Aviation Safety: FAA's Use of Emergency Orders to Revoke or Suspend
Operating Certificates (Letter Report, 07/23/98, GAO/RCED-98-199).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) use of emergency orders during fiscal years 1990
through 1997, focusing on: (1) the extent to which FAA used emergency
orders, including data on regional variation in their use, the types of
certificate holders affected, and the final outcomes of cases initiated
using emergency orders; (2) the ways in which changes in FAA's policies
might have affected the agency's use of emergency orders; and (3) the
time needed for FAA to investigate alleged violations and issue
emergency orders.

GAO noted that: (1) FAA used emergency orders to initiate action to
revoke or suspend operating certificates in 3 percent (3,742) of the
137,506 enforcement cases closed during fiscal years 1990 through 1997;
(2) as FAA moved to handling less serious enforcement cases through
administrative actions rather than certificate actions, the number of
certificate actions decreased, and emergency orders came to represent a
larger proportion of the more serious certificate actions that remained,
increasing from 10 percent in 1990 to an annual average of nearly 20
percent over the following 7 years; (3) emergency orders as a percentage
of certificate actions varied by FAA region, resulting from differences
in enforcement practices and from unusual circumstances in an individual
case; (4) in fiscal years 1990 through 1997, nearly 60 percent of the
emergency orders revoked or suspended pilots' operating certificates or
the certificates of their medical fitness to fly; (5) FAA initiated a
substantially higher proportion of certificate actions with emergency
orders for pilots with commercial operating certificates than for air
transport pilots; (6) over three-quarters of the enforcement cases
initiated using emergency orders resulted in the suspension or
revocation of the certificate holder's operating certificate, and fewer
than 5 percent resulted ultimately in FAA's dropping the case because it
determined that no violation was committed or had insufficient evidence
to prove a violation; (7) during fiscal years 1990 through 1997, FAA
implemented a formal change in its policy on emergency actions that is
reflected in the increased number of revocations using emergency orders;
(8) in 1990, FAA decided that, for those cases in which revocations are
based on a demonstrated lack of qualification to hold the relevant
certificate, the certificate generally should be revoked immediately and
not after the lengthy appeal process that other nonemergency certificate
actions can be subject to; (9) FAA informally implemented this policy
change in 1990 and 1991 before formally incorporating it into its
compliance and enforcement guidance in 1992; (10) FAA initiated 184
revocations using emergency orders in fiscal year 1990, after which this
number increased, ranging between 264 and 382 annually; and (11)
although the use of emergency orders is intended to expedite the
handling of serious enforcement of cases in which operating certificates
are revoked or suspended, the time needed for FAA to investigate
violations and issue emergency orders varied widely.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-98-199
     TITLE:  Aviation Safety: FAA's Use of Emergency Orders to Revoke or 
             Suspend Operating Certificates
      DATE:  07/23/98
   SUBJECT:  Air transportation operations
             Airline industry
             Airline regulation
             Pilots
             Administrative remedies
             Safety regulation
             Transportation safety
             Commercial aviation
IDENTIFIER:  FAA Enforcement Information System
             FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Honorable
James M.  Inhofe, U.S.  Senate

July 1998

AVIATION SAFETY - FAA'S USE OF
EMERGENCY ORDERS TO REVOKE OR
SUSPEND OPERATING CERTIFICATES

GAO/RCED-98-199

FAA's Use of Emergency Orders

(348068)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  EIS - Enforcement Information System
  FAA - Federal Aviation Administration
  FAR - Federal Aviation Regulations
  NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-279496

July 23, 1998

The Honorable James M.  Inhofe
United States Senate

Dear Senator Inhofe: 

As provided in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for examining, testing,
and periodically inspecting the compliance of airmen, such as pilots,
mechanics, and flight engineers, and aviation entities, such as
airlines, airports, and repair stations, that seek a certificate to
operate.  These operating certificates, which can be issued directly
by FAA or by a qualified individual to whom the agency has delegated
appropriate authority, certify that the individual or entity has the
necessary qualifications to perform the duties authorized by the
certificate.  These duties might include, for example, a pilot's use
of a certain type of aircraft, a manufacturer's production of a
specific aircraft engine, or a repair station's maintenance of
aircraft, engines, or propellers.  (See app.  I for the types of
certificates that FAA issues.)

When FAA detects violations of the FAR by such certificate holders,
it has a range of actions it can take to enforce compliance with the
regulations, depending on the seriousness of the violation.  These
actions include (1) administrative actions, such as warning letters
or (2) legal actions, which usually involve either assessing a civil
penalty (fine) or taking a "certificate action" to suspend or revoke
an individual's or entity's operating certificate.\1 FAA may take
certificate actions on a nonemergency basis, in which case the
certificate holder may continue to operate until the matter is
adjudicated.  However, if FAA determines that the public interest and
safety require immediate action against a certificate holder, the
agency can use an emergency order to immediately revoke or suspend
the operating certificate. 

Since the fatal crashes of ValuJet Flight 592 in May 1996 and TWA
Flight 800 in July 1996, FAA's oversight of the aviation community
and the agency's enforcement actions in response to violations have
come under increased scrutiny.\2 While some have criticized FAA for
not responding swiftly or forcefully enough to safety violations,
others have questioned its haste in using emergency orders to suspend
or revoke the certificates that pilots, airlines, and others need to
operate. 

At your request, we reviewed FAA's use of emergency orders during
fiscal years 1990 through 1997.  This report provides information on
(1) the extent to which FAA used emergency orders, including data on
regional variation in their use, the types of certificate holders
affected, and the final outcomes of cases initiated using emergency
orders; (2) the ways in which changes in FAA's policies might have
affected the agency's use of emergency orders; and (3) the time
needed for FAA to investigate alleged violations and issue emergency
orders. 


--------------------
\1 A certificate suspension may be for a definite period (e.g., 30
days), or it may be indefinite (e.g., until the holder demonstrates
qualifications to hold the certificate).  When a certificate has been
revoked, the former holder loses any right to use the certificate. 
See app.  II for a detailed description of the process FAA uses to
handle emergency and nonemergency certificate actions. 

\2 See, for example, Aviation Safety:  Weaknesses in Inspection and
Enforcement Limit FAA in Identifying and Responding to Risks
(GAO/RCED-98-6, Feb.  27, 1998). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

FAA used emergency orders to initiate action to revoke or suspend
operating certificates in 3 percent (3,742) of the 137,506
enforcement cases closed during fiscal years 1990 through 1997.\3
(See fig.  1.) As FAA moved to handling less serious enforcement
cases through administrative actions rather than certificate actions,
the number of certificate actions decreased, and emergency orders
came to represent a larger proportion of the more serious certificate
actions that remained, increasing from 10 percent in 1990 to an
annual average of nearly 20 percent over the following 7 years. 
Emergency orders as a percentage of certificate actions varied by FAA
region, resulting from differences in enforcement practices and from
unusual circumstances in an individual case.  In fiscal years 1990
through 1997, nearly 60 percent of the emergency orders revoked or
suspended pilots' operating certificates or the certificates of their
medical fitness to fly.  FAA initiated a substantially higher
proportion of certificate actions with emergency orders for pilots
with commercial operating certificates than for air transport pilots. 
According to FAA's Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulation and
Certification, it is not surprising that a smaller proportion of air
transport pilots received emergency orders because they have more
initial training and more extensive recurrent training on a regular
basis than commercial pilots.  Over three-quarters of the enforcement
cases initiated using emergency orders resulted in the suspension or
revocation of the certificate holder's operating certificate, and
fewer than 5 percent resulted ultimately in FAA's dropping the case
(no action) because it determined that no violation was committed or
had insufficient evidence to prove a violation. 

   Figure 1:  FAA's Use of
   Emergency Orders to Initiate
   Enforcement Cases Closed in
   Fiscal Years 1990-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 

During fiscal years 1990 through 1997, FAA implemented a formal
change in its policy on emergency actions that is reflected in the
increased number of revocations using emergency orders.  In 1990, FAA
decided that, for those cases in which revocations are based on a
demonstrated lack of qualification to hold the relevant certificate,
the certificate generally should be revoked immediately and not after
the lengthy appeal process that other nonemergency certificate
actions can be subject to.  FAA informally implemented this policy
change in 1990 and 1991 before formally incorporating it into its
compliance and enforcement guidance in 1992.\4 As a result, FAA
initiated 184 revocations using emergency orders in fiscal year 1990,
after which this number increased, ranging between 264 and 382
annually. 

Although the use of emergency orders is intended to expedite the
handling of serious enforcement cases in which operating certificates
are revoked or suspended, the time needed for FAA to investigate
violations and issue emergency orders varied widely, frequently
taking several months or longer.  For half of the enforcement cases
in fiscal years 1990 through 1997, FAA issued the emergency order
within about 4 months after learning of the violation.  For the
remainder, the time needed to investigate and issue the order ranged
from just over 4 months to over 2 years.  Since no violation has been
established, the certificate holder may continue to operate during
this time, that is, to fly or repair aircraft.  We did not analyze
individual cases to determine why some cases took longer for FAA to
investigate and issue the emergency order than others.  According to
FAA program and legal officials, certain types of cases may take
longer because they are complex, involve the falsification of
maintenance or training records, or require extensive checking of
these records. 


--------------------
\3 We restricted our analysis to enforcement cases that FAA closed in
fiscal years 1990 through 1997.  The enforcement cases that FAA
initiates using an emergency order to revoke or suspend an operating
certificate may ultimately be resolved in a variety of ways,
including the revocation or suspension of a certificate, the
imposition of a civil penalty (fine), or the expiration of the
certificate.  (See table 5.)

\4 FAA Order 2150.3A. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

When FAA finds that certificate holders have violated aviation
regulations, it has the statutory authority to take appropriate
action.  FAA Order 2150.3A on compliance and enforcement provides
guidance on the range of options available for responding to
violations.  The option chosen depends on such factors as the
seriousness of the violation and the violator's prior enforcement
history and willingness to comply with regulations.  FAA uses
administrative actions to document incidents involving minor
violations, to request future compliance, and--if appropriate--to
document corrective actions violators have agreed to take.  Legal
actions, such as fines or certificate actions, are FAA's strongest
enforcement tools.  While FAA uses certificate actions primarily
against individual certificate holders (e.g., pilots, mechanics, or
flight engineers), it can also take certificate action against such
entities as airlines, air taxi operators, or repair stations.  FAA
can also refer cases to the Department of Transportation's Office of
Inspector General or to the appropriate law enforcement agency for
criminal prosecution. 

When FAA determines that the public interest and safety require the
immediate suspension or revocation of an operator's certificate, the
agency can issue an emergency order.  An emergency order revoking an
operating certificate is the most severe enforcement action that FAA
can take against a certificate holder.  An emergency order is
generally used when a certificate holder is not qualified and may
make use of the certificate\5 or demonstrates a lack of care,
judgment, and responsibility by, for example, operating an aircraft
while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.  An emergency order
takes effect immediately on issuance.  The certificate holder does
not have an opportunity to contest the order before it is issued,
and, unlike nonemergency certificate actions, the emergency order
remains in effect while the certificate holder appeals.  Emergency
orders can be appealed to the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) and the U.S.  Court of Appeals.  (See app.  II for more
information on the process for appealing FAA's emergency and
nonemergency certificate actions.)


--------------------
\5 If a pilot is in prison or in the hospital, for example, an
emergency order would not be needed because the pilot would be unable
to use the certificate. 


   FAA'S USE OF EMERGENCY ORDERS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

FAA used emergency orders in a small percentage of its enforcement
cases.  FAA regions varied in their use of emergency orders to
initiate certificate actions; these differences appear to result in
part from differences in enforcement practices.  Nearly 60 percent of
the emergency orders revoked or suspended pilot certificates or the
medical certificates pilots must also have.  Of the cases FAA
initiated using emergency orders, over three-quarters ultimately
resulted in a suspension or revocation of the certificate. 


      FAA'S INCREASED USE OF
      ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
      RESULTED IN A LARGER
      PROPORTION OF EMERGENCY
      CERTIFICATE ACTIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Of the 137,506 enforcement cases closed in fiscal years 1990 through
1997, FAA initiated 3 percent using emergency orders.  The actual
number of emergency orders ranged from a low of 322 in fiscal year
1990 to a high of 573 in fiscal year 1996.  On average, FAA closed
468 cases annually in which it had initiated enforcement action using
emergency orders.  (See table 1.)



                                         Table 1
                         
                          Enforcement Cases Closed, Fiscal Years
                                         1990-97

                                              Certificate       Number of
                                             actions as a    closed cases       Emergency
                                               percentage       initiated     orders as a
                  Number of       Number of            of           using   percentage of
                enforcement     certificate   enforcement       emergency     certificate
Fiscal year    cases closed  actions closed  cases closed          orders  actions closed
-----------  --------------  --------------  ------------  --------------  --------------
1990                 13,218           3,126            24             322              10
1991                 15,341           2,598            17             482              19
1992                 16,462           2,873            17             532              19
1993                 23,535           3,136            13             487              16
1994                 19,034           2,543            13             383              15
1995                 17,987           2,185            12             503              23
1996                 16,180           2,200            14             573              26
1997                 15,749           2,209            14             460              21
=========================================================================================
Total               137,506          20,870            15           3,742              18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 

Since fiscal year 1990, emergency orders have been used to initiate
an increasing proportion of certificate actions.  As FAA shifted to
using administrative actions to handle less serious enforcement
cases, its use of certificate actions decreased.  Because the number
of emergency orders remained relatively constant, emergency orders
came to represent a larger proportion of the remaining certificate
actions.  (See table 1.) According to the Assistant Chief Counsel in
the Enforcement Division, the proportion of certificate actions
initiated using emergency orders grew largely because, beginning in
1990, FAA used administrative actions more frequently to handle many
less serious violations, which decreased the number of certificate
actions.  Thus, fewer cases are now handled as certificate actions,
but they are the more serious cases. 


   REGIONAL USE OF CERTIFICATE
   ACTIONS AND EMERGENCY ORDERS
   VARIED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

FAA used emergency orders to initiate 18 percent of its certificate
action cases, on average, for fiscal years 1990 through 1997, but
three regions initiated from 28 to 38 percent of their certificate
actions using emergency orders.  (See table 2.) These differences
among the regions reflect, among other things, (1) unusually high
numbers of emergency orders to suspend or revoke medical certificates
in the Eastern, Western-Pacific, and Southwest regions and (2) large
numbers of emergency suspensions of mechanic certificates in the
Southwest region. 



                                Table 2
                
                Regional Use of Emergency Orders, Fiscal
                             Years 1990-97

                                             Number of       Number of
                                          closed cases       emergency
                                             initiated     orders as a
                               Number of         using   percentage of
                             certificate     emergency     certificate
Region                           actions        orders         actions
--------------------------  ------------  ------------  --------------
Southwest                          2,175           820              38
Eastern                            2,000           596              30
Western-Pacific                    2,477           703              28
New England                          587           147              25
Alaskan                              633           142              22
Great Lakes                        1,656           326              20
Southern                           3,986           560              14
Central                            1,303           182              14
Northwest                          1,501           221              15
Other\a                            4,552            45               1
======================================================================
Total                             20,870         3,742              18
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes enforcement actions opened by FAA's Aeronautical Center,
European region, and headquarters, as well as those enforcement
actions based on violations voluntarily self-disclosed to FAA by
aviation entities. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 

While most regions issued no more than a handful (one to five) of
emergency orders to revoke or suspend medical certificates each year
in fiscal years 1990 through 1997, the Southwest region averaged
nearly a dozen annually, and the Eastern and Western-Pacific regions
averaged almost 25.\6 (See table 3.) Officials at these offices and
at FAA headquarters were unsure why these regions initiated so many
more emergency orders on medical certificates than did the other
regions.  Differences in enforcement practices in FAA's regional
offices apparently may affect whether emergency orders are used to
revoke or suspend a medical certificate.  One regional counsel
suggested that the staff in her region were simply efficient in
processing these cases, while in other regions, the certificates of
pilots that do not meet requirements may simply be allowed to expire. 
(Medical certificates must be renewed every 6 months to 3 years,
depending on the type of pilot.) Another regional counsel suggested
that some regions may handle medical certificate cases as
nonemergency certificate actions. 

The Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification
suggested that the higher numbers of medical certificates suspended
or revoked using emergency orders in certain regions may reflect the
larger population of pilots in those regions.  We agree that regions
that have a higher number of pilots might have proportionately higher
numbers of emergency orders against pilots' medical certificates. 
However, we do not believe this fully explains the differences among
FAA's regions.  For example, the Southern region, which FAA officials
told us had the largest number of general aviation pilots, had only
one-sixth as many emergency revocations or suspensions as the
Western-Pacific and Eastern regions. 



                                Table 3
                
                 Emergency Orders to Revoke or Suspend
                 Medical Certificates by Region, Fiscal
                             Years 1990-97

                                            Number of emergency orders
                                          to revoke or suspend medical
Region                                                    certificates
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
Western-Pacific                                                    197
Eastern                                                            194
Southwest                                                           93
Great Lakes                                                         43
Southern                                                            33
Central                                                             20
New England                                                         16
Northwest Mountain                                                  15
Alaskan                                                             11
Other\a                                                              3
======================================================================
Total                                                              625
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes Aeronautical Center and European region. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 

FAA was better able to clarify why the Southwest region issued nearly
40 percent (174) of the 442 emergency orders to revoke or suspend
mechanic certificates in fiscal years 1990 through 1997.  Other
regions revoked or suspended mechanic certificates between 6 and 75
times during this period.  According to the information provided by
the Flight Standards Service in FAA headquarters and the legal staff
in the Southwest region, many of these cases resulted from problems
with a designated examiner with delegated authority from FAA who did
not properly administer tests to ensure that mechanics were
qualified.  His actions necessitated the reexamination of nearly 200
mechanics; those who did not retake or did not pass the examination
had their mechanic certificates suspended on an emergency basis. 


--------------------
\6 The FAR also requires that pilots and instructors have appropriate
medical certificates certifying their current health condition. 


      PILOTS WERE MOST OFTEN
      AFFECTED BY EMERGENCY ORDERS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

The 3,742 emergency orders to revoke or suspend aviation certificates
in fiscal years 1990 through 1997 affected both individual pilots and
mechanics and aviation entities such as repair stations and airport
operators.  Of the emergency orders, nearly 60 percent affected
pilots by revoking or suspending 1,563 pilot certificates and 625
medical certificates.  FAA also issued emergency orders to revoke or
suspend 442 mechanics' certificates and 118 certificates of the
operators of air carriers, air taxis, airports, and other aviation
entities.  (See fig.  2.) These numbers reflect the number of
certificates issued--there are many more pilots (622,261 during 1996)
than air carriers or air taxis (3,057 during 1996).  In addition,
pilots must have at least two types of operating certificates--pilot
and medical.  (See app.  III for annual data on FAA's use of
emergency orders by certificate type.)

   Figure 2:  Types of Certificate
   Holders Affected by Emergency
   Orders, Fiscal Years 1990-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Operators include, for example, airport operators, agricultural
operators, scheduled and on-demand air carriers, and scheduled cargo
carriers. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 

FAA used emergency orders to initiate certificate action against a
similar proportion of private pilots and pilots holding commercial
and air transport certificates.  (See table 4.) FAA issued emergency
orders to commercial pilots nearly 75 percent more often than it did
to air transport pilots, although the number of pilots in each group
is similar--129,187 commercial pilots and 127,486 air transport
pilots in 1996.  According to FAA's Deputy Associate Administrator
for Regulation and Certification, it is not surprising that a smaller
proportion of air transport pilots, particularly those flying for
major airlines, receive emergency orders because they have more
initial training and more extensive recurrent training on a regular
basis than do commercial pilots. 



                                Table 4
                
                 Types of Pilot Certificates Revoked or
                Suspended Using Emergency Orders, Fiscal
                             Years 1990-97

Types of pilot certificate                           Number of actions
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
Private pilot                                                      712
Commercial pilot                                                   422
Air transport pilot                                                242
Student pilot                                                      111
Flight instructor                                                   68
Instrument rating\a                                                  8
======================================================================
Total                                                            1,563
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a An instrument rating is an integral part of an air transport
pilot's certificate and is mandatory for commercial pilots flying
further than a specified distance. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 


      MOST CERTIFICATE ACTIONS
      INITIATED USING EMERGENCY
      ORDERS RESULTED IN
      REVOCATIONS OR SUSPENSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

A high percentage of the certificate actions initiated using
emergency orders ultimately resulted in revocations or suspensions. 
Of the 2,311 certificate revocations initiated using emergency orders
in fiscal years 1990 through 1997, 86 percent resulted in the
individual's or entity's losing the certificate.  Specifically, 72
percent of the emergency revocations ultimately resulted in the
certificate's being revoked, and an additional 14 percent led to a
suspension of the certificate.  Less than 4 percent of the actions
initiated as emergency revocations ultimately resulted in the case
being dropped (no action).  Similarly, of the 1,431 certificate
suspensions initiated using emergency orders, 62 percent ultimately
resulted in the suspension of the certificate, an additional 2
percent resulted in revocation, and 6 percent were ultimately dropped
(no action).  (See table 5.) While the final resolution of 240 of the
cases could not be determined from the available data, the vast
majority of the remaining cases were resolved by allowing the
certificate to expire or by having operators successfully complete a
reexamination of their qualifications.  (See app.  V.)



                                Table 5
                
                  Recommended Type of Emergency Action
                Compared With Final Action Taken, Fiscal
                             Years 1990-97

                               Emergency action initially recommended
                              ----------------------------------------
Final action taken              Revocation    Suspension         Total
----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Certificate revoked                  1,656            35         1,691
Certificate suspended                  322           887         1,209
No action                               83            87           170
FAA action reversed                     43             9            52
Other\a                                207           413           620
======================================================================
Total                                2,311         1,431         3,742
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a See app.  V for a complete analysis of other final actions taken
in response to emergency orders. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 

According to FAA officials in the Enforcement Division in the Office
of the Chief Counsel and in Flight Standards, the high numbers of
emergency orders that were upheld for suspension and revocation
reflects the fact that the agency takes emergency orders,
particularly revocations, very seriously and is reluctant to initiate
them without clear and convincing evidence.  The Acting Director and
other staff in the Flight Standards Service, the Assistant Chief
Counsel in FAA's Enforcement Division, and the nine regional counsels
strongly agreed that emergency revocations are used in cases in which
individuals or entities lacked the qualifications for the certificate
or demonstrated a lack of care, judgment, and responsibility by, for
example, falsifying material aviation records or operating aircraft
while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.  The Acting Director
of the Flight Standards Service said that requests to initiate
emergency revocations against individuals are scrutinized at the
local and division levels within Flight Standards before being
referred to legal staff for action.  Additionally, regional legal and
program office staff provide information in cases against air
carriers and repair stations to the Office of the Chief Counsel and
the Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification for
review and concurrence.  In most cases, the Office of the Deputy
Administrator and the Office of the Administrator of FAA are briefed
on the recommendation before an emergency order is issued. 


   REDEFINITION OF EMERGENCY HAS
   AFFECTED FAA'S USE OF EMERGENCY
   REVOCATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

A change to FAA's policy\7 broadened the circumstances in which the
agency uses emergency orders.  Although the policy change applied to
both emergency revocations and emergency suspensions, FAA officials
focused on the rule's impact on the agency's use of revocations. 
According to several regional counsels we interviewed, prior to 1990,
many revocation actions had been taken on a nonemergency basis.  In
1990, FAA concluded that an emergency order is appropriate when a
revocation is warranted in the interest of public safety because the
certificate holder lacks qualifications.  Under these conditions, the
revocation should be taken immediately unless it is unlikely that the
holder will use the certificate.  The Assistant Chief Counsel of the
Enforcement Division pointed out that, if the revocation is not taken
immediately, the certificate holder can continue to operate for
months or even years until the appeal process is completed. 
Furthermore, because of FAA's responsibility to protect the public
safety, such potentially unsafe operating situations cannot be
allowed to continue for a long period of time.  FAA informally
implemented this policy change in 1990 and 1991 before formally
incorporating it into FAA Order 2150.3A in February 1992.  As a
result, FAA increased the use of emergency orders to initiate
revocations from 184 in fiscal year 1990 to between 264 and 382
annually thereafter.  (See table 6.)



                                Table 6
                
                  FAA's Use of Emergency Revocations,
                          Fiscal Years 1990-97

                                                       Total emergency
Fiscal year                            Revocations            orders\a
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
1990                                           184                 322
1991                                           284                 482
1992                                           327                 532
1993                                           291                 487
1994                                           281                 383
1995                                           264                 503
1996                                           382                 573
1997                                           298                 460
======================================================================
Total                                        2,311               3,742
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes emergency suspensions and emergency revocations. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 


--------------------
\7 FAA Order 2150.3A. 


   FOR HALF OF THE CASES, MONTHS
   ELAPSED BETWEEN FAA'S LEARNING
   OF THE VIOLATION AND ISSUING
   THE EMERGENCY ORDER
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

The use of emergency orders is intended to expedite the handling of
serious certificate actions.  For half of the 3,742 emergency actions
we analyzed, however, more than 4 months elapsed between the time FAA
learned of the violation and the time it issued the emergency order. 
During this period, FAA inspection staff investigated the violation,
reached a preliminary determination that an emergency suspension or
revocation was warranted, and then transferred the case to legal
staff for the review and preparation of the case and the issuance of
the emergency order.  In most cases, FAA may not envision the use of
an emergency order at the outset of the investigation.  Time is
needed to investigate the facts and evaluate whether the evidence
demonstrates a lack of qualification sufficient to support the
issuance of an emergency order.  The time that elapses between the
violation and the issuance of the emergency order raises questions
about safety because the certificate holder, such as a pilot or
mechanic, can continue to operate until the emergency order is
issued.  In addition, some aviation attorneys in the private sector
question whether it is appropriate or necessary for FAA to handle
some cases as emergencies, especially if the violations occurred
years before.  These two positions reflect the tension between FAA's
need to act swiftly in cases that present an immediate threat to
safety or a demonstrated lack of qualifications and to act prudently
to protect the rights of certificate holders by thoroughly
investigating alleged violations before revoking or suspending a
certificate that may be essential to the livelihood of an individual
or the employees of an airline, repair station, or other aviation
entity. 


      FOR HALF OF THE ENFORCEMENT
      CASES THAT INVOLVED
      EMERGENCY ORDERS, MORE THAN
      4 MONTHS ELAPSED BETWEEN
      FAA'S LEARNING OF THE
      VIOLATION AND ISSUING THE
      EMERGENCY ORDER
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

For half of the enforcement cases in which FAA used emergency orders
in fiscal years 1990 through 1997, more than 4 months elapsed between
the time FAA learned of the violation and the time it issued the
emergency order.\8 Once FAA learned about the violations, it
completed its investigation, prepared the case, and issued the
emergency order within 10 days for 4 percent of the cases and within
a month for 11 percent of the cases.  Most cases, however, required
more than 4 months (132 days) from the date of violation until FAA
issued the emergency order.  (See table 7.) Cases remained in the
program offices for investigation for most of this time.  (See tables
IV.3 and IV.4 in app.  IV for times spent on investigation and case
preparation.)



                                Table 7
                
                  Number of Days Between the Date FAA
                Learned About the Violation and the Date
                   It Issued the Emergency Order, by
                 Percent of Cases, Fiscal Years 1990-97

Amount of time elapsed\a                              Percent of cases
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
10 days or less                                                      4
30 days or less                                                     11
180 days or less                                                    65
365 days or less                                                    86
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The median time elapsed was 132 days.  (The median is the number
representing the point dividing the upper half of the cases from the
lower half of the cases in terms of elapsed days.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 

While it may be clear as soon as FAA learns of some types of
violations that they merit the use of an emergency order, other cases
may not be so clear-cut.  According to the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Regulation and Certification, the use of an
emergency order is not necessarily envisioned when FAA first learns
of a violation and initiates its investigation.  She added that only
after investigation do the FAA inspector and managers make a
determination in some cases that an emergency order is warranted
because of a lack of qualifications on the part of the certificate
holder.  She said that FAA generally processes emergency cases very
quickly, often within a few days. 

While FAA's databases do not have a field for recording when
inspection staff initially determine that an emergency order is
warranted, the Enforcement Information System (EIS) provides some
data on how long it takes to issue an emergency order once inspection
staff recommend that action.  Specifically, EIS tracks the day FAA's
legal staff receive a case and the type of emergency action
recommended by the program office.  In about one-third of the cases
in which inspection staff recommended emergency suspension or
revocation, FAA's legal staff issued the emergency order within 10
days of receiving the case.  Half of the emergency orders were issued
in 20 days or less, 94 percent took 6 months or less to issue, while
the remaining 6 percent took longer than 6 months to issue.  (See
table IV.5.)

Without an extensive review of individual cases--which was beyond the
scope of our review--it is impossible to determine how much time FAA
expended on investigation, particularly in more complex cases. 
According to the Acting Director of the Flight Standards Service,
inspectors conduct investigations while simultaneously carrying out
many other responsibilities, such as accident investigations and
inspections.  Similarly, FAA legal staff have many nonenforcement
responsibilities, including work on procurement issues and contract
disputes.  In addition, some complex cases may require more time for
legal review, while other cases may require additional investigation
to have sufficient evidence to support the issuance of an emergency
order, according to the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement in
FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel.  The fact remains, however, that
months often elapse between the occurrence of a violation, the time
FAA learns of that violation, and the date the agency issues an
emergency order of suspension or revocation.  During this time, a
certificate holder who lacks qualifications or who represents a
threat to safety can continue to operate. 


--------------------
\8 Our analysis focused on the time FAA spent between learning of the
violation and issuing the emergency order, rather than on the length
of time between the violation and the last legal action taken to
close out the case.  We chose this time frame because the agency has
more control over investigation, case preparation, and the issuance
of the emergency order than over the time it learns of the violation
or the amount of time it must wait before all appeals are completed
so that the case is resolved and can be closed out.  If the time
needed for FAA to learn of the violation and to resolve the case
after the emergency order was issued is included, the period of
analysis would be over 13 months (401 days) for half the cases.  (See
table IV.1.) Appendix IV presents data on the time needed to
accomplish each major step in the issuance of an emergency order,
from learning about the violation to the investigation, preparation
of the case by legal staff, and case resolution.  In addition, this
appendix presents additional examples of reasons for delays at
various steps in the process. 


      FAA REGIONS VARIED WIDELY IN
      THE NUMBER OF DAYS USED TO
      INVESTIGATE VIOLATIONS AND
      ISSUE EMERGENCY ORDERS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2

FAA regions varied widely in the number of days used to investigate
the violations that led to the issuance of emergency orders in fiscal
years 1990 through 1997.  Four of FAA's regions (Aeronautical Center,
Alaskan, Central, and Northwest Mountain) issued emergency orders
within about 2 to 3 months of learning about violations in half the
cases they handled.  In contrast, other regions (Eastern, European,
Great Lakes, New England, Southern, Southwest, and Western-Pacific)
took anywhere from almost 4 months to over 8 months to issue the
emergency order.  (See table 8.)



                                     Table 8
                     
                      Information on the Number of Emergency
                        Orders Issued and the Time Elapsed
                      Between Learning About a Violation and
                      Issuing an Emergency Order, by Region,
                               Fiscal Years 1990-97

                                       Region\a
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AC    AL    CE      EA    EU    GL      NE    NM      SO      SW      WP
----  ----  ----  ----  ------  ----  ----  ------  ----  ------  ------  ------
Numb    24   141   182     594    21   325     147   222     558     818     703
 er
 of
 eme
 rge
 ncy
 ord
 ers
 \b
Medi    79    65    56     253   245   140     128    76     111     138     166
 an\c
 num
 ber
 of
 day
 s
 unt
 il
 iss
 uan
 ce

Time from learning about a violation to issuing emergency order (cumulative
percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10      0%   10%    7%      2%    0%    5%      3%    4%      7%      5%      1%
 days
 or
 les
 s
30      0%   23%   25%      6%    0%   11%     10%   13%     14%     13%      4%
 days
 or
 les
 s
180    83%   89%   89%     41%   43%   65%     61%   89%     75%     72%     54%
 days
 or
 les
 s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Regional abbreviations:  AC=Aeronautical Center, AL=Alaskan,
CE=Central, EA=Eastern, EU=European, GL=Great Lakes, NE=New England,
NM=Northwest Mountain, SO=Southern, SW=Southwest, WP=Western-Pacific

\b Number of emergency orders does not total to 3,742 because of
missing data entries. 

\c The median is the number representing the point dividing the upper
half of the cases from the lower half of the cases in terms of
elapsed days. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 

Much of the variation occurred in the time needed for investigation. 
For example, the Central region turned half its cases over to FAA's
regional legal staff to prepare the emergency order within 40 days of
learning of the violation, while half the cases in the Eastern region
remained with the program office for over 6 months (197 days).  (See
table 9.) According to the Acting Director of the Flight Standards
Service, such variations in the time needed for investigation may
reflect differences in the type and complexity of the cases handled. 
For example, he said that the Eastern region may need additional time
to investigate cases generated by the three international field
offices located within its boundaries.  He also suggested that the
large number of repair stations and manufacturing operations in the
Eastern region produce many cases that can be complex to investigate. 



                                     Table 9
                     
                      Information on the Number of Emergency
                      Orders Issued and Investigation Times,
                         by Region, Fiscal Years 1990-97

                                       Region\a
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AC    AL    CE      EA    EU    GL      NE    NM      SO      SW      WP
----  ----  ----  ----  ------  ----  ----  ------  ----  ------  ------  ------
Numb    24   141   182     594    21   325     147   216     558     818     703
 er
 of
 eme
 rge
 ncy
 ord
 ers
 \b
Medi    53    56    40     197   112    94     100    64      71      74      85
 an\c
 num
 ber
 of
 day
 s
 for
 inv
 est
 iga
 tio
 n

Investigation time (cumulative percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10      4%   11%   10%      3%    5%    7%      3%    5%      6%     10%      3%
 days
 or
 les
 s
30     21%   28%   37%     10%   14%   18%     13%   22%     20%     22%     14%
 days
 or
 les
 s
180    92%   92%   91%     49%   91%   80%     65%   92%     83%     86%     71%
 days
 or
 les
 s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Regional abbreviations:  AC=Aeronautical Center, AL=Alaskan,
CE=Central, EA=Eastern, EU=European, GL=Great Lakes, NE=New England,
NM=Northwest Mountain, SO=Southern, SW=Southwest, WP=Western-Pacific

\b Number of emergency orders does not total to 3,742 because of
missing data entries. 

\c The median is the number representing the point dividing the upper
half of the cases from the lower half of the cases in terms of
elapsed days. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 


      DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES ON
      THE EMERGENCY NATURE OF
      FAA'S ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.3

FAA often spends months on investigating violations, determining
whether they merit emergency action, preparing cases, and issuing
emergency orders.  We interviewed a number of aviation attorneys from
the private sector who raised key questions about FAA's use of
emergency orders:\9 Do the cases really need to be handled as
emergencies, especially if the violations occurred years before? 
Does FAA use emergency orders to handle cases that it might otherwise
not be able to prosecute?  Does FAA use the planned issuance of an
emergency order to pressure certificate holders into voluntarily
surrendering their operating certificates?  We discussed these issues
with officials from FAA and NTSB.  They provided a variety of
opinions that reflected the tension between FAA's responsibility to
act prudently in investigating thoroughly before revoking or
suspending a certificate and its responsibility to act swiftly in
cases that present an immediate threat to safety or a demonstrated
lack of qualifications.  The scope of our review of FAA's use of
emergency orders did not permit the kind of case analysis that would
determine whether FAA had struck the appropriate balance between
these competing responsibilities. 

Several of the private sector attorneys questioned whether it is
appropriate for FAA to use emergency orders for some violations that
are years old or for cases that have required months to investigate
and issue.  While these attorneys acknowledged the need for an
enforcement tool that allows FAA to act swiftly when aviation safety
is a concern, one questioned the immediacy of the safety threat in
some violations he has handled and another questioned whether FAA
uses emergency orders to process violations when the investigation is
not completed promptly. 

However, FAA officials cited situations involving older violations or
long investigation time frames that they believe merited the use of
emergency orders.  For example, the Manager of the Compliance and
Enforcement Branch in FAA's Civil Aviation Security Division said
that FAA may not learn for months or years that an inactive pilot who
has returned to flying has had several drunk driving convictions. 
Although the violations are older, he said that they raise potential
safety issues, as well as questions about the pilot's judgment if the
pilot has falsified information about these convictions when applying
for a medical certificate or has failed to report these convictions
to FAA within 60 days, as required.  Similarly, the Acting Director
of the Flight Standards Service said that some complex cases
involving the use of unapproved parts for aircraft repairs may take
months or years to investigate before FAA has sufficient evidence to
initiate an emergency order.  He said that, once the evidence is
clear and convincing, the case becomes an emergency if it potentially
affects safety.  According to the Assistant Chief Counsel in FAA's
Enforcement Division, FAA's position is that the revocation must be
taken immediately in cases like these.  For such situations, he said
that FAA prefers to use an emergency action rather than allowing the
certificate holder to operate for months or years until the case
could be resolved using a nonemergency certificate action. 

Two aviation attorneys we interviewed suggested that FAA may use
emergency orders in cases in which the agency has exceeded NTSB's
6-month time frame\10

for processing cases against individual airmen, mechanics, or other
certificate holders.  For example, one attorney cited a case in which
a policeman had notified FAA of alleged alcohol use by a pilot on the
night of the incident, but FAA did not issue the emergency order
until 18 months later.  NTSB's rule states that FAA must notify the
alleged violator of the violation within 6 months of the date of the
violation.  In an emergency case, the emergency order itself fulfills
the notification requirement.  Under NTSB's rule, the case must
generally be dismissed after 6 months.  However, NTSB has no deadline
for initiating cases when an individual's basic qualifications to
hold the operating certificate are in question.  If FAA shows in
nonemergency cases that it had good cause for its delay in notifying
the violator, NTSB can determine that the case is not too old and
hear it.  According to the Manager of the Compliance and Enforcement
Branch in FAA's Civil Aviation Security Division, NTSB sometimes
makes this determination if FAA learns about the violation well after
it occurred.  He said that NTSB's judges have heard, and FAA has
prevailed in, several recent cases in which FAA did not learn about
pilots' multiple drunk driving convictions until many months after
they had occurred. 

FAA sometimes allows individuals or aviation entities to voluntarily
cease operations rather than face emergency revocation of their
certificates.\11 Several FAA regional counsels interviewed said that
small carriers or repair stations in their regions have occasionally
done so.\12 As one regional counsel explained, when a certificate
holder voluntarily ceases operations and negotiates a consent order
with the agency, FAA inspectors can focus on monitoring the entity's
efforts to come back into compliance rather than on preparing a legal
case against the entity.  The Assistant Chief Counsel in FAA's
Enforcement Division characterized this approach as less harsh than
revoking a carrier's certificate--an approach that could have more
serious, long-term economic consequences for the carrier because it
must reapply to begin operations after its certificate has been
revoked. 

Two of the aviation attorneys we interviewed raised questions about
the appropriateness of an aviation entity voluntary surrendering its
operating certificate when confronted with the probable issuance of
an emergency order.  One attorney suggested that the notification of
the probable issuance of an emergency order might be a way for FAA to
avoid the due process that would be required for a nonemergency
certificate action, for which hearings are held before a certificate
is revoked or suspended.  One attorney suggested that it might be
appropriate for FAA to issue a letter of investigation and give the
aviation entity 10 days to prepare a formal response.  FAA does not
concur that such notification is needed because certificate holders
generally receive a notice of investigation when the agency initiates
its investigation, according to FAA's Deputy Associate Administrator
for Regulation and Certification.  According to the Assistant Chief
Counsel in FAA's Enforcement Division and the Acting Director of the
Flight Standards Service, once evidence of a potentially serious
safety situation or lack of qualifications has been gathered, FAA
would be remiss in allowing the individual or entity to continue to
operate. 


--------------------
\9 The private sector attorneys we interviewed, who have defended
individuals or aviation entities in cases in which FAA used emergency
orders to revoke or suspend their certificates, included attorneys
who have prior experience with FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel, are
members of the NTSB bar, and/or serve on state aviation commissions. 

\10 49 C.F.R.  section 821.33. 

\11 FAA's database does not track information on the number of
certificates voluntarily surrendered by individuals or aviation
entities.  Thus, FAA was unable to provide data on how many
individuals or entities had voluntarily surrendered pilot, medical,
or operating certificates. 

\12 Aviation Safety:  Weaknesses in Inspection and Enforcement Limit
FAA in Identifying and Responding to Risks (GAO/RCED-98-6, Feb.  27,
1998). 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

FAA's emergency authority exists to provide the agency with a
mechanism for acting swiftly in cases in which aviation-related
activities jeopardize public safety or an operator's qualifications
are in question.  In responding to violations of aviation safety and
security regulations, FAA uses emergency orders rarely--in only 3
percent of enforcement cases.  The time needed to investigate
violations and issue emergency orders has raised some concerns about
the urgency and diligence with which FAA pursues these serious
certificate actions.  These concerns reflect the need for FAA to
strike a delicate balance in each case between prompt action to
protect safety and judicious action to protect the rights and,
frequently, the livelihood of a certificate holder.  In addition, our
analysis has raised questions about the consistency with which
certain types of violations are handled across FAA's regions.  How
well FAA achieves balance and consistency can ultimately be judged
only through a review of individual cases, a level of review that was
beyond the scope of this study. 

Nevertheless, FAA's historical success in sustaining emergency
actions through internal and external review can be read as indirect
evidence of the appropriateness of the initial decision to use its
emergency powers.  Most cases begun as emergency actions eventually
result in a cessation of operations through the suspension,
revocation, or expiration of the certificate.  Very few of these
cases are later dropped because FAA determines that no violation was
committed or has insufficient evidence to prove a violation. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We provided FAA with a draft of this report for its review and
comment.  We met with FAA officials, including the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Regulation and Certification, the Acting Deputy
Director of the Flight Standards Service, and officials from the
Office of the Chief Counsel and the Office of Civil Aviation Security
Operations.  FAA generally concurred with the facts presented and
provided clarification on how the investigative process works. 
Specifically, FAA said that the number of days elapsed between FAA's
learning of a violation and issuing an emergency order should not be
equated with the time needed to process an emergency order.  FAA
explained that when it first investigates a violation, it may not
even envision an emergency order, and only makes the decision after
an investigation, when it has determined that a lack of
qualifications or other immediate threat to safety warrants an
emergency order.  Even then, FAA explained, the recommended emergency
order must be reviewed by legal staff, and additional investigation
may be required before FAA issues the emergency order.  FAA also
provided additional possible explanations for the regional variations
we observed in issuing emergency orders, and for the number of
emergency orders issued to pilots.  For example, we noted FAA's
observation that the higher numbers of medical certificates suspended
or revoked using emergency orders in certain regions may reflect the
larger population of pilots in those regions.  We added information
or revised the report, where appropriate, to reflect these
suggestions. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

To determine the extent to which FAA used emergency actions in fiscal
years 1990 through 1997, we analyzed data from FAA's Enforcement
Information System (EIS) database.  We also used this database to
analyze the types of certificate holders affected by these emergency
orders and the time frames for issuing the orders.  While we were
unable to verify the accuracy of all the data FAA provided, we did
undertake several validation procedures to ensure the quality of the
data.  First, we performed extensive checks of the internal
consistency of EIS in the fields used.  In several cases, we
uncovered blank fields and coding errors.  We discussed the
resolution of these discrepancies with the FAA staff responsible for
the database.  Second, we reviewed available information from an
internal FAA study on EIS in evaluating the reliability of the data
we used. 

We discussed our findings, the circumstances under which FAA uses
emergency orders, and changes to FAA Order 2150.3A that might have
affected the agency's use of emergency orders for fiscal years 1990
through 1997 with the following FAA personnel:  the Assistant Chief
Counsel and other staff in FAA's Enforcement Division, all nine
counsels in FAA's regions, the Acting Director of the Flight
Standards Service and members of his staff, the Manager of the
Compliance and Enforcement Branch in the Civil Aviation Security
Division, and the managers of the Medical Specialties and Aeromedical
Certification Divisions in the Office of Aviation Medicine.  In
addition, we discussed the appeals process with NTSB's Deputy General
Counsel.  We also discussed FAA's use of emergency orders with
several aviation attorneys from the private sector.  These attorneys,
who have defended individuals or aviation entities in cases in which
FAA used emergency orders to revoke or suspend their certificates,
had experience with FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel, are members of
the NTSB bar, and/or serve on state aviation commissions. 

We conducted our review from February 1998 through June 1998 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

As you requested, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier,
we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the
date of this letter.  We will then send copies to the appropriate
congressional committees; the Secretary of Transportation, the
Administrator, FAA; the Director, Office of Management and Budget;
and other interested parties.  We will also make copies available to
others upon request. 

If you have any questions about this report or need additional
information, please call me at (202) 512-3650.  Major contributors to
this report are listed in appendix VI. 

Sincerely yours,

Gerald L.  Dillingham
Associate Director,
 Transportation Issues


TYPES OF OPERATING CERTIFICATES
ISSUED BY FAA
=========================================================== Appendix I

Type of certificate            Certificate holder
-----------------------------  -------------------------------------------------
Airman certificate             Pilot, mechanic, flight engineer, aircraft
                               dispatcher, or air traffic controller tower
                               operator

Air carriers                   Individual operator receives certification that
                               the air carrier is properly equipped and able to
                               operate safely under regulations and standards

Type certificate               Aviation designer or manufacturer to certify that
                               an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or
                               certain appliances meet regulations and minimum
                               standards

Production certificate         Aviation manufacturer authorized to produce a
                               duplicate of an aircraft, aircraft engine,
                               propeller, or appliance for which a type
                               certificate has been issued

Airworthiness certificate      Registered owner of an aircraft is certified that
                               the aircraft conforms to its type certificate and
                               is in condition for safe operation

Airport operating certificate  Individual airport operator certified that the
                               facility is properly and adequately equipped and
                               able to operate safely under the regulations and
                               standards

Air agencies                   Civilian school certified to offer training in
                               flying or aircraft maintenance.
                               Repair station and repairmen are certified to
                               repair, alter, and maintain aircraft, aircraft
                               engines, propellers, and appliances

Air navigation facilities      Facilities used in the aid of air navigation are
                               certified to operate a landing area, a light,
                               equipment for disseminating weather or location
                               information, or structures for guiding or
                               controlling aircraft during takeoff, flight, or
                               landing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Code of Federal Regulations. 


FAA'S PROCESS FOR APPEALING
EMERGENCY AND NONEMERGENCY
CERTIFICATE ACTIONS
========================================================== Appendix II

Certificate holders have several options for appealing nonemergency
and emergency certificate actions.  Certificate actions are
adjudicated by a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
administrative law judge.  The certificate holder may then appeal the
case before the full Board or seek review in a federal court of
appeals.  In the case of a nonemergency action, the certificate
holder may continue to operate until the appeal process has been
completed.  In contrast, an emergency order takes effect on issuance. 
The certificate holder does not have the opportunity to contest the
order before it is issued, and, unlike nonemergency certificate
actions, the emergency order remains in effect while the certificate
holder appeals. 

When faced with an emergency order, a certificate holder has several
appeal options.  First, the certificate holder can appeal the
emergency nature of the order.  The certificate holder may seek a
direct review of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)
emergency determination by a federal court of appeals.\1 In such
cases, the certificate holder petitions the court for a review of the
emergency order or seeks a stay of the order.\2 According to the
Assistant Chief Counsel in FAA's Enforcement Division, such cases are
generally decided by the federal court of appeals within 5 to 7
working days.  The certificate holder may also appeal the emergency
order to NTSB.  The certificate holder must appeal within 10 days
after receiving the emergency order from FAA.  NTSB is required to
set a hearing date no later than 25 days after the certificate holder
received the emergency order.  The presiding administrative law
judge's initial decision is made orally at the end of the hearing and
is final unless appealed.  Any appeal by the certificate holder or
FAA of the initial decision must be filed with NTSB within 2 days of
the hearing, and the entire matter must be resolved within 60 days of
the date on which the FAA Administrator advised NTSB of the emergency
nature of the order.  Further appeals are available to both FAA and
the certificate holder in the federal courts of appeals.  Figure II.1
shows the steps in initiating and appealing an emergency order. 

   Figure II.1:  Steps for
   Initiating and Appealing
   Emergency Orders

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Must be resolved within 60 days of the date the FAA Administrator
notifies NTSB of the emergency order. 

\b FAA must initiate action by sending the violator a notice of
proposed certificate action within 6 months from the date of
violation, otherwise the case is dismissed. 

Source:  FAA Order 2150.3A. 


--------------------
\1 49 U.S.C.  section 46110. 

\2 FAA's use of emergency revocation orders is the subject of
proposed legislation that would provide the certificate holder with
the right to appeal the emergency nature of a revocation order before
NTSB.  This legislation adds a requirement for FAA to show just cause
for bringing an emergency revocation action against a certificate
holder.  (See S.  842, introduced on June 5, 1997, and H.R.  1846,
introduced on June 10, 1997.)


FAA'S USE OF EMERGENCY ORDERS TO
INITIATE ACTIONS BY CERTIFICATE
TYPE, FISCAL YEARS 1990-97
========================================================= Appendix III

                               Fiscal year
      --------------------------------------------------------------
Type
of
cert
ific
ate     1990    1991    1992    1993    1994    1995    1996    1997       Total
----  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ----------
Pilo     127     194     226     204     193     166     246     207       1,563
 t
Mech      13      38      55      44      37     111      60      84         442
 anic
Medi      71     125     103      81      38      49     102      56         625
 cal
Oper      19      22      23      14      13      15       5       7         118
 ato
 r\a
Repa       6      11       7       8       6       4       8       6          56
 ir
 Sta
 tio
 n
Othe      12      14      10      12      11      19      16      13         107
 r
Unkn      74      78     108     124      85     139     136      87         831
 own
 \b
================================================================================
Tota     322     482     532     487     383     503     573     460       3,742
 l
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Operators include, for example, airport operators, agricultural
operators, scheduled and on-demand air carriers, and scheduled cargo
carriers. 

\b FAA's data did not include a certificate type for these actions. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 


ELAPSED TIME FOR INVESTIGATING AND
ISSUING EMERGENCY ORDERS BY
CERTIFICATE TYPE, FISCAL YEARS
1990-97
========================================================== Appendix IV

In fiscal years 1990 through 1997, most violations that led to the
issuance of emergency orders took many months to investigate, issue
emergency orders, and resolve.  For more than half the cases, over 13
months passed between the date of the violation and the final
resolution of the case.  Once FAA learned about the violations, about
2 percent were resolved within a month and 63 percent within a year,
while the remaining 37 percent of the cases took more than a year to
resolve.  (See table IV.1.) After the issuance of the emergency
order, cases were not resolved until any appeals were completed and
certificates were returned to FAA.  At each step, the process was
potentially subject to delays, some of which were not under FAA's
control. 



                               Table IV.1
                
                   Days Needed to Investigate, Issue
                Emergency Orders, and Resolve Cases, by
                 Percent of Cases, Fiscal Years 1990-97

                                  Percent of cases    Percent of cases
                                resolved from date  resolved from date
Amount of time elapsed              of violation\a      known to FAA\b
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
10 days or less                                 <1                  <1
30 days or less                                  2                   2
180 days or less                                23                  34
365 days or less                                45                  63
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The median time elapsed was 401 days.  (The median is the number
representing the point dividing the upper half of the cases from the
lower half of the cases in terms of elapsed days.)

\b The median time elapsed was 261 days.  (The median is the number
representing the point dividing the upper half of the cases from the
lower half of the cases in terms of elapsed days.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 


   FAA LEARNED OF MANY VIOLATIONS
   A MONTH OR MORE AFTER THEY
   OCCURRED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

In 70 percent of the cases in which FAA issued emergency orders, the
agency did not learn of the violation on the date that it occurred. 
FAA learned about approximately 30 percent of the violations on the
date that they occurred and about nearly half of the violations
within a month of their occurrence.  But discovering violations often
took months or years:  While FAA learned of 87 percent of the
violations within a year of their occurrence, it did not learn of the
remaining 13 percent of the violations for from just over a year to
nearly 17 years from the date of occurrence.  (See table IV.2.)



                               Table IV.2
                
                   Number of Days Between the Date of
                 Violation and the Date FAA Learned of
                  the Violation, by Percent of Cases,
                          Fiscal Years 1990-97

Amount of time elapsed\a                              Percent of cases
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
10 days or less                                                     41
30 days or less                                                     47
180 days or less                                                    79
365 days or less                                                    87
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The median time elapsed was 44 days.  (The median is the number
representing the point dividing the upper half of the cases from the
lower half of the cases in terms of elapsed days.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 

FAA learned more quickly about violations related to some types of
certificates than about those related to other types.  While a
pilot's deviation from an assigned flight altitude may be detected
promptly by an air traffic controller, FAA might not learn about a
falsification of maintenance records until years after the repair was
made, according to the Acting Director of Flight Standards.  FAA
became aware within 5 days of half of the violations that resulted in
the issuance of emergency orders to revoke or suspend pilot licenses. 
These time frames were significantly longer for cases involving
medical certificates (74 days) or mechanic certificates (131 days). 


   INVESTIGATION OF VIOLATIONS AND
   ISSUANCE OF EMERGENCY ORDERS
   GENERALLY TOOK MONTHS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

FAA's investigation of violations that led to emergency orders and
the issuance of those orders generally took months to complete.  FAA
completed its investigation and case preparation and issued the
emergency order to revoke or suspend the operating certificate within
a month for 11 percent of the cases, but about one-third of the cases
took longer than 6 months.  While FAA does not always learn of
violations promptly and has little control over the time needed for
resolution once it issues an emergency order, the agency has more
control over the time its program office staff needs to investigate a
possible violation and its legal staff needs to prepare and issue the
emergency order.  As discussed below, however, many factors may
influence the amount of time needed for investigation or review and
preparation of the case by legal staff. 


      PROGRAM OFFICE STAFF
      COMPLETED HALF THE
      INVESTIGATIONS IN UNDER 3
      MONTHS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.1

For half the cases closed in fiscal years 1990 through 1997, less
than 3 months elapsed between the time that FAA learned of the
violation and the time that the program office completed its
investigation and gave the case to FAA's legal staff to prepare the
emergency order.  While about 19 percent of the investigations were
completed in 30 days or less, about three-quarters were completed
within 6 months, while the remaining one-quarter required 6 months or
more.  (See table IV.3.)



                               Table IV.3
                
                   Days Spent by Program Office Staff
                   Investigating and Reviewing a Case
                  Before Forwarding It to Legal Staff,
                          Fiscal Years 1990-97

Amount of time elapsed\a                              Percent of cases
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
10 days or less                                                      6
30 days or less                                                     19
180 days or less                                                    76
365 days or less                                                    92
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The medium elapsed time was 83 days.  (The median is the number
representing the point dividing the upper half of the cases from the
lower half of the cases in terms of elapsed days.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 

FAA Order 2150.3A describes the process for program offices to follow
in investigations once a potential violation has been identified. 
Inspection staff gather evidence; interview witnesses, if
appropriate; prepare the draft enforcement case file; and have the
proposed emergency revocation or suspension reviewed by local and
regional program office managers.  Typically, we found that cases
were with the program office for investigation four times as long as
they were with the legal office preparing the emergency order.  Not
all of this time was necessarily spent on the investigation, however. 
According to the Acting Director of the Flight Standards Service,
safety inspectors usually have many other ongoing responsibilities,
including inspections, accident investigations, and recurrent
training, as well as other enforcement cases. 

Some types of violations may take longer to investigate.  For
example, it may take time to obtain and review records to determine
whether an aircraft was actually available and used to perform
required flight training as claimed in an airline's training records,
according to the Acting Director of the Flight Standards Service.  In
addition, he said that violations involving the falsification of
records may require a court order and search warrant to obtain
documents.  Finally, certain types of cases, such as those in which
unapproved parts were alleged to have been used, may involve a number
of different customers and suppliers, as well as extensive
coordination with the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other law
enforcement agencies.  Similarly, if FAA learns from a comparison of
medical certificates with data in the National Driver Register\1 that
a pilot may have drunk driving convictions, weeks or even months may
be needed to obtain the corroborating evidence from state or local
court records, according to the Manager of the Compliance and
Enforcement Branch in FAA's Civil Aviation Security Division.  Our
analysis showed that violations related to certain types of
certificates generally required longer to investigate.  While the
program office took about 60 days to investigate half of the cases to
revoke or suspend pilot certificates, investigation time frames were
longer for half the mechanic certificates (3 months) and medical
certificates (nearly 8 months).  (See table IV.4.)



                               Table IV.4
                
                  Median Number of Days Before Program
                  Office Staff Forwarded Case to Legal
                Staff, by Certificate Type, Fiscal Years
                                1990-97

Type of certificate                              Median number of days
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
Medical                                                            234
Mechanic                                                            92
Pilot                                                               63
Other\a                                                             54
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  The median is the number representing the point dividing the
upper half of the cases from the lower half of the cases in terms of
elapsed days. 

\a Other operators include, for example, airport operators,
agricultural operators, scheduled and on-demand air carriers,
scheduled cargo carriers, and repair stations. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 


--------------------
\1 The National Driver Register is a central repository of
information on individuals whose licenses to operate a motor vehicle
have been suspended, canceled, or denied by any state.  It contains
information on persons who have been convicted of serious
traffic-related violations, such as driving while impaired by alcohol
or other drugs. 


      FAA LEGAL STAFF ISSUED HALF
      THE EMERGENCY ORDERS IN 20
      DAYS OR LESS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.2

Half of the cases processed in fiscal years 1990 through 1997 spent
20 days or less with FAA's legal staff for case preparation and the
issuance of an emergency order.  About one-third of the cases took 10
days or less from the time the legal staff received the case until it
issued the emergency order, and emergency orders were issued within 6
months for 94 percent of the cases.  The remaining 6 percent of the
cases took longer than 6 months from the date the legal staff
received the case until it issued the emergency order.  (See table
IV.5.) According to the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement in
FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel, even after cases are forwarded to
the legal staff, they sometimes require additional investigation to
have sufficient evidence to support the issuance of an emergency
order.  In such cases, the legal staff must request additional
documentation from the program office's investigative staff. 
Typically, FAA's legal staff had a case for about one-fourth as much
time as the program office needed for the investigation. 



                               Table IV.5
                
                    Days Spent by Legal Staff After
                 Receiving Investigated Case to Prepare
                the Case and Issue the Emergency Order,
                by Percent of Cases, Fiscal Years 1990-
                                   97

Amount of time elapsed\a                              Percent of cases
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
10 days or less                                                     32
30 days or less                                                     61
180 days or less                                                    94
365 days or less                                                    98
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The median time elapsed was 20 days.  (The median is the number
representing the point dividing the upper half of the cases from the
lower half of the cases in terms of elapsed days.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 

The time needed to issue emergency orders varied less by certificate
type than did the time needed for investigation.  For all types of
certificates, FAA legal staff issued the emergency order for over
half the cases within 30 days of receiving it. 


      CASE RESOLUTION REQUIRED
      ADDITIONAL TIME
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.3

Once FAA issued an emergency order, it needed additional time to
resolve a case.  In fiscal years 1990 through 1997, half the cases
were resolved within 73 days of the issuance of the emergency order. 
While nearly one-third of the cases were resolved within 30 days, 72
percent of the cases were resolved within 6 months, while the
remaining 28 percent required longer than 6 months to resolve.  (See
table IV.6.) Time frames for case resolution were somewhat longer for
half the cases involving mechanic certificates (over 96 days) and
medical certificates (over 70 days). 



                               Table IV.6
                
                 Days Between Issuance of an Emergency
                Order to Case Resolution, by Percent of
                      Cases, Fiscal Years 1990-97

Amount of time elapsed\a                              Percent of cases
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
10 days or less                                                     16
30 days or less                                                     30
180 days or less                                                    72
365 days or less                                                    86
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The median time elapsed was 85 days.  (The median is the number
representing the point dividing the upper half of the cases from the
lower half of the cases in terms of elapsed days.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 

According to the Assistant Chief Counsel of FAA's Enforcement
Division, several factors may delay case resolution.  First, it may
be some days or weeks before the individual or aviation entity
returns the operating certificate to FAA and the case can be closed
out.  In addition, he said that cases may be appealed before NTSB and
the U.S.  Court of Appeals.  NTSB administrative law judges hear
appeals, and their decisions may be appealed again by the violator or
FAA before the full Board.  NTSB's rules call for a decision within
60 days.  The Assistant Chief Counsel said, however, that some
violators waive their right to this expedited review of emergency
cases and have their cases reviewed together with other nonemergency
certificate actions, which may take 1 to 2 years before a final
ruling is issued.  NTSB heard appeals on 1,277 emergency order cases
in fiscal years 1990 through 1997.  Violators may also appeal to the
U.S.  Court of Appeals, which often requires a year or more before a
decision, according to the Assistant Chief Counsel of FAA's
Enforcement Division.  He noted that the decision to appeal and the
time needed for case resolution following the issuance of an
emergency order are not within FAA's control. 


RECOMMENDED TYPE OF EMERGENCY
ACTION COMPARED WITH OTHER FINAL
ACTIONS TAKEN, FISCAL YEARS
1990-97
=========================================================== Appendix V

                                        Emergency action initially
                                               recommended
                                    ----------------------------------
Other final actions taken           Revocation  Suspension       Total
----------------------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Certificate expired                         29         103         132
Successful reexamination                    25         163         188
Civil penalty (fine)                        21           6          27
Unable to locate certificate                11          11          22
 holder
Consent order\a                              6           0           6
Waiver of penalty under the                  2           0           2
 Aviation Safety Reporting
 Program\b
U.S. attorney declines to                    2           0           2
 prosecute
Referred to U.S. attorney                    1           0           1
Cease-and-desist order\c                     1           0           1
Unspecified                                109         131         240
Administrative                               0           1          10
======================================================================
Total                                      207         413         620
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a A consent order ordinarily includes an agreement that the violator
will take corrective and remedial action as a condition for the
suspension or forgiveness of a portion of the sanction or, in some
cases, a modification of the proposed sanction. 

\b The Aviation Safety Reporting Program is a voluntary
self-disclosure program for pilots established in April 1975.  In
exchange for self-disclosure of information on pilot errors, which
are reported in a database administered by the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, FAA generally agrees not to take legal
action in response to reported unintentional violations. 

\c A cease-and-desist order is an order of an administrative agency
or court prohibiting a person or business from continuing a
particular course of conduct. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Enforcement Information
System. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix VI

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Bonnie Beckett-Hoffmann
Curtis L.  Groves
David K.  Hooper
Julian King
Robert White


*** End of document. ***