Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief
Updated July 22, 2020
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R42781

link to page 4 Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief

Introduction
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs are funded under four broad budget accounts:
operations and maintenance (such as air traffic control and aviation safety functions); facilities
and equipment (such as control towers and navigation beacons); grants for airports under the
Airport Improvement Program (AIP); and civil aviation research conducted or sponsored by
FAA. Additional y, certain aviation programs are administered by the Department of
Transportation (DOT) Office of the Secretary, including the Essential Air Service (EAS) program,
which subsidizes airline service to certain smal or isolated communities. Civil aviation programs
are funded primarily through a special trust fund, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF),
and, in part, through general fund contributions. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-
254) authorizes AATF taxes and revenue collections and civil aviation program expenditures
through FY2023. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L.
116-136) provided loans, loan guarantees, and payroll support programs, as wel as emergency
program funding, to help the aviation sector during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
pandemic. This report offers an overview of FAA programs and also discusses the additional
supplemental relief and assistance provided by the CARES Act.
Other federal entities also play significant roles in civil aviation. These include the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which conducts extensive research on civil
aeronautics; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which provides research and
operational support to FAA regarding aviation weather forecasting; the Transportation Security
Administration in the Department of Homeland Security, which has authority over civil aviation
security; and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which investigates aviation
accidents and makes safety recommendations to FAA. These programs are not considered in this
report.
The Airport and Airway Trust Fund
The AATF, sometimes referred to as the aviation trust fund, was established in 1970 under the
Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-258) to provide for expansion of the
nation’s airports and air traffic system. It has been the major funding source for federal aviation
programs since its creation. Between FY2017 and FY2020, the AATF provided between 86.9%
and 97.0% of FAA’s total annual funding, the remainder coming from general fund
appropriations.1 Revenue sources for the trust fund include passenger ticket taxes, segment fees,
air cargo fees, and fuel taxes paid by both commercial and general aviation aircraft (see Table 1).
In addition to excise taxes deposited into the trust fund, FAA imposes air traffic service fees on
flights that transit U.S.-controlled airspace but do not take off from or land in the United States.
These overflight fees partial y fund the EAS program.2
In FY2019 the AATF had revenues of nearly $16 bil ion and maintained a cash balance of about
$18 bil ion. The uncommitted balance—the amount of funds not yet obligated—was estimated to
be over $6.5 bil ion at the start of FY2020.3

1 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) Fact Sheet, Updated: April 2020,
http://www.faa.gov/about/budget/aatf/media/aatf_fact_sheet.pdf.
2 See CRS Report R44176, Essential Air Service (EAS), by Rachel Y. T ang.
3 Congressional Budget Office, Projected Balance of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, Updated January 2020.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 4 Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief

As the trust fund revenue is largely dependent on airlines’ ticket sales, the spread of low-cost air
carrier models has held down ticket prices and therefore AATF receipts. In addition, AATF
revenues have been adversely affected by the recent trend among airlines to impose fees for a
variety of add-on services and amenities such as checked bags, onboard Wi-Fi access, or seats
with additional legroom. General y, fees not included in the base ticket price are not subject to
federal excise taxes. Air carriers generated more than $5.7 bil ion in baggage fees in 2019.4 The
trust fund would have received nearly $432 mil ion from baggage fees alone had these fees been
subject to the 7.5% excise tax. If airlines continue to expand use of ancil ary fees as an alternative
to increasing base ticket prices, tax revenues may not keep up with federal spending on aviation
programs.
Table 1. Aviation Taxes and Fees
(CY2020 rates)
Tax or Fee
Rate
Passenger Ticket Tax (on domestic ticket purchases and frequent flyer awards)
7.5%
Flight Segment Tax (domestic, indexed annual y to Consumer Price Index)
$4.30
Cargo Waybil Tax
6.25%
Frequent Flyer Tax
7.5%
General Aviation Gasolinea
19.3 cents/gal on
General Aviation Jet Fuela (Kerosene)
21.8 cents/gal on
Commercial Jet Fuela (Kerosene)
4.3 cents/gal on
International Departure/Arrivals Tax (indexed annual y to Consumer Price Index) $18.90
(prorated Alaska/Hawai to/from mainland United States)
(Alaska/Hawai = $9.50)
Fractional Ownership Surtax on general aviation jet fuel
14.1 cents/gal on
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) Fact Sheet, April 2020.
a. Does not include a 0.1 cents/gal on tax for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) trust fund.
Airlines have long contended that general aviation operators, particularly corporate jets, should
provide a larger share of the revenues supporting the trust fund. General aviation interests dispute
this, arguing that the air traffic system mainly supports the airlines and that nonairline users pay a
reasonable share given the relatively smal incremental costs arising from their flights.
Concerns over the viability of the trust fund, however, were overshadowed by the impact of the
abrupt drop in air travel in early 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 4007 of the
CARES Act, enacted March 27, 2020, authorized a suspension of aviation excise taxes through
calendar year 2020. The suspended taxes include the 7.5% tax on airline passenger ticket sales,
segment fees, the air cargo waybil tax, and aviation fuel taxes paid by both commercial and
general aviation aircraft—the primary revenue sources for the trust fund. Although the adequacy
of trust fund receipts to fund aviation programs over the long run wil depend on the recovery of
air travel, FAA projected that the existing trust fund balance would be sufficient to cover its
expected outlays for the remaining duration of the excise tax suspension.5

4 Bureau of T ransportation Statistics, “Baggage Fees by Airline 2019,” https://www.bts.gov/node/221236, as viewed on
June 22, 2020.
5 FAA, “ Airport and Airway T rust Fund”, https://www.faa.gov/about/budget/aatf/, webpage last modified on June 5,
2020.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 5 Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief

FAA Funding Accounts
FAA funding is divided among four main accounts. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) receives
approximately 60% of total FAA appropriations. The O&M account, funded by the trust fund as
wel as by general fund contributions, principal y funds air traffic operations and aviation safety
programs. The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides federal grants-in-aid for projects
such as new runways and taxiways; runway lengthening, rehabilitation, and repair; and noise
mitigation near airports. The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account provides funding for the
acquisition and maintenance of air traffic facilities and equipment, and for engineering,
development, testing, and evaluation of technologies related to the federal air traffic system.
The Research, Engineering, and Development account finances research on improving aviation
safety and operational efficiency and reducing environmental impacts of aviation operations.
Authorization levels for these accounts are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Authorized Funding Levels for Major FAA Accounts
(dol ars in mil ions)
Account
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

Authorized Levels
10,247
10,486
10,732
11,000
11,269
11,537
Airport Improvement Program (AIP)

Authorized Levels
3,350
3,350
3,350
3,350
3,350
3,350
Additional General Fund Authorization
1,020
1,041
1,064
1,087
1,110
Facilities and Equipment (F&E)

Authorized Levels
3,330
3,398
3,469
3,547
3,624
3,701
Research, Engineering, and

Development (RE&D)
Authorized Levels
189
194
199
204
209
214
TOTALS

Authorized Levels
17,116
18,448
18,791
19,165
19,539
19,912
Source: P.L. 115-254.
Airport Financing6
AIP provides federal grants for airport development. AIP funding, distributed both by formula
and by discretionary grants, is usual y limited to capital improvements related to aircraft
operations, particularly improvements addressing safety, capacity, and environmental concerns.
Commercial revenue-producing portions of airports and airport terminals are general y not
eligible for AIP funding. AIP money usual y cannot be used for airport operational expenses or
bond repayments. It may be spent only on public-use airports identified in FAA’s National Plan
of Integrated Airports Systems (NPIAS), which currently lists over 3,300 airports across the
United States considered significant to national air transportation.

6 For greater detail, see CRS Report R43327, Financing Airport Improvements, by Rachel Y. T ang. Also see Federal
Aviation Administration, Overview: What Is AIP?, http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/overview/.
Congressional Research Service

3

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief

In general, the federal share of costs for AIP projects is capped at the following levels:
 75% for large and medium hub airports (80% for noise compatibility projects);
and
 90% or 95% for other airports, depending on statutory requirements.
Additional y, certain economical y distressed communities and communities receiving EAS-
subsidized air carrier service may be eligible for up to a 95% federal share of project costs.
For many years, AIP was funded entirely by the aviation trust fund. However, between FY2018
and FY2020 AIP received supplemental appropriations of $1.9 bil ion for airport grants from the
Treasury general fund.7 The CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) included $10 bil ion to be awarded to
eligible U.S. airports affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This emergency funding increased the
AIP federal share to 100% for FY2020, eliminating the local share that is required under normal
circumstances. Further, the CARES Act provided new funds distributed by various formulas for
NPIAS airports.8
Passenger facility charges (PFCs) provide a source of nonfederal funds intended to complement
AIP spending. A PFC is a local tax imposed, with federal approval, by an airport on each
boarding passenger. PFC funds can be used for a broader range of projects than AIP grants and
are more likely to be used for landside projects such as improvements to passenger terminals and
ground transportation facilities. PFCs can also be used for bond repayments. Currently, PFCs are
capped at $4.50 per boarded passenger, with a maximum charge of $18 per round trip flight. P.L.
115-254 did not raise these caps. PFCs are collected by the airlines and remitted to the airports.
Airports also raise funds for capital projects from bonds, state and local grants, landing fees, on-
airport parking, and lease agreements.
FAA Management and Organizational Issues
FAA is a large organization with a staff of about 43,000. More than 31,000 of these are in the Air
Traffic Organization (ATO), including approximately 14,500 air traffic controllers, 5,000 air
traffic supervisors and managers, and 7,800 engineers and maintenance technicians. ATO was
established under Executive Order 13180 (December 7, 2000) as a functional unit within FAA but
with a completely separate management and organizational structure and a mandate to employ a
business-like approach emphasizing defined performance goals and metrics related to operational
safety and system efficiency. Employee pay and advancement are based, in part, on meeting
annual organizational goals. Creation of the ATO as a distinct entity within FAA also had the
effect of more clearly separating operational components related to air traffic control from
components concerned with regulation and safety oversight of airlines, aircraft operators, repair
stations, flight schools, pilots and mechanics, and other entities.
In both the 114th Congress (H.R. 4441) and the 115th Congress (H.R. 2997), legislation agreed to
by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee sought to create a private, nonprofit
corporation to run air traffic control. While the Trump Administration similarly outlined a plan for
privatizing air traffic services, the concept failed to garner sufficient congressional support, and

7 T he Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141), provided AIP an additional $1 billion in discretionary
grants; the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6), provided an additional $500 million for AIP
discretionary grants; and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94), provided $400 million for
AIP discretionary grants. See FAA program page https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip_supplemental_appropriation/.
8 For more information about the CARES Act funding for airports, see https://www.faa.gov/airports/cares_act/.
Congressional Research Service

4

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief

the most recent civil aviation legislation, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254), did
not include language to reform air traffic control operations.
Facility Consolidation
Consolidation of FAA air traffic facilities and functions is viewed as a means to control
operational costs, replace outdated facilities, and improve air traffic services. Consolidation
efforts to date have focused on terminal radar approach control (TRACON) facilities. TRACON
consolidation has been ongoing for many years, but in the past it has been mostly limited to
nearby and overlapping airspace in major metropolitan areas such as New York/Northern New
Jersey, Washington/Baltimore, and Los Angeles/San Diego.
More recently, FAA has sought to consolidate radar facilities across larger geographical areas
focusing on smal to mid-sized airports with smal -scale radar facilities housed in control towers
that also handle landings, takeoffs, and ground movements. Replacements are being designed to
house airport tower functions only, and TRACON components are to be relocated to consolidated
radar facilities that may be at some distance from the airport. Operations at low -activity towers
that lose their TRACON components are more likely to be outsourced under the federal contract
tower program, an issue of particular concern to FAA labor unions. Currently, about half of al
airport control towers in the United States are operated under the contract tower program. Facility
consolidation is political y sensitive, as TRACON consolidation could result in job losses in
specific congressional districts even if it does not lead to an overal decrease in jobs for air traffic
controllers, systems specialists, and other supporting personnel.
Section 804 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (P.L. 112-95) required FAA to provide a
comprehensive list of proposed recommendations for realignment and consolidation for public
comment and congressional consideration. However, FAA efforts to meet the requirements
outlined in P.L. 112-95 have been limited in scope. In 2013, FAA established a Section 804
collaborative working group consisting of FAA personnel and FAA labor union representatives.
The working group issued its first set of recommendations in March 2015, recommending only to
consolidate one TRACON facility in Cape Cod, MA, with the facility in Boston, and to leave a
facility in Abilene, TX, in place.9 A second set of recommendations was issued in May 2016,10
offering three recommendations for facility consolidation, out of five facilities examined,
focusing on facilities in northern Ohio and central Michigan. In June 2017, the working group
released a third set of recommendations proposing to realign two facilities in Il inois to the St.
Louis, MO, TRACON, and to shift work performed at the Pasco, WA, TRACON to Spokane,
WA.11

9 Federal Aviation Administration, Section 804 Collaborative Working Group, FAA National Facilities Realignment
and Consolidation Report, Year 1, Part 1 Recom m endations. Response to U.S. Congress FAA Reauthorization Bill
P.L. 112-95, Section 804, March 11, 2015.
10 Federal Aviation Administration, Section 804 Collaborative Working Group, FAA National Facilities Realignment
and Consolidation Report, Part 2 Recom m endations. Response to U.S. Congress FAA Reauthorization Bill P.L. 112-
95, Section 804, May 11, 2016.
11 Federal Aviation Administration, Section 804 Collaborative Working Group, FAA National Facilities Realignment
and Consolidation Report, Part 3 Recom m endations, Response to U.S. Congress FAA Reauthorization Bill P.L. 112-
95, Section 804, June 28, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 9 Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief

As original y envisioned, realignment and consolidation, closely coupled with airspace
modernization initiatives, were anticipated to change the nature of air traffic jobs and consolidate
them in fewer physical facilities. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reported that much of this initiative had been deferred until after 2030,12 and language in P.L.
115-254 formal y modified Section 804 to distinguish consolidation efforts from airspace
modernization transition initiatives. The act also requires input from labor organizations
representing air traffic controllers and from industry stakeholders, and exempts any TRACON
and tower facilities where military flight operations in 2015 comprised 40% or more of the
activity from consolidation.
Air Traffic Controller Workforce
Although air traffic modernization wil likely have some impact on the nature of controller job
functions and training, it is not expected to have a significant impact on the size of the FAA
controller workforce. While total controller staffing levels are expected to remain near the current
level through 2026, a present concern is the percentage of controllers in on-the-job training,
which currently stands at roughly 22% at en route facilities and 15% at terminal facilities. The
training process takes several years, but FAA anticipates that proportion of controllers who are
fully qualified wil rise significantly by 2021. The FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of
2016 (P.L. 114-190) requires FAA to give hiring preference to controller candidates with prior
military or civilian air traffic control experience, veterans, and graduates of FAA-approved
college training programs. It also prohibits FAA from utilizing a controversial biographical
assessment tool to screen these applicants.
The COVID-19 pandemic has significant operational implications for the controller workforce. At
hundreds of air traffic control facilities, controllers, technicians, and other employees have tested
positive for COVID-19, necessitating partial or full shutdowns of towers and radar control
facilities for cleaning and disinfection.13 FAA has issued special guidance for operations when
towers or other facilities may be closed for these reasons, and in some cases has relied on other
facilities to monitor air traffic during these temporary closures.14
The Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen)
NextGen is a program to modernize and improve the efficiency of the national airspace system,
primarily by migrating to satel ite-based navigation and aircraft tracking. Funding for NextGen
programs totals almost $1 bil ion annual y, primarily through FAA’s F&E account (see Table 3).

12 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Air Traffic Control Modernization: Progress and Challenges in
Im plem enting NextGen, GAO-17-450, August 2017, https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686881.pdf.
13 See https://www.faa.gov/coronavirus/map/.
14 See https://www.faa.gov/coronavirus/guidance_resources/.
Congressional Research Service

6

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief

Table 3. Funding for NextGen Programs
(dol ars in mil ions)
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
113
123
126
Facilities and Equipment (F&E)
913
1,032
801
Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D)
75
73
69
TOTALS
1,100
1,227
997
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year 2021, Federal Aviation
Administration.
Note: Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Core components of the NextGen system include the following:
 Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B), a system for
broadcasting and receiving aircraft identification, position, altitude, heading, and
speed data derived from on-board navigation systems such as a Global
Positioning System (GPS) receiver. “ADS-B Out” functionality refers to a basic
level of aircraft equipage that transmits position data. “ADS-B In” incorporates
aircraft reception of ADS-B signals from other aircraft and uplinks of traffic,
weather, and flight information from ground stations. Most aircraft are required
to have “ADS-B Out” to fly in controlled airspace.
 Performance Based Navigation (PBN), navigation using GPS and precision
avionics to al ow aircraft to fly more efficient routes and arrival and departure
paths that improve airspace utilization, potential y al owing for reductions in
flight delays and aircraft fuel consumption.
 System Wide Information Management (SWIM), an extensive, scalable data
network to share real-time operational information, such as flight plans, flight
paths, weather, airport conditions, and temporary airspace restrictions across the
entire airspace system.
 Automation, new computer systems, and air traffic control er workstations that
have been deployed to FAA air traffic facilities, including the Standard Terminal
Automation Replacement System (STARS) instal ed at radar approach control
facilities and the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) instal ed at en
route centers.
 Decision Support Systems, a suite of automation and decision-support tools
designed to improve aircraft flow management including traffic flow
management, time-based flow management, and terminal flight data management
tools that share real-time data among controllers, aircraft operators, and airports
to improve strategic traffic flow, airspace utilization, airport arrival and departure
efficiency, and airport surface operations.
 Data Communications (DataComm), a digital voice and data network for
communications between aircraft and air traffic service providers.
Congressional Research Service

7

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief

 National Airspace System Voice System (NVS), a standardized digital voice
network for communications within and between FAA air traffic facilities that
wil replace aging analog equipment.
 NextGen Weather, an integrated platform for providing a common weather
picture to air traffic controllers, air traffic managers, and system users.
These programs are in various stages of development. The SWIM architecture, for example, is
wel defined and has been in use since 2010, al owing appropriately equipped system users to
access weather and flight planning information. However, the addition of more extensive services
is planned. Much of this wil focus on collaborative air traffic management technologies to
improve airspace and airport efficiency.
Airlines have already invested in cockpit technologies compatible with FAA DataComm systems,
which are currently being deployed to several commercial service airport towers, and therefore
the transition to digital voice and data communications between pilots and controllers is expected
to proceed smoothly.
Likewise, most airlines and many business jet operators have already equipped with performance-
based navigation (PBN) capabilities al owing them to fly more efficient routes and airport arrival
and departure paths. The network of ADS-B ground receivers linking these ADS-B feeds to air
traffic facilities across the country was completed in October 2019 and ADS-B equipage is now
mandatory for most aircraft being operated in controlled airspace. General aviation operators
have been reluctant to equip with ADS-B despite the regulatory mandate that required ADS-B
Out equipment by January 2020 and despite financial assistance from FAA. Airlines, which had
also been slow to acquire and instal ADS-B in their fleets, are now mostly compliant. As of July
2020, ADS-B instal ations had been completed on about 142,000 aircraft, including about 6,500
airliners.15 Long-standing concerns that a lack of operator compliance might delay NextGen
implementation now appear unwarranted. Nonetheless, some general aviation operators that have
not been equipped are barred from operating in busy airspace, where ADS-B equipment is
mandatory, unless they obtain an operational waiver from FAA.
Concern over community noise from new flight patterns utilizing NextGen technologies may
limit the effect of NextGen in improving airspace utilization and efficiency. As part of the
NextGen effort, FAA has redesigned terminal airspace around the largest urban areas through
initiatives it refers to as “metroplex” projects. The redesigns are intended to make the best use of
performance-based navigation and improved aircraft tracking capabilities. In some urban areas,
FAA’s changes have increased overflights above communities that previously experienced
relatively little aircraft noise, triggering resident complaints. P.L. 115-254 included provisions
directing FAA to review its community engagement practices, appoint regional noise
ombudsmen, and assess the use of dispersal headings and lateral track variations to approach and
departure paths at airports that request such analyses. The legislation also instructed FAA to
complete a study assessing alternative ways to assess community noise impacts from aircraft, but
FAA has largely concluded that its existing assessment methods to measure noise and assess
community response are appropriate while acknowledging that additional supplementary noise
metrics may be helpful to support public understanding of community noise effects.16

15 Federal Aviation Administration, Current Equipage Levels, https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/installation/
current_equipage_levels/.
16 Federal Aviation Administration, Report to Congress, FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254), Section 188
and Sec 173, April 14, 2020, https://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/congress/media/Day-
Night_Average_Sound_Levels_COMPLET ED_report_w_letters.pdf .
Congressional Research Service

8

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief

Aviation Workforce
Recent legislation requiring a minimum of 1,500 hours of flight time to become an airline pilot
has been cited as a significant barrier to hiring entry-level first officers, particularly at regional
airlines, giving rise to claims of a “pilot shortage.” Congress has debated whether alternative
training approaches, including greater use of flight simulators and structured ground school
curricula, could adequately substitute for the 1,500-hour rule, but provisions to that effect were
dropped during consideration of P.L. 115-254.
Airlines also projected future shortages of mechanics, suggesting that industry practices of
outsourcing heavy aircraft maintenance to overseas facilities could further expand if the supply of
certified aircraft mechanics in the United States dwindles. P.L. 115-254 directed FAA to update
regulations to modernize training programs at aviation maintenance technical schools. It
authorized grants to support the education of future pilots and aviation maintenance technical
workers.
The COVID-19 pandemic is anticipated to have dramatic impacts on the aviation workforce, as
passenger counts have declined by more than 80% in 2020 compared to 2019. Most airlines have
accepted federal grants and loans made available under the CARES Act (P.L. 116-136).17
However, the job protections associated with these federal funds are set to expire at the end of
FY2020, making it likely that large-scale furloughs of airline employees wil ensue.18 Airlines are
asking employees to voluntarily reduce work hours and are offering early retirements in an effort
to reduce the number of furloughs.
Aviation Safety Programs
FAA’s regulatory functions are focused on the safety of civil aviation operations. FAA’s office of
aviation safety consists of about 7,300 positions including regulators, inspectors, engineers, and
support personnel who are responsible for developing and enforcing federal civil aviation safety
standards. FAA’s role in aviation safety includes certification of aircraft and aircraft components,
regulation and oversight of airlines and other aircraft operators, and initiatives to reduce safety
risks associated with airport operations.
Airline Safety
Following the February 12, 2009, crash of a commuter turboprop near Buffalo, NY, the Airline
Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-216) required FAA
to make substantive regulatory changes addressing airline pilot fatigue; airline pilot
qualifications; FAA pilot records; airline flight crew and dispatcher training; oversight and
surveil ance of air carriers; pilot mentoring, professional development, and leadership; and flight
crewmember pairing and crew resource management practices.

17 See https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/preserving-jobs-for-american-industry/payroll-support-program-
payments.
18 Henry Canaday, “Without Help or Luck, T housands of U.S. Mechanics Will Leave in October,” Aviation Week
Network, July, 20, 2020, https://aviationweek.com/mro/without-help-or-luck-thousands-us-mechanics-will-leave-
october.
Congressional Research Service

9

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief

In response to these mandates, FAA issued regulations setting duty limits for passenger airline
pilots based on time of day, number of flight segments, and number of time zones crossed, and
established a minimum 10-hour rest period between duty periods, two hours more than previously
required. FAA also required air carriers to implement fatigue risk management programs to help
ensure that pilots are fit for duty.19 Language in P.L. 115-254 directs FAA to update regulations on
flight attendant duty times and rest requirements, mandating a 10-hour rest period that cannot be
reduced under any circumstances, bringing them in line with the regulations for pilots. In
September 2019, FAA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on
the safety benefits and cost estimates of complying with this mandate.20 The law also mandates
that airlines implement fatigue risk management programs for flight attendants. Cargo operations
are governed by somewhat more lenient and more flexible flight time limitations and rest
requirements for crewmembers, and proposals to bring duty time and rest rules for cargo pilots in
line with those governing passenger operations have not gained traction in Congress.
In addition to requiring that first officers have at least 1,500 hours of flight experience prior to
being hired, FAA requires pilots to log 1,000 hours of experience in airline operations before
being upgraded to captain.21 FAA also has directed air carriers to develop safety management
systems that provide a comprehensive, process-oriented approach to safety throughout each
airline’s organization.22
P.L. 114-190 required FAA to create an accessible pilot records database al owing airlines to
review FAA, air carrier, and driver registry records pertaining to pilot job applicants. The act
directed FAA to issue guidance to air carriers and inspectors for assessing pilot competency in
manual flying skil s and use of cockpit automation, and to verify that training programs
adequately address these elements. The act also directed FAA to consider whether additional
screening and treatment for mental health conditions, including depression and suicidal thoughts
or tendencies, should be considered in the medical certification of airline pilots.
FAA Safety Oversight Reforms
P.L. 115-254 mandated significant changes in FAA safety oversight. It directs FAA to establish a
Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory Committee to make formal recommendations to
improve FAA oversight of aircraft and parts certification. The law further requires FAA to
establish formal objectives to eliminate delays in certification, increase accountability, and
establish a centralized policy office to oversee its authority to designate certain regulatory
responsibilities to manufacturers. FAA’s Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) program
is to be central y monitored to ensure consistency of audit functions and reduce restrictions on
ODA certificate holders. The act also requires FAA to assess its ODA oversight staffing needs and
develop tools to help target its oversight activities.

19 Federal Aviation Administration, “Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements,” 77(2) Federal Register 330-
403, January 4, 2012; Federal Aviation Administration, “Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements;
Correction,” 77(95) Federal Register 28763, May 16, 2012.
20 Federal Aviation Administration, “Flight Attendant Duty Period Limitations and Rest Requirements; Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM),” 84(186) Federal Register 50349-50353, September 25, 2019.
21 Federal Aviation Administration, “Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations;
Final Rule,” 78(135) Federal Register 42324-42380, July 15, 2013; Federal Aviation Administration, “Safety
Management Systems for Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations Certificate Holder s,” 80 Federal Register
1307-1328, March 9, 2015.
22 Federal Aviation Administration, “Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers,” 78
Federal Register 67799-67846, November 12, 2013.
Congressional Research Service

10

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief

Following the crashes of two Boeing 737 Max airplanes overseas leading to a worldwide
grounding of that aircraft, aviation safety experts and policymakers have scrutinized the ODA
concept and processes. A multinational review of Boeing 737 Max certification in 2019 offered
several recommendations to improve communications and oversight within the ODA
framework.23 The review recommended that FAA work more closely with its counterparts in other
countries to harmonize process for reviewing and overseeing changes to existing aircraft types,
and update regulatory guidance related to the aircraft type certification process emphasizing early
FAA involvement in design and design changes and a more integrated approach to development
and certification. It also recommended that FAA review the ODA framework to ensure that
individuals conducting certification activities do not face undue pressures that might affect
decisions made on behalf of FAA and have open lines of communication with FAA.
P.L. 115-254 also requires FAA to reform aircraft operator oversight carried out by its flight
standards offices. FAA is required to establish appropriate performance objectives to eliminate
delays, increase accountability, reduce duplication of effort, fully utilize delegation and
designation authorities, and eliminate inconsistent regulatory interpretations and enforcement of
flight standards. The act directs FAA to address training in auditing and systems safety for flight
standards personnel, establish a single master source for regulatory guidance, streamline appeals
processes, and increase transparency in flight standards oversight. It directs FAA to establish a
task force to develop recommendations for improving flight standards and assess whether flight
standards offices can be realigned based on operational functions rather than geographical
location. The act also requires FAA to establish a centralized safety guidance database, available
to the public, to improve transparency of FAA guidance on regulatory compliance, and establish a
Regulatory Consistency Communications Board to review questions regarding regulatory
interpretations.
The Aircraft Safety and Certification Reform Act of 2020 (S. 3969) would mandate changes to
the aircraft certification process, the ODA program, and FAA oversight of that program. The bil
would mandate FAA-approved safety management systems for aircraft manufacturers. It would
require that FAA review and approve al personnel assigned to an aircraft manufacturer’s ODA
unit, and would increase FAA involvement with and oversight of ODA activities. The bil would
also require FAA to convene an expert panel to review ODA best practices and would require
FAA to address the panel’s findings and recommendations. It would also require FAA to review
and update existing requirements and guidance regarding human factors and human systems
integration, particularly those related to aircraft-pilot interfaces.

23 Joint Authorities T echnical Review, Boeing 737 MAX Flight Control System: Observations, Findings, and
Recom m endations, October 11, 2019, https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/
Final_JAT R_Submittal_to_FAA_Oct_2019.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

11

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief

Helicopter and Air Ambulance Safety
A number of accidents have focused attention on the safety of helicopter air ambulance flights. In
February 2014, FAA mandated changes in helicopter operational procedures and cockpit
technologies to improve operational safety.24 The regulations require commercial operating
standards during al air ambulance flights with medical personnel onboard, mandate radio
altimeters and terrain awareness and warning systems, and require operators to conduct preflight
risk analyses and provide safety training or briefings to onboard medical personnel. Operators
with 10 or more helicopters are required to establish operations control centers staffed by FAA-
approved operations control specialists.
A provision in P.L. 114-190 directed FAA to evaluate and update crash-resistance standards for
helicopter fuel systems. P.L. 115-254 mandates that al helicopters be retrofitted to meet current
crashworthiness standards, which previously applied only to new helicopter designs.
Additional safety concerns have been raised about helicopter air tours following fatal crashes in
New York City and Hawai . Following the March 11, 2018, crash of a helicopter in the East River
in New York City, FAA temporarily restricted and then issued new guidance on procedures
regarding doors-off flights. The April 29, 2019, crash of an air tour helicopter in a residential
neighborhood on Oahu and the June 10, 2019, crash of a privately owned helicopter in Manhattan
have raised additional safety questions about helicopter operations in densely populated areas, as
helicopter pilots general y do not have to adhere to minimum safe altitudes set for airplanes.25
Aviation Cybersecurity
Cybersecurity has been a growing concern for civil aviation as the shift from stand-alone
navigation equipment, radar tracking, and analog two-way radios to highly integrated and
interdependent computers and networks, both onboard aircraft and in air traffic control facilities,
creates inherent security vulnerabilities. P.L. 114-190 directed FAA to develop a comprehensive
strategic framework to reduce cybersecurity risks to aviation and to establish a cybersecurity
research and development plan for the national airspace system. It also instructed FAA to clarify
roles and responsibilities among FAA employees, take various actions to reduce cybersecurity
risks to air traffic control systems, and assess the cost and timeline of developing and maintaining
an agency-wide cybersecurity threat model as recommended in a 2015 GAO study.26
P.L. 115-254 directs FAA to address cybersecurity in avionics and software systems in aircraft
certification and assure that flight guidance and control systems are secured from potential
hacking through in-flight entertainment systems. The act cal s on the National Academy of
Sciences to carry out a study of FAA’s cybersecurity workforce and develop recommendations to
increase the size, quality, and diversity of that workforce. It also requires FAA to develop a
“Cyber Testbed” to evaluate and validate the security of air traffic modernization technologies
before they are deployed.

24 Federal Aviation Administration, “Helicopter Air Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and Part 91 Helicopter
Operations,” 79 Federal Register 9931-9979, April 22, 2014.
25 See 14 C.F.R. §91.119.
26 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Air Traffic Control: FAA Needs a More Comprehensive Approach to
Address Cybersecurity As Agency Transitions to NextGen , April 2015.
Congressional Research Service

12

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief

Oversight of Maintenance Repair Stations
Many airlines now outsource at least some of their maintenance work to repair stations in the
United States and abroad. Concern about the safety of outsourcing arose following the crash of a
USAirways Express flight in January 2003 while taking off from Charlotte, NC. NTSB found that
the plane’s elevator control system was rigged improperly while undergoing maintenance at a
contract repair facility lacking sufficient oversight and quality assurance.27 In 2015 FAA rolled
out a safety assurance system to aid in risk-based repair station oversight and targeted
inspections. In 2016, GAO found that FAA had not validated the system and did not have a
process in place to evaluate its effectiveness.28
Congress has expressed specific concern over the quality of work and oversight of maintenance
performed on air carrier aircraft at maintenance facilities in foreign countries. P.L. 112-95
required FAA to ensure that foreign repair stations are subject to inspections consistent with
existing U.S. requirements at least annual y, consistent with obligations under international
agreements. P.L. 112-95 also mandated drug and alcohol testing programs at foreign repair
stations that service air carrier aircraft. The rulemaking has been delayed, according to DOT,
because of a need to coordinate with foreign governments. Although P.L. 114-190 set deadlines
specifying that a proposed rule be published by mid-October, 2016, with a final rule to be issued
one year thereafter, no formal action has been taken since FAA published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking in March 2014.29 P.L. 114-190 also directed FAA to focus on foreign repair
stations that conduct heavy maintenance work on U.S. air carrier aircraft, and to target oversight
activities based on the frequency and severity of instances in which air carriers must take
corrective actions following servicing at foreign facilities.
Integration of Unmanned Aircraft
Over the past five years, large numbers of smal unmanned aircraft have taken flight in
commercial operations ranging from photographing real estate to inspecting pipelines, and
hundreds of thousands have been sold to hobbyists engaged in aerial videography and drone
racing. Integrating drones into the national airspace system poses a number of chal enges
including the development of capabilities for drones to reliably sense and avoid other aircraft,
mitigation of risks to persons and property on the ground, management of drone traffic, and
establishment of training standards for operators.
In June 2016, FAA published a final rule al owing routine commercial operation of certain smal
unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds.30 In order to fly for commercial purposes,
operators must obtain a remote pilot certification from FAA. Flights must stay below 400 feet,
and speeds must be kept below 100 miles per hour. Flights are general y limited to daylight hours
in good visibility, and the drone must be kept within sight of the operator and cannot be flown
over people. The regulations provide a mechanism for commercial entities to obtain waivers from
these restrictions on a case-by-case basis.

27 National T ransportation Safety Board, Loss of Pitch Control During Takeoff Air Midwest Flight 5481, Raytheon
(Beechcraft) 1900D, N233YV, NT SB/AAR-04/01, Washington, DC, February 26, 2004.
28 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Aviation Safety: FAA’s Risk -Based Oversight for Repair Stations Could
Benefit from Additional Airline Data and Performance Metrics, GAO-16-679, Reissued September 2, 2016,
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-679.
29 Federal Aviation Administration, “Drug and Alcohol T esting of Certain Maintenance Provider Employees Located
Outside of the United States,” 79 Federal Register 14621-14630, March 17, 2014.
30 See 14 C.F.R. Part 107.
Congressional Research Service

13

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief

Future expansion of commercial applications for unmanned aircraft, like remote monitoring and
express package delivery service, may hinge on further regulatory action al owing for routine
operations beyond visual line of sight, during both night and day, and in poor visibility, as wel as
permitting operations in which multiple drones may be controlled by a single operator and
operate semi-autonomously. P.L. 114-190 directed FAA to consider requests al owing beyond
visual-line-of-sight operations and night flights to support construction, inspection, and repair of
oil and gas facilities, pipelines, and power lines. P.L. 115-254 directs FAA to authorize smal
drones to conduct package delivery and other operations involving the commercial carriage of
property within one year and to implement a plan for managing drone traffic in low-altitude
airspace. FAA is stil working on a regulatory framework for delivery drones, but it has issued
drone operator certificates under existing charter flight regulations in a few instances to carry out
demonstration projects.
Regulations governing smal commercial unmanned aircraft do not apply to drones and other
remote-controlled aircraft operated strictly for hobby or recreation. These aircraft have operated
under a more lenient special rule for model aircraft set forth set in P.L. 112-95. In the wake of
incidents involving collisions and close cal s with manned aircraft, P.L. 115-254 imposes
somewhat tighter restrictions on hobbyists, requiring FAA to establish requirements for testing
operators’ knowledge of airspace and safety regulations, authorizing FAA to require remote
identification capabilities, and imposing a general altitude restriction limiting flights to 400 feet
and below. Operators of model aircraft as wel as commercial drones must register with FAA, and
can do so through an online registration system.
To address concerns over drone operations that violate airspace restrictions and interfere with
manned aircraft operations, P.L. 114-190 required FAA to develop standards for remote
identification of unmanned aircraft. It also established civil penalties for operators of drones that
interfere with wildfire suppression, law enforcement, or other emergency response activities. The
act directed FAA to set procedures for imposing unmanned aircraft restrictions around critical
infrastructure and other sensitive facilities, including amusement parks, and to set up a pilot
program to detect unmanned aircraft. It also directed FAA to coordinate with NASA to develop
technologies for managing unmanned aircraft traffic and carry out studies assessing potential
consequences of collisions between unmanned aircraft and various types of manned aircraft.
P.L. 115-254 prohibits operators from equipping unmanned aircraft with dangerous weapons and
directs DOT to work with the Department of Defense to streamline the deployment of counter-
drone technologies that can detect and interdict hostile or errant drones. The act directs FAA to
establish a pilot program to assess the use of remote detection and identification technologies to
conduct safety oversight and carry out enforcement actions against drone operators. The act also
authorizes Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, including the Coast
Guard, to interdict hostile or unauthorized drones in certain instances to protect critical
infrastructure sites and high-profile events. The language paral els authority granted to the
Department of Defense in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (P.L. 114-
328) to protect certain military facilities in the United States from drones.

Author Information

Bart Elias
Rachel Y. Tang
Specialist in Aviation Policy
Analyst in Transportation and Industry

Congressional Research Service

14

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R42781 · VERSION 18 · UPDATED
15