trends, including those relating
to increased automation in the cockpit;
(C) the extent to which cockpit automation improves
aviation safety and introduces novel risks;
(D) the availability of opportunities for pilots to
practice manual flying skills;
(E) the need for consistency in maintaining and enhancing
manual flying skills worldwide;
(F) recommended practices of other countries that enhance
manual flying skills and automation management; and
(G) whether a need exists for initial and recurrent
training standards for improve pilots' proficiency in manual
flight and in effective management of autoflight systems.
(4) Congressional briefing.--The Secretary, the
Administrator, and other appropriate officials of the
Government shall provide to the congressional committees of
jurisdiction regular briefings on the status of efforts
undertaken pursuant to this section.
SEC. 21. NONCONFORMITY WITH APPROVED TYPE DESIGN.
Section 44704(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Nonconformity with approved type design.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (D),
a holder of a production certificate for an aircraft may not
present a nonconforming aircraft to the Administrator for
issuance of an airworthiness certificate.
``(B) Civil penalty.--Notwithstanding section 46301, a
production certificate holder who knowingly violates
subparagraph (A) shall be liable to the Administrator for a
civil penalty of not more than $1,000,000 for each
nonconforming aircraft.
``(C) Penalty considerations.--In determining the amount of
a civil penalty under subparagraph (B), the Administrator
shall consider--
``(i) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
violation, including the length of time the nonconformity was
known but not disclosed; and
``(ii) with respect to the violator, the degree of
culpability, any history of prior violations, and the size of
the business concern.
``(D) Remedial action.--The Administrator may permit a
production certificate holder to present a nonconforming
aircraft to the Administrator for an airworthiness
certificate if--
``(i) the Administrator determines the nonconformity, when
compared to the configuration approved as part of the type
design, does not diminish by any degree the aircraft's safe
operation without any change in flight crew operating
procedures;
``(ii) the Administrator determines the nonconformity was
not the product of an intentional decision by the production
certificate holder to alter the aircraft's configuration from
the approved type design;
``(iii) the production certificate holder has fully
complied with subparagraph (E);
``(iv) the production certificate holder agrees to correct
the nonconformity on all nonconforming aircraft within a
timeframe that is--
``(I) prescribed by the Administrator; and
``(II) commensurate with the severity of the nonconformity;
[[Page H5843]]
``(v) the production certificate holder informs a person
who is to take delivery of the nonconforming aircraft of the
nonconformance prior to its delivery; and
``(vi) the production certificate holder agrees not to
impose any penalty, financial or otherwise, on a person that
chooses to delay the delivery of a nonconforming aircraft
until the production certificate holder, to the
Administrator's satisfaction, conforms the aircraft to the
approved type design of such aircraft.
``(E) Notification and proposed remedial action.--A
production certificate holder shall, within 5 days of
determining that such production certificate holder delivered
a nonconforming aircraft, notify the Administrator, the
purchaser of the airplane, and (if the purchaser is a lessor)
the intended operator of the airplane, if known. A
notification under this clause shall describe--
``(i) the nonconformity in detail; and
``(ii) the production certificate holder's initial proposal
for actions necessary to eliminate the nonconformity.
``(F) Nonconforming aircraft defined.--In this paragraph,
the term `nonconforming aircraft' means an aircraft that does
not conform to the approved type design for such aircraft
type.''.
SEC. 22. IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit a
report to the congressional committees of jurisdiction on the
status of the Administration's implementation of covered
recommendations.
(b) Contents.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall contain, at a minimum--
(1) a list and description of all covered recommendations;
(2) a determination of whether the Administrator concurs,
concurs in part, or does not concur with each covered
recommendation;
(3) an implementation plan and schedule for all covered
recommendations the Administrator concurs or concurs in part
with; and
(4) for each covered recommendation with which the
Administrator does not concur (in whole or in part), a
detailed explanation as to why.
(c) Covered Recommendations Defined.--In this section, the
term ``covered recommendations'' means recommendations made
by the following entities in any review initiated in response
to the accident of Lion Air flight 610 on October 29, 2018,
or Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 on March 10, 2019, that
recommend Administration action:
(1) The National Transportation Safety Board.
(2) The Joint Authorities Technical Review.
(3) The inspector general of the Department of
Transportation.
(4) The Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory
Committee, or any special committee thereof.
(5) Any other entity the Administrator may designate.
SEC. 23. OVERSIGHT OF FAA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish an
Executive Council within the Administration to oversee the
use and effectiveness across program offices of the
Administration's Compliance Program, described in Order
8000.373A dated October 31, 2018.
(b) Compliance Program Oversight.--The Executive Council
established under this section shall--
(1) monitor, collect, and analyze data on the use of the
Compliance Program across program offices of the
Administration, including data on enforcement actions and
compliance actions pursued against regulated entities by such
program offices;
(2) conduct an evaluation of the Compliance Program, not
less frequently than annually each calendar year through
2023, to assess the functioning and effectiveness of such
program in meeting the stated goals and purpose of the
program;
(3) provide reports to the Administrator containing the
results of any evaluation conducted under paragraph (2),
including identifying in such report any nonconformities or
deficiencies in the implementation of the program and
compliance of regulated entities with safety standards of the
Administration;
(4) make recommendations to the Administrator on
regulations, guidance, performance standards or metrics, or
other controls that should be issued by the Administrator to
improve the effectiveness of the Compliance Program in
meeting the stated goals and purpose of the program and to
ensure the highest levels of aviation safety; and
(5) carry out any other oversight duties with respect to
implementation of the Compliance Program and assigned by the
Administrator.
(c) Executive Council.--
(1) Executive council membership.--The Compliance Program
Executive Council shall be comprised of representatives from
each program office with regulatory responsibility as
provided in Order 8000.373A.
(2) Chairperson.--The Executive Council shall be chaired by
a person, who shall be appointed by the Administrator and
shall report directly to the Administrator.
(3) Independence.--The Secretary of Transportation, the
Administrator, or any officer or employee of the
Administration may not prevent or prohibit the chair of the
Executive Council from performing the activities described in
this section or from reporting to Congress on such
activities.
(4) Duration.--The Executive Council shall terminate on
October 1, 2023.
(d) Annual Briefing.--Each calendar year through 2023, the
chair of the Executive Council shall provide a briefing to
the congressional committees of jurisdiction on the
effectiveness of the Administration's Compliance Program in
meeting the stated goals and purpose of the program and the
activities of the office described in subsection (b),
including any reports and recommendations made by the office
during the preceding calendar year.
SEC. 24. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Administrator should fully exercise all rights and pursue
all remedies available to the Administrator under any
settlement agreement between the Administration and the
holder of a type certificate and production certificate for
transport airplanes executed on December 18, 2015, including
a demand for full payment of any applicable civil penalties
deferred under such agreement, if the Administrator concludes
that such holder has not fully performed all obligations
incurred under such agreement.
(b) Congressional Briefing.--Not later than February 1,
2021, and every 6 months thereafter until a certificate
holder described in subsection (a) has fully performed all
obligations incurred by such certificate holder under such
settlement agreement, the Administrator shall brief the
congressional committees of jurisdiction on action taken
consistent with subsection (a).
SEC. 25. HUMAN FACTORS.
(a) Aircraft Certification Process.--
(1) Evaluation.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator (acting through the
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety of the
Administration) shall--
(A) conduct an evaluation of the development of tools and
methods to support the integration of human factors
assessment and system safety assessments of human interaction
with flight deck and flight control systems for transport
airplanes into the aircraft certification process under
section 44704 of title 49, United States Code; and
(B) develop a framework to better integrate human factors
throughout such aircraft certification process with the
objective of improving safety by designing systems and
training pilots in a manner that accounts for contemporary
knowledge to reduce the possibility of an accident resulting
in whole or in part from the pilot's interaction with the
aircraft.
(2) Report to congress.--Not later than 60 days after the
completion of the evaluation required under paragraph (1),
the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report detailing
the findings of such report and a plan for implementation
based on such findings of such report.
(3) Implementation.--Upon submission of the report required
under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall implement the
findings of such evaluation.
(b) Human Factors Education Program.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall develop a human
factors education program that addresses the effects of
modern flight deck systems, including automated systems, on
human performance for transport airplanes and the approaches
for better integration of human factors in aircraft design
and certification.
(2) Target audience.--The human factors education program
shall be integrated into the training protocol in existence
as of the date of the enactment of this Act such that such
program is routinely administered to the following:
(A) Appropriate employees within the Flight Standards
Service.
(B) Appropriate employees within the Aircraft Certification
Service.
(C) Other employees or authorized representatives
determined to be necessary by the Administrator.
(c) Transport Airplane Manufacturer Information Sharing.--
The Administrator shall--
(1) require each transport airplane manufacturer to provide
the Administrator with the information or findings necessary
for flight crew to be trained on flight deck systems;
(2) ensure the information or findings under paragraph (1)
adequately includes consideration of human factors; and
(3) ensure that each transport airplane manufacturer
identifies any technical basis, justification or rationale
for the information and findings under paragraph (1).
SEC. 26. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
Section 46301 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)(A) by striking ``(except sections
44717 and 44719-44723)'' and inserting ``(except sections
44704(a)(6), 44704(e)(4), 44717, and 44719-44723)'';
(2) in subsection (a)(5)(A) by striking ``(except sections
44717-44723)'' and inserting ``(except sections 44704(a)(6),
44704(e)(4), and 44717-44723)'';
(3) in subsection (d)(2) by striking ``(except sections
44717 and 44719-44723)'' and inserting ``(except sections
44704(a)(6), 44704(e)(4), 44717, and 44719-44723)''; and
(4) in subsection (f)(1)(A)(i) by striking ``(except
sections 44717 and 44719-44723)'' and inserting ``(except
sections 44704(a)(6), 44704(e)(4), 44717, and 44719-44723)''.
SEC. 27. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
[[Page H5844]]
(1) Administration; faa.--The terms ``Administration'' and
``FAA'' mean the Federal Aviation Administration.
(2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the FAA.
(3) Organization designation authorization.--The term
``organization designation authorization'' has the same
meaning given such term in section 44736 of title 49, United
States Code.
(4) Congressional committees of jurisdiction.--The term
``congressional committees of jurisdiction'' means the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate.
(5) Human factors.--The term ``human factors'' means a
multidisciplinary set of principles developed to holistically
explain and predict pilot behavior in relation to the
management of the operation of an aircraft, including the
pilot's management of aircraft systems and response to
systems failures and non-normal conditions.
(6) Transport airplane.--The term ``transport airplane''
means a transport-category airplane designed for operation by
an air carrier or foreign air carrier type-certificated with
a passenger seating capacity of 30 or more or an all-cargo or
combi derivative of such an airplane.
(7) Type certificate.--The term ``type certificate''--
(A) means a type certificate issued pursuant to section
44704(a) of title 49, United States Code, or an amendment to
such certificate; and
(B) does not include a supplemental type certificate issued
under section 44704(b) of such section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
General Leave
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8408, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 8408, the bipartisan Aircraft
Certification Reform Accountability Act, today because a U.S.
commercial airplane manufacturer and, candidly, the Federal Aviation
Administration broke the public trust. 346 innocent people died on two
Boeing 737 MAX airplanes in October 2018 and March 2019.
Despite the crashes, both Boeing and the FAA found that the
certification of the 737 MAX was compliant with FAA regulations. It was
compliant with regulations, yet 346 people died. I believe that that
shows that there are problems with the regulatory system that need to
be addressed.
Ranking Member Graves, Aviation Subcommittee Chair Larsen, Aviation
Subcommittee Ranking Member Graves, and I actively worked on this bill
over a number of months. I think I can speak for all of us when I say
our intent is to ensure a U.S.-manufactured airplane never again
crashes due to design issues or regulatory failures.
The Boeing 737 MAX has been grounded since the second crash, that of
Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 on March 10, 2019. This has been the
longest grounding of a transport plane in the history of commercial
aviation and will likely end this week when the FAA judges that
Boeing's modifications to the deadly system that caused the crashes are
sufficient.
The FAA and Boeing have spent the last 20 months doing what they
should have done before the 737 MAX ever entered service, so
consideration of this bill is timely.
There is a long litany of negligence, recklessness, corporate greed--
particularly at the executive level--and errors in the design and
certification of the 737 MAX that culminated in the crashes of Lion Air
flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 and, ultimately, this
legislation.
I am not going to go over all of the stunning acts and omissions
within Boeing and the regulatory capture that prevented the FAA from
detecting and correcting those acts and omissions because they have
been laid bare in numerous reports since the accidents, including those
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which recently
concluded the longest and most comprehensive investigation in the
committee's history with a nearly 250-page report on the technical and
regulatory failures in this story; the Joint Authorities Technical
Review, a team of U.S. and international safety regulators who assessed
the design and certification of the 737 MAX; the National
Transportation Safety Board; a special committee convened by the
Department of Transportation to evaluate the FAA's certification
process with respect to the 737 MAX; the Indonesian National
Transportation Safety Committee, which investigated the crash of Lion
Air flight 610; and the Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority, which
investigated the crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302.
Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian flight 302 crashed, ultimately, because of
a system called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or
MCAS, which forced the airplane into dives with forces so great the
pilots were physically unable to counteract them. Through numerous
investigations, we know Boeing intentionally concealed the existence of
MCAS in cases from the airlines and pilots, partly to save money on
pilot training and partly to avoid increased regulatory scrutiny by the
FAA.
Level B non-simulator pilot training was a design objective for the
737 MAX from the outset, according to Boeing's former chief project
engineer; and as early as 2014, 2 years before the FAA made a pilot
training determination, a Boeing press release and marketing materials
declared this level of training for prospective 737 MAX customer
airlines. In one case, they promised to pay a penalty of $1 million per
plane to a purchaser if a higher level of training was necessary.
We also know that Boeing's safety assessment with respect to MCAS was
horribly incomplete. MCAS activated on both flights because of a tiny,
fragile vane, called an alpha vane, protruding from the left side of
the nose. The alpha vane measures the angle of attack between the
airplane and oncoming air.
When it failed, as these tiny, fragile vanes are wont to do, it
triggered a complex computerized response, which included a jarring
stick shaker, which vibrates the column so violently that if you are
holding onto it, your teeth are going to rattle to warn of a stall;
unrelated other cautions and warnings, and this plane has a primitive
alert system unlike all Boeings made in the last 25 years, as the
dozens of prioritized things; and warnings that airspeed, altitude is
unreliable.
More importantly, the MCAS system, an invisible system, left out of
the first manual, or deleted from the first manuals distributed with
the plane, forced the nose down repeatedly and inexorably toward the
Earth.
Now, Boeing assumed pilots would respond to all that and apply the
proper corrective procedure within 4 seconds. I would challenge most
experienced pilots to sort through that blizzard of alerts in 4
seconds, not knowing of the existence of the system, to determine what
is going on and apply proper procedure.
A Boeing test pilot in a simulator in 2012 couldn't do that, as the
committee staff investigation revealed. It took that pilot more than 10
seconds to respond correctly and found the condition to be
``catastrophic,'' meaning the situation would have been unsalvageable.
The plane would have crashed. The simulator crashed. And it did not
share that information with the FAA or its MAX customers.
But Boeing and the FAA never assessed the airplane-level effects of
an alpha vane failure, how it would trigger erroneous MCAS activation,
and how pilots would respond; not that there wasn't plenty of
opportunity within Boeing to stop and think about MCAS and the
hazardous situations it would create.
At one juncture, a Boeing employee was authorized by the FAA as part
of the ODA, Organization Designation Authorization, to determine the
plane's compliance with the FAA requirements, asked in an email if the
airplane was vulnerable to a single alpha vane failure. The employee
was given a summary assurance that MCAS was not vulnerable, but that
assurance was incorrect. The eyes and ears of the FAA on the ground at
Boeing left the FAA largely in the dark regarding issues that affected
the airplane certification.
[[Page H5845]]
We uncovered numerable instances of similar missed opportunities in
our investigation. The culture of profits at any cost with the company
may well have been a factor in the failure to root out safety problems.
According to a 2016 internal survey of similar Boeing employees, who,
at the time, were called authorized representatives of the FAA, 39
percent said they felt undue pressure from Boeing management to make
decisions in the company's interest.
And then there was the FAA, whose complacency rendered the agency
virtually a nonpresence in this story until then-Acting Administrator
Elwell grounded the airplane after the second one crashed and after
virtually every other agency in the world had grounded these airplanes.
The FAA was either unable or unwilling to conduct rigorous oversight
of Boeing during the certification process. A Boeing employee wrote an
internal email in 2015 that, during a presentation of the 737 MAX, FAA
officials were like ``dogs watching TV.'' And they hid the mention of
MAX in two lines in a very lengthy presentation of MCAS.
Throughout our investigation, we learned the FAA and Boeing
separately performed an analysis after the first crash, that of Lion
Air, which concluded that, if left uncorrected, the design flaw in the
737 MAX could result in as many as 15 future crashes. And despite the
calculations and the agency's own Transport Airplane Risk Assessment
Methodology, or TARAM, the FAA let it continue to fly.
In fact, the head of safety for the FAA came to my office in February
after the first crash and said that was a one-off, there is no problem
with this plane. But that report had been produced before he came to
see me. Now, when we finally got him to a 7-hour recorded testimony, he
said he never heard of anything that said 15 of the planes would crash.
Well, what does the head of safety do at the FAA? Seriously.
Now, here is the most outrageous indication of a broken safety
culture within the very agency that is supposed to be the leading
champion of strong safety cultures. In a recent survey of FAA aviation
safety employees, 56 percent of those involved in certification
activities believed there was too much external influence on the agency
and that this influence was affecting FAA safety decisions.
This is 25 years after the horrible crash of Value Jet in Florida,
when I finally got the law changed to say that the FAA is not to
promote and regulate in the public interest and safety; it is only to
regulate in the public interest and safety, not to promote the
industry.
All of these factors alone, and more, all part of a broken system
that broke the public's trust culminated in 2018 and 2019 MAX
accidents. And the bill we are considering today will fix that broken
system.
It requires the FAA to approve authorized representatives at all
aviation manufacturers by examining their qualifications and character
so that, when they are considering a proposed design, they will
remember that public safety rests on their shoulders.
Any person who interferes with an authorized representative's
performance of his or her critical duties on behalf of the FAA will be
subject to civil penalties going forward.
It also imposes civil penalties for a manufacturer's failure to
disclose the details of a system like MCAS that manipulate flight
controls without direct pilot input and for a manufacturer's delivery
of an airplane that does not conform to an FAA-approved design.
The bill requires two FAA rulemakings that, together, will require
manufacturers to provide the agency with thorough assessments measuring
the risk created by changes to existing aircraft designs so FAA can
ascertain whether a manufacturer has sufficiently minimized any given
risk.
The bill requires the FAA to hire more staff to rigorously review new
designs and authorizes enough funding for 100 of them.
It also requires the FAA to implement a nonpunitive voluntary safety
reporting system for FAA employees to report safety concerns, prohibits
agency officials from talking with manufacturers about formal
objections to FAA career employees' decisions unless publicly
disclosing information about those communications, and it extends to
manufacturers' employees the same whistleblower protections that apply
to airline employees today, and much more.
I want to make it clear that this bill is not meant in any way to
interfere with the victims or their families' access to the judicial
system and all available remedies when tragedies occur. Compliance with
the provisions of H.R. 8408 will not adversely affect any existing
remedies available to families of the Boeing victims and any other
future victims under State, Federal, statutory, or common law. Families
who have already suffered tragic loss must be able to seek compensation
when their loved ones are injured or killed in aircraft crashes due to
negligence or other wrongdoing.
The 346 sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers who died
on Lion Air flight 610 and Ethiopian flight 302 placed their trust in a
broken system. Today, we take the next big step toward fixing that
system.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Graves, Aviation Subcommittee
Chair Larsen, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Graves for their
partnership in advancing this legislation, and I look forward to
continuing to work with them and our Senate colleagues, and hopefully
we can get it enacted into law this year.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8408, the Aircraft
Certification Reform and Accountability Act.
I want to thank Chairman DeFazio and Chairman Larsen for working with
us to put together this bipartisan bill.
The Committee's response following the Lion Air and Ethiopian
Airlines tragedies has been to take the time that is necessary to
understand all the contributing factors in these accidents.
{time} 1515
Throughout this process, I have taken the position that if the safety
experts recommend improvement to our certification system, then
Congress should act.
We now have the benefit of a number of nonpartisan reviews by
aviation safety experts confirming that multiple factors were involved.
There is only so much the United States can do to influence factors
outside of our borders, but the experts identified issues to address
those things that are within our control and made recommendations to
improve our system, and that is the focus of this bill.
We can all agree that the United States and the Federal Aviation
Administration has to--must--continue to be the gold standard in
aviation. The safety of the traveling public depends on that, but so
does our economy, our competitiveness, and hundreds of thousands of
American jobs.
Plain and simple, we can't remain the gold standard if our system
isn't safe. And one reason for our achievements in aviation has been
our ability to leave partisan politics at the door and work together on
critical safety issues, and that is what we have done today in this
bill.
This bill before us today is going to require additional improvements
beyond those which the FAA and Boeing have already undertaken. These
changes are going to make our safe system even safer.
To be clear, the experts have concluded that the current system does
not need to be dismantled, but that we can and should take action to
improvement.
H.R. 8408 thoughtfully addresses the multiple contributing factors
involved in the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines accidents that are
within our control, as well as the many expert recommendations to
improve safety within our own system.
This is a well-reasoned, comprehensive, and bipartisan bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), the subcommittee chairman.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 8408, the Aircraft Certification Reform and Accountability Act.
[[Page H5846]]
This comprehensive, bipartisan legislation will help improve the U.S.
aircraft certification process, strengthen Federal Aviation
Administration oversight, and ensure the safety of air travel.
As chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, I am very pleased that this
critical legislation is now before this Chamber for a vote.
After two tragic Boeing 737 MAX crashes, the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee launched a thorough investigation into the
design, development, and certification of the 737 MAX.
Since March 2019, the committee has received more than 500,000 pages
of documents, held five oversight hearings, interviewed key employees
at Boeing and the FAA, and listened to testimony from victims' families
and from several whistleblowers.
The resulting Aircraft Certification Reform and Accountability Act
improves aviation safety culture, enhances transparency and
accountability, addresses undue pressure on employees acting on behalf
of the FAA within an aviation manufacturer, and reinforces the
importance of human factors in aircraft design and certification.
The 346 victims of the two tragic crashes and their families have
always remained at the forefront of this committee's work.
A vital part of the committee's process was the advocacy of the
victims' families. For nearly 2 years, the families have championed
necessary reforms to the FAA certification process to ensure that no
other families experience such unthinkable loss.
This bill reinforces the integrity of the FAA and U.S. aviation
manufacturing.
I thank Chairman DeFazio for his leadership. I thank Ranking Member
Graves of Missouri of the full committee for his leadership. And I
thank the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Graves of
Louisiana, for his leadership on coming together in a bipartisan way to
make this bill a reality.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), the ranking
member of the Aviation Subcommittee.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I really can't dispute many of
the previous speakers' comments. The bottom line is that the aviation
industry, the aviation mode of transportation is the safest mode of
transportation. It is the safest way to travel. And the United States
has the gold standard in regard to aviation safety.
However, we are all aware of two very tragic accidents that resulted
in 346 lives that were lost, 346. Just because we have the best, we
have the safest, does not mean that we should ever stop striving for
better, we should ever stop striving for perfection.
Mr. Speaker, we had five hearings on this legislation. There were
numerous expert panels that were put together to review this, to
extract every single lesson learned.
I thank the acting administrator at the time, Dan Elwell--and I want
to congratulate him on his retirement--for his steady hand in ensuring
that, as we move forward, we base our decisions on facts. I thank him
for some of the changes within the FAA to ensure that we apply lessons
learned.
Mr. Speaker, as previous speakers noted, this legislation is the
result of all of these nonpartisan, independent expert reviews. We took
the lessons learned and we adapted it into legislation to make sure
that we can, as I said, continue to strive for perfection; to continue
to focus on, as my friend Mr. Larsen noted, the families; to keep a
face on this; to ensure that we never subject future families to the
same losses that we had in this case. And that is just what we did.
I thank Michael Stumo, one of the leaders of the families who called
us often and reminded us what it was that we were doing. We were
focusing on safety because this is about people, about real lives.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has a number of improvements, as I noted,
including ensuring that safety management systems are applied by
manufacturers and better controls over project management. The bill
integrates project review within the FAA to make sure that different
entities within the FAA are aware of what the others are doing.
The bill ensures that there is disclosure of safety critical
information in systems, including close inspection and review of new or
novel technologies that are introduced into the design to ensure that
we fully understand the impact of those. It ensures that there is
conformance with the FAA design type; meaning that you can't come in
and simply amend the design type if you are making significant changes
to the aircraft or if the aircraft design evolves over time to where if
initially it couldn't simply be an amended design.
Mr. Speaker, it also includes something that is very important. It
integrates human factors, ensuring that we understand how humans, how
pilots and others will behave in the instance of some type of safety
issue on aircraft.
Mr. Speaker, when an aircraft has a problem, you can't simply pull it
over to the side of the road and check it out. We have to make sure
that this continues to be the safest mode of transportation. We have to
continue to ensure that the United States truly has a gold standard.
I thank Chairman DeFazio and my friend, Chairman Larsen, as well as
full committee Ranking Member Graves of Missouri, for the work on this
bill because this bill didn't start out as something that was
bipartisan that everybody was on board with, but it did evolve to this
point. Candidly, there are few perfections in here that I would like to
see, but this is a really good bill, and it does simply take the
recommendations, the findings of the expert reports and it does turn
this into legislation.
I thank all my friends for working together on this. I thank Holly
and Hunter, whose baby Theo didn't comply with our schedule in this
legislation, for all of their hard work here.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8408 addresses the
nonpartisan expert safety recommendations to improve the FAA's aircraft
certification process in the aftermath of tragic Lion Air and Ethiopian
Airlines accidents in 2018 and 2019.
This bill is responsible, comprehensive, bipartisan, and it is going
to improve aviation safety.
I thank again Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Garret Graves and
the committee staff on both sides, with special thanks to Holly
Woodruff Lyons, Hunter Presti, Jamie Hopkins, Corey Cooke, Jack Ruddy,
and Paul Sass for their work on this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to recognize the staff on both
sides and the Members. Early on, this did appear like it could be a
contentious piece of legislation, but in the end we all came together
in the public safety interest for needed reforms to this Federal agency
and the process by which we certify aircraft.
I thank the investigative staff of the committee, who put together an
extraordinary report. I also thank the aviation staff on both sides of
the aisle for their work.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the tragic deaths of 346 people on two
Boeing 737 MAX jet crashes in October 2018 and March of 2019 were
entirely preventable. As was said in the final report prepared by the
Majority Staff of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure on ``The Design, Development & Certification of the
Boeing 737 Max'' released on September 16, 2020, ``The MAX crashes were
not the result of a singular failure, technical mistake, or mismanaged
event. They were the horrific culmination of a series of faulty
technical assumptions by Boeing's engineers, a lack of transparency on
the part of Boeing's management, and grossly insufficient oversight by
the FAA--the pernicious result of regulatory capture on the part of the
FAA with respect to its responsibilities to perform robust oversight of
Boeing and to ensure the safety of the flying public.''
The 737 MAX tragedies require us to make sure that certification
alone can never become a legal shield for aircraft design or
manufacturing defects. Even with the enactment of this legislative
reform, it will be impossible to eliminate all risk. Indeed, as the
Committee's report shows, ``FAA management has undercut the authority
and judgment of its own technical experts and sided with Boeing on
design issues that failed to adequately address safety
[[Page H5847]]
issues and appear to have violated FAA regulations or guidance, in some
instances.''
We need to incentivize the industry to do everything possible to
ensure the safety of their planes and components. H.R. 8408 seeks to
accomplish this goal by making both manufacturers and regulators
responsible for updating and upgrading safety and technology standards
as new systems and information are developed and become available.
I also want to make it clear that this bill is not meant, in anyway,
to interfere with victims' or their families' access to the judicial
system and all available remedies when tragedies occur. Compliance with
the provisions of H.R. 8408 will not adversely affect any existing
remedies available to families of the Boeing victims and any other
future victims under state or Federal statutory or common law.
Families, who have already suffered tragic loss, must be able to seek
compensation when their loved ones are injured or killed in aircraft
crashes due to negligence or other wrongdoing.
Many of the families of the Boeing 737 MAX crashes attended hearing
after hearing as the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure conducted a comprehensive review of everything that went
wrong with the 737 MAX. They were there to remind us of the human
element--that we are here to work for the people. The bill does nothing
to interfere with or affect the ability of the families of victims of
air tragedies to hold industry accountable, now or in the future.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 8408, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________