Aviation Safety: FAA's Use of Emergency Orders to Revoke or Suspend
Operating Certificates (Testimony, 08/06/98, GAO/T-RCED-98-253).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) use of emergency orders to suspend or revoke
aviation operating certificates, focusing on the: (1) extent to which
FAA used emergency orders; (2) ways in which changes in FAA's policies
might have affected the agency's use of emergency orders; and (3) time
needed for FAA to investigate alleged violations and issue emergency
orders.

GAO noted that: (1) of the 137,506 enforcement cases closed in fiscal
years (FY) 1990 through 1997, FAA initiated 3 percent using emergency
orders; (2) FAA's nine regions differed in how frequently they issued
emergency orders partly as a result of their different enforcement
practices; (3) most of the emergency orders were issued to pilots for
either their operating certificates or their certificates of their
medical fitness to fly; (4) seventy-seven percent of the enforcement
cases initiated as emergency actions resulted ultimately in the
suspension or revocation of the certificate holder's operating
certificate; (5) five percent resulted in FAA's dropping the case
because it determined that no violation was committed or that it had
insufficient evidence to prove a violation; (6) the outcomes were not
specified for six percent of the cases, and the remainder involved a
variety of other outcomes; (7) in 1990, FAA decided that, for those
cases in which revocation 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 nonemergency certificate actions can be subject to; (8) FAA
informally implemented this policy change in 1990 and 1991 before
formally incorporating it into its compliance and enforcement guidance
in 1992; (9) this shift in policy is reflected in the increase in the
numbers of emergency actions GAO observed: FAA initiated 184 revocations
using emergency orders in FY 1990; (10) in subsequent years, over 320
emergency revocations were issued, on average, each year; (11) although
the use of emergency orders is intended to expedite the handling of
serious enforcement cases, the time needed for FAA to investigate
violations and issue emergency orders varied widely, frequently taking
several months or longer; (12) for half of the enforcement cases in FY
1990 through FY 1997, FAA issued the emergency order within about 4
months after learning of the violation; (13) for the remainder, the time
needed to investigate and issue the order ranged from just over 4 months
to over 2 years; (14) during this time, the certificate holder could
continue to operate, that is, to fly or repair aircraft and possibly
pose a safety risk; and (15) while it is necessary for FAA to act
swiftly in cases that present an immediate threat to safety or a
demonstrated lack of qualifications, some aviation attorneys in the
private-sector have questioned whether it is appropriate or necessary
for FAA to handle some cases as emergencies, especially if the
violations occurred years before.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-98-253
     TITLE:  Aviation Safety: FAA's Use of Emergency Orders to Revoke or 
             Suspend Operating Certificates
      DATE:  08/06/98
   SUBJECT:  Air transportation operations
             Airline industry
             Airline regulation
             Pilots
             Administrative remedies
             Safety regulation
             Transportation safety
             Commercial aviation
             Licenses
             Aircraft maintenance
IDENTIFIER:  Valujet Flight 592
             TWA Flight 800
             
******************************************************************
** 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


Before the Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, House of Representatives

For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
9:30 a.m.  EDT
Thursday
August 6, 1998

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

Statement by Gerald L.  Dillingham,
Associate Director, Transportation Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-98-253

GAO/RCED-98-253T


(348122)


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

  FAA -
  FAR -
  NTSB -

============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify about the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) use of emergency orders to suspend or revoke
aviation operating certificates.\1 As you know, FAA is responsible
for examining and testing the qualifications of airmen, such as
pilots, mechanics, and flight engineers, as well as of aviation
entities, such as airlines, airports, and repair stations, that seek
a certificate to operate.  FAA also periodically conducts inspections
of airmen and aviation entities to monitor their compliance with the
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).  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.  These options range
from administrative actions, such as warning letters, to "certificate
actions" to suspend or revoke an individual's or entity's operating
certificate.\2 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 the immediate suspension or
revocation of an operator's certificate, the agency can issue an
emergency order, a type of certificate action which takes effect
immediately on issuance. 

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.  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 the request of Senator James M.  Inhofe, we recently completed a
review of FAA's use of emergency orders during fiscal years 1990
through 1997.\3 Our report provided information on (1) the extent to
which FAA used 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. 

In summary,

  -- Of the 137,506 enforcement cases closed in fiscal years 1990
     through 1997, FAA initiated 3 percent (3,742) using emergency
     orders.\4 (See fig.  1.) FAA's nine regions differed in how
     frequently they issued emergency orders partly as a result of
     their different enforcement practices.  Most of the emergency
     orders were issued to pilots for either their operating
     certificates or their certificates of their medical fitness to
     fly.  Seventy-seven percent of the enforcement cases initiated
     as emergency actions resulted ultimately in the suspension or
     revocation of the certificate holder's operating certificate. 
     Five percent resulted in FAA's dropping the case because it
     determined that no violation was committed or that it had
     insufficient evidence to prove a violation.  One percent were
     overturned on appeal.  The outcomes were not specified for six
     percent of the cases, and the remainder involved a variety of
     other outcomes. 

   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. 

  -- 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 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.\5 This shift in policy is
     reflected in the increase in the numbers of emergency actions we
     observed:  FAA initiated 184 revocations using emergency orders
     in fiscal year 1990.  In subsequent years, over 320 emergency
     revocations were issued, on average, each year.

  -- Although the use of emergency orders is intended to expedite the
     handling of serious enforcement cases, 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.  During this time, the certificate holder could
     continue to operate, that is, to fly or repair aircraft and
     possibly pose a safety risk.  While it is necessary for FAA to
     act swiftly in cases that present an immediate threat to safety
     or a demonstrated lack of qualifications, some aviation
     attorneys in the private sector have questioned whether it is
     appropriate or necessary for FAA to handle some cases as
     emergencies, especially if the violations occurred years before. 


--------------------
\1 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
the National Transportation Safety Board (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.)

\2 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. 

\3 Aviation Safety:  FAA's Use of Emergency Orders to Revoke or
Suspend Operating Certificates (GAO/RCED-98-199, July 23, 1998). 

\4 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 II.3.)

\5 FAA Order 2150.3A. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

FAA detects violations during safety and security inspections and
also from such outside sources as public complaints or police
reports.  When FAA finds that certificate holders have violated
aviation regulations, it has the statutory authority to take
appropriate action.  FAA's options for responding to violations range
from administrative actions to legal actions, such as fines or
certificate actions.  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.  Both FAA's
inspections and the processing of its enforcement cases are generally
carried out by its regional offices. 

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\6 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.  I for more information on the appeals process.)


--------------------
\6 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
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

FAA used emergency orders in a small percentage of its enforcement
cases.  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 II.1.)


      REGIONAL USE OF CERTIFICATE
      ACTIONS AND EMERGENCY ORDERS
      VARIED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.1

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.  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 II.2.) These differences among the regions reflect, in
part, unusually high numbers of emergency orders to suspend or revoke
medical certificates in the Eastern, Western-Pacific, and Southwest
regions. 

While most regions issued no more than a handful (one to five) of
emergency orders to revoke or suspend medical certificates annually
during this period, the Southwest region averaged nearly a dozen
annually, and the Eastern and Western-Pacific regions averaged almost
25.  Officials at these offices and at FAA headquarters were unsure
why these regions initiated so many more emergency orders for medical
certificates than did the other regions.  However, they speculated
that differences in enforcement practices in FAA's regional offices
apparently affect whether emergency orders are used to revoke or
suspend a medical certificate.  One regional counsel suggested that
some regions may handle medical certificate cases as nonemergency
certificate actions.  Another 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.)


      EMERGENCY ORDERS MOST OFTEN
      ISSUED TO PILOTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.2

Nearly 60 percent of the emergency orders issued in the period we
reviewed affected pilots:  1,563 pilot certificates and 625 medical
certificates were revoked or suspended.  (See fig.  2.) Pilot
certificates represent the largest category of certificates FAA
issues. 

   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. 


      MOST CERTIFICATE ACTIONS
      INITIATED USING EMERGENCY
      ORDERS RESULTED IN
      REVOCATIONS OR SUSPENSIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.3

A high percentage of the certificate actions initiated using
emergency orders ultimately resulted in revocations or suspensions. 
Of the 3,742 cases that were initiated using emergency orders and
that were closed in fiscal years 1990 through 1997, 77 percent of
these resulted in the individual's or entity's losing the
certificate.  Five percent of the cases initiated as emergency
actions ultimately resulted in the case being dropped with no
enforcement action being taken, while 1 percent were overturned on
appeal.  (See table II.3.) FAA's database did not specify an outcome
for six percent of the cases.  The majority of the remaining cases
were resolved by allowing the certificate to expire, by having
operators successfully complete a reexamination of their
qualifications, or by the imposition of a fine. 

According to FAA officials we interviewed, 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.  They strongly agreed
that emergency revocations were 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.  We were told 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, while cases against
air carriers and repair stations undergo additional review at FAA
headquarters. 


   REDEFINITION OF EMERGENCY HAS
   AFFECTED FAA'S USE OF EMERGENCY
   REVOCATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

A change to FAA's policy 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 FAA officials 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 generally be taken immediately.  If the revocation
is not taken immediately, the certificate holder could continue to
operate for months or even years until the appeal process is
completed.  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 327 in
fiscal year 1992.  In fiscal years 1993 through 1997, 303 emergency
revocations were issued, on average, each year.  (See table II.4.)


   FOR HALF OF THE CASES, MONTHS
   ELAPSED BETWEEN FAA'S LEARNING
   OF THE VIOLATION AND ISSUING
   THE EMERGENCY ORDER
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

The use of emergency orders is intended to expedite the handling of
serious certificate actions.  For half of the 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.\7 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.  According to an FAA official, the
use of an emergency order is not necessarily envisioned when FAA
first learns of a violation and initiates its investigation. 
Although FAA has established no specific time frames for completing
investigations and issuing emergency orders, these were completed
within 10 days for 4 percent of the cases and within a month for 11
percent of the cases.  Half of the cases, however, required more than
4 months (132 days) from the date of violation until FAA issued the
emergency order.  (See table II.5.) The majority of this time was
spent on investigation, rather than preparation of the emergency
order by FAA's legal staff. 

We discussed these time frames and FAA's use of emergency orders with
officials from FAA and NTSB, as well as with a number of aviation
attorneys from the private sector.  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 how much time FAA expended on each investigation,
particularly in more complex cases, or whether FAA had struck the
appropriate balance between these competing responsibilities. 

FAA officials offered several reasons why some cases can take months
to investigate and prepare.  For example, both inspectors and legal
staff have many other responsibilities besides investigations and the
preparation of emergency orders, such as accident investigations.  In
addition, 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.  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 could lack qualifications or who
could represent a threat to safety could continue to operate. 

In contrast, the private sector attorneys we interviewed 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 they acknowledged the need for an
enforcement tool that allows FAA to act swiftly when aviation safety
is a concern, they raised questions about whether some violations
represented an immediate safety threat. 


--------------------
\7 Our analysis focused on the time between when FAA learned of the
violation and the time of issuance of the emergency order, rather
than on the length of time between the actual occurrence of the
violation and the last legal action taken to close out the case.  We
chose this time frame because the agency has a fair amount of control
over the time needed for investigation, case preparation, and the
issuance of the emergency order.  In contrast, FAA has less control
over the time between when a violation occurs and when it learns of
the violation, or the amount of time that it must wait before all
appeals are completed so that the case is resolved and can be closed
out. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes our statement.  We would be pleased to
respond to any questions at this time. 


FAA'S PROCESS FOR APPEALING
EMERGENCY CERTIFICATE ACTIONS
=========================================================== Appendix I

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 FAA's 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 and seeks a stay of the order. 
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 underlying merits of the
emergency order to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB),
where the case is adjudicated by an administrative law judge.  The
certificate holder must appeal within 10 days after receiving the
emergency order from FAA.  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 I.1
shows the steps in initiating and appealing an emergency order. 

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

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  FAA Order 2150.3A. 


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


TABLES RELATED TO FAA'S USE OF
EMERGENCY ORDERS
========================================================== Appendix II



                               Table II.1
                
                 Enforcement Cases Closed, Fiscal Years
                                1990-97

                                          Certific
                                               ate            Emergenc
                                           actions    Number  y orders
                                              as a        of      as a
                        Number    Number  percenta    closed  percenta
                            of        of     ge of     cases     ge of
                      enforcem  certific  enforcem  initiate  certific
                           ent       ate       ent   d using       ate
                         cases   actions     cases  emergenc   actions
Fiscal year             closed    closed    closed  y orders    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. 



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

                                                             Number of
                                               Number of     emergency
                                            closed cases   orders as a
                                               initiated    percentage
                                 Number of         using            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. 



                               Table II.3
                
                  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\
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
 Aviation Safety Reporting
 Program\b                               2             0             2
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             1
======================================================================
Total                                2,311         1,433         3,742
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. 



                               Table II.4
                
                  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. 



                               Table II.5
                
                  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. 


*** End of document. ***