H. Rept. 116-462 - SAFE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE STANDARDS ACT116th Congress (2019-2020)
Committee Report
Show OverviewReport text available as:
- TXT
- PDF (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2nd Session } { 116-462
======================================================================
SAFE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE STANDARDS ACT
_______
July 29, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. DeFazio, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 5119]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 5119) to amend title 49, United
States Code, to require certain air carriers to provide reports
with respect to maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
alterations, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and
recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose of Legislation........................................... 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 2
Legislative History and Consideration............................ 3
Committee Votes.................................................. 3
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 6
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 6
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 7
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 7
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits....................................................... 8
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 8
Preemption Clarification......................................... 8
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 8
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 8
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 9
Dissenting Views................................................. 16
Purpose of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 5119 is to establish one level of
safety between airline maintenance performed in the United
States and that performed on U.S. airlines' fleets in foreign
countries.
Background and Need for Legislation
Some 950 aeronautical repair stations outside the United
States hold Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certificates
under 14 C.F.R. part 145, yet these facilities are not subject
to the same safety standards that apply to domestic repair
stations. For example, workers who perform safety-sensitive
functions at U.S. repair stations are subject to compulsory
screening for substance abuse; however, the same requirement
does not apply to their counterparts at foreign facilities.
Workers at U.S. repair stations are subject to compulsory
background investigations; yet the same requirement does not
apply to their counterparts overseas.
This disparity between safety standards at U.S. and foreign
repair stations that hold FAA certificates comes at a time when
airlines' spending on contract maintenance and repair services
nearly tripled between 1996 and 2011, according to the
Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOT IG), rising
from $1.5 billion in 1996 to $4.2 billion in 2011. Today,
``[i]t is estimated that nearly 50 percent by dollar volume of
maintenance work done by operators of U.S. registered aircraft
is done in . . . FAA certified repair facilities located
outside'' the United States, according to the Transport Workers
Union. However, in 2013, the DOT IG found that the FAA's repair
station oversight ``lacks the rigor needed to identify
deficiencies and verify that they have been addressed'' and
that ``some repair stations may not be operating in full
compliance'' with FAA rules. Additionally, the Committee is
aware that safety-sensitive workers at foreign repair stations
may not be appropriately qualified or positioned to perform
their functions; for example, the Committee has received
reports that employees responsible for certifying that aircraft
are fit for return to revenue service have made those
certifications without having personally observed or inspected
maintenance work on those aircraft--and in some cases have made
the certifications from outside the countries where the work
was actually performed.
For years, Congress has pressed the FAA to move quickly to
reduce the great disparity between safety requirements for U.S.
and foreign repair stations, including mandating drug and
alcohol testing and pre-employment background investigations of
foreign repair station employees who perform safety-sensitive
functions. Even with clear Congressional direction, the FAA has
failed to satisfy either mandate, which would assure the flying
public that the personnel performing critical maintenance on
U.S.-operated aircraft have been adequately screened. These,
among other measures, would help ensure that foreign repair
stations follow the same safety standards that the FAA requires
of maintenance work done in the United States.
Hearings
Pursuant to section 103(i) of H. Res. 6, 116th Cong.
(2019), the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Aviation held the following hearing to develop
or consider subjects related to matters contained in H.R. 3632:
On July 17, 2019, the Subcommittee on Aviation held a
hearing titled, ``State of Aviation Safety.'' The purpose of
the hearing was to gather government and stakeholder
perspectives on the state of aviation safety, including
identifying current challenges facing the aviation system and
actions needed to maintain and ensure the safety of the
traveling public. On July 17, 2019, the Subcommittee held a
hearing entitled ``State of Aviation Safety.'' The Subcommittee
received testimony from Mr. Paul Njoroge, husband of Carolyne
Karanja, father of Ryan Njuguna, Kelli Pauls, Rubi Pauls, and
son-in-Law of Anne Karanja, Victims of Flight ET302, testifying
on behalf of the Families of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302;
accompanied by Mr. Michael Stumo, father of Samya Stumo, victim
of ET302; Ms. Dana Schulze, Acting Director, Office of Aviation
Safety, National Transportation Safety Board; Mr. Joseph G.
DePete, President, Air Line Pilots Association, International;
Ms. Lori Bassani, National President, The Association of
Professional Flight Attendants; Mr. Michael Perrone, National
President, Professional Aviation Safety Specialists; and Mr.
John Samuelsen, International President, Transport Workers
Union.
Legislative History and Consideration
H.R. 5119 was introduced in the House on November 15, 2019
by Mr. DeFazio and 7 original co-sponsors and referred to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Within the
Committee, H.R. 5119 was referred to the Subcommittee on
Aviation.
The Chair discharged the Subcommittee on Aviation from
further consideration of H.R. 5119 on November 20, 2019.
The Full Committee met in open session to consider H.R.
5119 on November 20, 2019, and ordered the measure to be
reported to the House with a favorable recommendation, without
amendment, by a record vote of 39 yeas and 19 nays (Roll Call
Vote No. 12).
The following amendment was offered:
An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr.
Graves of Louisiana (#1); was NOT AGREED TO by a record vote of
26 yeas and 32 nays (Roll Call Vote No. 11).
Committee Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report to include the
total number of votes cast for and against on each record vote
on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the
measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for
and against.
An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr.
Graves of Louisiana (#1); was NOT AGREED TO by a record vote of
26 yeas and 32 nays (Roll Call Vote No. 11). The vote was as
follows:
H.R. 5119 was ordered to be reported to the House of
Representatives, with a favorable recommendation, without
amendment, by a record vote of 39 yeas and 19 nays (Roll Call
Vote No. 12). The vote was as follows:
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
Roll Call Vote No. 12
On ordering H.R. 5119 to be reported to the House with a favorable recommendation, without amendment.
Agreed to: 39 yeas and 19 nays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Yea Nay Representative Yea Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeFazio, P Chair...................... X Mr. Graves of MO, P Ranking Member X
Ms. Norton................................... X Mr. Young............................
Ms. Johnson of TX............................ X Mr. Crawford......................... X
Mr. Larsen of WA............................. X Mr. Gibbs............................ X
Mrs. Napolitano.............................. X Mr. Webster of FL....................
Mr. Lipinski................................. X Mr. Massie........................... X
Mr. Cohen.................................... X Mr. Meadows.......................... X
Mr. Sires.................................... X Mr. Perry............................ X
Mr. Garamendi................................ X Mr. Rodney Davis of IL............... X
Mr. Johnson of GA............................ X Mr. Woodall.......................... X
Mr. Carson of IN............................. Mr. Katko............................ X
Ms. Titus.................................... X Mr. Babin............................ X
Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of NY............... Mr. Graves of LA..................... X
Mr. Huffman.................................. Mr. Rouzer........................... X
Ms. Brownley of CA........................... X Mr. Bost............................. X
Ms. Wilson of FL............................. X Mr. Weber of TX...................... X
Mr. Payne.................................... Mr. LaMalfa.......................... X
Mr. Lowenthal................................ X Mr. Westerman........................ X
Mr. DeSaulnier............................... X Mr. Smucker.......................... X
Ms. Plaskett................................. X Mr. Mitchell......................... X
Mr. Lynch.................................... Mr. Mast............................. X
Mr. Carbajal................................. X Mr. Gallagher........................
Mr. Brown of MD.............................. X Mr. Palmer........................... X
Mr. Espaillat................................ X Mr. Fitzpatrick......................
Mr. Malinowski............................... X Miss Gonzalez-Colon of PR............ X
Mr. Stanton.................................. X Mr. Balderson........................ X
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.......................... X Mr. Spano............................ X
Mrs. Fletcher................................ X Mr. Stauber.......................... X
Mr. Allred................................... X Mrs. Miller.......................... X
Ms. Davids of KS............................. X Mr. Pence............................ X
Ms. Finkenauer............................... X
Mr. Garcia of IL............................. X
Mr. Delgado.................................. X
Mr. Pappas................................... X
Ms. Craig.................................... X
Mr. Rouda.................................... X
Mr. Lamb..................................... X
-------------
Vote Total: 39 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Oversight Findings
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has
received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5119 from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 10, 2020.
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5119, the Safe
Aircraft Maintenance Standards Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Aaron
Krupkin.
Sincerely,
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 5119 would require certain air carriers to submit
monthly and annual reports to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) on aircraft maintenance and alterations
performed outside the United States. The FAA would be required
to establish an online repository for that information, analyze
the reports, detect any safety issues, and implement corrective
actions if necessary. In addition, the FAA would be required to
perform other regulatory activities related to aircraft
maintenance.
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be
enacted in fiscal year 2020. Under that assumption, the FAA
could incur some costs in 2020, but CBO expects that most of
the costs would be incurred in 2021 and later. Using
information from the FAA on employee compensation and the
workload that would result from fulfilling the bill's
requirements, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5119 would
cost about $4 million over the 2020-2025 period. Any spending
would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. The
costs of the legislation would fall within budget function 400
(transportation).
By requiring certain air carriers to submit new reports to
the FAA, H.R. 5119 would impose a private-sector mandate as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Under
current law, air carriers track maintenance performed on each
aircraft and submit reports to the FAA when major alterations
are performed. H.R. 5119 would broaden those requirements by
requiring domestic operators to submit monthly reports on
aircraft maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations
performed outside the United States and annual reports
detailing the heavy maintenance work performed on aircraft in
the past year. CBO expects that the mandate would affect fewer
than 100 airlines by incrementally adding to their maintenance-
tracking requirements. CBO estimates, therefore, that the cost
of the mandates, mostly for gathering information and preparing
new reports, would fall below the annual threshold for private-
sector mandates in UMRA ($168 million in 2020, adjusted
annually for inflation).
H.R. 5119 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in UMRA.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Aaron Krupkin
(for federal costs) and Brandon Lever (for mandates). The
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director
of Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goal and objective of this legislation is to
address the safety disparity between airline maintenance
performed in the United States and that performed on U.S.
airlines' fleets in foreign countries.
Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision
of H.R. 5119 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal
program, a program that was included in any report from the
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance.
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits
In compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the rule
XXI.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (Public Law 104-4).
Preemption Clarification
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local,
or tribal law. The Committee finds that H.R. 5119 does not
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation
Sec. 1. Short title
This section provides that this bill may be cited as the
Safe Aircraft Maintenance Standards Act''.
Sec. 2. Sense of Congress
This section expresses the sense of Congress that (1) the
safety of the United States aviation system requires the
highest standards for aircraft maintenance, repair, and
overhaul work; (2) the safety of aircraft operated by United
States air carriers should not be dependent on where the
maintenance, repair, and overhaul work is performed; and (3)
the FAA must fully enforce its maintenance, repair, and
overhaul work on U.S.-operated aircraft at every facility in
the United States or abroad.
Sec. 3. Oversight of repair stations located outside the United States
This section:
Requires that all foreign repair stations be subject to at
least one unannounced inspection each year.
Requires air carriers to submit detailed reports to the FAA
each month listing mechanical issues attributable to
maintenance performed outside the United States, and requires
the FAA to subject those reports, as well as existing safety
reports, to robust data analysis to detect trends and correct
them.
Requires air carriers to submit to an FAA-maintained
repository an annual report with heavy maintenance history by
location and specific aircraft registration number, as well as
other personnel metrics.
Prohibits the FAA from approving any application or request
for renewal of a part 145 certificate from a repair station
located in countries designated by the FAA as category 2 (which
indicates a lower level of safety), as well as air carriers
from conducting heavy maintenance in such countries.
Requires that supervisors, individuals who authorize
aircraft for return to service, and personnel performing
required inspections must hold FAA mechanic or repairman
certificates, and either be physically present near the
aircraft or personally perform the work.
Sec. 4. Moratorium
Beginning one year after enactment, this sections prohibits
the FAA from certificating new foreign repair stations until
the FAA has: (1) complied with the 2016 mandate for a final
rule on drug and alcohol testing of employees at foreign repair
stations, (2) issued a final rule mandating threat assessments
of such employees, and (3) issued any other rules made
necessary by this law.
Sec. 5. Definitions
This section defines the terms used in this Act.
Sec. 6 Technical and clerical amendments
This section contains technical amendments to the U.S. Code
to correct an error in section numbering contained in the
Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2018
(P.L. 115-254).
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE VII--AVIATION PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
PART A--AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY
* * * * * * *
SUBPART III--SAFETY
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 447--SAFETY REGULATION
Sec.
44701. General requirements.
* * * * * * *
[44733. Inspection of repair stations located outside the United
States.]
44733. Oversight of repair stations located outside the United States.
* * * * * * *
44739. Pets on airplanes.
[Sec. 44737. Special rule for certain aircraft operations.]
44740. Special rule for certain aircraft operations.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 44733. [Inspection] Oversight of repair stations located outside
the United States
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall establish and implement a safety
assessment system for all part 145 repair stations based on the
type, scope, and complexity of work being performed. The system
shall--
(1) ensure that repair stations located outside the
United States are subject to appropriate inspections
based on identified risks and consistent with existing
United States requirements;
(2) consider inspection results and findings
submitted by foreign civil aviation authorities
operating under a maintenance safety or maintenance
implementation agreement with the United States; and
(3) require all maintenance safety or maintenance
implementation agreements to provide an opportunity for
the Administration to conduct independent inspections
of [covered part 145 repair stations] part 145 repair
stations when safety concerns warrant such inspections.
(b) Notice to Congress of Negotiations.--The Administrator
shall notify the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives not later than 30 days after initiating formal
negotiations with foreign aviation authorities or other
appropriate foreign government agencies on a new maintenance
safety or maintenance implementation agreement.
(c) Annual Report.--The Administrator shall publish an annual
report on the Administration's oversight of part 145 repair
stations and implementation of the safety assessment system
required under subsection (a). The report shall--
(1) describe in detail any improvements in the
Administration's ability to identify and track where
part 121 air carrier repair work is performed;
(2) include a staffing model to determine the best
placement of inspectors and the number of inspectors
needed;
(3) describe the training provided to inspectors; and
(4) include an assessment of the quality of
monitoring and surveillance by the Administration of
work performed by its inspectors and the inspectors of
foreign authorities operating under a maintenance
safety or maintenance implementation agreement.
(d) Alcohol and Controlled Substances Testing Program
Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Transportation, acting jointly, shall
request the governments of foreign countries that are
members of the International Civil Aviation
Organization to establish international standards for
alcohol and controlled substances testing of persons
that perform safety-sensitive maintenance functions on
commercial air carrier aircraft.
(2) Application to part 121 aircraft work.--Not later
than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
section, the Administrator shall promulgate a proposed
rule requiring that all part 145 repair station
employees responsible for safety-sensitive maintenance
functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft are subject
to an alcohol and controlled substances testing program
determined acceptable by the Administrator and
consistent with the applicable laws of the country in
which the repair station is located.
(e) Annual Inspections.--The Administrator shall ensure that
part 145 repair stations located outside the United States are
inspected annually, without prior notice, by Federal Aviation
Administration safety inspectors, without regard to where the
station is located, in a manner consistent with United States
obligations under international agreements. [The Administrator
may carry out inspections in addition to the annual inspection
required under this subsection based on identified risks.] The
Administrator may carry out announced or unannounced
inspections in addition to the annual unannounced inspection
required under this subsection based on identified risks.
(f) Risk-Based Oversight.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of the FAA Extension, Safety, and
Security Act of 2016, the Administrator shall take
measures to ensure that the safety assessment system
established under subsection (a)--
(A) places particular consideration on
inspections of part 145 repair stations located
outside the United States that conduct
scheduled heavy maintenance work on part 121
air carrier aircraft; and
(B) accounts for the frequency and
seriousness of any corrective actions that part
121 air carriers must implement to aircraft
following such work at such repair stations.
(2) International agreements.--The Administrator
shall take the measures required under paragraph (1)--
(A) in accordance with United States
obligations under applicable international
agreements; and
(B) in a manner consistent with the
applicable laws of the country in which a
repair station is located.
(3) Access to data.--The Administrator may access and
review such information or data in the possession of a
part 121 air carrier as the Administrator may require
in carrying out paragraph (1)(B).
(g) Data Analysis.--
(1) In general.--An air carrier conducting operations
under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, shall provide to the responsible Flight
Standards office of the Administration, not later than
the last day of each calendar month, a report
containing the information described in paragraph (2)
with respect to maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
alteration of an aircraft that is performed during the
preceding calendar month.
(2) Information required.--A report under paragraph
(1) shall contain the following information:
(A) The location where any maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alteration was
performed outside the United States.
(B) A description of the work performed at
each such location.
(C) The date of completion of the work
performed at each such location.
(D) The total man-hours associated with
completing the work performed at each such
location.
(E) A list of all failures, malfunctions, or
defects affecting the safe operation of an
aircraft identified by the air carrier as
requiring corrective action after return to
service, organized by reference to aircraft
registration number.
(F) The certificate number of the person
approving an aircraft, or a powerplant or part,
for return to service following completion of
the work performed at each such location.
(3) Updates.--Not later than 180 days after the date
on which an aircraft returns to service, an air carrier
shall update the information described in paragraph
(2)(E) with respect to any failure, malfunction, or
defect discovered by the air carrier following return
to service during such period.
(4) Analysis.--The Administrator shall--
(A) analyze reports submitted under paragraph
(1) of this subsection and sections 121.703,
121.705, 121.707, and 145.221 of title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations, or any successor
provisions, to detect safety issues associated
with maintenance, preventive maintenance, and
alterations performed outside the United
States; and
(B) require appropriate actions in response
to such reports.
(h) Annual Reporting Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this subsection, and annually
thereafter, each air carrier conducting operations
under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, shall upload to the online repository
described in paragraph (2) a report containing--
(A) a minimum of 1 year of heavy maintenance
work history for each aircraft (organized by
reference to aircraft registration number) that
conducted operations under such part 121 during
the previous calendar year;
(B) the percentage and total number of
mechanics carrying out maintenance, preventive
maintenance, or alterations on aircraft for the
air carrier during the previous year who are
employees and who are not employees of the air
carrier;
(C) the percentage and total number of
mechanics certified under part 65 of such title
carrying out maintenance, preventive
maintenance, or alterations on aircraft for the
air carrier during the previous year who are
based and who are not based in the United
States;
(D) the percentage and total number of
mechanics, regardless of certification,
carrying out maintenance, preventive
maintenance, or alterations on aircraft for the
air carrier during the previous year who are
based and who are not based in the United
States;
(E) the percentage and total number of
mechanics carrying out maintenance, preventive
maintenance, or alterations on aircraft for the
air carrier during the previous year who are
certified under part 65 of such title and who
are not certified under part 65 of such title;
(F) other information to be provided by the
air carrier regarding maintenance, safety, and
the aircraft fleet of the carrier that is of
interest to the traveling public, as determined
appropriate by the Administrator;
(G) all locations where aircraft in the fleet
of such air carrier have undergone heavy
maintenance work in the past 3 years, listed by
total man-hours; and
(H) all locations where heavy maintenance
work on an aircraft may be carried out for the
air carrier under an existing contract.
(2) Online repository.--The Administrator shall
establish an online repository for information
submitted under paragraph (1) that allows an air
carrier to electronically upload the data required to
be submitted under such paragraph.
(i) International Standards for Safety Oversight of Civil
Aviation.--
(1) Applications and requests for renewal.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator may not
approve any application or request for renewal
under part 145 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, from a person located or
headquartered in a country that the
Administration, through the International
Aviation Safety Assessment program, has
classified as Category 2.
(B) Maintenance implementation procedures
agreement.--The Administrator may elect not to
enter into a maintenance implementation
procedures agreement with a country that the
Administrator has classified as Category 2 to
the extent the Administrator determines is
necessary to comply with the requirements of
this subsection.
(2) Continued heavy maintenance work.--No air carrier
conducting operations under part 121 of title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations, may contract for heavy
maintenance work with a person located or headquartered
in a country that the Administration, through the
International Aviation Safety Assessment program, has
classified as Category 2.
(j) Minimum Qualifications for Mechanics and Others Working
on U.S.-registered Aircraft.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator
shall require that, at each covered repair station--
(A) all supervisory personnel are
appropriately certificated as a mechanic or
repairman under part 65 of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations;
(B) all personnel authorized to approve an
article for return to service are appropriately
certificated as a mechanic or repairman under
part 65 of such title; and
(C) all personnel performing required
inspections under part 145 of such title are
appropriately certificated as a mechanic or
repairman under part 65 of such title.
(2) Physical presence.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this subsection, the
Administrator shall require that any individual who is
responsible for authorization of return of an article
to service or who is directly in charge of maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alterations performed on
aircraft operated under part 121 of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations--
(A) be physically present near the aircraft
and available for consultation while work is
being performed; or
(B) personally perform the work.
[(g)] (k) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Covered repair station.--The term ``covered
repair station'' means a facility that--
(A) is located outside the United States;
(B) is certificated under part 145 of title
14, Code of Federal Regulations; and
(C) performs maintenance, preventive
maintenance, or alterations of aircraft,
including powerplants and parts of such
aircraft, operated under part 121 of title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations.
[(1)] (2) Heavy maintenance work.--The term ``heavy
maintenance work'' means a C-check, a D-check, or
equivalent maintenance operation with respect to the
airframe of a transport-category aircraft.
[(2)] (3) Part 121 air carrier.--The term ``part 121
air carrier'' means an air carrier that holds a
certificate issued under part 121 of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations.
[(3)] (4) Part 145 repair station.--The term ``part
145 repair station'' means a repair station that holds
a certificate issued under part 145 of title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations.
* * * * * * *
Sec. [44737.] 44740. Special rule for certain aircraft operations[.]
(a) In General.--The operator of an aircraft with a special
airworthiness certification in the experimental category may--
(1) operate the aircraft for the purpose of
conducting a space support vehicle flight (as that term
is defined in [chapter] section 50902 of title 51); and
(2) conduct such flight under such certificate
carrying persons or property for compensation or hire--
(A) notwithstanding any rule or term of a
certificate issued by the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration that would
prohibit flight for compensation or hire; or
(B) without obtaining a certificate issued by
the Administrator to conduct air carrier or
commercial operations.
(b) Limited Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply only
to a space support vehicle flight that satisfies each of the
following:
(1) [(1)] The aircraft conducting the space support
vehicle flight--
(A) takes flight and lands at a single site
that is operated by an entity licensed for
operation under chapter 509 of title 51;
(B) is owned or operated by a launch or
reentry vehicle operator licensed under chapter
509 of title 51, or on behalf of a launch or
reentry vehicle operator licensed under chapter
509 of title 51;
(C) is a launch vehicle, a reentry vehicle,
or a component of a launch or reentry vehicle
licensed for operations pursuant to chapter 509
of title 51; and
(D) is used only to simulate space flight
conditions in support of--
(i) training for potential space
flight participants, government
astronauts, or crew (as those terms are
defined in chapter 509 of title 51);
(ii) the testing of hardware to be
used in space flight; or
(iii) research and development tasks,
which require the unique capabilities
of the aircraft conducting the flight.
(c) Rules of Construction.--
(1) Space support vehicles.--Section 44711(a)(1)
shall not apply to a person conducting a space support
vehicle flight under this section only to the extent
that a term of the experimental certificate under which
the person is operating the space support vehicle
prohibits the carriage of persons or property for
compensation or hire.
(2) Authority of administrator.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to limit the authority of
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration to exempt a person from a regulatory
prohibition on the carriage of persons or property for
compensation or hire subject to terms and conditions
other than those described in this section.
* * * * * * *
DISSENTING VIEWS
While we support the intent behind H.R. 5119, the ``Safe
Aircraft Maintenance Standards Act,'' we stand opposed to the
version of the bill ordered to be reported by the Committee as
it may harm the aviation industry, set back global aviation
safety, and threaten thousands of American jobs.
Unintended Consequences
According to the Majority, the purpose of H.R. 5119 is to
increase aviation safety by ensuring that maintenance performed
on aircraft operated by U.S. air carriers is held to the same
standard whether it takes place in this country or abroad.
While we share that laudable goal, H.R. 5119 does not live up
to it. Instead, the bill attempts to unilaterally impose U.S.
law in foreign countries, opening up the United States'
aviation industry to retaliation by foreign regulators.
In general, the bill would require the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to apply U.S. laws and regulations on
foreign repair stations, regardless of whether such laws are
compatible with the laws of the foreign country where the
repair station is located. Ironically, this unilateralist
approach comes at a time when the United States is admitting
hard truths about its aviation system and the overarching
necessity to work with civil aviation authorities around the
world to ensure aviation safety. This bill would significantly
hinder these efforts and jeopardize global aviation safety
progress at an already uncertain time for the aviation
industry.
We share the Majority's concerns that the FAA, under both
Democratic and Republican administrations, has failed to meet
statutory deadlines for initiating rulemakings and implementing
safety regulations relating to foreign repair stations.
However, rather than holding the FAA responsible for its
failure to comply with mandates in existing law, H.R. 5119 adds
complicated new requirements on top of existing statutory
requirements and then directs the FAA to punish industry for
its own failure to comply with all of the requirements. We find
it difficult to understand how prohibiting the issuance of
additional foreign repair station certificates prior to the
completion of several newly mandated rulemakings will spur
expedited action by the FAA.
Furthermore, despite assertions at markup that the bill
only targets countries that do not adhere to U.S. standards and
that ``there is not going to be a problem with the developed
world with this,''\1\ there is nothing in the bill that
suggests this is the case. For example, if the FAA fails to
meet the stringent deadlines set for implementing this bill, it
will be barred from issuing foreign repair station
certificates. This will apply whether the repair station is in
Canada and the European Union (EU) or in China or an unsafe
Category 2 country.\2\ If, under this bill, the United States
fails to issue timely certificates to repair stations in the
EU, it is likely that the EU will respond by not issuing
certificates to repair stations in this country. This
jeopardizes thousands of jobs at existing and future dual-
certificated repair stations in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure, Legislative Markup
on November 20, 2019, 116 Cong. (2019), (statement of Peter DeFazio,
Chair, Comm. On Transportation and Instructure) (on file with
Committee).
\2\A Category 2 country is one that FAA has found to be out of
compliance with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
safety standards under the International Aviation Safety Assessment
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Committee has recognized an existing and impending
aviation workforce shortage in nearly all job positions,
including: pilots, flight attendants, safety inspectors, and
mechanics. A recent industry assessment found that the world
will need nearly 770,000 new aviation technicians in the next
20 years. While nearly 200,000 of those jobs are forecasted to
be in North America, that means that more than 75% will be
outside the United States. Last Congress, this Committee
produced the bipartisan FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L.
115-254), which contained an entire title dedicated to
addressing future aviation workforce issues. By impeding access
to foreign repair stations, we are concerned this bill would
roll back what progress has been achieved and make our Nation's
mechanic shortage more acute than it already is.
Finally, this bill did not receive the legislative due
diligence it deserves given the array of potential issues. Most
importantly, there was not testimony from impacted
stakeholders, including repair stations, airlines,
manufacturers, and the FAA. While the Subcommittee on Aviation
did receive testimony from a labor union representing aircraft
mechanics on July 17, 2019, at a hearing titled ``State of
Aviation Safety,'' it merely received anecdotal information
regarding the safety of foreign repair stations, not the data
this Committee needs to make informed decisions regarding
changes to a complex regulatory safety structure.
A Better Way
We believe we could have reached a bipartisan agreement
that would have passed the Committee unanimously. At markup,
Rep. Garret Graves, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Aviation, offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 5119 which contained the text of the ``Global Aircraft
Maintenance Safety Improvement Act.'' We believe the amendment
represented a fair, consensus driven approach that would have
addressed the concerns raised by the Majority regarding the
FAA's foreign repair station oversight in a way that respects
existing U.S. international obligations and avoids harmful
retaliation by other countries. Rather than seriously
considering the proposal, it was mischaracterized by the
Majority, then swiftly defeated on a strict party-line vote.
The amendment was not, however, a wholesale change to the
base text. It included many of the provisions found in the
underlying bill, including those requiring unannounced
inspections at foreign repair stations and enabling FAA
analysis of foreign repair station safety data. Like the
underlying bill, the amendment would have restricted repair
station activity in Category 2 countries. The amendment also
would have ensured that the FAA would comply with existing
foreign repair station rulemaking mandates by prohibiting non-
safety related travel for FAA employees within two years should
the FAA fail to issue the rulemakings. This would set a
realistic timeframe for the FAA to finally complete the long
outstanding mandates while ensuring that the consequences of
not completing them would be felt by the FAA, not the aviation
industry.
Recognizing that overseeing the safety of worldwide repair
stations is a global issue, the amendment also would have
created a foreign repair station Joint Authorities Technical
Review (JATR) made up of representatives from civil aviation
authorities of countries that certificate foreign repair
stations and countries in which those repair stations are
located. This would have provided a unique and helpful body
within which the FAA could work with countries where it
certificates foreign repair stations to raise the level of
safety on a multilateral basis, rather than imposing an
ineffective one-size-fits-all policy by fiat.
The foreign repair station JATR was based on the JATR
created in the wake of the two accidents involving the Boeing
737 MAX aircraft. The group was widely praised by aviation
experts and lawmakers, including Democratic members of the
Committee, as a valuable independent body that offered
important insights and recommendations, many of which the FAA
is already implementing. It is unclear why the Majority
disparaged the foreign repair station JATR at markup as
``another advisory group composed of self-interested,
conflicted individuals''\3\ while praising the Boeing 737 MAX
JATR as ``heeding [the Majority's] call to bring in an
independent body into the certification process''\4\ and as
``an independent body must be able to review every step of the
process and help restore public confidence.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure, Legislative Markup
on November 20, 2019, 116 Cong. (2019), (statement of Peter DeFazio,
Chair, Comm. On Transportation and Instructure) (on file with
Committee).
\4\``Chairs DeFazio and Larsen Applaud FAA Announcement Ordering a
Third-Party Review into Boeing 737 MAX,'' Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure press release, April 3, 2019, available at https://
transportation.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairs-defazio-and-larsen-
applaud-faa-announcement-ordering-a-third-party-review-into-boeing-737-
max.
\5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
We are disappointed that the Majority has missed an
opportunity at bipartisan cooperation on a topic as important
and bipartisan as aviation safety. In the past, this Committee
has worked constructively to address aviation safety issues in
a bipartisan way, and we remain hopeful that future legislative
efforts will follow that historically successful path. We
continue to stand ready to work with the Majority on future
bipartisan legislation that improves transportation safety.
Sam Graves,
Ranking Member.