Rep. Rick Larsen, WA-02, the ranking member of the House Aviation Subcommittee, delivered the following statement today at the subcommittee’s “Review of FAA’s Certification Process: Ensuring an Efficient, Effective, and Safe Process” hearing. The remarks are as prepared for delivery.

Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, for calling today’s hearing to review FAA’s certification process.

Mr. Chairman, the ability of U.S. manufacturers to improve our aviation system, and compete successfully in the global marketplace, is tied to the FAA’s timely review of new products. The public relies on a skilled and dedicated FAA workforce to work with industry and ensure that new products and services are safe. 

I have seen first-hand how important FAA’s certification services are in Washington state, where aviation manufacturing is a significant economic driver.  Washington is home to 1,250 firms in the aerospace cluster, employing more than 131,000.   The aerospace industry is the largest exporting sector by dollar value in Washington accounting for $27 billion of the state’s total $64.6 billion in exports in 2011.

To ensure that aviation manufacturing continues to play such a critical role in the nation’s economy, Congress must provide adequate resources for FAA certification services. Additionally, Congress should encourage FAA to improve the streamlining process, while maintaining the highest level of safety.

Therefore, I am pleased that the most recent FAA reauthorization directed the FAA to assess its certification process and address concerns related to the consistency of regulatory interpretation.    More specifically, section 312 of the FAA reauthorization requires that FAA conduct an assessment of the aircraft certification and approval process. 

In the summer of 2012, the FAA reported the results of its review, and in July of this year it approved a plan to implement recommendations contained in the report.  One of the key recommendations contained in the FAA certification report is that the agency should more effectively use its existing delegation authority.

The FAA’s delegation authority is nothing new – it has been a key component for decades.  Because FAA simply does not have the personnel to oversee every aspect of aviation certification, the law allows FAA to delegate certain functions to qualified individuals and companies.

Today, the FAA appoints both individual designees and grants approval of Organizational Designation Authorization, or ODAs.   Through ODAs, FAA delegates the responsibility for selecting individuals to perform routine certification work to aircraft manufacturers and other organizations.

The FAA’s section 312 report notes that if FAA more fully utilizes delegated authority to carry out routine certification functions, FAA personnel will be freed up to focus on critical safety areas that present more risk.

In theory, this makes perfect sense, and I support the idea of streamlining the certification process as long as it can be done safely. But safety must never be allowed to take a back seat to efficiency. 

In 2005, the GAO reported that upwards of 90 percent of FAA’s certification activities were performed by designees.  Therefore, FAA personnel must have the tools and the training to properly assess risk, so that they are involved when needed to be and are prepared to step up their involvement in certification activity when warranted. 

And when certain certification activities present greater risk or involve new technologies, the FAA must possess the technical expertise, or readily obtain outside expertise, so it can work with industry to address safety issues.  

In 2011, the DOT Inspector General reported that FAA needed to strengthen its risk assessment analysis capability with respect to ODA so that FAA personnel could better identify safety critical certification issues. 

I look forward to hearing from the IG what steps, if any, the FAA has taken to strengthen its risk based  targeting program since the IG’s 2011 report.

Likewise, earlier this year the Government Accountability Office raised concerns that “FAA staff have not been able to keep pace with industry changes and, thus, may struggle to understand the aircraft or equipment they are tasked with certificating.” 

I would like to hear from Dr. Dillingham whether he believes this is a major concern, and what steps the FAA can take, or is taking, to address this concern.

Mr. Chairman, in 2010 the GAO reported that the FAA’s inconsistent interpretation of its own certification and approval regulations has resulted in delays and higher costs for industry. This could also lead to jurisdiction shopping or unfair standards for different manufacturers or operators depending on where they are located. For this reason, section 313 of the FAA reauthorization directed the FAA to convene an advisory panel to determine the root causes of inconsistent regulatory interpretation by FAA personnel.

This July, the advisory panel issued its report to Congress, but the FAA has not yet drafted a plan to implement the panel’s recommendations. Many of the panel’s recommendations make sense, centering on improving training for FAA personnel and improving communication between FAA and industry. For example, the panel recommended that the FAA develop a consolidated master database for regulatory policy and guidance for commercial aviation.  I look forward to hearing the FAA’s reaction to this and other panel recommendations.  

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.