[House Report 116-462]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


116th Congress   }                                             {   Report
                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2nd Session     }                                             {  116-462

======================================================================



 
                SAFE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE STANDARDS ACT

                                _______
                                

 July 29, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. DeFazio, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5119]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 5119) to amend title 49, United 
States Code, to require certain air carriers to provide reports 
with respect to maintenance, preventive maintenance, or 
alterations, and for other purposes, having considered the 
same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose of Legislation...........................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Hearings.........................................................     2
Legislative History and Consideration............................     3
Committee Votes..................................................     3
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     6
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     6
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     7
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     7
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
  Benefits.......................................................     8
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     8
Preemption Clarification.........................................     8
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................     8
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................     8
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................     8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     9
Dissenting Views.................................................    16

                         Purpose of Legislation

    The purpose of H.R. 5119 is to establish one level of 
safety between airline maintenance performed in the United 
States and that performed on U.S. airlines' fleets in foreign 
countries.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    Some 950 aeronautical repair stations outside the United 
States hold Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certificates 
under 14 C.F.R. part 145, yet these facilities are not subject 
to the same safety standards that apply to domestic repair 
stations. For example, workers who perform safety-sensitive 
functions at U.S. repair stations are subject to compulsory 
screening for substance abuse; however, the same requirement 
does not apply to their counterparts at foreign facilities. 
Workers at U.S. repair stations are subject to compulsory 
background investigations; yet the same requirement does not 
apply to their counterparts overseas.
    This disparity between safety standards at U.S. and foreign 
repair stations that hold FAA certificates comes at a time when 
airlines' spending on contract maintenance and repair services 
nearly tripled between 1996 and 2011, according to the 
Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOT IG), rising 
from $1.5 billion in 1996 to $4.2 billion in 2011. Today, 
``[i]t is estimated that nearly 50 percent by dollar volume of 
maintenance work done by operators of U.S. registered aircraft 
is done in . . . FAA certified repair facilities located 
outside'' the United States, according to the Transport Workers 
Union. However, in 2013, the DOT IG found that the FAA's repair 
station oversight ``lacks the rigor needed to identify 
deficiencies and verify that they have been addressed'' and 
that ``some repair stations may not be operating in full 
compliance'' with FAA rules. Additionally, the Committee is 
aware that safety-sensitive workers at foreign repair stations 
may not be appropriately qualified or positioned to perform 
their functions; for example, the Committee has received 
reports that employees responsible for certifying that aircraft 
are fit for return to revenue service have made those 
certifications without having personally observed or inspected 
maintenance work on those aircraft--and in some cases have made 
the certifications from outside the countries where the work 
was actually performed.
    For years, Congress has pressed the FAA to move quickly to 
reduce the great disparity between safety requirements for U.S. 
and foreign repair stations, including mandating drug and 
alcohol testing and pre-employment background investigations of 
foreign repair station employees who perform safety-sensitive 
functions. Even with clear Congressional direction, the FAA has 
failed to satisfy either mandate, which would assure the flying 
public that the personnel performing critical maintenance on 
U.S.-operated aircraft have been adequately screened. These, 
among other measures, would help ensure that foreign repair 
stations follow the same safety standards that the FAA requires 
of maintenance work done in the United States.

                                Hearings

    Pursuant to section 103(i) of H. Res. 6, 116th Cong. 
(2019), the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
Subcommittee on Aviation held the following hearing to develop 
or consider subjects related to matters contained in H.R. 3632:
    On July 17, 2019, the Subcommittee on Aviation held a 
hearing titled, ``State of Aviation Safety.'' The purpose of 
the hearing was to gather government and stakeholder 
perspectives on the state of aviation safety, including 
identifying current challenges facing the aviation system and 
actions needed to maintain and ensure the safety of the 
traveling public. On July 17, 2019, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing entitled ``State of Aviation Safety.'' The Subcommittee 
received testimony from Mr. Paul Njoroge, husband of Carolyne 
Karanja, father of Ryan Njuguna, Kelli Pauls, Rubi Pauls, and 
son-in-Law of Anne Karanja, Victims of Flight ET302, testifying 
on behalf of the Families of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302; 
accompanied by Mr. Michael Stumo, father of Samya Stumo, victim 
of ET302; Ms. Dana Schulze, Acting Director, Office of Aviation 
Safety, National Transportation Safety Board; Mr. Joseph G. 
DePete, President, Air Line Pilots Association, International; 
Ms. Lori Bassani, National President, The Association of 
Professional Flight Attendants; Mr. Michael Perrone, National 
President, Professional Aviation Safety Specialists; and Mr. 
John Samuelsen, International President, Transport Workers 
Union.

                 Legislative History and Consideration

    H.R. 5119 was introduced in the House on November 15, 2019 
by Mr. DeFazio and 7 original co-sponsors and referred to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Within the 
Committee, H.R. 5119 was referred to the Subcommittee on 
Aviation.
    The Chair discharged the Subcommittee on Aviation from 
further consideration of H.R. 5119 on November 20, 2019.
    The Full Committee met in open session to consider H.R. 
5119 on November 20, 2019, and ordered the measure to be 
reported to the House with a favorable recommendation, without 
amendment, by a record vote of 39 yeas and 19 nays (Roll Call 
Vote No. 12).
    The following amendment was offered:
    An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. 
Graves of Louisiana (#1); was NOT AGREED TO by a record vote of 
26 yeas and 32 nays (Roll Call Vote No. 11).

                            Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report to include the 
total number of votes cast for and against on each record vote 
on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the 
measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for 
and against.
    An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. 
Graves of Louisiana (#1); was NOT AGREED TO by a record vote of 
26 yeas and 32 nays (Roll Call Vote No. 11). The vote was as 
follows:


    H.R. 5119 was ordered to be reported to the House of 
Representatives, with a favorable recommendation, without 
amendment, by a record vote of 39 yeas and 19 nays (Roll Call 
Vote No. 12). The vote was as follows:

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
                         Roll Call Vote No. 12

On ordering H.R. 5119 to be reported to the House with a favorable recommendation, without amendment.
Agreed to: 39 yeas and 19 nays.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Representative                  Yea    Nay               Representative              Yea    Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeFazio, P    Chair......................     X          Mr. Graves of MO, P    Ranking Member            X
Ms. Norton...................................     X          Mr. Young............................
Ms. Johnson of TX............................     X          Mr. Crawford.........................            X
Mr. Larsen of WA.............................     X          Mr. Gibbs............................            X
Mrs. Napolitano..............................     X          Mr. Webster of FL....................
Mr. Lipinski.................................     X          Mr. Massie...........................            X
Mr. Cohen....................................     X          Mr. Meadows..........................            X
Mr. Sires....................................     X          Mr. Perry............................            X
Mr. Garamendi................................     X          Mr. Rodney Davis of IL...............     X
Mr. Johnson of GA............................     X          Mr. Woodall..........................            X
Mr. Carson of IN.............................                Mr. Katko............................     X
Ms. Titus....................................     X          Mr. Babin............................            X
Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of NY...............                Mr. Graves of LA.....................            X
Mr. Huffman..................................                Mr. Rouzer...........................            X
Ms. Brownley of CA...........................     X          Mr. Bost.............................     X
Ms. Wilson of FL.............................     X          Mr. Weber of TX......................            X
Mr. Payne....................................                Mr. LaMalfa..........................            X
Mr. Lowenthal................................     X          Mr. Westerman........................            X
Mr. DeSaulnier...............................     X          Mr. Smucker..........................            X
Ms. Plaskett.................................     X          Mr. Mitchell.........................     X
Mr. Lynch....................................                Mr. Mast.............................     X
Mr. Carbajal.................................     X          Mr. Gallagher........................
Mr. Brown of MD..............................     X          Mr. Palmer...........................            X
Mr. Espaillat................................     X          Mr. Fitzpatrick......................
Mr. Malinowski...............................     X          Miss Gonzalez-Colon of PR............     X
Mr. Stanton..................................     X          Mr. Balderson........................            X
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell..........................     X          Mr. Spano............................            X
Mrs. Fletcher................................     X          Mr. Stauber..........................     X
Mr. Allred...................................     X          Mrs. Miller..........................            X
Ms. Davids of KS.............................     X          Mr. Pence............................            X
Ms. Finkenauer...............................     X
Mr. Garcia of IL.............................     X
Mr. Delgado..................................     X
Mr. Pappas...................................     X
Ms. Craig....................................     X
Mr. Rouda....................................     X
Mr. Lamb.....................................     X
                                                                                                   -------------
                                                             Vote Total:                              39     19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the 
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is 
included in this report.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 
received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5119 from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, March 10, 2020.
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5119, the Safe 
Aircraft Maintenance Standards Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Aaron 
Krupkin.
            Sincerely,
                                         Phillip L. Swagel,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

    
    

    H.R. 5119 would require certain air carriers to submit 
monthly and annual reports to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) on aircraft maintenance and alterations 
performed outside the United States. The FAA would be required 
to establish an online repository for that information, analyze 
the reports, detect any safety issues, and implement corrective 
actions if necessary. In addition, the FAA would be required to 
perform other regulatory activities related to aircraft 
maintenance.
    For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be 
enacted in fiscal year 2020. Under that assumption, the FAA 
could incur some costs in 2020, but CBO expects that most of 
the costs would be incurred in 2021 and later. Using 
information from the FAA on employee compensation and the 
workload that would result from fulfilling the bill's 
requirements, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5119 would 
cost about $4 million over the 2020-2025 period. Any spending 
would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. The 
costs of the legislation would fall within budget function 400 
(transportation).
    By requiring certain air carriers to submit new reports to 
the FAA, H.R. 5119 would impose a private-sector mandate as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Under 
current law, air carriers track maintenance performed on each 
aircraft and submit reports to the FAA when major alterations 
are performed. H.R. 5119 would broaden those requirements by 
requiring domestic operators to submit monthly reports on 
aircraft maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations 
performed outside the United States and annual reports 
detailing the heavy maintenance work performed on aircraft in 
the past year. CBO expects that the mandate would affect fewer 
than 100 airlines by incrementally adding to their maintenance-
tracking requirements. CBO estimates, therefore, that the cost 
of the mandates, mostly for gathering information and preparing 
new reports, would fall below the annual threshold for private-
sector mandates in UMRA ($168 million in 2020, adjusted 
annually for inflation).
    H.R. 5119 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in UMRA.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Aaron Krupkin 
(for federal costs) and Brandon Lever (for mandates). The 
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director 
of Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goal and objective of this legislation is to 
address the safety disparity between airline maintenance 
performed in the United States and that performed on U.S. 
airlines' fleets in foreign countries.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision 
of H.R. 5119 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal 
program, a program that was included in any report from the 
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to 
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a 
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance.

   Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
                                Benefits

    In compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the rule 
XXI.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (Public Law 104-4).

                        Preemption Clarification

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint 
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the 
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local, 
or tribal law. The Committee finds that H.R. 5119 does not 
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation


Sec. 1. Short title

    This section provides that this bill may be cited as the 
Safe Aircraft Maintenance Standards Act''.

Sec. 2. Sense of Congress

    This section expresses the sense of Congress that (1) the 
safety of the United States aviation system requires the 
highest standards for aircraft maintenance, repair, and 
overhaul work; (2) the safety of aircraft operated by United 
States air carriers should not be dependent on where the 
maintenance, repair, and overhaul work is performed; and (3) 
the FAA must fully enforce its maintenance, repair, and 
overhaul work on U.S.-operated aircraft at every facility in 
the United States or abroad.

Sec. 3. Oversight of repair stations located outside the United States

    This section:
    Requires that all foreign repair stations be subject to at 
least one unannounced inspection each year.
    Requires air carriers to submit detailed reports to the FAA 
each month listing mechanical issues attributable to 
maintenance performed outside the United States, and requires 
the FAA to subject those reports, as well as existing safety 
reports, to robust data analysis to detect trends and correct 
them.
    Requires air carriers to submit to an FAA-maintained 
repository an annual report with heavy maintenance history by 
location and specific aircraft registration number, as well as 
other personnel metrics.
    Prohibits the FAA from approving any application or request 
for renewal of a part 145 certificate from a repair station 
located in countries designated by the FAA as category 2 (which 
indicates a lower level of safety), as well as air carriers 
from conducting heavy maintenance in such countries.
    Requires that supervisors, individuals who authorize 
aircraft for return to service, and personnel performing 
required inspections must hold FAA mechanic or repairman 
certificates, and either be physically present near the 
aircraft or personally perform the work.

Sec. 4. Moratorium

    Beginning one year after enactment, this sections prohibits 
the FAA from certificating new foreign repair stations until 
the FAA has: (1) complied with the 2016 mandate for a final 
rule on drug and alcohol testing of employees at foreign repair 
stations, (2) issued a final rule mandating threat assessments 
of such employees, and (3) issued any other rules made 
necessary by this law.

Sec. 5. Definitions

    This section defines the terms used in this Act.

Sec. 6 Technical and clerical amendments

    This section contains technical amendments to the U.S. Code 
to correct an error in section numbering contained in the 
Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2018 
(P.L. 115-254).

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SUBTITLE VII--AVIATION PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART A--AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBPART III--SAFETY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     CHAPTER 447--SAFETY REGULATION


Sec.
44701. General requirements.
     * * * * * * *
[44733. Inspection of repair stations located outside the United 
          States.]
44733. Oversight of repair stations located outside the United States.
     * * * * * * *
44739. Pets on airplanes.
[Sec. 44737. Special rule for certain aircraft operations.]
44740. Special rule for certain aircraft operations.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 44733. [Inspection]  Oversight of repair stations located outside 
                    the United States

  (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this section, the Administrator of the Federal 
Aviation Administration shall establish and implement a safety 
assessment system for all part 145 repair stations based on the 
type, scope, and complexity of work being performed. The system 
shall--
          (1) ensure that repair stations located outside the 
        United States are subject to appropriate inspections 
        based on identified risks and consistent with existing 
        United States requirements;
          (2) consider inspection results and findings 
        submitted by foreign civil aviation authorities 
        operating under a maintenance safety or maintenance 
        implementation agreement with the United States; and
          (3) require all maintenance safety or maintenance 
        implementation agreements to provide an opportunity for 
        the Administration to conduct independent inspections 
        of [covered part 145 repair stations] part 145 repair 
        stations when safety concerns warrant such inspections.
  (b) Notice to Congress of Negotiations.--The Administrator 
shall notify the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives not later than 30 days after initiating formal 
negotiations with foreign aviation authorities or other 
appropriate foreign government agencies on a new maintenance 
safety or maintenance implementation agreement.
  (c) Annual Report.--The Administrator shall publish an annual 
report on the Administration's oversight of part 145 repair 
stations and implementation of the safety assessment system 
required under subsection (a). The report shall--
          (1) describe in detail any improvements in the 
        Administration's ability to identify and track where 
        part 121 air carrier repair work is performed;
          (2) include a staffing model to determine the best 
        placement of inspectors and the number of inspectors 
        needed;
          (3) describe the training provided to inspectors; and
          (4) include an assessment of the quality of 
        monitoring and surveillance by the Administration of 
        work performed by its inspectors and the inspectors of 
        foreign authorities operating under a maintenance 
        safety or maintenance implementation agreement.
  (d) Alcohol and Controlled Substances Testing Program 
Requirements.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary of State and the 
        Secretary of Transportation, acting jointly, shall 
        request the governments of foreign countries that are 
        members of the International Civil Aviation 
        Organization to establish international standards for 
        alcohol and controlled substances testing of persons 
        that perform safety-sensitive maintenance functions on 
        commercial air carrier aircraft.
          (2) Application to part 121 aircraft work.--Not later 
        than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
        section, the Administrator shall promulgate a proposed 
        rule requiring that all part 145 repair station 
        employees responsible for safety-sensitive maintenance 
        functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft are subject 
        to an alcohol and controlled substances testing program 
        determined acceptable by the Administrator and 
        consistent with the applicable laws of the country in 
        which the repair station is located.
  (e) Annual Inspections.--The Administrator shall ensure that 
part 145 repair stations located outside the United States are 
inspected annually, without prior notice, by Federal Aviation 
Administration safety inspectors, without regard to where the 
station is located, in a manner consistent with United States 
obligations under international agreements. [The Administrator 
may carry out inspections in addition to the annual inspection 
required under this subsection based on identified risks.] The 
Administrator may carry out announced or unannounced 
inspections in addition to the annual unannounced inspection 
required under this subsection based on identified risks.
  (f) Risk-Based Oversight.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the 
        date of enactment of the FAA Extension, Safety, and 
        Security Act of 2016, the Administrator shall take 
        measures to ensure that the safety assessment system 
        established under subsection (a)--
                  (A) places particular consideration on 
                inspections of part 145 repair stations located 
                outside the United States that conduct 
                scheduled heavy maintenance work on part 121 
                air carrier aircraft; and
                  (B) accounts for the frequency and 
                seriousness of any corrective actions that part 
                121 air carriers must implement to aircraft 
                following such work at such repair stations.
          (2) International agreements.--The Administrator 
        shall take the measures required under paragraph (1)--
                  (A) in accordance with United States 
                obligations under applicable international 
                agreements; and
                  (B) in a manner consistent with the 
                applicable laws of the country in which a 
                repair station is located.
          (3) Access to data.--The Administrator may access and 
        review such information or data in the possession of a 
        part 121 air carrier as the Administrator may require 
        in carrying out paragraph (1)(B).
  (g) Data Analysis.--
          (1) In general.--An air carrier conducting operations 
        under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal 
        Regulations, shall provide to the responsible Flight 
        Standards office of the Administration, not later than 
        the last day of each calendar month, a report 
        containing the information described in paragraph (2) 
        with respect to maintenance, preventive maintenance, or 
        alteration of an aircraft that is performed during the 
        preceding calendar month.
          (2) Information required.--A report under paragraph 
        (1) shall contain the following information:
                  (A) The location where any maintenance, 
                preventive maintenance, or alteration was 
                performed outside the United States.
                  (B) A description of the work performed at 
                each such location.
                  (C) The date of completion of the work 
                performed at each such location.
                  (D) The total man-hours associated with 
                completing the work performed at each such 
                location.
                  (E) A list of all failures, malfunctions, or 
                defects affecting the safe operation of an 
                aircraft identified by the air carrier as 
                requiring corrective action after return to 
                service, organized by reference to aircraft 
                registration number.
                  (F) The certificate number of the person 
                approving an aircraft, or a powerplant or part, 
                for return to service following completion of 
                the work performed at each such location.
          (3) Updates.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
        on which an aircraft returns to service, an air carrier 
        shall update the information described in paragraph 
        (2)(E) with respect to any failure, malfunction, or 
        defect discovered by the air carrier following return 
        to service during such period.
          (4) Analysis.--The Administrator shall--
                  (A) analyze reports submitted under paragraph 
                (1) of this subsection and sections 121.703, 
                121.705, 121.707, and 145.221 of title 14, Code 
                of Federal Regulations, or any successor 
                provisions, to detect safety issues associated 
                with maintenance, preventive maintenance, and 
                alterations performed outside the United 
                States; and
                  (B) require appropriate actions in response 
                to such reports.
  (h) Annual Reporting Requirement.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
        of enactment of this subsection, and annually 
        thereafter, each air carrier conducting operations 
        under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal 
        Regulations, shall upload to the online repository 
        described in paragraph (2) a report containing--
                  (A) a minimum of 1 year of heavy maintenance 
                work history for each aircraft (organized by 
                reference to aircraft registration number) that 
                conducted operations under such part 121 during 
                the previous calendar year;
                  (B) the percentage and total number of 
                mechanics carrying out maintenance, preventive 
                maintenance, or alterations on aircraft for the 
                air carrier during the previous year who are 
                employees and who are not employees of the air 
                carrier;
                  (C) the percentage and total number of 
                mechanics certified under part 65 of such title 
                carrying out maintenance, preventive 
                maintenance, or alterations on aircraft for the 
                air carrier during the previous year who are 
                based and who are not based in the United 
                States;
                  (D) the percentage and total number of 
                mechanics, regardless of certification, 
                carrying out maintenance, preventive 
                maintenance, or alterations on aircraft for the 
                air carrier during the previous year who are 
                based and who are not based in the United 
                States;
                  (E) the percentage and total number of 
                mechanics carrying out maintenance, preventive 
                maintenance, or alterations on aircraft for the 
                air carrier during the previous year who are 
                certified under part 65 of such title and who 
                are not certified under part 65 of such title;
                  (F) other information to be provided by the 
                air carrier regarding maintenance, safety, and 
                the aircraft fleet of the carrier that is of 
                interest to the traveling public, as determined 
                appropriate by the Administrator;
                  (G) all locations where aircraft in the fleet 
                of such air carrier have undergone heavy 
                maintenance work in the past 3 years, listed by 
                total man-hours; and
                  (H) all locations where heavy maintenance 
                work on an aircraft may be carried out for the 
                air carrier under an existing contract.
          (2) Online repository.--The Administrator shall 
        establish an online repository for information 
        submitted under paragraph (1) that allows an air 
        carrier to electronically upload the data required to 
        be submitted under such paragraph.
  (i) International Standards for Safety Oversight of Civil 
Aviation.--
          (1) Applications and requests for renewal.--
                  (A) In general.--The Administrator may not 
                approve any application or request for renewal 
                under part 145 of title 14, Code of Federal 
                Regulations, from a person located or 
                headquartered in a country that the 
                Administration, through the International 
                Aviation Safety Assessment program, has 
                classified as Category 2.
                  (B) Maintenance implementation procedures 
                agreement.--The Administrator may elect not to 
                enter into a maintenance implementation 
                procedures agreement with a country that the 
                Administrator has classified as Category 2 to 
                the extent the Administrator determines is 
                necessary to comply with the requirements of 
                this subsection.
          (2) Continued heavy maintenance work.--No air carrier 
        conducting operations under part 121 of title 14, Code 
        of Federal Regulations, may contract for heavy 
        maintenance work with a person located or headquartered 
        in a country that the Administration, through the 
        International Aviation Safety Assessment program, has 
        classified as Category 2.
  (j) Minimum Qualifications for Mechanics and Others Working 
on U.S.-registered Aircraft.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
        of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator 
        shall require that, at each covered repair station--
                  (A) all supervisory personnel are 
                appropriately certificated as a mechanic or 
                repairman under part 65 of title 14, Code of 
                Federal Regulations;
                  (B) all personnel authorized to approve an 
                article for return to service are appropriately 
                certificated as a mechanic or repairman under 
                part 65 of such title; and
                  (C) all personnel performing required 
                inspections under part 145 of such title are 
                appropriately certificated as a mechanic or 
                repairman under part 65 of such title.
          (2) Physical presence.--Not later than 1 year after 
        the date of enactment of this subsection, the 
        Administrator shall require that any individual who is 
        responsible for authorization of return of an article 
        to service or who is directly in charge of maintenance, 
        preventive maintenance, or alterations performed on 
        aircraft operated under part 121 of title 14, Code of 
        Federal Regulations--
                  (A) be physically present near the aircraft 
                and available for consultation while work is 
                being performed; or
                  (B) personally perform the work.
  [(g)] (k) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
definitions apply:
          (1) Covered repair station.--The term ``covered 
        repair station'' means a facility that--
                  (A) is located outside the United States;
                  (B) is certificated under part 145 of title 
                14, Code of Federal Regulations; and
                  (C) performs maintenance, preventive 
                maintenance, or alterations of aircraft, 
                including powerplants and parts of such 
                aircraft, operated under part 121 of title 14, 
                Code of Federal Regulations.
          [(1)] (2) Heavy maintenance work.--The term ``heavy 
        maintenance work'' means a C-check, a D-check, or 
        equivalent maintenance operation with respect to the 
        airframe of a transport-category aircraft.
          [(2)] (3) Part 121 air carrier.--The term ``part 121 
        air carrier'' means an air carrier that holds a 
        certificate issued under part 121 of title 14, Code of 
        Federal Regulations.
          [(3)] (4) Part 145 repair station.--The term ``part 
        145 repair station'' means a repair station that holds 
        a certificate issued under part 145 of title 14, Code 
        of Federal Regulations.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. [44737.]  44740. Special rule for certain aircraft operations[.]

  (a) In General.--The operator of an aircraft with a special 
airworthiness certification in the experimental category may--
          (1) operate the aircraft for the purpose of 
        conducting a space support vehicle flight (as that term 
        is defined in [chapter] section 50902 of title 51); and
          (2) conduct such flight under such certificate 
        carrying persons or property for compensation or hire--
                  (A) notwithstanding any rule or term of a 
                certificate issued by the Administrator of the 
                Federal Aviation Administration that would 
                prohibit flight for compensation or hire; or
                  (B) without obtaining a certificate issued by 
                the Administrator to conduct air carrier or 
                commercial operations.
  (b) Limited Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply only 
to a space support vehicle flight that satisfies each of the 
following:
          (1) [(1)] The aircraft conducting the space support 
        vehicle flight--
                  (A) takes flight and lands at a single site 
                that is operated by an entity licensed for 
                operation under chapter 509 of title 51;
                  (B) is owned or operated by a launch or 
                reentry vehicle operator licensed under chapter 
                509 of title 51, or on behalf of a launch or 
                reentry vehicle operator licensed under chapter 
                509 of title 51;
                  (C) is a launch vehicle, a reentry vehicle, 
                or a component of a launch or reentry vehicle 
                licensed for operations pursuant to chapter 509 
                of title 51; and
                  (D) is used only to simulate space flight 
                conditions in support of--
                          (i) training for potential space 
                        flight participants, government 
                        astronauts, or crew (as those terms are 
                        defined in chapter 509 of title 51);
                          (ii) the testing of hardware to be 
                        used in space flight; or
                          (iii) research and development tasks, 
                        which require the unique capabilities 
                        of the aircraft conducting the flight.
  (c) Rules of Construction.--
          (1) Space support vehicles.--Section 44711(a)(1) 
        shall not apply to a person conducting a space support 
        vehicle flight under this section only to the extent 
        that a term of the experimental certificate under which 
        the person is operating the space support vehicle 
        prohibits the carriage of persons or property for 
        compensation or hire.
          (2) Authority of administrator.--Nothing in this 
        section shall be construed to limit the authority of 
        the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
        Administration to exempt a person from a regulatory 
        prohibition on the carriage of persons or property for 
        compensation or hire subject to terms and conditions 
        other than those described in this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    While we support the intent behind H.R. 5119, the ``Safe 
Aircraft Maintenance Standards Act,'' we stand opposed to the 
version of the bill ordered to be reported by the Committee as 
it may harm the aviation industry, set back global aviation 
safety, and threaten thousands of American jobs.
Unintended Consequences
    According to the Majority, the purpose of H.R. 5119 is to 
increase aviation safety by ensuring that maintenance performed 
on aircraft operated by U.S. air carriers is held to the same 
standard whether it takes place in this country or abroad. 
While we share that laudable goal, H.R. 5119 does not live up 
to it. Instead, the bill attempts to unilaterally impose U.S. 
law in foreign countries, opening up the United States' 
aviation industry to retaliation by foreign regulators.
    In general, the bill would require the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) to apply U.S. laws and regulations on 
foreign repair stations, regardless of whether such laws are 
compatible with the laws of the foreign country where the 
repair station is located. Ironically, this unilateralist 
approach comes at a time when the United States is admitting 
hard truths about its aviation system and the overarching 
necessity to work with civil aviation authorities around the 
world to ensure aviation safety. This bill would significantly 
hinder these efforts and jeopardize global aviation safety 
progress at an already uncertain time for the aviation 
industry.
    We share the Majority's concerns that the FAA, under both 
Democratic and Republican administrations, has failed to meet 
statutory deadlines for initiating rulemakings and implementing 
safety regulations relating to foreign repair stations. 
However, rather than holding the FAA responsible for its 
failure to comply with mandates in existing law, H.R. 5119 adds 
complicated new requirements on top of existing statutory 
requirements and then directs the FAA to punish industry for 
its own failure to comply with all of the requirements. We find 
it difficult to understand how prohibiting the issuance of 
additional foreign repair station certificates prior to the 
completion of several newly mandated rulemakings will spur 
expedited action by the FAA.
    Furthermore, despite assertions at markup that the bill 
only targets countries that do not adhere to U.S. standards and 
that ``there is not going to be a problem with the developed 
world with this,''\1\ there is nothing in the bill that 
suggests this is the case. For example, if the FAA fails to 
meet the stringent deadlines set for implementing this bill, it 
will be barred from issuing foreign repair station 
certificates. This will apply whether the repair station is in 
Canada and the European Union (EU) or in China or an unsafe 
Category 2 country.\2\ If, under this bill, the United States 
fails to issue timely certificates to repair stations in the 
EU, it is likely that the EU will respond by not issuing 
certificates to repair stations in this country. This 
jeopardizes thousands of jobs at existing and future dual-
certificated repair stations in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure, Legislative Markup 
on November 20, 2019, 116 Cong. (2019), (statement of Peter DeFazio, 
Chair, Comm. On Transportation and Instructure) (on file with 
Committee).
    \2\A Category 2 country is one that FAA has found to be out of 
compliance with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 
safety standards under the International Aviation Safety Assessment 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This Committee has recognized an existing and impending 
aviation workforce shortage in nearly all job positions, 
including: pilots, flight attendants, safety inspectors, and 
mechanics. A recent industry assessment found that the world 
will need nearly 770,000 new aviation technicians in the next 
20 years. While nearly 200,000 of those jobs are forecasted to 
be in North America, that means that more than 75% will be 
outside the United States. Last Congress, this Committee 
produced the bipartisan FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 
115-254), which contained an entire title dedicated to 
addressing future aviation workforce issues. By impeding access 
to foreign repair stations, we are concerned this bill would 
roll back what progress has been achieved and make our Nation's 
mechanic shortage more acute than it already is.
    Finally, this bill did not receive the legislative due 
diligence it deserves given the array of potential issues. Most 
importantly, there was not testimony from impacted 
stakeholders, including repair stations, airlines, 
manufacturers, and the FAA. While the Subcommittee on Aviation 
did receive testimony from a labor union representing aircraft 
mechanics on July 17, 2019, at a hearing titled ``State of 
Aviation Safety,'' it merely received anecdotal information 
regarding the safety of foreign repair stations, not the data 
this Committee needs to make informed decisions regarding 
changes to a complex regulatory safety structure.
A Better Way
    We believe we could have reached a bipartisan agreement 
that would have passed the Committee unanimously. At markup, 
Rep. Garret Graves, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation, offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 5119 which contained the text of the ``Global Aircraft 
Maintenance Safety Improvement Act.'' We believe the amendment 
represented a fair, consensus driven approach that would have 
addressed the concerns raised by the Majority regarding the 
FAA's foreign repair station oversight in a way that respects 
existing U.S. international obligations and avoids harmful 
retaliation by other countries. Rather than seriously 
considering the proposal, it was mischaracterized by the 
Majority, then swiftly defeated on a strict party-line vote.
    The amendment was not, however, a wholesale change to the 
base text. It included many of the provisions found in the 
underlying bill, including those requiring unannounced 
inspections at foreign repair stations and enabling FAA 
analysis of foreign repair station safety data. Like the 
underlying bill, the amendment would have restricted repair 
station activity in Category 2 countries. The amendment also 
would have ensured that the FAA would comply with existing 
foreign repair station rulemaking mandates by prohibiting non-
safety related travel for FAA employees within two years should 
the FAA fail to issue the rulemakings. This would set a 
realistic timeframe for the FAA to finally complete the long 
outstanding mandates while ensuring that the consequences of 
not completing them would be felt by the FAA, not the aviation 
industry.
    Recognizing that overseeing the safety of worldwide repair 
stations is a global issue, the amendment also would have 
created a foreign repair station Joint Authorities Technical 
Review (JATR) made up of representatives from civil aviation 
authorities of countries that certificate foreign repair 
stations and countries in which those repair stations are 
located. This would have provided a unique and helpful body 
within which the FAA could work with countries where it 
certificates foreign repair stations to raise the level of 
safety on a multilateral basis, rather than imposing an 
ineffective one-size-fits-all policy by fiat.
    The foreign repair station JATR was based on the JATR 
created in the wake of the two accidents involving the Boeing 
737 MAX aircraft. The group was widely praised by aviation 
experts and lawmakers, including Democratic members of the 
Committee, as a valuable independent body that offered 
important insights and recommendations, many of which the FAA 
is already implementing. It is unclear why the Majority 
disparaged the foreign repair station JATR at markup as 
``another advisory group composed of self-interested, 
conflicted individuals''\3\ while praising the Boeing 737 MAX 
JATR as ``heeding [the Majority's] call to bring in an 
independent body into the certification process''\4\ and as 
``an independent body must be able to review every step of the 
process and help restore public confidence.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure, Legislative Markup 
on November 20, 2019, 116 Cong. (2019), (statement of Peter DeFazio, 
Chair, Comm. On Transportation and Instructure) (on file with 
Committee).
    \4\``Chairs DeFazio and Larsen Applaud FAA Announcement Ordering a 
Third-Party Review into Boeing 737 MAX,'' Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure press release, April 3, 2019, available at https://
transportation.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairs-defazio-and-larsen-
applaud-faa-announcement-ordering-a-third-party-review-into-boeing-737-
max.
    \5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
    We are disappointed that the Majority has missed an 
opportunity at bipartisan cooperation on a topic as important 
and bipartisan as aviation safety. In the past, this Committee 
has worked constructively to address aviation safety issues in 
a bipartisan way, and we remain hopeful that future legislative 
efforts will follow that historically successful path. We 
continue to stand ready to work with the Majority on future 
bipartisan legislation that improves transportation safety.
                                                Sam Graves,
                                                    Ranking Member.