Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

June 28, 2023 R47608

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
June 28, 2023
Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress
Bart Elias, Coordinator
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization refers to a periodic process through
Specialist in Aviation Policy
which Congress develops legislation to renew authorizing statutes as well as revise and update

relevant laws governing civil aviation programs and functions primarily carried out by the FAA.
Rachel Y. Tang,
In addition to funding and operations of the FAA, some aviation programs administered by other
Coordinator
components of the Department of Transportation (DOT) are also considered in the context of
Analyst in Transportation
FAA reauthorization.
and Industry

The last multiyear FAA reauthorization measure, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L.
115-254), was enacted in October 2018. It extended civil aviation taxes and fees and FAA
Daniel Morgan
program funding authorities through the end of FY2023. Key civil aviation authorizations,
Specialist in Science and
Technology Policy
including Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) revenue collections and certain FAA

expenditure authorities, will thus expire at the end of FY2023, prompting an FAA reauthorization
process to develop and debate authorizing legislation, which has begun during the first session of
Laura B. Comay
the 118th Congress.
Specialist in Natural
Resources Policy
Congress established the AATF in the Airport and Airway Revenue Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-258) to

provide a dedicated source of federal funding for the aviation system in the United States. Since
Richard K. Lattanzio
then, the AATF has been the primary funding source for all FAA major accounts that fund
Specialist in Environmental
federal aviation programs, with the remainder coming from general fund appropriations. Both the
Policy
authority to collect aviation excise taxes and the authority to spend from the trust fund must be

reauthorized periodically by Congress. Besides AATF revenue collections, which cannot
continue without reauthorization, grant expenditure authority for federal support of airport
Kelsi Bracmort
improvement projects must also be reauthorized to prevent a halt in airport infrastructure
Specialist in Natural
Resources and Energy
projects.
Policy

In addition to authorizing revenue collections and setting spending levels, FAA reauthorization
acts typically set policy and establish various statutory requirements pertaining to a broad array
Martin C. Offutt
of pertinent civil aviation issues, including
Analyst in Energy Policy

• airport development and financing;

• FAA management and organizational issues, including FAA workforce hiring, retention,
and training;
• air navigation services and air traffic control modernization;
• the integration of drones, commercial space activities, and new technologies into the national airspace
system;
• aviation safety, including potential expansion of requirements to implement safety management across the
aviation industry;
• airline industry issues, including air service to small communities and airline consumer service;
• the commercial aviation workforce, including the future supply of airline pilots and aviation maintenance
workers; and
• aviation and the environment, including initiatives to reduce aircraft noise and emissions and dependence
on fossil fuels.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 6 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

eauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) refers to a periodic process
through which Congress develops legislation to renew authorizing statutes and revise and
R update relevant laws governing civil aviation programs and functions primarily carried
out by the FAA. Some aviation programs administered by other components of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) are also considered in the process of FAA reauthorization. In addition to
authorizing revenue collections and setting spending levels, FAA reauthorization acts typically set
policy and establish various statutory requirements pertaining to a broad array of pertinent civil
aviation issues, including airport development and financing, airspace management and
regulations, aviation safety, environmental concerns, and consumer protection.
The last multiyear FAA reauthorization measure, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-
254, also referred to hereinafter as the 2018 FAA reauthorization act), was enacted in October
2018 and extended most FAA revenue collection and program funding authorities, including
federal grant expenditure authority for airport projects, through the end of FY2023. As a result,
Congress would need to enact legislation to reauthorize or extend these authorities before
September 30, 2023.
The Airport and Airway Trust Fund1
Congress established the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) in the Airport and Airway
Revenue Act of 1970 (Title II of P.L. 91-258) to provide a dedicated source of federal funding for
the aviation system in the United States. Since then, the AATF has been the primary funding
source for all major FAA accounts that fund federal aviation programs, with the remainder
coming from general fund appropriations. Both the authority to collect aviation excise taxes and
to spend from the trust fund must be periodically reauthorized by Congress. Temporary
suspension of tax collections also needs congressional authorization, such as the suspension of
aviation excise taxes in late March 2020 through the end of calendar year 2020, as authorized by
Section 4007 of the CARES Act (P.L. 116-136).
AATF revenue comes from a variety of excise taxes paid by users of the national airspace system,
which includes airline ticket taxes, segment fees, air cargo fees, and fuel taxes paid by
commercial airline passengers and general aviation aircraft operators (see Table 1). The trust fund
also accrues interest on its cash balance.
In addition to excise taxes deposited into the trust fund, the 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 partially fund the Essential Air Service program.2
Most FAA spending, including most spending from the AATF, requires annual appropriations by
Congress. Approximately 20% of the FAA’s total funds are disbursed as contract authority for the
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and may be committed prior to annual appropriations.3 The
rest may be spent only with a congressional appropriation.

1 See CRS Report R44749, The Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF): An Overview, by Rachel Y. Tang and Bart
Elias.
2 See CRS Report R44176, Essential Air Service (EAS), by Rachel Y. Tang.
3 Contract authority is a type of budget authority that allows the federal government to incur an obligation in advance of
an appropriation. Liquidating authority is needed eventually to pay off the obligations incurred using contract authority.
The annual obligation limitation is analogous to an appropriation. In effect, limitations of obligations restrict the
amount of contract authority that may be committed under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

Table 1. Aviation Taxes and Fees
(CY2023 rates)
Tax or Fee
Rate
Passenger ticket tax (on domestic ticket purchases and frequent flyer awards)
7.5%
Flight segment tax (domestic, indexed annually to Consumer Price Index)
$4.80
Cargo waybil tax
6.25%
Frequent flyer tax
7.5%
General aviation gasolinea
19.3 cents/gallon
General aviation jet fuela (kerosene)
21.8 cents/gallon
Commercial jet fuela (kerosene)
4.3 cents/gallon
International departure/arrivals tax (indexed annually to Consumer Price Index)
$21.10
(prorated Alaska/Hawaii to/from mainland United States)
(Alaska/Hawaii = $10.60)
Fractional ownership surtax on general aviation jet fuel
14.1 cents/gallon
Source: CRS update using tax rates published in Internal Revenue Service, 26 C.F.R. §601.602: Tax forms and
instructions, Rev. Proc. 2022-38.
a. Fuel tax rates do not include 0.1 cents/gallon for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) trust fund.
Trust fund revenue can be volatile, as external factors affect demand for air travel. For example,
when the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, substantially reduced demand for air travel,
trust fund revenues plummeted. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had a
similar negative effect. The decline in air travel and the suspended aviation tax collection through
calendar year 2020 resulted in a sharp decline in FY2020 trust fund revenue to about $8 billion,
nearly a 47% decrease from the $15 billion collected in FY2019.4
The aviation trust fund appears to have bounced back from the pandemic-related decreases and is
likely to have additional funds to support extra airport capital investment, as projected by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in February 2023 (Table 2).
CBO’s May 2023 projections show the trust fund would have over $17 billion in excise tax
revenues in FY2023, with an end-of-year cash balance of over $13 billion. At the end of FY2022,
the AATF uncommitted balance was down to $229 million, but it is projected to recover to $831
million by the end of FY2023 and further grow to over $13 billion in the next five years.
The financial vitality of the trust fund can be evaluated by looking at its uncommitted balance and
the cash balance, but there are considerable differences between the two indicators. The FAA
considers the committed balance of the trust fund to include the appropriated amounts from the
trust fund plus obligated AIP contract authority for the year. The uncommitted balance, which is
the revenue that would remain in the trust fund after subtracting the committed balance, is often
used to evaluate the FAA’s ability to enter into future commitments as provided in authorization
and appropriations acts.
With a projected end-of-year FY2028 uncommitted balance of $13 billion, Congress would have
around $10 billion above projected baseline spending available for civil aviation spending and
still be able to maintain an uncommitted balance of several billion dollars.

4 Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “Budget and Economic Data: 10-year Trust Fund Projections,” at
https://www.cbo.gov/data/budget-economic-data.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 7 link to page 8 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

Table 2. Airport and Airway Trust Fund Baseline Projections
(dollars in millions)
FY2023
FY2024
FY2025
FY2026
FY2027
FY2028

Cash Balancesa
Start-of-Year Balance
12,337
13,013
14,789
16,916
19,296
21,941
Excise Tax Revenues
17,245
18,853
19,690
20,483
21,270
22,047
Interest
256
395
437
419
441
501
Outlays
16,825
17,472
18,000
18,522
19,066
19,588
End-of-Year Balance
13,013
14,789
16,916
19,296
21,941
24,901

Uncommitted
Balances
Start-of-Year Balance
229
831
2,561
4,698
7,135
9,900
Change in Balance
602
1,730
2,137
2,437
2,765
3,112
End-of-Year Balance
831
2,561
4,698
7,135
9,900
13,012
Source: Congressional Budget Office, Baseline Projections: Airport and Airway Trust Fund, May 2023.
Notes:
a. Trust fund cash balance amounts exclude the effects of general fund appropriations for the Airport
Improvement Program.
b. The change in uncommitted balances equals excise tax revenues plus transfers and interest minus total
spending authority.
Federal Aviation Administration Funding
FAA funding is divided among four major accounts. Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
receives approximately 60% of total FAA appropriations. The O&M account, funded by the trust
fund as well as by general fund contributions, principally funds air traffic operations and aviation
safety programs. The 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.
Authorized levels and actual funding for these accounts are shown in Table 3. Aside from the
annual funding for FAA accounts Congress addressed the financial impact of the pandemic in
three separate laws in 2020 and 2021 that appropriated a total of $20 billion from the general fund
to eligible U.S. airports as COVID-19 relief measures.5 These funds were not included in funding

5 The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136, enacted on March 27, 2020),
which provided $10 billion as economic relief to eligible airports affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260, enacted on December 27, 2020), which provided $2 billion in
economic relief to eligible U.S. airports, including $200 million to operators of eligible airport concessions, such as on-
airport parking and car rental as well as in-terminal concessions; and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 8 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

for the four major accounts in Table 3, as they were not part of the FAA reauthorization or annual
FAA appropriations.
Table 3. Funding Levels for Major FAA Accounts
(dollars in millions)
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
Actual/Enacted Levels
10,212
10,411
10,630
11,002
11,414
11,915
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
Actual/Enacted Levels
4,350
3,850
3,750
3,750
3,904
3,909
Facilities and Equipment (F&E)

Authorized Levels
3,330
3,398
3,469
3,547
3,624
3,701
Actual/Enacted Levels
3,250
3,000
3,045
3,015
2,893
2,945
Research, Engineering, and

Development (RE&D)
Authorized Levels
189
194
199
204
209
214
Actual/Enacted Levels
189
191
193
198
249
255
Totals

Authorized Levels
17,116
18,448
18,791
19,165
19,539
19,912
Actual/Enacted Levels
18,000
17,452
17,618
17,965
18,460
19,024
Sources: FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254); Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), “Airport and
Airway Trust Fund (AATF) Fact Sheet,” July 2022; FAA FY2024 Budget Estimates.
Furthermore, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), enacted on
November 15, 2021, appropriated $25 billion from the general fund over a five-year period
(FY2022-FY2026) for airport and air traffic control projects. This aviation funding includes $15
billion in grants for airport infrastructure projects that increase safety and expand capacity; $5
billion in competitive grants for airport terminals, including replacing aging terminals and airport-
owned control towers; and $5 billion to improve the physical condition of FAA air traffic control
facilities. The IIJA provides money for aviation projects that previously were not eligible to
receive federal funding (e.g., airport terminal projects that have previously been financed with
airports’ own funds); this funding did not fall under the existing major FAA accounts, so it was
not included in the major accounts’ funding levels.
These significant general fund injections, though not permanent, depart from the usual practice of
funding civil aviation infrastructure in the United States largely from user taxes and fees.
Lawmakers may face decisions related to whether the civil aviation infrastructure and programs

2, enacted on March 11, 2021), which provided $8 billion for eligible airports to cover costs of operations, personnel,
and cleaning, including a set-aside for rent relief and other costs of airport concessionaires.
Congressional Research Service

4

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

are to be funded predominantly by the trust fund, or if they are also to rely on short-term
additions appropriated from the general fund, such as with IIJA funding.
Airport Development and Financing6
The federal government supports the development of airport infrastructure in three ways:
1. the AIP provides federal grants to airports for planning and development, mainly
of capital projects related to aircraft operations such as runways and taxiways;
2. Congress has authorized airports to assess a local passenger facility charge (PFC)
on each boarding passenger, subject to specific federal approval (PFC revenues
can be used for a broader range of projects than AIP funds, including landside
projects, such as passenger terminals and ground access improvements); and
3. preferential income tax treatment for investors on interest income from bonds
issued by state and local governments for airport improvements (subject to
compliance with federal rules).
Airports may also draw on state and local funds and on operating revenues, such as lease
payments and landing fees.
Different airports use different combinations of AIP funding, PFCs, tax-exempt bonds, state and
local grants, and airport revenues to finance particular projects. Small airports are more likely to
be dependent on AIP grants than large or medium-sized airports. Large airports are more likely to
issue tax-exempt bonds or finance capital projects with the proceeds of PFCs. Each of these
funding sources places various legislative, regulatory, or contractual constraints on the airports
that use it. The availability and conditions of one source of funding may also influence the
availability and terms of other funding sources.
Airport Improvement Program
The AIP provides federal grants to airports for airport development and planning. Participants
range from large, publicly owned commercial airports to small, general aviation airports that may
be privately owned but are available for public use.7 AIP funding is usually limited to
construction of improvements related to aircraft operations, such as runways and taxiways (also
known as airside projects). Landside projects, including commercial revenue-producing facilities
such as parking facilities generally are not eligible for AIP, nor are operating costs.8 The structure
of AIP funds distribution reflects congressional priorities and the objectives of assuring airport
safety and security, increasing capacity, reducing congestion, helping fund noise and
environmental mitigation, and financing small state and community airports.
The main financial advantage of the AIP to airports is that as a grant program, it can provide
funds for capital projects without the financial burden of debt financing, although airports are
required to provide a relatively modest local match to the federal funds. Limitations on the use of

6 See CRS Report R43327, Financing Airport Improvements, by Rachel Y. Tang.
7 General aviation airports do not serve military (with a few Air National Guard exceptions) or scheduled commercial
service aircraft but typically do support one or more of the following: business/corporate, personal, instructional flying;
agricultural spraying; air ambulances; on-demand air taxies; charter aircraft.
8 For detailed guidance on allowable costs under the AIP, see Chapter 3 of FAA, Airport Improvement Program
Handbook, at http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/media/aip_5100_38c.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

5

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

AIP grants include the range of projects that the AIP can fund and the requirement that recipients
adhere to all program regulations and grant assurances.
Federal law requires the Secretary of Transportation to publish a national plan for the
development of public-use airports in the United States. This appears as a biannual FAA
publication called the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS).9 For an airport to
receive AIP funds, it must be listed in the NPIAS.
The Federal Share of Airport Improvement Program Matching Funds
For AIP-funded projects, the federal government share differs depending on the type of airport.10
The federal share is generally 75% for large and medium airports and 90% for other airports, with
some exceptions. Certain economically distressed communities receiving subsidized air service
may be eligible for up to a 95% federal share of project costs. This cost-share structure means that
smaller airports pay a lower share of AIP-funded project costs than larger airports.11
Funding Distribution
The distribution system for AIP grants is complex. It is based on a combination of formula grants
(also referred to as apportionments or entitlements) and discretionary funds.12 Each year, the
entitlements are first apportioned by formula to specific airports or types of airports. Once the
entitlements are satisfied, the remaining funds are defined as discretionary funds. Airports apply
for discretionary funds for projects in their airport master plans. Formula grants and discretionary
funds are not mutually exclusive in the sense that airports receiving formula funds may also apply
for and receive discretionary funds. Grants generally are awarded directly to airports.
Policy Issues
The airport improvement questions Congress generally faces in the context of FAA
reauthorization include the following:
• Should airport development funding be increased or decreased? How might
significant multiyear general fund appropriations, such as IIJA, fit into the
overall airport development and finance in the long run?
• Could the AIP be restructured to address congestion and capacity at the busiest
U.S. airports, or should a large share of AIP resources continue to go to
noncommercial airports that lack other sources of funding?
• Should Congress consider setting tighter limits on the purposes for which AIP
and PFC funds may be spent?

9 According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 3,287 of the 19,853 airports in the United States are listed
in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) report, 2023-2027, at https://www.faa.gov/airports/
planning_capacity/npias/current.
10 The federal government’s share of project costs is statutorily defined in 49 U.S.C. §47109.
11 Higher federal shares are available to airports in states with large amounts of federal land; see 49 U.S.C. §47109(b).
12 See 49 U.S.C. Chapter 471; and FAA, Airport Improvement Program Handbook, at http://www.faa.gov/airports/
resources/publications/orders/media/aip_5100_38D.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

6

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

Airport Resilience and Sustainability Programs
Airport planning and projects related to resilience and sustainability concerns, including emission
reduction efforts and energy efficiency and reliability projects, are eligible for federal funding
from AIP discretionary funds. Eligible projects under these programs include the following:13
• Voluntary Airport Low Emissions (VALE):14 gate electrification, charging
stations for electrical ground support vehicles, geothermal systems, low-emission
vehicles, and solar hot water systems.
• Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV):15 replacement or conversion of on-road vehicles
for zero-emission vehicles.
• Sustainability Planning:16 development of sustainability plans that address
environmental and energy planning involving recycling, energy efficiency,
renewable energy, water quality, and climate resiliency.17
• Energy Efficiency Program:18 energy assessments for heating and cooling, base
load, backup power, and power for on-road vehicles and ground support
equipment. Typical projects include LED lighting, renewable energy systems,
and HVAC upgrades.
The FAA also provides discretionary funds for its airport energy supply, redundancy, and
microgrids program. This airport program targets improving reliability and efficiency of the
power supply, preventing power disruptions, acquiring and installing electrical generators,
separating the main power supply, and constructing or modifying facilities to install microgrids.
Aside from AIP funds, IIJA funds are available for eligible sustainability planning and aviation
projects:
• $15 billion ($3 billion per year for five years) in airport infrastructure funding
can be used for runways, taxiways, safety and sustainability projects, as well as
terminal, airport-transit connections, and roadway projects;
• $5 billion ($1 billion per year for five years) in competitive grants for airport
terminal development projects may fund safe, sustainable, and accessible airport
terminals, as well as on-airport rail access projects and airport-owned airport
traffic control towers (projects may also include multimodal development); and
• $5 billion ($1 billion per year for five years) to update and improve the physical
condition of FAA air traffic control facilities.
The FAA announced on April 20, 2023, that it had selected a sustainable design for new air traffic
control towers that will be used primarily at municipal and smaller airports. The design

13 For additional information of these programs and eligibility requirements at AIP eligible airports, see FAA, “FY2022
Competitive Funding Opportunity: Airport Improvement Program Supplemental Discretionary Grants,” 87 Federal
Register 80248, December 29, 2022, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-12-29/pdf/2022-28285.pdf.
14 FAA, “Voluntary Airport Low Emissions Program (VALE),” at https://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/vale.
15 FAA, “Airport Zero Emissions Vehicle and Infrastructure Pilot Program,” at https://www.faa.gov/airports/
environmental/zero_emissions_vehicles.
16 FAA, “Airport Sustainability,” at https://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/sustainability.
17 FAA is conducting research to provide airports guidance and assistance on improving airport resilience to climate
change and severe weather. For more information, see https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-09/
Airport_Resilience_Factsheet_2022_09.pdf.
18 See Chapter 6, §7 of the Airport Improvement Program Handbook at https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/
aip_handbook/.
Congressional Research Service

7

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

incorporates some sustainability elements, such as all-electric building systems and thermally
efficient facades.19
Passenger Facility Charges
The Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 allowed the Secretary of Transportation
to authorize public agencies that control commercial airports to impose a PFC on each paying
passenger boarding an aircraft at their airports to supplement their AIP grants.20 The PFC is a
state, local, or port authority fee and is not deposited into the U.S. Treasury.21
To impose a PFC above $3, an airport has to show that the funded projects will make significant
improvements in air safety, increase competition, or reduce congestion or noise impacts on
communities and that these projects could not be fully funded by AIP funds. Unlike AIP grants
that fund airside projects, PFC funds may be used to pay for a broader range of “capacity
enhancing” projects, including for landside projects such as terminals and transit systems on
airport property and for interest payments servicing debt incurred to carry out projects.22
Large and medium hub airports imposing PFCs above the $3 level forgo 75% of their AIP
formula funds. Because of the complementary relationship between the AIP and PFCs, PFC
provisions are generally folded into FAA reauthorization legislation dealing with the AIP.
Initially, there was a $3 cap on each airport’s PFC and a $12 limit on the total PFCs that a
passenger could be charged per round trip. The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform
Act for the 21st Century of 2000 (P.L. 106-181) raised the PFC ceiling to $4.50, with an $18 limit
on the total PFCs that a passenger can be charged per round trip.
According to FAA statistics, as of March 2023, 360 airports collect PFCs among which 350
airports charge at the maximum rate of $4.50. PFC collections in 2022 were over $3.32 billion,
about the same as the authorized level of AIP funding. 23
The central legislative issue related to PFCs remains whether to raise or eliminate the $4.50 per
enplaned passenger ceiling. In general, airports complain about the diminishing purchase power
of PFCs and argue for increasing or eliminating the ceiling, whereas most air carriers and some
passenger advocates oppose a higher PFC ceiling.
The permissible uses of revenues are another ongoing point of contention. Airport operators, in
particular, would like more freedom to use PFC funds for off-airport projects, such as
transportation access projects, and want the process of obtaining FAA approval to impose PFCs to
be streamlined. Carriers, on the other hand, often complain that airports tend to use PFC funds to
finance lower-priority projects that may not offer meaningful safety or capacity enhancements.
The major air carriers are also unhappy with their limited influence over project decisions, as

19 FAA, “FAA Selects Sustainable Design for New Control Towers at Municipal, Smaller Airports,” at
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-selects-sustainable-design-new-control-towers-municipal-smaller-airports.
20 P.L. 101-508, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Title IX.
21 Air carriers collect the passenger facility charges (PFCs) for airports and are paid a small administrative fee.
22 49 U.S.C. §40117.
23 FAA, “Key Passenger Facility Charge Statistics as of March 31, 2023,” at https://www.faa.gov/airports/pfc/
monthlyreports/key-passenger-facility-charge-statistics-31-march-2023.
Congressional Research Service

8

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

airports are required, by PFC program guidance and procedures,24 to consult with resident air
carriers but do not need to get their agreement on PFC-funded projects.25
FAA Management and Organizational Issues
The FAA is a large organization with a staff of about 44,000. More than 31,000 of these
employees 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. The ATO was established under Executive Order 13180 (December 7, 2000) as a
functional unit within the 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. Separate from the ATO,
about 7,200 aviation safety inspectors and other staff comprise the Office of Aviation Safety
(AVS), which has primary responsibility for the FAA’s safety regulatory and oversight functions.
Together, the ATO and AVS comprise the large majority of the FAA workforce. Additionally,
other FAA personnel administer contracts and agreements for FAA facilities and equipment,
manage the AIP grant program, and are involved in civil aviation research, engineering, and
development activities to support the FAA’s operational and safety functions. Key organizational
issues for FAA center on the selection, retention, training, and job resources to support its highly
skilled workforce of controllers, engineers, technicians, and aviation safety inspectors.
Air Traffic Controller Staffing
The FAA is presently facing a shortage of fully qualified controllers. The FAA reduced its air
traffic controller hiring during the COVID-19 pandemic in response to the significant drop in air
traffic volumes.26 Subsequently, the FAA accelerated air traffic controller hiring and training to
address air traffic activity that rebounded more quickly than forecast. While the FAA hired about
500 new controllers in FY2021 compared with 920 in FY2020, it increased the number of newly
hired controllers to just over 1,000 in FY2022. In FY2023, the FAA plans to hire and train about
1,500 controllers, and it has requested funds to hire and provide initial training to about 1,800
new controllers in FY2024.27 Although the FAA is hiring more controllers and has developed a
plan to address a backlog in initial and on-the-job training, the lengthy process to fully certify
controllers presents near-term challenges at some air traffic facilities. The issue is most prevalent
at larger, more complex facilities with lengthy on-the-job training requirements.
The New York City area Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facility, in particular,
currently does not have sufficient numbers of fully certified air traffic controllers, known as
Certified Professional Controllers (CPCs) by FAA standards. Controllers do not attain CPC status
until they demonstrate operational proficiency at all positions within a facility. For large facilities
with a large number of positions and complex airspace and air traffic patterns, such as the New

24 See FAA Order 5500.1, Passenger Facility Charge, at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/
index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/12947.
25 Airlines for America, “A4A Statement for the Record Opposing Airport Tax Hikes on Travelers,” March 26, 2019, at
https://www.airlines.org/news/a4a-statement-for-the-record-opposing-airport-tax-hikes-on-travelers/; Travel Weekly,
“PFC redux: Airport and airlines lobbyists resume the fight,” March 26, 2019, at https://www.travelweekly.com/
Travel-News/Airline-News/PFC-redux.
26 FAA, The Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan, 2023-2032, at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/
headquarters_offices/afn/offices/finance/offices/office-financial-labor-analysis/plans/controller-workforce.
27 Ibid.; U.S. Department of Transportation, Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 2024, Federal Aviation Administration, at
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-03/FAA_FY_2024_President_Budget_508.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

9

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

York TRACON, the on-the-job training process to attain CPC qualification is lengthy. Controllers
in this on-the-job training phase are known as “developmentals.” The FAA strives to keep the
percentage of developmentals at or below 35%; system wide, it currently stands at 21%-22%.28
However, the FAA has reported that developmentals make up about 46% of the controller
workforce at the New York TRACON.29 The FAA warns that this situation will reduce efficiency
and result in delays.30 Backlogs in hiring and training due to the COVID-19 pandemic have
exacerbated this situation, according to the FAA.
One stopgap measure to address this situation is that the FAA offers incentives to controllers to
relocate to facilities with acute staffing needs. The FAA has frequently used such incentives to
address staffing needs in understaffed air traffic facilities. However, transferring CPCs would
need to familiarize themselves with all the positions in the facility they transfer into and are
considered “in training” (CPC-IT) until they do so (although they usually can complete this
training phase faster than developmentals). The FAA has issued a notice relaxing requirements for
airlines to utilize their slot allocations at the New York area airports and at Washington Reagan
National Airport during the summer months of 2023, in hopes that airlines will reduce schedules
at these locations to avoid delays.31 However, airlines are forecasting high travel demand for the
summer of 2023, which may make it unlikely that they would voluntarily reduce schedules and
may instead increase flight operations, potentially placing additional strain on air traffic control
operations at New York and Washington area facilities.
The FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-190) required the FAA to give
hiring preference to veterans with aviation experience, applicants with prior experience at
Department of Defense (DOD) air traffic facilities, and graduates of controller training programs
endorsed by the FAA under its Collegiate Training Initiative (CTI). Provisions in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (P.L. 116-92) modified these requirements to
broaden the criteria for eligibility for additional applicants with military backgrounds. It also
required the FAA to track applicants given hiring preference separately from applicants that
respond to public announcements for air traffic controller jobs and to assess attrition rates for
both groups and the costs to hire and train air traffic controllers. Initial findings from 2020 found
that both preferred applicants and applicants selected from broad hiring announcements had high
success rates for completing basic training at the FAA Academy and similar attrition rates of
around 2%.32 In 2021, while attrition rates remained similar for both groups, they increased
considerably to about 20%.33 The FAA did not provide analysis or explanation for the increase,
but that level of attrition could present challenges for maintaining future air traffic controller
staffing levels. According to the FAA, the per student cost for the air traffic basics training at the
FAA Academy is about $7,500, while initial qualification costs roughly $83,000 per controller for
terminal facilities and $122,000 per controller at en route facilities.34 En route facilities

28 FAA, The Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan, 2022-2031, at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/
headquarters_offices/afn/offices/finance/offices/office-financial-labor-analysis/plans/controller-workforce.
29 FAA, “Staffing Related Relief Concerning Operations at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, John F.
Kennedy International Airport, LaGuardia Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport, May 15, 2023, Through
September 15, 2023,” 88 Federal Register 18032-18034, March 27, 2023.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 FAA, Report to Congress: Air Traffic Controller Hiring Reform, June 9, 2021, at https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/
files/2021-11/FY20_NDAA_Section_1134_Air_Traffic_Control_Hiring_Reform.pdf.
33 FAA, Report to Congress: Air Traffic Controller Hiring Reform, February 8, 2022, at https://www.faa.gov/sites/
faa.gov/files/2022-02/PL_116-92_Sec_1134_Air_Traffic_Control_Hiring_Reform.pdf.
34 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

10

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

encompass larger, more complex facilities that handle larger volumes of airspace encompassing
both low-altitude and high-altitude aircraft flying between origins and destinations. It generally
takes longer and costs more to train controllers at such facilities compared to most TRACONs
that strictly handle airport arrivals and departures. However, among TRACONS, more complex
facilities whose coverage includes larger geographic areas and busy airports—like the New York
TRACON, the Potomac Consolidated TRACON in the Washington, DC area, and the Southern
California and Northern California TRACONs on the west coast—require extensive training for
controllers that is more similar to en route facilities in terms of training costs and the time needed
to meet initial qualification standards.
FAA Inspector Workforce Training and Resources
The FAA also faces ongoing challenges in recruiting, retaining, and training its workforce of
aviation safety inspectors that oversee airlines, other aircraft operators (including unmanned
aircraft operators), repair stations, pilots and other safety critical personnel, and aviation
manufacturers. These functions are carried out by the FAA’s Office of Aviation Safety (AVS),
which has a staff of about 7,200 safety inspectors, technicians, and support staff. Over 4,000 of
these staff are aviation safety inspectors, and an additional 2,500 are considered safety-critical or
safety-technical positions. The FAA is required to submit annual aviation safety workforce plans.
Its most recent plan points to hiring, retention, and training challenges for the FAA’s aviation
safety workforce. The AVS workforce is somewhat older than other FAA components: the
average age at hire among AVS employees is 46, and the current average employee age is 55.35
There is no mandatory retirement age for aviation safety inspectors, and attrition among AVS staff
has been historically low, averaging roughly 4%-5% annually. Nonetheless, the FAA anticipates
that the AVS workforce would need to grow by about 13%-14% over the next decade to keep
pace with expansion of the civil aviation industry and the increasing complexity of aviation
technologies.
The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254) mandated that the FAA develop a workforce
training strategy for its safety workforce. Since 2021, the FAA’s aviation safety workforce plan
has included strategic objectives driving workforce skill needs and a strategy for effective use of
resources. Resources primarily are focused on various capabilities to improve risk-based analysis
and decisionmaking to prioritize and make the most efficient use of limited human capital and
available resources. The FAA’s strategic objectives include improving aerospace safety; setting a
“gold standard” of safety by excelling domestically to influence globally; excelling operationally
by improving the effectiveness, efficiency, and standardization of safety management; and
focusing on people to improve hiring, retention, and training opportunities.36
Air Navigation Services
The term air navigation services refers broadly to air traffic services, including surveillance and
separation of aircraft and safe management of the airspace, as well as aviation weather and
aeronautical information services provided to users of the airspace. The FAA is the largest air
navigation service provider in the world. In addition to its responsibilities for operating the
national airspace system within the United States, the FAA is engaged in numerous initiatives to
modernize the facilities, equipment, and technologies that it relies on to carry out this mission,

35 FAA, Aviation Safety Workforce Plan, FY2023-FY2032, at https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/
2023_Aviation_Safety_Workforce_Plan_0.pdf.
36 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

11

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

including through the use of annual facilities and equipment appropriations and through
additional IIJA funds designated for modernization of FAA facilities and infrastructure.
Air Traffic Control Infrastructure
The airspace overlying the United States and the overwater areas for which the FAA has
operational responsibility is the busiest in the world. On a typical day, the FAA handles about
45,000 flights. The FAA operates 139 stand-alone air traffic control towers at airports, mostly at
large airports. Another 262 towers, located at small airports that primarily serve general aviation
aircraft, are operated by contractors under the FAA federal contract tower (FCT) program. At 124
mostly mid-sized airports, the FAA operates combined tower and TRACON facilities that provide
radar guidance and separation to arriving and departing aircraft as well as tower control of
runway and taxiway surface movement operations. In 25 larger regions—such as the airspace
around New York City, Washington, DC, and Southern California—the FAA has consolidated
radar surveillance at stand-alone consolidated TRACON facilities. En route traffic control and
radar surveillance outside of areas covered by the TRACONs are handled by the FAA’s 25 Air
Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) and combined control facilities.37
The age and condition of these facilities vary significantly. Some are relatively new, but other
towers and radar facilities are several decades old, with some more than 70 years old. A portion of
the FAA’s F&E account funds upkeep, rehabilitation, and replacement of these facilities. In
addition, the IIJA included funding of $5 billion—$1 billion each fiscal year from FY2022
through FY2026—to improve the FAA’s air traffic facilities. The FAA is using this funding to
renovate and replace towers and radar control facilities; update power systems; overhaul and
replace radar equipment sites; improve sustainability of navigation, weather, and tracking
equipment; and enhance facility security.38
In addition to its network of surveillance radars to provide aircraft tracking capabilities to the
FAA’s TRACONS, ARTCCs, and combined control facilities, the FAA maintains an elaborate
network of navigational aids (NAVAIDS), primarily ground-based radio beacons used by aircraft
for guidance. While the FAA is transitioning to satellite-based navigation and tracking, it
currently maintains over 12,000 NAVAIDS, primarily very high frequency omnidirectional range
(VOR) transmitters, used for both en route navigation and non-precision instrument approaches,
and instrument landing systems (ILSs), used for precision approach guidance to selected runways,
especially at commercial service airports. Some of this ground-based infrastructure will be
decommissioned in the coming years as the FAA transitions to the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen), but some will remain operational to provide for backup
navigational and surveillance capabilities. A minimum operational network of VORs will be
retained, primarily as a backup for aerial navigation, as aircraft switch over to using Global
Positioning System (GPS) capabilities as the primary means for navigation. While existing ILS
systems will likely remain in place at larger airports for years to come, costly investments in new
ILS installations, particularly at smaller airports, have largely halted, as new NextGen procedures
using GPS with vertical guidance can offer similar capabilities to appropriately equipped
aircraft.39

37 FAA, Air Traffic by The Numbers, at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/media/
Air_Traffic_by_the_Numbers_2023.pdf.
38 See FAA, “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law—Air Traffic Facilities,” at https://www.faa.gov/bil/air-traffic-facilities.
39 Fred Simonds, “ILS on the Block,” IFR, January 29, 2020, at https://www.ifr-magazine.com/charts-plates/ils-on-the-
block/.
Congressional Research Service

12

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

The Next Generation Air Transportation System
NextGen is a multifaceted program to modernize and improve the efficiency of the national
airspace system, primarily by migrating from a system using ground-based navigation
infrastructure and radar tracking of flights to satellite-based navigation and aircraft tracking.
Funding for NextGen programs totals almost $1 billion annually, primarily derived from the
FAA’s F&E account. NextGen is currently transitioning from development and deployment of
new technologies and procedures to the full-scale operational utilization of the system’s various
components. The FAA anticipates that most NextGen capabilities will be fully operational by
about 2030.40
Core components of the NextGen system include
• 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, primarily GPS receivers.
• Performance Based Navigation (PBN), navigation using GPS and precision
avionics to allow aircraft to fly more efficient routes and arrival and departure
paths that improve airspace utilization, potentially allowing for reductions in
flight delays and aircraft fuel consumption.
• System Wide Information Management (SWIM), a data network for sharing
real-time operational information, including flight plans, weather, airport
conditions, and temporary airspace restrictions across the entire airspace system.
• Decision Support System (DSS) Automation, 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 control.
• National Airspace System Voice System (NVS), a standardized digital voice
network for communications within and between FAA air traffic facilities that is
to 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.
• Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO), an air traffic concept for strategic
planning, management, and optimization of flights by continuous monitoring of
predicted flight trajectories throughout the national airspace system using
integrated data from the NextGen capabilities described above.
Many of these NextGen capabilities are already operational. Most airlines and many business jet
operators are equipped with performance-based navigation capabilities allowing 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 Out (transmission) functionality is now mandatory for most aircraft being
operated in controlled airspace, including airspace above 18,000 feet and airspace in busy

40 FAA, “Forming NextGen: From Vision to Reality,” at https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/background/forming.
Congressional Research Service

13

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

metropolitan regions near commercial service airports. Airlines have invested in cockpit
technologies compatible with FAA DataComm systems, which are now being deployed to several
commercial service airport towers.41
While the FAA has focused on developing a ground-based network of ADS-B receivers to serve
as the backbone for NextGen air traffic surveillance capabilities, other air navigation service
providers, led by NAV CANADA, have partnered with satellite communications company
Iridium to deploy space-based ADS-B (SBA), being marketed under an Iridium subsidiary called
Aireon. The Aireon system relies on a linked network of 66 Iridium satellites to receive ADS-B
data from aircraft and relay that data to air navigation service providers in near real-time.42 The
FAA is evaluating SBA for potential application in oceanic and offshore airspace and for other
possible use cases, such as search and rescue, accident investigation, and environmental impact
analyses.43
Looking Beyond NextGen
The FAA refers broadly to the end-state of NextGen implementation as a system of trajectory-
based operations (TBO), an air traffic management concept that achieves efficient strategic
planning of aircraft flows and airspace utilization through comprehensive analysis of projected
flight plan trajectories through space and time. TBO operations will rely on detailed and accurate
portrayals of four-dimensional (4D) trajectories of flights, showing how aircraft will traverse
though the airspace in three spatial dimensions (latitude, longitude, and altitude) over time (the
fourth dimension). The FAA asserts that TBO will allow for enhanced predictability and
reliability and reduced uncertainty about airspace operations. This is expected to allow for
improved strategic planning and better alignment of strategic plans and tactical actions to manage
and control airspace operations on a system-wide basis. From a user perspective this is expected
to improve flight scheduling and routing, resulting in fewer delays and reduced fuel burn and
emissions.44 As previously noted, the FAA anticipates that full functionality of NextGen
components will be operational by about 2030, thus enabling baseline TBO operational
capabilities.
Moving beyond NextGen, the FAA envisions a future national airspace system that will rely on a
comprehensive and collaborative framework for information sharing and data analytics to manage
and control flight operations in the national airspace system. The FAA is calling this future
concept the Info-Centric National Airspace System (ICN). According to the FAA, the ICN will
expand upon the core concepts of TBO to increase the performance, efficiency, and safety of
airspace operations for traditional flight operations and for new airspace users, including
unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), advanced air mobility (AAM) vehicles, and commercial space
launch and recovery operations. The agency anticipates that initial capabilities of the ICN will be
functional by about 2035.

41 FAA, “Data Communications (Data Comm),” at https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/data-communications-data-comm-0.
42 Aireon, “About Aireon,” at https://aireon.com/company/; NAV CANADA, “Leveraging ADS-B Surveillance to
Optimize Airspace and Enhance Safety and Traffic Flow,” at https://www.navcanada.ca/en/air-traffic/space-based-ads-
b.aspx.
43 FAA, “ADS-B Advanced Surveillance Enhanced Procedural Separation (ASEPS),” at https://www.faa.gov/
air_traffic/technology/adsb/atc/aseps.
44 See FAA, FACTSHEET: Multi Regional Trajectory Based Operations, at https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/
FactSheet-MR-TBO.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

14

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

The FAA envisions three key pillars for the development and implementation of ICN: (1)
operations, (2) supporting infrastructure, and (3) integrated safety management.45 Operations will
include initiatives to implement TBO across multiple airspace regions; manage operations in
high-altitude airspace (above 60,000 feet); manage UAS operations in low-altitude airspace
(generally below 400 feet); and integrate AAM operations and vehicles, particularly in airspace
above urban regions. Supporting infrastructure will include further evolution of automation and
decisionmaking tools for air traffic management; connected aircraft concepts to facilitate data
exchange between aircraft, flight operations centers, and air traffic management systems;
enhancements to the SWIM architecture and cloud-based services for data exchange; support for
information exchange using mobile applications; and updates and enhancements to information
management systems. Integrated safety management will establish bespoke safety assurance
tailored to specific operational characteristics by utilizing big data capabilities to continuously
monitor, model, and assess risks in real-time.
Aviation Cybersecurity
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 cybersecurity vulnerabilities. The FAA Extension, Safety,
and Security Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-190) directed the 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.46 The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L.
115-254) directed the FAA to address cybersecurity in avionics and software systems through its
aircraft certification process and assure that flight guidance and control systems are secured from
potential hacking through in-flight entertainment systems. In response, the FAA developed the
National Airspace (NAS) System Cyber Engineering Facility and NAS Cyber Monitoring System
to assess cyber threats and vulnerabilities and conduct cyber testing and evaluation.47 It is also
collaborating with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the DOD on a strategic
framework for civil aviation cybersecurity.48 The act also directed the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study assessing the FAA’s cybersecurity
workforce. That study found that growing connectivity of FAA systems and aviation digital
infrastructure, coupled with a future wave of retirements among the FAA’s cybersecurity
workforce and a tight labor market for cybersecurity jobs, pose unique challenges to the FAA.49
The academies’ report concluded that the FAA’s current recruitment capabilities are insufficient to
meet future demand. It also identified a number of key opportunities for recruitment through
collaborating with educational institutions and industry, leveraging federal hiring flexibilities, and
offering opportunities to train and reskill current FAA employees to take on cybersecurity roles.
Separately, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has established specific
cybersecurity requirements for commercial passenger airports required to have a security
program; these requirements went into effect at the beginning of calendar year 2022. The TSA
directives mandate that each covered airport designate a cybersecurity coordinator, complete a

45 See FAA, “Pillars of Info-Centric NAS,” at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ang/icn/
pillars.
46 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Air Traffic Control: FAA Needs a More Comprehensive Approach to
Address Cybersecurity As Agency Transitions to NextGen, April 2015.
47 See FAA, “Cybersecurity Testing,” at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/cas/ct/.
48 See FAA, “Aviation Cyber Initiative (ACI),” at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/cas/aci/.
49 The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Looking Ahead at the Cybersecurity Workforce at
the Federal Aviation Administration (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press), 2021.
Congressional Research Service

15

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

cybersecurity vulnerability assessment, develop a cybersecurity incident response plan, and report
all cybersecurity incidents to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructures Security Agency (CISA)
within 24 hours.50 These security mandates mimic those TSA imposed for other transportation
modes, such as pipelines.
Aeronautical Information Systems
Aeronautical Information Systems refer to information technology systems used to disseminate
flight safety information, including information regarding airport and airspace conditions,
temporary flight restrictions, and other potential hazards, to airspace users. The FAA is engaged
in a multiyear effort to modernize the backbone of the underlying information technology
architecture, with a primary focus on upgrading the Notices to Air Missions (NOTAM) system to
replace what the agency has described as “failing ‘vintage’ hardware and software modules” with
a single consolidated notification platform.51 The FAA anticipates that a significant portion of this
work will be completed by mid-2025.52 The NOTAM system suffered a temporary failure in
January 2023 that resulted in significant flight disruptions, cancellations, and delays for several
hours.53 This disruption prompted considerable public and congressional scrutiny, including
congressional committee hearings to investigate the matter.54
In addition to concerns over the need to modernize the underlying architecture of information
technology systems and infrastructure, the NOTAM system has been criticized for being arcane
and difficult to use and interpret. A July 2017 near accident at San Francisco International
Airport, attributed in part to the obscurity of NOTAM information about a closed runway,
prompted the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to recommend more effective ways
to present safety-critical information.55 The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has
since launched a global campaign to overhaul NOTAM system standards.56
The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254, §394) required the FAA to continue
developing and modernizing the NOTAM repository in a central location and to provide a web-
based, searchable archive of all NOTAMs. This built upon the requirements of the 2012 Pilot’s
Bill of Rights Act (P.L. 112-153), which directed the FAA to convene a stakeholder NOTAM
improvement panel and initiate a NOTAM improvement program with the goals of better

50 Alan Suderman, “TSA Requires Rail and Airports to Strengthen Cybersecurity,” Federal News Network, December
2, 2021, at https://federalnewsnetwork.com/government-news/2021/12/tsa-requires-rail-and-airports-to-strengthen-
cybersecurity/.
51 U.S. Department of Transportation, Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 2023: Federal Aviation Administration, Facilities
and Equipment, p. 247, at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-04/
FAA_Budget_Estimates_FY2023.pdf.
52 Statement of Billy Nolen, Acting Administrator Federal Aviation Administration, in U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, And Transportation, Notice To Air Missions System, hearings, 118th Cong., 1st sess.,
February 15, 2023, at https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/22C7E3AC-3EEF-47EE-9DD6-
B8A8FB5E826C.
53 See CRS Insight IN12078, Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Troubled NOTAM System Has Been on
Congress’s Radar for Years, by Bart Elias.
54 See especially U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science And Transportation, Hearing: The Federal
Aviation Administration’s NOTAM System Failure and its Impacts on a Resilient National Airspace, 118th Cong., 1st
sess., February 15, 2023, at https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2023/2/the-federal-aviation-administration-s-notam-
system-failure-and-its-impacts-on-a-resilient-national-airspace.
55 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Taxiway Overflight Air Canada Flight 759 Airbus A320-211, C-
FKCK, at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA17IA148.aspx.
56 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Global campaign on NOTAM improvement (NOTAM2021), at
https://www.icao.int/airnavigation/information-management/Pages/GlobalNOTAMcampaign.aspx.
Congressional Research Service

16

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

tailoring NOTAM dissemination to specific flight plans, providing data in a format that is more
usable and easier to search, and creating a publicly accessible archive. The NOTAM
Improvement Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-4), enacted on June 3, 2023, requires the FAA to establish a
task force to review existing methods of disseminating NOTAMs and flight operations
information to pilots (as well as corresponding regulations, policies, and practices) and develop a
report providing recommendations to improve the presentation of NOTAMs, including how to
address specific NTSB recommendations. Similar legislation has been considered in prior
Congresses.
Airspace Integration for Novel Uses
Airspace management and air traffic services are anticipated to face demands from a number of
new and novel uses, including operations of unmanned aircraft and the continued expansion of
commercial space activities. Moreover, the introduction of Advanced Air Mobility (AAM)
concepts for transporting people and goods by air over relatively short distances and providing
other aviation services using novel vehicles with features including electric propulsion and
vertical takeoff and landing capabilities is anticipated to place new demands on airspace
management.
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Drones)
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95) directed the FAA to develop a
plan to integrate UAS, also known as drones, into the national airspace system. In the decade
since, drone operations have proliferated with over 600,000 commercial drones and about 1.4
million recreational drones and model aircraft registered with the FAA as of FY2021.57 The FAA
anticipates that the number of drones operating in U.S. airspace will continue to grow over the
next few years, with the commercial fleet expanding to about 800,000-900,000 drones by
FY2026.58 To put this into perspective, there are a little over 200,000 general aviation and air taxi
aircraft and about 5,000 airliners currently registered in the United States.59
In June 2016, the FAA published a final rule allowing routine commercial operation of certain
small unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds.60 In order to fly for commercial purposes,
operators must obtain a remote pilot certification from the FAA. Flights must stay below 400 feet,
and speeds must be kept below 100 miles per hour. Flights are generally 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. In January 2021, the FAA issued updated regulations
allowing for routine operations of UAS over people and at night under certain conditions. To fly
at night requires additional remote pilot training and the installation of anti-collision lights that
are visible for at least three miles, and flights over people are limited to small UAS assessed to
pose a minimal risk of injury.61

57 FAA, FAA Aerospace Forecast, Fiscal Years 2022-2042, at https://www.faa.gov/dataresearch/aviation/faa-
aerospace-forecast-fy-2022-2042.
58 Ibid.
59 FAA, FAA Aerospace Forecast, FY2022-2042, at https://www.faa.gov/dataresearch/aviation/faa-aerospace-forecast-
fy-2022-2042.
60 See 14 C.F.R. Part 107.
61 FAA, “Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems over People,” 86 Federal Register 4314-4387, January 15,
2021.
Congressional Research Service

17

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

Future expansion of commercial applications for unmanned aircraft may hinge on further
regulatory action allowing for routine operations beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS), during
night and day and in poor visibility, as well as permitting operations in which multiple drones
may be monitored and controlled by a single operator. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018
(P.L. 115-254) directed the FAA to authorize package and cargo delivery with small UAS and
implement a plan for managing drone traffic in low-altitude airspace. The FAA has issued a
limited number of drone operator certificates under existing charter flight regulations to carry out
drone delivery demonstration projects. In September 2020, the FAA issued an updated policy
allowing for “type certification” of UAS as a special class of aircraft without occupants.62
The FAA has been working with industry over the past five years to explore advanced UAS
operations and the appropriate roles of federal, state, local, and tribal governments and private
sector entities in integrating UAS into the national airspace system, with a particular focus on
enabling BVLOS operations. In 2017, the FAA launched the Integrated Pilot Program (IPP) to
test and evaluate integration of advanced UAS operations in the national airspace. The IPP
program concluded in October 2020 but was followed by the BEYOND program, which
continues to operate with eight of the nine IPP participants. The BEYOND program is focusing
on advanced UAS operations, including BVLOS, as well as the roles of national, local, state, and
tribal interests and security and privacy risks of UAS operations.63
The FAA convened a BVLOS aviation rulemaking committee to study the challenges of BVLOS
operations and make recommendations to the agency regarding the regulation of BVLOS
operations. The committee completed its final report to the FAA in March 2022.64 The report
covers aspects of risk mitigation; operating rules, including detect and avoid capabilities and
requirements; and right-of-way rules for low-altitude airspace. A special category of BVLOS
operations, referred to as shielded BVLOS operations, involve drone flights that remain within
100 feet of a building or other obstacle that poses a hazard to air navigation. Examples might
include building or tower inspections where constant visual contact with the drone cannot be
maintained. Since crewed aircraft must remain well clear of these obstacles to avoid potential
collisions, drone operations in close proximity to them are not likely to conflict with crewed
aircraft operations and are thus considered shielded. The FAA is sponsoring research to help
inform regulatory decisions about both shielded BVLOS operations and BVLOS operations in
low-altitude airspace.
In January 2021, the FAA also issued regulations requiring all UAS to broadcast remote
identification data to assist in tracking and airspace management.65 Existing UAS not
manufactured with remote identification capabilities will be required to retrofit with remote
identification broadcast modules or will be limited to operations within FAA-recognized
identification areas. Under the FAA’s implementation plan, a network of approved remote
identification service suppliers will track location and identification information transmitted from
drones and provide UAS traffic management services to drone operators. The fee structure for
such services is yet to be determined. The majority of operations conducted under these programs
have been focused on package delivery. The second predominant focus of operations under these

62 FAA, “Type Certification of Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” 85 Federal Register 58251-58255, September 18,
2020. Type certification refers to a regulatory process for approving the airworthiness of a specific aircraft design or
“type.” Elements of type certification include design reviews and engineering and flight testing of aircraft prototypes.
63 FAA, “BEYOND,” at https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/beyond.
64 Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line of Sight Aviation Rulemaking Committee, Final Report, March 10,
2022, at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/
UAS_BVLOS_ARC_FINAL_REPORT_03102022.pdf.
65 FAA, “Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft,” 86 Federal Register 4390-4513, January 15, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

18

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

programs has been on infrastructure inspection, including both linear infrastructure, such as
railroads, pipelines, and highways, as well as nonlinear infrastructure, such as bridges, electric
power facilities, chemical plants, wastewater treatment facilities, and other critical infrastructure
sites.66
Regulations governing operations of small commercial unmanned aircraft do not apply to drones
and remote-controlled aircraft operated strictly for hobby or recreation. The FAA has established
statutorily mandated requirements for testing recreational users’ knowledge of airspace and safety
regulations,67 and flights must generally stay below 400 feet and keep clear of manned aircraft.
Operators of model aircraft and commercial drones must register with the FAA and can do so
through an online registration system.
U.S. law provides for specific civil and criminal penalties for operators of drones that interfere
with wildfire suppression and related law enforcement or other emergency response activities and
for individuals that equip unmanned aircraft with dangerous weapons. The FAA Extension,
Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-190) directed the FAA to set procedures for imposing
unmanned aircraft restrictions around critical infrastructure and other sensitive facilities,
including amusement parks. The FAA has not yet issued regulations to implement this
requirement.
Congress has taken a particular interest in technologies to detect and interdict hostile or errant
drones. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 required the FAA to establish a pilot program to
assess the use of drone detection and identification technologies. That program is ongoing. The
act also authorized the Department of Justice (DOJ) and DHS, including the Coast Guard, to
interdict hostile or unauthorized drones in certain instances to protect critical infrastructure sites
and high-profile events. Similar authority was granted to DOD and the Department of Energy
(DOE) in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (P.L. 114-328) to protect
nuclear energy and nuclear weapons facilities. In contrast to those authorities, which do not
expire, the authorities granted to DOJ and DHS were set to expire in October 2022 but were
extended through appropriations language until the end of FY2023 (see P.L. 117-328, Section
547). Therefore, options to renew or potentially expand these authorities may arise in the context
of FAA reauthorization.
Advanced Air Mobility
AAM refers to a novel transportation system for flying passengers and cargo, typically over
relatively short distances ranging from about 10 miles up to roughly 150 miles, using advanced
aircraft technologies, principally electric aircraft and aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing
capabilities. Future AAM aircraft are envisioned to operate similarly to remotely operated or
highly autonomous drones, although flights will be piloted initially. The future introduction of
AAM concepts using small electric-powered vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft poses
unique challenges to address the regulation and management of low-altitude airspace, flight
procedures, infrastructure needs, and related policy issues.
The AAM concept was introduced in 2016 with visions of an on-demand urban air transportation
system operating eVTOL aircraft using a network of vertiports (VTOL hubs with multiple VTOL
pads and charging infrastructure) and smaller single-pad sites (referred to as vertistops) located in

66 FAA, FAA Aerospace Forecast, Fiscal Years 2022-2042, at https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-06/
Unmanned_Aircraft_Systems.pdf.
67 For more information, see FAA, “The Recreational UAS Safety Test (TRUST),” at https://www.faa.gov/uas/
recreational_flyers/knowledge_test_updates.
Congressional Research Service

19

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

urban and suburban settings.68 The use cases for eVTOL aircraft have since expanded to include
regional passenger operations to and from small airports; air cargo deliveries; public service
operations, including police, fire, and medical services; agricultural operations, such as crop
dusting; and private and recreational flights.69
A number of companies are engaged in research and development of marketable passenger-
carrying AAM vehicles capable of carrying from two to about eight people. However, the unique
characteristics of AAM aircraft, including vertical takeoff and landing configurations, electric
propulsion, and advanced automation systems, present new challenges for aircraft certification.
As a consequence, the FAA is requiring developers to address special conditions to demonstrate
vehicle safety and airworthiness before final aircraft type certification approval is made.70
Currently, no AAM vehicles have been certified by the FAA, but a few are progressing through
the required steps to obtain certification. In December 2022, the FAA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking to permit air carrier operations using powered-lift aircraft capable of vertical takeoffs
and landings and low-speed flight to allow for passenger and cargo carrying operations using
certified eVTOL aircraft in the future.71
There are a number of complex technical challenges related to operational safety and efficiency
and the development of ground infrastructure to support AAM operations and electric aircraft. In
September 2022, the FAA issued an engineering brief providing initial guidance on the design of
vertiports to support operations using eVTOL aircraft.72 Additionally, the future introduction of
AAM technologies raises a number of policy issues, including potential landowner rights to low-
altitude airspace over their properties, noise and privacy concerns, and the appropriate role of
federal, state, and local governments and private industry stakeholders in accessing, regulating,
and managing airspace and flight operations.
Congress has expressed support for promoting and fostering AAM concepts and addressing
policy issues regarding this emerging technology. The Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and
Leadership Act (P.L. 117-203) mandated the establishment of a federal working group to develop
a national strategy for AAM. It also required a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study
assessing the interests, roles, and responsibilities of federal, state, local, and tribal governments
regarding AAM aircraft and operations. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (P.L. 116-
260) had also mandated a GAO study of AAM workforce needs and stakeholder views on
implementing AAM operations.
That GAO report identified a number of key issues to be addressed before AAM can be widely
implemented, addressing the design and certification of AAM vehicles, fostering public
acceptance of AAM operations, and developing new ground infrastructure to support AAM
operations.73 Moreover, it identified potential challenges in developing a skilled AAM workforce
and postulated that the timeline for certifying AAM aircraft and commencing operations is highly

68 Uber Elevate, Fast-Forwarding to a Future of On-Demand Urban Air Transportation, October 27, 2016, at
https://evtol.news/__media/PDFs/UberElevateWhitePaperOct2016.pdf.
69 FAA, Urban Air Mobility and Advanced Air Mobility, at https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/
urban_air_mobility.
70 FAA, Advanced Air Mobility | Air Taxis, at https://www.faa.gov/air-taxis.
71 FAA, “Update to Air Carrier Definitions,” 87 Federal Register 74995-75019, December 7, 2022.
72 FAA, Engineering Brief #105: Vertiport Design, at https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/eb-105-vertiports.pdf.
73 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Transforming Aviation: Stakeholders Identified Issues to Address for
‘Advanced Air Mobility’, GAO-22-105020, May 2022, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105020.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

20

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

uncertain and will depend on extensive FAA and industry collaboration on future actions to
address unresolved issues.
A provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (see Division Q, Section 101 of P.L.
117-328) requires DOT to establish a pilot program to provide grants for developing
comprehensive infrastructure plans to facilitate AAM operations. The act authorized $12.5
million per year for FY2023 and FY2024 for the program. Individual grants may not exceed $1
million. The DOT was instructed to seek geographical, operational, and project diversity and to
prioritize awards to entities working with commercial AAM developers, universities, and research
institutions, as well as other relevant stakeholders. At least 20% of the awards are to be used for
projects related to infrastructure located in a rural area.
Managing Low-Altitude Airspace
Routine operations of small UAS are generally relegated to altitudes at and below 400 feet above
the ground. Restricting drones to these lower altitudes generally mitigates potential risks to other
aviation activities but raises concerns about intrusion of privacy, potential nuisance to
landowners, and enjoyment of the outdoors, particularly when flights are conducted over private
lands or over parks and other sensitive sites.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been charged with research and
development of a concept called Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM) to
handle drones and other low-flying air traffic. Private firms, including Amazon and Google, are
reportedly working to develop separate private systems and approaches for controlling low-
altitude airspace. However, additional development and testing are needed to field reliable
technologies for handling potentially large volumes of low-flying aircraft with varying degrees of
autonomy.
It is unclear whether delivery drones and urban air taxis will be allowed to fly where their
operators wish, or be restricted to specific routes in the same way that automobiles are limited to
traveling on public roads. Also unresolved is the potential conflict between the rights of operators
of low-flying aircraft and those of landowners regarding undue nuisance and noise from low-
flying aircraft. Debate continues over the roles of municipalities in setting when and where urban
air transports can pick up and drop off passengers, what route they will fly, and what curfews or
other restrictions might be established for AAM as well as for drone delivery services.
The Drone Integration and Zoning Act (S. 905) seeks to establish formal state, local, and tribal
authorities to control airspace within “immediate reaches,” which the bill defines as airspace at
and below 200 feet above ground level (AGL). Similar legislation was offered in the 117th (S.
600) and 116th (S. 2607) Congresses. The Drone Federalism Act of 2017 (S. 1272, 115th
Congress) had similarly sought to ensure that state, local, and tribal governments be granted
sufficient authority to impose reasonable restrictions on operations of civil UAS below 200 feet
AGL or within 200 feet of a structure (such as a house, apartment building, office, or
communications tower) in order to preserve local interests regarding public safety, personal
privacy, property rights, and land use management and to mitigate nuisances and noise pollution.
Municipalities may play an increasingly important role in setting zoning guidelines for the use of
private lands for urban air transportation. While federal regulation of airspace promotes
uniformity across the national airspace system, future air mobility concepts may lend themselves
to additional local oversight—particularly with respect to zoning and the location of vertiports for
advanced air mobility and facilities for delivery drones—to address unique regional
transportation needs and challenges.
Congressional Research Service

21

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

Supersonic Flight
Supersonic flight refers to flight that is faster than the speed of sound, which is typically around
700 mph at cruising altitudes but varies with pressure, temperature, and other factors.74 It has
been over 45 years since the Concorde, the only certified commercial passenger airliner capable
of supersonic flight, first entered service in 1976. The Concorde was retired from service in 2003
amid cost and safety concerns, and no supersonic passenger aircraft have flown since.
Throughout its years of operation, the Concorde was criticized for its loud noise at subsonic
speeds, particularly during takeoffs and departures, and was restricted from travelling
supersonically when over land due to concerns about sonic boom (i.e., the shock wave formed by
compression of air waves when an aircraft flies faster than the speed of sound). Community
objections to sonic boom as well as the comparatively loud subsonic noise of supersonic aircraft
have been major obstacles for public acceptance of supersonic flight.
Despite its flaws and detractors, the Concorde demonstrated that supersonic passenger travel was
technically achievable. Future supersonic transport airplanes could be commercially viable if they
can offer airline service at reasonably competitive prices while reducing travel time for
passengers over long routes. There may also be an entirely separate market for supersonic
business jets. Notably, several companies (such as NetJets and Flexjet) offer fractional ownership
of general aviation aircraft, a shared-ownership model similar to the time-share model in real
estate. This approach could potentially allow a broader array of business and private aircraft users
to gain access to supersonic flights at considerably lower cost than full ownership, potentially
broadening the potential market for these aircraft.
To address public concerns about sonic boom, companies developing supersonic aircraft believe
that they will be able to demonstrate sonic boom signatures that are much quieter and much more
acceptable than those of existing supersonic aircraft. The NASA Low Boom Flight Demonstrator
program is developing the experimental X-59 QueSST (Quiet Supersonic Transport). The aircraft
is designed to fly at Mach 1.42 while producing a sonic boom with a perceived loudness of 75
decibels (dB, comparable to a domestic vacuum cleaner).75 This would be quieter than the
Concorde’s perceived loudness of 105 dB (comparable to a thunderclap or a loud sports stadium).
A ground-level sonic boom measurement of 75 dB perceived noise level (PNLdB) has been
suggested by some NASA researchers as a potentially acceptable level for unrestricted supersonic
flight over land, although the FAA has not yet addressed an acceptable level for sonic boom.
Congress may consider options for regulating sonic boom levels, areas or corridors where
supersonic flights may occur, and noise and sonic boom criteria in the context of FAA
reauthorization legislation.
Provisions in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254) required the FAA to submit a
report to Congress with recommended regulatory changes on a timeline that would permit
overland supersonic flights. The FAA issued that report in April 2020, identifying the timetable
for the initial steps to regulate the next generation of civilian supersonic aircraft.
Further, the legislation required the FAA to consult with industry stakeholders on noise-
certification issues, including operational differences between subsonic and supersonic aircraft. It
also mandated that the FAA conduct rulemaking to revise 14 C.F.R. Part 91, Appendix B,

74 For further reading see CRS Report R45404, Supersonic Passenger Flights, coordinated by Rachel Y. Tang.
75 With respect to noise, a decibel (dB) is a measure of sound intensity. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale
where an increase of 10 dB reflects a doubling of the sound pressure. The threshold of human hearing ranges between 0
and 20 dB depending on pitch or auditory frequency. A typical quiet room is about 40-50 dB and a normal
conversational voice is about 60dB.
Congressional Research Service

22

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

regulations to modernize the process for applying to operate civil aircraft at supersonic speeds for
flight testing. In January 2021, the FAA published a final rule defining a new process for
obtaining special authorization for supersonic flights that superseded the former Part 91,
Appendix B, language.76
The 2018 FAA reauthorization act also required the FAA to conduct rulemaking to develop noise
standards for sonic booms over the United States and for takeoff and landing and noise test
requirements applicable to civil supersonic aircraft. The FAA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) addressing noise certification of supersonic airplanes in April 2020.77 The
proposed rule addressed subsonic noise but did not propose standards for sonic boom in general
or for overland operations. The act also included language requiring the FAA to periodically
review existing restrictions on supersonic flight of civil aircraft over land in the United States
every two years, starting December 31, 2020. The reviews are to determine whether these
restrictions may be eased to permit supersonic flight of civil aircraft over land.
With respect to subsonic noise limits, newly designed aircraft certified after December 31, 2017,
must meet U.S. “Stage 5” standards (internationally known as Chapter 14 standards, in reference
to Chapter 14 of ICAO Annex 16).78 Stage 5 standards require aircraft to be at least 7 dB quieter
than required by the previous Stage 4 noise standards, or 17 dB less than required by Stage 3
standards, cumulatively across three noise measurements (flyover, sideline, and approach).79
Supersonic aircraft developers argue that the Stage 5 standard was finalized after significant
design work on some new supersonic designs had already been completed, and, consequently,
significant design changes may be required to pass noise certification tests, including changes that
may substantially limit aircraft characteristics such as payload capacity and range. Language in
the 2018 FAA reauthorization offered in the Senate (S. 1405, 115th Congress, Section 5017)
would have required that noise certification standards for future supersonic aircraft be no more
stringent than standards that were in place for large subsonic aircraft on January 1, 2017. This
would have had the effect of applying the Stage 4 noise standards in place on January 1, 2017.
This language was not included in the enacted version of the 2018 FAA reauthorization act, thus
leaving it to the FAA to set noise limits as part of its mandated rulemaking activities to address
noise certification of supersonic aircraft. The FAA has proposed specific noise standards that are
quieter than Stage 4 limits but higher than Stage 5 requirements that are yet to be finalized.
Regardless of whether the FAA adopts these proposed standards, if European countries and other
countries insist that supersonic aircraft meet Chapter 14/Stage 5 subsonic noise standards, engine
options may be more limited, potentially impacting speed, range, and emissions characteristics of
supersonic designs. Gaining international consensus and approvals to fly supersonically over
other countries besides the United States may also be a critical element in determining the market
viability of future civil supersonic aircraft designs. The 2018 FAA reauthorization act specifically
directed the FAA to take a leadership role in creating federal and international policies,
regulations, and standards to certify safe and efficient civil supersonic aircraft operations within
U.S. airspace.
In the current FAA reauthorization, Congress may consider options for assessing the noise limits
for supersonic aircraft and reviewing the FAA’s approach, as well as the FAA’s efforts to work
with other countries to harmonize noise requirements for supersonic aircraft that can strike a

76 FAA, “Special Flight Authorizations for Supersonic Aircraft,” 86 Federal Register 3782-3792, January 15, 2021.
77 FAA, “Noise Certification of Supersonic Airplanes,” 85 Federal Register 20431-20447, April 13, 2020.
78 FAA, “Stage 5 Airplane Noise Standards,” 82 Federal Register 46123-46132, October 4, 2017.
79 ICAO, “Reduction of Noise at Source,” at https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/Reduction-of-Noise-
at-Source.aspx.
Congressional Research Service

23

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

balance between community noise concerns and industries’ ability to adopt suitable supersonic
engine technologies.
The Supersonic and Hypersonic Aircraft Testing Corridor Act (S. 902) would, if enacted, require
the FAA to designate overland supersonic testing corridors running between California and Utah
that would primarily be used for testing military aircraft but would be available for testing of civil
aircraft so long as such testing does not conflict with military operations or testing in the corridor.
Options for providing access to airspace and other opportunities to enable development and
testing of supersonic civil aircraft may be an issue of particular interest during FAA
reauthorization debate given the continuing interests in and challenges to pursuing supersonic
civilian flight.
Regulation of Commercial Space Activities80
The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) regulates and licenses commercial
space launch and reentry as well as commercial spaceports.81 In 2022, there were 79 FAA-
licensed space launches, up from 54 in 2021 and 39 in 2020.82 The accelerating rate of
commercial launches may raise questions about the resources needed for AST to process license
applications promptly and conduct oversight of licensees. It has also led to concern in the
commercial aviation industry about the FAA closing airspace more frequently to accommodate
planned launches and reentries, resulting in delays or diversions for affected air traffic.
Since 2020, several FAA-licensed commercial launches have carried human occupants into orbit,
and several more have carried humans on shorter suborbital flights.83 In most cases, the FAA is
explicitly prohibited from issuing regulations to protect the health and safety of humans aboard
commercial spacecraft.84 That prohibition, which the law describes as a learning period, is
scheduled to expire on October 1, 2023. In anticipation of the end of the learning period, the U.S.
Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (P.L. 114-90) directed the FAA to facilitate the
development of voluntary industry safety standards and assess the industry’s readiness for a
transition to safety regulation by the FAA. In 2016, the industry standards organization ASTM
International formed a committee on commercial spaceflight, which has issued a number of
standards and related documents.85 The FAA has issued several reports to Congress on the status
of standards development and the readiness of the industry for safety regulation.86 As the end of
the learning period approaches, Congress may choose to consider whether to extend the learning
period again or allow it to lapse.
With the growth of the commercial space launch industry and the emergence of commercial
flights to space by wealthy private individuals, some in Congress have suggested the option of

80 Section contributed by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy.
81 See 51 U.S.C. Chapter 509 and 14 C.F.R. Chapter III.
82 FAA, Licensed Launches, https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/launches/?type=Licensed.
83 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11940, Commercial Human Spaceflight, by Daniel Morgan.
84 See 51 U.S.C. §50905.
85 ASTM International, “Committee F47 on Commercial Spaceflight,” https://www.astm.org/COMMITTEE/F47.htm.
86 FAA, FAA Evaluation of Commercial Human Space Flight Safety Frameworks and Key Industry Indicators (2017),
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2021-11/CSLCA_Sec111_Report_to_Congress.pdf; FAA, U.S. Department of
Transportation Evaluation of Commercial Human Spaceflight Activities Most Appropriate for New Safety Framework
(2019), https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2021-11/New-Safety-Framework-for-Commercial-Human-Space-
Flight-Completed-report.pdf; FAA, Final Report on Voluntary Industry Consensus Standards Development (2021); and
FAA, U.S. Department of Transportation Evaluation of Commercial Human Space Flight Activities Most Appropriate
for New Safety Framework (2023, draft), https://www.faa.gov/media/27296.
Congressional Research Service

24

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

imposing fees or taxes on commercial space companies, either to support AST’s licensing
activity, for other space-related purposes, or simply by analogy to fees and taxes paid by the
commercial aviation industry.87 AST does not currently charge any fees or taxes.88
Aviation Safety
The FAA has responsibility for overseeing compliance with safety regulations at airlines, charter
aircraft operators, repair stations, aircraft and aircraft parts design organizations and
manufacturers, and other regulated entities. The FAA Office of Aviation Safety (AVS) is
responsible for developing regulations and certification standards and conducting oversight of
aircraft; pilots, mechanics, and other safety-related personnel; airlines and other aircraft
operators; aircraft maintenance and repair facilities; airport safety; and safety aspects of flight
operations. It maintains a workforce of more than 7,200 aviation safety workers, including more
than 4,000 field inspectors. Major new efforts for aviation safety likely to be considered in FAA
reauthorization include
• implementing safety management systems (SMS) throughout the aviation
industry;
• implementing aircraft certification reforms; and
• addressing a number of ongoing safety challenges, including oversight of air tour
and charter flights, safety of helicopter operations, potential radiofrequency
signal interference that could impact air navigation and communications, and
concerns over airport surface movement safety.
Safety Management Systems
The FAA defines SMS as a formal organization-wide approach to managing safety risk through
structured and systematic procedures, practices, and policies intended to address and improve
safety on a continuing basis.89 It includes formal processes for decisionmaking regarding safety
risks; safety assurance; knowledge sharing; and the promotion of a strong safety culture through
training, education, and communication. The FAA regards SMS as a proactive approach to
managing safety and is taking steps to require its implementation broadly across all sectors of the
aviation industry. In 2015, the FAA mandated that commercial passenger and all-cargo airlines
that operate under air carrier operational regulations contained in 14 C.F.R. Part 121 implement
FAA-approved SMS.
On February 23, 2023, the FAA published a final rule requiring certain commercial service
airports to develop an SMS.90 According to the FAA, 191 airports, included based on the volume
of passengers and the number of flight operations, will need to develop and implement an FAA-
approved SMS program. All large, medium, and small hub, as well as any airports with
commercial international flights and airports with a three-year rolling average of 100,000 annual

87 See, for example, the SPACE Tax Act (H.R. 7547, 117th Congress) and Member discussion at U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Starships and Stripes Forever—An Examination of the FAA’s Role in
the Future of Spaceflight, hearings, 117th Cong., 1st sess., June 16, 2021, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-
117hhrg46249/pdf/CHRG-117hhrg46249.pdf, p. 38.
88 It is explicitly prohibited from charging fees by 51 U.S.C. §50920.
89 See FAA, Safety Management System (SMS), at https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/sms/; FAA, Safety
Management System, National Policy, Order 8000.369C, June 24, 2020, at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/
media/Order/Order_8000.369C.pdf.
90 FAA, “Airport Safety Management System: Final Rule,” 88 Federal Register 11642-11674, February 23, 2023.
Congressional Research Service

25

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

flight operations are included. The requirements went into effect on April 24, 2023, and will have
a staggered implementation schedule. For hub airports, which make up the large majority of
airports required to implement SMS, submittal of the SMS implementation plan is required by
April 24, 2024. Nonhub airports averaging more than 100,000 annual flight operations are to
submit their plans by October 24, 2024, and nonhub airports with less than 100,000 annual flight
operations that have commercial international flights are to submit their plans by April 24, 2025.
Once the FAA approves an SMS plan submitted by an airport, the airport will then be required to
submit an SMS manual and an updated Airport Certification Manual to the FAA within 12
months following the approval date, and it must fully implement its airport SMS program within
36 months following the approval date. As other airports beyond the initial 191 meet the criteria
for mandatory implementation of SMS, they will be required to submit an SMS plan to the FAA
within 18 months after notification from the FAA that they meet the criteria compelling them to
adopt SMS.
The FAA is also taking steps to require SMS implementation for all commuter flight operations
and for on-demand commercial air charters and air tour operators. On January 11, 2023, the FAA
published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would cover operators regulated under 14 C.F.R.
Part 135, which encompasses scheduled commuter flight operations using small aircraft,
generally having nine or fewer passenger seats, or charter operations in aircraft having 30 or
fewer passenger seats.91 It would also cover certain passenger flights, primarily air tours, that land
and depart from the same airport and stay within a 25-mile radius that may be conducted under 14
C.F.R. Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules, with a formal letter of authorization to do so
from the FAA. The proposed rule would require all such operators to develop, implement, and
maintain an FAA-approved SMS program.
While the proposal expands the number of operators that would have to carry out a proactive
safety approach under an SMS framework, not all entities would be covered. Notably, the FAA is
not at this time proposing to require SMS for: FAA-approved flight schools operated under 14
C.F.R. Part 141; training centers covered under 14 C.F.R. Part 142; aircraft repair stations
regulated under 14 C.F.R. Part 145; aircraft fractional ownership programs like NetJets and
FlexJet that operate under 14 C.F.R. Part 91 Subpart K; and operations using large aircraft (20 or
more passenger seats or a maximum payload of 6,000 pounds or more) not used in common
carriage that are regulated under 14 C.F.R. Part 125. The FAA aviation rulemaking committee
(ARC) that was convened in 2009 to examine SMS among aircraft operators had recommended
SMS requirements for these other regulated entities as well as for the Part 121 air carrier
operations already required to have SMS and the Part 135 and Part 91 air tour operations that the
FAA is proposing SMS requirements for.92 In the context of the current FAA reauthorization,
Congress may consider whether to expand SMS requirements more broadly across the aviation
industry, as well as different options for such an expansion.
Under the same rulemaking, the FAA is also proposing SMS requirements for aircraft and aircraft
engine manufacturers as mandated by the Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act
(Division V of P.L. 116-260). The law specifies that, at a minimum, the SMS be consistent with
and complimentary to existing SMSs, allow for operational feedback from product customers and
pilots, and allow for FAA approval and routine oversight. The FAA is required to conduct risk-
based surveillance, inspections, audits, and continuous monitoring of type and production
certificate-holder SMS programs. The FAA was also directed to work closely with ICAO and

91 FAA, “Safety Management Systems: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” 88 Federal Register 1932-1972, January 11,
2023.
92 See discussion in FAA, “Safety Management Systems: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” 88 Federal Register 1932-
1972, January 11, 2023.
Congressional Research Service

26

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

civil aviation authorities in other countries to encourage and assist with adoption of SMS by
foreign manufacturers.
The act further specifies that the SMS regulations must provide for a confidential employee
reporting system for reporting hazards, issues, concerns, occurrences, and incidents without
concern for reprisal. Manufacturers are to be required to submit summary reports of received
employee reports at least twice per year. Such information submitted to the FAA is to be protected
from public disclosure unless de-identified to protect the identity of submitters.93 The law also
mandates the establishment of a code of ethics for each manufacturer applicable to all employees
that formally sets safety as the organization’s top priority. As the FAA moves forward with efforts
to apply SMS broadly throughout the aviation industry, Congress may take an interest in tracking
the FAA’s progress on the SMS initiative and the potential challenges and complications with
effectively implementing SMS programs, particularly among smaller aviation industry entities. It
might consider FAA reporting requirements, GAO reviews, or other oversight actions to monitor
SMS implementation as part of the current FAA reauthorization.
Helicopter Operations
In February 2014, the FAA mandated changes in helicopter operational procedures and cockpit
technologies to improve operational safety of helicopter air ambulance flights.94 Subsequently, the
FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-190) directed the FAA to evaluate and
update crash-resistance standards for helicopter fuel systems, and the FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018 (P.L. 115-254) mandated that all new manufactured helicopters be built to meet current
crashworthiness standards, which previously applied only to new helicopter designs. Helicopter
crashes involving air ambulances in Texas, Missouri, and Colorado in 2015 and a February 2018
air tour helicopter crash in Arizona stand out among aviation accidents that have raised safety
concerns about the design of helicopter fuel systems. The accidents have prompted the NTSB to
issue recommendations to the FAA that it update regulations and guidelines regarding helicopter
fuel system crashworthiness.95
The European Union (EU) Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is contemplating action that would
potentially require retrofit modifications to helicopters registered in EU countries to meet
upgraded crashworthiness standards. In November 2022, EASA published a proposed amendment
outlining various approaches to require retrofitted crash-resistant fuel systems on either some or
all EU helicopters by either 2030 or 2038.96
Given the potential implications to U.S.-manufactured helicopters operated in Europe, as well as
continued NTSB and congressional interest in helicopter safety and crashworthiness, Congress
may revisit options to require fuel system improvements to helicopters currently in service,
potentially including retrofit requirements for crash-resistant fuel systems in the current civil
helicopter fleet.
Additionally, safety concerns have been raised about helicopter air tours following high-profile
air tour crashes in New York City and Hawaii. An NTSB investigation of a December 2019

93 See 49 U.S.C. §44735.
94 FAA, “Helicopter Air Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and Part 91 Helicopter Operations,” 79 Federal Register
9931-9979, April 22, 2014.
95 See especially, NTSB, Safety Recommendation A-15-12, July 23, 2015, https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/
recletters/A-15-012.pdf.
96 European Union Aviation Safety Agency, Notice of Proposed Amendment 2022-10: Improvement in the
Survivability of Rotorcraft Occupants in the Event of a Crash, Phase 1 – Crash Resistant Fuel Systems, at
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/137237/en.
Congressional Research Service

27

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

helicopter air tour crash in Hawaii cited the FAA’s failure to act on prior NTSB recommendations,
including requiring helicopter air taxi and air tour operators to implement safety management
systems and cue-based weather training, as factors in the crash.97 As noted above, the FAA has
issued an NPRM that would mandate SMS among commercial air tour and other commercial
helicopter operators. Amid FAA reauthorization debate, Congress may more closely monitor
progress and address potential challenges with both moving forward with the FAA’s proposal to
mandate SMS at small helicopter air tour companies and tailoring effective SMS programs to
these operations.
Aircraft Certification Reforms and Safety Oversight
An important FAA function is certifying the safety of aviation products, including aircraft,
aircraft engines, and major aircraft components. The FAA has developed a broad set of
certification regulations pertaining to the type of aircraft that seeks to balance safety regulations
and the degree of FAA oversight with the size and intended use of the aircraft. In the 2018 FAA
reauthorization act, Congress directed FAA to delegate its authority over the certification of new
and revised aircraft designs to employees of aircraft and component manufacturers.
The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254) mandated significant changes in FAA
oversight of aircraft certification. It directed the FAA to establish a Safety Oversight and
Certification Advisory Committee and required the agency to establish formal objectives to
eliminate delays in certification and more closely oversee its Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) program, an established process for delegating certain certification
functions to manufacturers. The act also required the FAA to establish a Regulatory Consistency
Communications Board to review questions regarding regulatory interpretations related to the
certification of aviation products.
Subsequently, two crashes overseas involving a recently certified new variant of the Boeing 737
airplane, known as the Boeing 737 Max, led Congress to revisit these reforms to the aircraft
certification process and FAA oversight of aircraft manufacturers and their delegated aircraft
certification functions under ODA. In December 2020, the Aircraft Certification, Safety, and
Accountability Act (Division V of P.L. 116-260) required the FAA to implement major changes in
its policies and procedures concerning certification of transport aircraft, such as commercial
passenger and cargo jets, including changes in policies for delegating certification authority to
private entities.
The Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act mandated that
• the FAA institute extensive changes to the ODA program and oversight of that
program;
• aircraft manufacturers implement FAA-approved SMS that establish formal
organization-wide procedures, practices, and policies to manage safety-related
risks;

97 Cue-based weather training refers to computer-based training systems used to provide pilots who fly in visual
conditions with skills to recognize and respond to indicators of deteriorating weather conditions during flight. NTSB,
“Failure of FAA to Implement NTSB Recommendations Contributed to Fatal Air Tour Helicopter Crash, NTSB Says,”
press release, May 10, 2022, at https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20220510.aspx; NTSB, Collision
into Terrain Safari Aviation Inc. Airbus AS350 B2, N985SA, at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/
ANC20MA010.aspx.
Congressional Research Service

28

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

• the FAA review and update requirements and guidance addressing flight deck
human factors and the design of aircraft-pilot interfaces;98 and
• the FAA and manufacturers work with international partners to address pilot
training standards in the context of aircraft certification and assess operational
impacts of new automation technologies.
The act makes it unlawful to interfere with the duties of ODA unit members, including exerting
undue pressure on unit members or assigning them work not related to certification duties. The
law also repeals two significant provisions of the FAA Authorization Act of 2018 that had
directed the FAA to streamline aircraft certification processes and reduce delays, in part by fully
utilizing its delegation and designation authorities.
These changes were largely instigated by two crashes involving the Boeing 737 Max, the newest
variant of a Boeing narrow-body jet that has been one of the most popular airliners for more than
50 years. These crashes prompted a 20-month-long grounding of the worldwide fleet of Boeing
737 Max airplanes in 2019 and 2020. During this time, congressional attention turned away from
streamlining and simplifying certification processes to focus on improving the safety and
oversight of those processes, especially with respect to the certification of transport category
airplanes used in passenger airline service.
Multiple inquiries prompted by the Boeing 737 Max crashes unveiled concerns regarding
certification of transport category airplanes, particularly the handling and review of amendments
to existing aircraft type designs. The events also raised concerns over the FAA’s delegation of
certification functions to aircraft designers and manufacturers under its ODA program.
Investigations into the causes of the crashes also raised questions about the increasing use of
automated flight control systems and flight crew interactions with those systems, as well as
broader concerns regarding human performance and human factors assumptions about pilot
reactions to abnormal and emergency situations and alerts. In November 2020, the FAA approved
design modifications and changes to pilot training permitting the resumption of 737 Max flights
by U.S. air carriers.
Many aviation safety experts attribute the safety advancements in commercial aviation over the
past three decades, at least in part, to improvements in aircraft systems technology and flight deck
automation. These same factors, though, have also been implicated as causal or contributing
factors in several aviation accidents and incidents. The implications of modern flight deck
automated systems design have been an issue of concern for more than two decades. In 1996, a
human factors team convened by the FAA released a comprehensive study of interfaces between
flight crews and highly automated aircraft systems with a focus on interfaces affecting flight path
management.99 The work prompted the FAA to revise its certification requirements for flight
guidance systems in 2006.100 Despite the changes made to address human factors issues in flight
guidance system design, the interface between pilots and automated flight guidance systems
remains at the crux of commercial aviation safety. This issue has been highlighted in the
investigations and findings of several high-profile international aviation accidents that have

98 According to the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, human factors is described as the scientific discipline
concerned with understanding interactions among humans and other elements of a system and the application of
scientific knowledge and theory about human abilities to optimize human well-being and overall system performance
(see Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, “What is Human Factors and Ergonomics?,” https://www.hfes.org/about-
hfes/what-is-human-factorsergonomics).
99 FAA, Federal Aviation Administration Human Factors Team Report on: The Interfaces Between Flightcrews and
Modern Flight Deck Systems, June 18, 1996, http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/hffaces.pdf.
100 FAA, “Safety Standards for Flight Guidance Systems,” 71 Federal Register 18183-18192, April 11, 2006.
Congressional Research Service

29

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

occurred over the past 15 years, including Air France Flight 447, which crashed in the Atlantic on
June 1, 2009; Asiana Airlines Flight 214, which crashed at San Francisco International Airport on
July 6, 2013; and the crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 on October 29, 2018, and Ethiopian Airlines
Flight 302 on March 10, 2019, the two Boeing 737 Max-8 accidents that prompted the lengthy
worldwide grounding of that aircraft type. These accidents have raised lingering questions about
the design of flight control systems, human factors issues related to pilot interaction with flight
deck automation and alerting systems, and flight crew training, in addition to the questions raised
about aircraft certification policies, regulations, and practices.
The Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act mandated further changes to the aircraft
certification process, the ODA program, and FAA oversight of that program. The act, introduced
following the worldwide grounding of Boeing 737 Max aircraft after two fatal crashes overseas,
requires aircraft manufacturers to implement FAA-approved safety management systems. It
requires the FAA to review and update requirements and guidance regarding human factors and
human systems integration, particularly those related to aircraft-pilot interfaces. Provisions in the
law also require the FAA to reevaluate its practices for certifying variants of existing aircraft
models, such as the 737 Max. The act required that, after December 2022, all newly certified
aircraft be equipped with updated alerting systems that assist crews in resolving warning signals.
However, recognizing that certification delays to the Boeing 737 Max-10 (the largest version of
the 737 Max lineup) would have conflicted with this mandate, as the 737 Max lacks these
modernized crew alerting capabilities, lawmakers modified a provision in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328, Division O, Section 501) to exempt any aircraft whose
application for an original or amended type certificate had been submitted prior to December 27,
2020. Meanwhile, the law established new requirements for all Boeing 737 Max aircraft to
include two additional safety enhancements to improve alerting and to give crews the capability
to silence certain alerts to minimize distraction
On December 8, 2022, the FAA issued a proposed rule that would standardize the process for
conducting system safety assessments for aircraft systems, including flight controls and engines
installed on transport category airlines, to reduce the risk of catastrophic failures arising from
latent conditions.101 On January 11, 2023, the FAA published an NPRM that would require
aircraft and aircraft engine manufacturers to implement SMS programs, as mandated by the
Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act. Furthermore, on March 2, 2023, the FAA
published a draft policy statement regarding the revision of procedures for amendments to aircraft
type certificates.102 Under the proposed change that was also mandated by the Aircraft
Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act, applicants proposing amendments to type-certified
aircraft designs must disclose to the FAA all new systems and intended changes to existing
systems in a single document at the beginning of the process for the amended type certification,
and this document must be kept current throughout the project. This addresses concerns raised
regarding the amended type certification of the Boeing 737 Max over a failure to fully disclose
the details of system changes to the aircraft design to the FAA and keep the FAA appraised of
modifications to systems as the certification work continued. As the FAA reauthorization debate
has evolved, Congress remains interested in aircraft certification reforms and options to gauge
FAA and industry progress toward applying these reforms; related FAA reports and GAO audits
may be considered in the debate.

101 FAA, “System Safety Assessments,” 87 Federal Register 75424-75454, December 8, 2022.
102 FAA, “Draft Policy Statement: Submission of Outline of New and Changed Systems at the Beginning of the Type
Certificate Amendment Process for Transport Category Aircraft,” 88 Federal Register 13071, March 2, 2023.
Congressional Research Service

30

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

Aviation Spectrum and Signal Interference
Starting in late 2021, the rollout of fifth-generation (5G) wireless telecommunications networks
in the United States raised concerns at the FAA, airlines, and other aviation operators over fears
that certain mid-band or C-band 5G signals could interfere with radio altimeters (i.e., devices
onboard aircraft to independently provide the distance between the aircraft and the Earth’s
surface). The FAA, along with aviation regulators from other countries, first raised concerns
about wireless deployments in the C-band in 2015. They cautioned that 5G signals transmitted on
nearby frequencies could interfere with radio altimeters, particularly if high-powered 5G base
stations were placed close to airport runways.
A 2020 study by RTCA, an aviation industry technical advisory group founded as the Radio
Technical Commission for Aeronautics, concluded that expected interference from 5G emissions
in the 3.7-3.98 GHz range and spurious or stray 5G emissions that bleed over into the 4.2-4.4
GHz band was likely to exceed safe interference limits for airplanes and helicopters equipped
with radio altimeters.103 Moreover, it determined that stray 5G emissions that might bleed over
into the band reserved for radio altimeters would not be considered compliant with international
recommendations for radiofrequency protection criteria.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), however, maintained that its mandated
protections, including limits on the strength of 5G signals and 220 MHz of spectral separation
between 5G signals and radio altimeters, adequately mitigate the potential for interference.104
The FAA initially restricted the use of approach procedures and automated landing system
operations at 88 airports where it determined that the presence of C-band 5G signals could pose a
risk of radio altimeter interference.105 However, service providers subsequently agreed to
voluntarily delay activation of 5G transmitters located close to airports until July 5, 2022, thus
creating temporary “buffer zones” around airports during the first six months of the 5G rollout.
Subsequent to its initial restrictions, the FAA worked with the aviation and wireless industries to
identify incremental steps to continue with the rollout of 5G while minimizing impacts to aircraft
operations and, working with manufacturers, approved filter kits to retrofit radio altimeters with
protections from 5G interference.106
The FAA is continuing to work with industry groups led by RTCA and its European counterpart,
the European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE), to develop minimum
operational performance standards for future radio altimeters that will not be susceptible to
potentially harmful radiofrequency interference.
Helicopters responding to medical emergencies also rely on radio altimeters, especially when
landing to pick up and drop off patients. Citing the critical societal importance of helicopter
emergency medical operations, the FAA has granted temporary regulatory relief from radio
altimeter requirements for medical helicopters conducting night-vision-goggle operations, so long
as ground observers remain in radio contact with pilots to guide them regarding terrain and

103 RTCA, Inc., Assessment of C-Band Mobile Telecommunications Interference Impacts on Low Range Radar
Altimeter Operations, RTCA Paper No. 274-20/PMC-2073, October 7, 2020, at https://www.rtca.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/10/SC-239-5G-Interference-Assessment-Report_274-20-PMC-2073_accepted_changes.pdf.
104 Federal Communications Commission, Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, FCC 20-22, GN Docket
No. 18-122, March 3, 2020, at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-22A1.pdf.
105 FAA, 5G and Aviation Safety, at https://www.faa.gov/5g.
106 FAA, FAA Statements on 5G, June 17, 2022, at https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statements-5g.
Congressional Research Service

31

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

obstacle clearance around landing zones.107 This exemption expires on January 31, 2024, at which
point medical helicopters may also need to install retrofit filters or upgraded radio altimeters.
The ongoing concerns over potential aviation safety impacts from 5G in the United States point to
broader concerns that may be of particular interest to Congress in the context of FAA
reauthorization. These include coordination between the FAA and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, the federal agency that represents federal
agency spectrum concerns to the FCC; the FAA’s relationship with other regulatory agencies,
such as the FCC; and the FAA’s ability to address complex challenges brought about by the
proliferation of wireless technologies and the rapidly evolving technical landscape in which
aviation operates.108
Airport Surface Movement Safety
The risk of on-airport collisions has been a significant safety concern since the 1977 runway
collision of two Boeing 747 aircraft on the island of Tenerife, Spain, which claimed 583 lives in
the deadliest aviation disaster in history. Over the past decade, the FAA has addressed surface
movement safety though investments in airport lighting and signage improvements, modifications
to procedures and communications, and investments in technologies, such as surface radar,
runway status lights, final approach runway occupancy signals, and tablet devices for pilots
(known as “electronic flight bags”) with moving map capabilities. Additionally, the FAA has
supported targeted installation of special pavement materials, known as Engineered Materials
Arresting Systems (EMAS), at airports where aircraft that overrun a runway could collide with
structures or enter bodies of water.
Airport surface movement safety has been the focus of recent attention in 2023 following a spate
of high-profile incidents.109 In response to these close calls and other safety concerns regarding
commercial flight operations, the FAA convened a safety summit in March 2023 to discuss
options for enhancing flight safety with aviation industry leaders. Suggestions offered at the event
included future actions to
• improve collection, analysis, and dissemination of safety data;
• recognize human factors and work conditions, including stress and fatigue, in
safety risk models;
• reexamine runway incursion data to identify underlying factors and identify
potential remedies;
• identify technologies to augment the existing capabilities of surface surveillance
equipment;

107 FAA, In the matter of the petition of Helicopter Association International for an exemption from §§ 91.9(a),
91.205(h)(7), 135.160, and 135.179(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Exemption No. 18973, Regulatory
Docket No. FAA-2021-1028.
108 See CRS In Focus IF12028, Aviation Concerns Regarding the Rollout of 5G Wireless Telecommunications
Networks, by Bart Elias and CRS In Focus IF12046, National Spectrum Policy: Interference Issues in the 5G Context,
by Ling Zhu.
109 See, for example, Ian Duncan, “FAA Launches Safety ‘Call to Action’ After Recent Airport Near-Misses,”
Washington Post, February 14, 2023, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/02/14/faa-safety-
airlines-incidents/; and Amanda Holpuch, “FAA. Issues Safety Alert After Runway Near Misses,” New York Times,
March 22, 2023, at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/22/business/faa-airlines-near-misses.html.
Congressional Research Service

32

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

• improve training programs for airport vehicle operators; and
• implement SMS at busy commercial service airports.110
Despite the recent attention, data tracking these airport surface incidents, known as runway
incursions, do not give any clear indication that risk is increasing. Nonetheless, the sheer number
of incidents, over 1,700 in FY2022 and almost 800 in the first half of FY2023,111 points to the
continuing safety risks in the airport surface environment. Runway incursions refer to incidents
involving aircraft and ground vehicles that transgress onto active runways, creating situations that
pose a hazard to landing or departing aircraft. These incursions are tracked and analyzed by the
FAA to determine the underlying factors that could result in a collision on an airport surface.
Runway incursions are classified as to whether they are attributed to pilot deviations, vehicle or
pedestrian deviation, operational errors by air traffic controllers, or occasionally operational
deviation when a controller fails to properly coordinate handling of an aircraft with other
controllers. Runway incursions are also classified by severity, ranging alphabetically from
Category A incidents, in which a collision was narrowly avoided, to Category D incidents, in
which a runway incursion was found to have occurred but posed no immediate safety
consequences.112
Over the years, the FAA has taken a multipronged approach to addressing airport surface
movement safety, including developing risk indices to identify and examine runway safety events
and implement risk-based strategies targeting particular airport configurations and hot spots at
airports that are prone to high-risk incursion incidents. The FAA has also deployed technologies
including runway status lights to alert aircrews and airport vehicle drivers and Airport Surface
Detection Equipment-Model X (ASDE-X) in control towers to provide controllers with surface
movement displays that provide visual and audible alerts of traffic conflicts and potential
collisions. ASDE-X is currently deployed at 35 of the busiest airports in the United States. The
FAA has also developed the Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (ASSC), which augments
airport surface detection by integrating ADS-B signals and aircraft position data from airport
sensors using a process with surface radar signals called multilateration. ASSC is currently
deployed at eight airports in the United States. The FAA has also developed related educational
materials for pilots and has worked with airports to make improvements, such as improved
taxiway markings and signage, to mitigate runway incursion risks.113
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95) required the FAA to develop a
strategic runway safety plan that includes specific national goals and proposed actions to enhance
runway safety, particularly at commercial service airports. The act also required the FAA to
develop a process for tracking and investigating runway incidents and deploy systems to alert air
traffic controllers and pilots of potential runway incursions into the NextGen implementation. The
plan, published in November 2012, indicated that the FAA is using a number of data collection
and analysis tools to identify and mitigate safety risks in airport surface movements and terminal
area operations.114 The FAA also committed to specific actions, including the installation of

110 FAA, “Readout from the FAA Aviation Safety Summit Breakout Panels,” at https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/
readout-faa-aviation-safety-summit-breakout-panels.
111 FAA, “Runway Incursion Totals by Quarter, FY2023 vs. FY2022,” at https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/
statistics/year/?fy1=2023&fy2=2022.
112 FAA, “Runway Incursions,” at https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/resources/runway_incursions.
113 FAA, “Runway Safety,” at https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety.
114 FAA, The Strategic Runway Safety Plan, November 2012, at http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/
congressional_reports/media/The%20Strategic%20Runway%20Safety%20Plan.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

33

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

runway status lights at 23 large airports and the installation of EMAS at additional airports
without standard runway safety areas to mitigate risks of runway overruns.
Section 334 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 required the FAA to consult with the NTSB
to develop a report examining various opportunities to improve runway safety, including the use
of runway awareness and advisory systems onboard large jets; technologies to detect and warn of
improper runway alignments; and utilization of ASSC, potentially providing warnings of potential
runway incursions directly to the cockpit and improving analytic capabilities to track runway
incursions and assess the effectiveness of runway safety initiatives. The FAA issued the required
report in November 2020.115 It stated that, although runway awareness and advisory systems were
authorized for almost 90% of air carrier operations and about one-third of charter operators, these
systems and other initiatives would decrease wrong surface landings (e.g., landing on a runway
other than the runway assigned by air traffic control or on a taxiway) by only about 6%-7%, and
the systems are extremely costly. For these reasons, the FAA also reported that it is continuing to
evaluate whether to require use of runway advisory systems or other possible solutions. The FAA
reported that it has enhanced ASDE-X, ASSC, and terminal radar systems capabilities to better
detect wrong surface alignment to improve detection of potential errors during takeoffs and
landings. It also reported that it had deployed a taxiway arrival prediction enhancement to ASDE-
X at 14 airports.
The FAA has also evaluated ASSC capabilities to detect wrong surface alignment, particularly at
San Francisco International Airport (SFO), where, in July 2017, an Air Canada jet aligned for
landing on an active taxiway and overflew at low altitude four aircraft waiting to depart.116
Following that incident, the FAA took action to expand the airport surface coverage of the ASSC
system and made procedural changes to require precision instrument approaches at night and
modify shift hours and staffing in the tower cab.
The FAA reports that it continues to rely on its Runway Incursion Mitigation Program to focus
airport infrastructure projects to improve safety at airport surface locations, such as complex
intersections, that have experienced multiple runway incursions.117 Given the heightened
concerns over airport surface movement safety, Congress is likely to place specific attention on
this topic in the FAA reauthorization debate.
Pilot and Flight Attendant Fatigue
The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-216)
mandated changes to airline pilot flight time and rest requirements and the development of fatigue
risk management plans. In response, the FAA published a final rule on Flightcrew Member Duty
and Rest Requirements on January 4, 2012.118 This added 14 C.F.R. Part 117, which prescribes
passenger-airline-flight-crew flight time, duty time, and rest requirements based on crew size,
time of day, time and distance away from home base, and other factors. The regulation also

115 FAA, Letters to the Honorable Roger Wicker, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate and the Honorable Peter A. DeFazio, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
U.S. House of Representatives, In response to the requirement of Section 334 of the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2018, November 4, 2020, at https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2021-11/
Runway_Safety_report_PL115-254_Section_334.pdf.
116 FAA, “ADS-B Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (ASSC),” at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/
adsb/atc/assc.
117 FAA, “Airports Runway Incursion Mitigation (RIM) Program,” at https://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/
incursions_excursions/rim.
118 FAA, “Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements,” 77 Federal Register 329, January 4, 2012, at
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2012-01-04/pdf/2011-33078.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

34

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

requires airlines to implement a fatigue risk management system. The rules went into effect on
January 14, 2014.
While these regulations are mandatory for passenger airlines, compliance is optional for all-cargo
carriers that operate under 14 C.F.R. Part 121. Pilot labor organizations have long argued for
uniform fatigue regulations under an umbrella “single level of safety” approach, although the
FAA and the airline industry maintain that air cargo operations are sufficiently different and that
separate regulatory requirements are appropriate. Long-standing efforts to include all-cargo pilots
under the same set of duty and rest rules as passenger airline pilots did not pass in the 114th
Congress (e.g., S. 1612), and legislation offered in the 115th Congress (e.g., S. 1423) was not
incorporated into the previous FAA reauthorization legislation. In both the 116th (S. 826) and the
117th (S. 2350) Congresses, similar introduced legislation sought to apply the same flight crew
duty and rest requirements applicable to passenger airline pilots to flight crew operating all-cargo
air carrier aircraft. Such requirements have not been enacted into law or considered by the FAA in
formal rulemaking. There may be congressional interest in revisiting duty time and rest
requirements for all-cargo pilots during the FAA reauthorization debate.
Although recent Congresses did not address changes to fatigue rules for all-cargo crews, language
mandating changes to flight attendant duty period limits and rest requirements was included in the
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. Specifically, Section 335 of the act required the FAA to issue a
final rule giving flight attendants at least 10 hours of consecutive rest following any scheduled
duty period of 14 hours or less. The law further stipulated that the rest period could not be
reduced under any circumstances. On October 12, 2022, the FAA published a final rule on flight
attendant duty period limitations and rest requirements that went into effect on November 14,
2022, and compliance was required by January 10, 2023. The regulation generally codifies the
language of the statutory provision and requires a rest period of at least 10 consecutive hours
between the completion of the scheduled duty period and the commencement of the subsequent
duty period, noting that the rest period may not be reduced to less than 10 consecutive hours. In
the context of the current FAA reauthorization, Congress may examine compliance with these
new regulations and potential operational challenges to airlines related to cabin crew staffing and
potential scheduling conflicts associated with regulatory compliance.
Aviation Workforce
Airline Pilot Supply and Training
Between 2000 and 2009, the NTSB conducted 11 major accident investigations involving
regional air carriers, 7 of which were attributed to pilot performance and decisionmaking.
Scrutiny of regional airline safety followed the February 12, 2009, crash of Continental flight
3407, operated by Colgan Air, a now-defunct regional airline that operated flights under a
partnership agreement with Continental Airlines (which subsequently merged with United
Airlines in 2012). In response to concerns raised in the aftermath of these accidents, especially
the Colgan Air crash, legislation addressing airline flight crew standards, training, and work
conditions, including maximum duty periods and rest time requirements, was included in the
Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-216).
Enactment imposed a specific mandate for the FAA to increase to 1,500 hours the minimum flight
time requirement to qualify for certification needed to be hired as an airline pilot, with some
latitude for the FAA to authorize certain related academic training to substitute for a portion of the
flight time requirement.
Congressional Research Service

35

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

In response, the FAA published a final rule on July 15, 2013, that became effective immediately
and required airline first officers to hold an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate and a type
rating for the aircraft to be flown.119 The ATP certificate typically requires a minimum of 1,500
hours of total flight time as a pilot, thus giving rise to the common reference to this as the “1,500
hour rule.”
Notwithstanding the general 1,500-hour flight time requirement, certain applicants may qualify
for an ATP certificate with restricted privileges, commonly referred to as a restricted ATP or R-
ATP certificate. To qualify for an R-ATP certificate, the pilot applicant must have served as a
military pilot who was not removed from service due to a lack of flight proficiency or disciplinary
action involving aircraft operations, or the applicant must have completed an accredited program
at an institution of higher education that has been authorized by the FAA to certify graduates for
ATP certification based on academic and aeronautical experience. Military pilots and former
military pilots can be issued an R-ATP certificate with a minimum of 750 total flight hours that
may consist of a combination of military training and flight operations as well as civilian flying.
A holder of a bachelor’s degree from an accredited and authorized institution can be issued an R-
ATP certificate with a minimum of 1,000 hours, and a holder of an associate’s degree from an
accredited and authorized institution can be granted the R-ATP with a minimum of 1,250 hours.
Additionally, the FAA imposed a new requirement, effective August 1, 2013, stating that in order
to serve as pilot-in-command (captain) in Part 121 operations, a pilot must have accumulated a
minimum of 1,000 hours in air carrier operations.120
There has been debate over whether there is a current or potential future labor shortage of
qualified pilots to fill airline vacancies and meet airline growth projections. Moreover, debate
over whether the 1,500-hour rule is a possible contributing factor in creating a potential shortage
of qualified pilot applicants for airline jobs has been contentious ever since the changes to pilot
qualification standards were first considered in congressional debate prior to the 2010 act. A 2014
GAO study pointed to various economic indicators suggesting that demand for pilots had not
outstripped supply, even after the 1,500-hour rule had gone into effect. The GAO study raised
concerns about potential future pilot shortages driven primarily by the high costs of flight training
and low entry-level pay at regional airlines at the time.121
The rapid downturn in air travel as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic also changed the
dynamics of the airline hiring pipeline to some extent in 2020 and 2021. Airlines responded to the
rapid downturn in passenger air travel by halting hiring and offering incentives for early
retirements to pilots and other airline employees. While pandemic relief funds and associated
conditions of accepting these funds prevented airlines from furloughing pilots in 2020 and 2021,
industry-wide payrolls of pilots and copilots shrunk by about 7% during this time largely due to
the early retirement incentives and hiring freezes. Pilot payrolls in 2021 remained below 2019
levels by 3,573 positions. Similarly, new pilot supply shrunk during the pandemic as annual
original ATP certifications issued by the FAA declined in 2020. However, relatively steady levels
of newly issued commercial and flight instructor certifications over the past three years may
suggest that the future pilot pipeline remains robust despite pandemic restrictions that limited the
ability to conduct flight training to some extent. However, airlines will likely face challenges

119 FAA, “Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations,” 78 Federal Register 42323-
42380, July 15, 2013, corrected by Federal Aviation Administration, “Pilot Certification and Qualification
Requirements for Air Carrier Operations,” 78 Federal Register 45055-45056, July 26, 2013.
120 14 C.F.R. §121.436(a)(3).
121 GAO, Aviation Workforce: Current and Future Availability of Airline Pilots, GAO-14-232, February 2014, at
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-232.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

36

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

hiring sufficient numbers of pilots in the near-term due to a limited supply of qualified
candidates. Long-term growth in air travel demand could also impose challenges to the adequacy
of future pilot supply.
Potential options to increase the supply of airline pilots that have been sought include further
relaxing qualification standards for airline first officers and raising the airline pilot retirement age,
currently set at 65, as well as fostering interest in and providing opportunities to individuals
seeking pilot careers, including those from economically disadvantaged communities and from
underrepresented segments of the population.
In April 2022, Republic Airways petitioned the FAA seeking partial relief from the 1,500-hour
rule to allow graduates of its pilot training program to apply for an R-ATP certificate with 750
hours, the same level of flight experience required for current or former military pilots. In
September 2022, the FAA issued a formal denial of that exemption request. The FAA, however,
held open the possibility that, in the future, airlines or flight training providers could develop
mission-specific training programs that could better prepare students to operate within the
complex environment of air carrier operations that might be considered suitable by the FAA to
issue R-ATP certificates.122
As part of the current FAA reauthorization debate, the airline industry—and in particular regional
airlines—may seek congressional action to address potential pilot shortages by creating additional
flexibilities in the 1,500-hour rule. This may be pursued even while the current statute provides
the FAA some latitude with respect to alterative training programs to qualify for R-ATP
certification. In the 2018 FAA reauthorization debate, options to reframe the 1,500-hour rule did
not gain traction. Additionally, Congress may consider other options to ease concerns over pilot
supply, such as revisiting age limits for airline pilots.
Airline Pilot Retirement Age
While International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards set in 2006 hold that the
maximum age for flights crewed by more than one pilot should be 65, including at least one pilot
under age 60, some countries do not follow this standard. Notably, Canada, Australia, and New
Zealand have no formal age limit for airline pilots, and Japan raised its pilot retirement age to 68
in 2015.123 The International Air Transport Association (IATA), a trade organization that
represents airlines globally, is pressing ICAO to reexamine airline pilot age limits to address
potential pilot shortages as well as possible age discrimination against healthy older pilots.124
During the 117th Congress, legislation was introduced to increase the mandatory airline pilot
retirement age from 65 to 67 (H.R. 8513, S. 4607) but was not enacted. Similar bills have been
introduced in the 118th Congress (H.R. 1761, S. 893).
Future Aviation Workforce Development
With regard to growing future pilot supply and ensuring a robust pipeline of civilian pilots,
legislation has focused on fostering aviation workforce development. The FAA Reauthorization
Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254, Section 625) authorized up to $5 million annually through FY2023 in

122 FAA, Denial of Exemption In the Matter of the Petition of Republic Airways, Inc., for an exemption from §
61.160(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Exemption No. 19419, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2022-0535, at
Regulations.gov.
123 “IATA Urges ICAO to Remove Pilot Age Limits,” Aero News Network, August 19, 2022, at http://www.aero-
news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=484c27c5-c198-4534-b55e-1b9c9fcb3f15.
124 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

37

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

grants to support aviation workforce development and the education of future aircraft pilots. It
includes an additional annual authorization of $5 million to support programs to foster and train
the future aviation maintenance workforce. The two programs were fully funded in FY2020
through FY2023 and a total of $10 million in grants were awarded each fiscal year. In the context
of future FAA reauthorization debate, Congress may seek to review the outcomes of these
programs and assess whether they should be reauthorized or potentially expanded or whether they
may need to be replaced with alternative initiatives and approaches to build the future pilot and
aviation maintenance technician workforce.
One particular potential source of future pilots and aviation maintainers is military veterans,
including those with no specific flight training who may have worked in aviation-related job
specialties while in the military or might otherwise have an interest in pursuing a career as a pilot
or aircraft mechanic.
From 2017 to 2020, the DOT’s Volpe Center conducted a demonstration project, called the Forces
to Flyers program. The program examined how additional financial support for flight training
beyond the limitations of GI Bill education assistance benefits provided by the Department of
Veterans Affairs could improve the accessibility and outcomes of civilian flight training pursued
by former military officers and enlisted personnel who were not trained as pilots by the military
but have an interest in pursuing a career as a civilian pilot.125 Participants in the program had a
high success rate in attaining commercial multiengine certifications under an accelerated timeline
(18 months). This program’s outcomes may suggest that additional grants or scholarships,
combined with structured flight training, could help propel aspiring veterans to careers as civilian
pilots.
The American Aviator Act (S. 4045, 117th Congress) proposed an authorization of $5 million
annually through FY2028 for the FAA to provide grants to certain approved pilot training schools
that have authorization to issue R-ATP certificates for flight training to supplement funding from
existing veterans’ education benefits. This or similar initiatives to provide financial resources and
support to veterans seeking training for pilot or aircraft mechanic certification may be considered
in the context of current FAA reauthorization debate.
Aviation Maintenance Training
The aviation industry has also raised concerns about the sufficiency of labor supply of aviation
maintenance technicians that service and repair aircraft, aircraft engines, avionics, and other
aircraft components. However, GAO has reported that both the overall pool of aircraft mechanics
and the number of new mechanic certificates issued has increased by 11%-12% from 2017 to
2022, reflecting an annualized growth rate of about 2%.126 Moreover, student enrollments at
aviation maintenance technical schools in the United States increased at a similar rate over that
period and consisted of about 21,000 students in total as of 2022. GAO conceded that uncertainty
regarding future demand for aviation maintenance workers makes it difficult to assess whether
these numbers will be sufficient to meet future workforce needs. While pay for aviation

125 Lora Chajka-Cadin and Catherine L. Taylor, “Forces to Flyers Pilot Training Demonstration Evaluation and
Research on Pilot Career Pathways, Final Report,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Volpe Center, December 2020,
DOT-VNTSC-OSTR-21-01, at Forces to Flyers Pilot Training Demonstration Evaluation and Research on Pilot Career
Pathways (bts.gov).
126 Government Accountability Office, Aviation Workforce: Supply of Airline Pilots and Aircraft Mechanics, Statement
of Heather Krouse, Director, Physical Infrastructure, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, GAO-23-106769, April 19, 2023.
Congressional Research Service

38

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

maintenance jobs has increased by about 12% between 2017 and 2022, airline employment has
declined by about 13%, according to GAO.
Factors contributing to the decline may include increasing numbers of retirements of airline
mechanics; competition from other industries for jobs requiring similar skills; lack of awareness
and negative public perceptions of aviation maintenance careers; lower wages compared to
skilled maintenance jobs in other industries; undesirable work conditions, such as late night
shifts, work in inclement weather, and exposure to various workplace hazards; and inadequate
training resources and facilities.
Moreover, GAO pointed out that the lack of diversity among aviation maintenance workers, as
well as pilots, factors into hiring shortfalls; GAO reported that stakeholders identified that the
industry has not historically been particularly successful in its efforts to recruit and retain students
from diverse backgrounds.127
The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 directed the FAA to update regulations to modernize
training programs at aviation maintenance technical schools. Similarly, Section 135 of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260) directed the FAA to adopt industry-backed
standards using an interim final rule. The FAA published the interim rule on May 24, 2022, with
an effective date of September 21, 2022.18 Under the new regulations, the FAA relies on the
Department of Education and national accrediting organizations to approve curricula,
instructional delivery, and other program details for each aviation maintenance training school,
while the FAA will continue to oversee facilities, equipment, and instructor qualifications.
Additionally, the FAA will retain responsibility for setting mechanic certification requirements,
which it plans to update, and will continuously assess student pass rates as a key performance-
based measure.
In the context of FAA reauthorization, Congress may consider legislative options to examine the
FAA’s implementation of these changes and possible future regulatory actions to move beyond
the interim final rule to final regulations governing the training environment and curriculum for
aviation maintenance technician schools. Congress may also consider additional options to
improve interest in aviation maintenance careers and integrate aviation maintenance technician
training and certification into high school and collegiate programs, as well as programs for
military servicemembers and veterans.
Airline Industry Issues
U.S. carriers have largely recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic-induced reduction in travel.
U.S. passenger airlines posted an 8% increase in operating revenues in 2022 compared with 2019.
In the first three months of 2023, passenger volume through airport TSA checkpoints was 0.6%
below the 2019 levels.128
The increasing air travel demand is likely to put pressure on airlines to add capacity and focus on
serving the metropolitan area hub airports. Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA), a
capacity-constrained large hub airport near Washington, DC, is under a federally imposed slot
control and perimeter rule that would require legislation to be enacted to grant additional slots
and exemptions for nonstop flights beyond the 1,250-mile perimeter.129 Starting in the 1960s, the

127 Ibid, p.12.
128 Airlines for America, The State of U.S. Commercial Aviation, updated April 20, 2023.
129 FAA limits the number of takeoffs and landings (slots) per hour because of congestion and delay at DCA. DCA is
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

39

link to page 46 link to page 46 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

federal government placed restrictions on flights to help manage congestion and delays and to
direct longer flights to Washington Dulles International Airport to spur growth there. There are
currently 40 daily beyond-perimeter flights (20 round trips) to and from DCA, including the 16
beyond-perimeter slot exemptions required as part of the 2012 FAA reauthorization, the latest
legislation that dealt with the DCA slots and perimeter rule.130 This issue is likely to be part of the
current FAA reauthorization.
The increasing air travel demand seemed to have strained airline operations and internal systems,
which led to increasing delays and cancellations in 2022 and well into 2023. Southwest Airlines’
extensive flight cancellations and significant delays over the December 2022 holiday period
disrupted travel and stranded numerous passengers.131 The carrier’s meltdown, initially caused by
winter storms, was compounded by an internal breakdown of its crew-scheduling system. The
severe disruptions and passenger frustration have drawn attention to federal airline consumer
protection rules and DOT’s authority in aviation consumer protections (discussed in the “Airline
Consumer Protection” section).
However, this air travel recovery appears to be uneven, as multiple small, nonhub airports have
experienced air service cuts or have lost air service entirely.132 Even communities in the Essential
Air Service (EAS) program that have been receiving federally subsidized air service could risk
losing service. On March 10, 2022, SkyWest Airlines notified DOT of its intent to terminate EAS
service at 29 communities, stating the pilot staffing challenges as the reason. Since then, DOT has
been having difficulty finding replacements; it has managed to secure replacement carriers for
about 11 of those communities while holding SkyWest to continue providing service to the rest
until replacement carriers take over.133
The SkyWest situation brought attention to DOT’s long-standing difficulties in finding enough air
carriers interested and able to cover the number of communities in the EAS program, as the
agency has been trying to make this highly regulated program work in a deregulated environment.
Congress may want to revisit the program and consider measures that would enable EAS to fulfill
its intended purposes more efficiently and effectively.

also subject to the 1,250-mile limit on the distance of nonstop flights to and from the airport, known as the perimeter
rule. For more information on DCA slots and the perimeter rule, including the historical and legislative context, see
Government Accountability Office, Reagan National Airport: Information on Effects of Federal Statute Limiting Long-
Distance Flights, GAO-21-176, November 2020, at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-176.
130 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, P.L. 112-95, Section 414.
131 Southwest Airlines disclosed in its regulatory filing on January 6, 2023, that it had cancelled more than 16,700
flights from December 21 through December 31.
132 Lori Aratani, “With routes slashed during pandemic, small airports are on shaky flight path,” Washington Post,
April 6, 2022, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/04/06/regional-airport-flights-commercial-
service/; WTOP News, “Smaller cities set to lose service as airlines pull back,” July 15, 2022, at https://wtop.com/
travel/2022/07/smaller-cities-set-to-lose-service-as-airlines-pull-back/; and Julie Weed, “Regional Airports Have Lost
A large Number of Flights,” New York Times, December 3, 2022, at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/23/travel/
airlines-cut-flights-regional-airports.html.
133 See DOT, 90-Day Notice of SkyWest Airlines, Inc.’s Intent to Terminate Essential Air Service, DOT-OST-2001-
10682-0259, March 10, 2022, at https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2001-10682-0259. Per CRS
discussion with DOT via email on March 6, 2023: SkyWest subsequently withdrew its notice at two communities;
DOT was able to find replacement carriers for 11 of those communities while SkyWest continues to service the rest per
DOT hold-in orders.
Congressional Research Service

40

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

Essential Air Service to Small Communities134
The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-504) gave airlines almost total freedom to
determine which domestic markets to serve and what airfares to charge. This raised concern that
communities with relatively low passenger levels would lose service as carriers shifted their
operations to serve larger and often more profitable markets. Congress established the EAS
program to help ensure a continuation of service to those small communities that were served by
certificated air carriers before deregulation, with subsidies if necessary. The EAS program is
administered by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, which determines the minimum
level of service required at each eligible community by specifying
• a hub through which the community is linked to the national network;
• a minimum number of round trips and available seats that must be provided to
that hub;
• certain characteristics of the aircraft to be used; and
• the maximum permissible number of intermediate stops to the hub.
Over the years, Congress has limited the scope of the program, mostly by eliminating subsidy
support for communities within a reasonable driving distance of a major hub airport. The FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 adopted additional EAS reform measures, including
Section 421, which amended the definition of an “EAS eligible place”135 to require a minimum
number of daily enplanements. The 2018 FAA reauthorization did not significantly alter the EAS
program.
Under the 2012 act, for locations to remain EAS-eligible, they must have participated in the EAS
program at any time between September 30, 2010, and September 30, 2011. An EAS-eligible
place is now defined as a community that, during this period, either received EAS for which
compensation was paid under the EAS program or received from the incumbent carrier a 90-day
notice of intent to terminate EAS following which DOT required it to continue providing service
to the community (known as “holding in” the carrier). Since October 1, 2012, no new
communities may enter the program should they lose their unsubsidized service, except for
locations in Alaska or Hawaii.
Communities eligible for EAS in FY2011 remain eligible for EAS subsidies if136
• they are located more than 70 miles from the nearest large or medium hub
airport;
• they require a rate of subsidy per passenger of $200 or less, unless the
community is more than 210 miles from the nearest hub airport;
• the average rate of subsidy per passenger is less than $1,000 during the most
recent fiscal year at the end of each EAS contract, regardless of the distance from
hub airport; and
• they have an average of 10 or more enplanements per service day during the most
recent fiscal year beginning after September 30, 2012, unless these locations are

134 See CRS Report R44176, Essential Air Service (EAS), by Rachel Y. Tang.
135 49 U.S.C. §41731.
136 The Department of Transportation Appropriations Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-69), Section 332, enacted the 70-mile rule
and the $200-per-passenger subsidy rule.
Congressional Research Service

41

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

more than 175 driving miles from the nearest medium or large hub airport or
unless DOT is satisfied that any decline below 10 enplanements is temporary.
These limitations apply to the contiguous 48 states and Puerto Rico. EAS communities in Alaska
and Hawaii are exempt from these requirements.
EAS Funding and Subsidies
The EAS program is funded through mandatory annual transfers of overflight fees paid to the
FAA by foreign aircraft that fly through U.S. airspace but do not land in the country,
supplemented by discretionary appropriations from the aviation trust fund. During the COVID-19
pandemic, EAS received additional appropriations from the Treasury general fund—$56 million
in FY2020 under the CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) and $23.332 million under the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260).
DOT currently subsidizes air service to serve more than 170 communities that otherwise would
not receive any scheduled commercial air service. At the end of FY2022, DOT was providing
subsidies of over $424 million for service at about 111 communities in the contiguous 48 states,
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico and 61 communities in Alaska. EAS funding for FY2023 is estimated to
continue growing to over $491 million, with nearly $137 million from overflight fees and over
$354 million from discretionary appropriations.137
Policy Enforcement and Issues
Since 2014, DOT has issued multiple tentative orders announcing its intention to enforce the
statutory EAS program criteria. Dozens of communities were determined to have failed to meet
one or two statutory eligibility criteria required to remain in the program—the $200-per-
passenger subsidy cap for communities within 210 miles of the nearest medium or large hub and
the minimum of 10 enplanements per day. Most of these communities filed for and received
waivers, which kept them eligible to received subsidized EAS. A very small number of these
communities had their eligibility terminated. These waivers not only contributed to rising
program costs but also missed the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of applying the criteria
had they been carried out.
These program criteria are not being enforced through FY2023. Concerned about COVID-19-
related impact on EAS communities, Congress instructed DOT in multiple appropriations acts not
to apply the eligibility criteria—the per-passenger subsidy cap and 10-enplanement minimum
requirement—as a requirement for communities to remain eligible from FY2020 through
FY2023.138
Airline Consumer Protection139
The 1978 deregulation of the airline industry in the United States eliminated federal control over
many airline business practices, including pricing and domestic route selection. However, the
federal government continues to legislate and enforce certain consumer protections for airline

137 EAS funding update via email from DOT on March 5, 2023.
138 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103);
and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, (P.L. 117-328).
139 See CRS Report R43078, Airline Passenger Rights: The Federal Role in Aviation Consumer Protection, by Rachel
Y. Tang.
Congressional Research Service

42

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

passengers. Congress largely determines the degree to which the rights of airline passengers are
codified in law or developed through DOT rulemaking.
The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation are the primary congressional committees of jurisdiction
over airline passenger rights. Congress can authorize or require DOT to enact rules on certain
issues, and it can enact requirements for airlines through direct legislation. In specific cases, DOT
may take enforcement actions against air carriers that violate consumer protection rules.
Most of DOT’s consumer rules are based on 49 U.S.C. §41712, which directs it to “protect
consumers from unfair or deceptive practices.” Some are based on DOT’s authority to require air
carriers in interstate transportation to provide “safe and adequate service” (49 U.S.C. §41702).
The interpretation of the phrase “unfair or deceptive” can significantly affect the scope of DOT’s
enforcement authority.
DOT Notices of Proposed Rulemaking
On March 28, 2022, DOT published an NPRM, Accessible Lavatories on Single-Aisle Aircraft,
which addresses certain accessibility issues for passengers with disabilities.140 This proposed rule
would require airlines to ensure that at least one lavatory on new single-aisle aircraft with 125 or
more passenger seats is large enough to permit a passenger with a disability to approach, enter,
and maneuver within the aircraft lavatory, as necessary; to use all lavatory facilities; and to leave
by means of the aircraft’s on-board wheelchair.
On August 22, 2022, DOT issued an NPRM, Airline Ticket Refunds and Consumer Protections,
that proposes to
• codify its long-standing interpretation that it is an unfair business practice for an
airline or a ticket agent to refuse to provide requested refunds to consumers when
a carrier has cancelled or made a significant change to a scheduled flight and
consumers found the alternative transportation offered to be unacceptable;
• define the terms significant change and cancellation;
• require airlines and ticket agents to inform consumers that they are entitled to a
refund if that is the case before making an offer for travel credits, vouchers, or
other compensation in lieu of refunds;
• require that airlines and ticket agents provide nonexpiring travel vouchers or
credits to consumers holding nonrefundable tickets for scheduled flights to, from,
or within the United States who are unable to travel as scheduled in certain
circumstances related to a serious communicable disease; and
• require airlines and ticket agents to provide refunds, in lieu of nonexpiring travel
vouchers or credits, if they received significant financial assistance from the
government because of a public health emergency. 141
On October 20, 2022, DOT initiated an NPRM, Enhancing Transparency of Airline Ancillary
Service Fees, which proposes to

140 See DOT, “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Accessible Lavatories on Single-Aisle Aircraft: Part 2,” DOT-OST-
2021-0137, March 18, 2022, at https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2021-0137-0001.
141 See DOT, “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Airline Ticket Refunds and Consumer Protections,” DOT-OST-2022-
0089, August 3, 2022, at https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2022-0089-0004.
Congressional Research Service

43

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

• require airlines and ticket agents to clearly disclose passenger-specific or
itinerary-specific baggage fees, change fees, and cancellation fees whenever fare
and schedule information is provided to consumers;
• require airlines and ticket agents to clearly disclose passenger-specific or
itinerary-specific fees for adjacent seating whenever fare and schedule
information is provided to consumers traveling with young children; and
• require that airlines provide useable, current, and accurate information regarding
baggage fees, change fees, cancellation fees, and adjacent seating fees, if any, to
ticket agents that sell or display the carrier’s fare and schedule information. 142
Congress could consider codifying or modifying these regulations during the FAA
reauthorization.
Unruly Airline Passengers
FAA regulations prohibit interference with flight and cabin crewmembers. Specifically, 14 C.F.R.
§§91.11, 121.580, and 135.120 state that “no person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere
with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties aboard an aircraft being
operated.” Per 49 U.S.C. §46318, the FAA has the express authority to fine individuals who
assault or threaten crewmembers or any other individual onboard an aircraft or who take any
action that poses an imminent threat to the aircraft or people onboard. Language in the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254) increased the maximum civil penalty for such
violations from $25,000 to $35,000. This penalty is adjusted annually for inflation and effective
January 6, 2023, was set at $42,287 per violation.143 The FAA notes that one incident could result
in multiple violations. The act also expanded the scope of the statute to include sexual assault in
addition to physical assault.
Furthermore, 49 U.S.C. §46504 authorizes criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment
up to 20 years, for assaulting or intimidating pilots or flight attendants and thereby interfering
with the performance of their official duties. Stiffer penalties are available when the prohibited
conduct involves use of a dangerous weapon. It is up to DOJ to prosecute disruptive or violent
passengers.
Regarding incidents at commercial airports in the United States, 49 U.S.C. §46503 establishes
criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment up to 10 years, for assaults against federal,
airport, or air carrier employees with security duties, when the assault interferes with these duties.
As with Section 46504, additional penalties are available for prohibited conduct involving a
dangerous weapon. Depending on circumstances, Section 46503 may encompass incidents
directed at airline and airport employees, including airline customer service agents, airport
security contractors, and airport law enforcement officers, as well as TSA screeners.
Regarding serving alcohol to passengers, 49 U.S.C. §44734 requires airline flight attendant
training to include training to recognize intoxicated passengers, deal with disruptive passengers,
and recognize and respond to potential human trafficking victims. It also requires situational
training “on the proper method for dealing with intoxicated passengers who act in a belligerent
manner.”

142 See DOT, Enhancing Transparency of Airline Ancillary Service Fees, DOT-OST-2022-0109, at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2022-0109.
143 FAA, “Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts,” 88 Federal Register 1114-1132, January 6, 2023.
Congressional Research Service

44

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

Additionally, 49 U.S.C. §44918 mandates that air carriers provide a training program for flight
and cabin crew primarily aimed at protecting and defending against terrorist threats. This training
must cover recognition of suspicious activities, crew communication and coordination, self-
defense, and situational training exercises regarding various threat conditions. The statute also
requires TSA to offer, free of charge, voluntary advanced self-defense training to airline flight and
cabin crewmembers that includes training in techniques to deter a passenger who might present a
threat; self-defense; and methods to subdue an attacker.
In response to growing concerns over unruly passengers, the FAA launched the “Zero Tolerance
for Unruly and Dangerous Behavior Toolkit” in 2021, which includes airport signage, internet-
based messaging, and public service announcements aimed at increasing awareness about
enforcement actions to deter unruly behavior. Overall, unruly passenger conduct in the first five
months of 2023 has dropped by almost 70% compared to the same period in 2021.144 Despite
these efforts, the FAA noted that since late 2021, it has referred over 250 serious incidents of
unruly passenger conduct to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).145 The Protection from
Abusive Passengers Act (H.R. 2394; S. 1058) seeks to establish a process for banning unruly
fliers, reported by the FAA or DOJ to the TSA, from commercial airline flights.
Aviation and the Environment
It is within the FAA’s purview, in coordination and consultation with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), to regulate and mitigate the environmental impacts of aviation and take
actions to address air transportation noise and emissions.146 The FAA’s goals include reducing the
number of people exposed to significant noise around U.S. airports, reducing significant air
quality impacts from aviation, and improving the efficiency of air transportation, in part, by
increasing the utilization of sustainable aviation fuels.147
Aircraft Noise
FAA regulations set noise limits for aircraft certification. During the aircraft certification process,
sound levels are measured under three conditions: (1) full-power takeoff; (2) flyover; and (3)
approach. A normalization procedure, called the Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL), is used
to account for tones and sound duration. The sum of these three measurements must be below the
noise certification standard for that particular aircraft, which depends on its maximum takeoff
weight and the number of engines. Noise certification standards, referred to as stages, have
become more stringent over the years as engine and airframe noise reduction technology has
improved. Aircraft produced in the late 1960s through 1975 had to meet Stage 2 noise standards.
In the mid-1970s, the FAA set more stringent Stage 3 criteria for new aircraft and aircraft engines,
which became mandatory for all new jet airplanes by the late 1980s. Noisier Stage 2 airplanes
were gradually phased out and were completely banned from routine operation in U.S. airspace
by 2016. In 2005, the FAA promulgated Stage 4 standards, which mandated a cumulative

144 FAA, “Unruly Passenger Statistics,” at https://www.faa.gov/unruly.
145 FAA, “FAA Refers More Unruly Passenger Case to FBI in 2023,” April 13, 2023, at https://www.faa.gov/
newsroom/faa-refers-more-unruly-passenger-cases-fbi-2023.
146 Notably, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA. 42 U.S. Code §§4321 et seq.), and special purpose
environmental laws and regulations, require environmental impact analyses of proposed airport actions that are subject
to FAA decision. Additionally, 42 U.S.C. §7571 requires the EPA to consult with the FAA on aircraft engine emissions
standards, and 49 U.S.C. §44715 requires FAA to control and abate aircraft noise and sonic boom and consider related
regulatory proposals from the EPA.
147 FAA, Office of Environment and Energy, at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aee.
Congressional Research Service

45

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

reduction of 10 EPNLdB across the three measurement conditions compared with Stage 3, and in
2017, the FAA adopted Stage 5 standards requiring a further cumulative reduction of 7 EPNLdB
below Stage 4 standards. Since these standards apply to new aircraft designs only, it usually takes
several years for operational noise levels to noticeably decrease as airline fleets are replaced.
To describe noise levels in communities, aircraft noise is modeled based on flight operations
across an average busy day for an airport or flight route. Noise events are aggregated over the 24-
hour period, and penalties of 10 dB are added to nighttime flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The
resulting single descriptor of the noise environment is known as the day-night average sound
level (DNL). Since the 1970s, community reaction to aircraft noise levels has been described in
terms of annoyance response measured through community surveys. Based on analyses of
annoyance response as a function of DNL, the FAA has developed recommendations regarding
acceptable land uses. The FAA concluded that strong community reaction to aircraft noise levels
is likely above 65 DNL and advises that residential land use is generally not suitable for locations
above this level.
Efforts to reduce aircraft noise impacts to communities focus on three key strategies: (1) quieting
noise sources, such as aircraft engines and airframes; (2) increasing the distance between aircraft
and communities through land use planning and noise abatement procedures; and (3) attenuating
sound along the transmission path through means such as “soundproofing” homes by installing
heavier insulation and thicker, double-paned windows. Although land use planning is largely a
local government issue, the FAA provides advisory guidance on compatible land uses. It also
provides federal funding to mitigate noise in impacted residential communities using Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) funds set aside for environmental mitigation. This funding pays for
sound insulation in homes and, in some cases, purchases of homes in areas highly impacted by
aircraft noise. This is sometimes done in conjunction with major airport expansions such as
runway lengthening or the addition of a new runway that creates new noise impacts to nearby
residential communities. Historically, Congress has addressed airport noise concerns by setting
aside 35% of discretionary funding under the AIP for noise mitigation and abatement. Generally,
these funds may be used only within the 65 DNL-noise-impact area around an airport. The
combination of these three approaches has led to a significant reduction in the residential
population exposed to aircraft noise levels above 65 DNL over the past four decades, despite
considerable growth in air traffic.148
As part of the NextGen effort, the FAA is establishing new approach and departure patterns at
airports to implement precision navigation capabilities. The FAA refers to these procedures as
Performance Based Navigation (PBN). To implement PBN in complex airspace around major
metropolitan areas, the FAA is conducting a number of projects under its “metroplex” program, a
contraction of “metropolitan” and “complexes” that describes very large metropolitan areas, often
consisting of two or more cities. A process the FAA calls Optimization of Airspace and
Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM) integrates NextGen procedural changes in a comprehensive
plan to reconfigure flight patterns and air traffic operations in a manner intended to make the best
use of NextGen precision navigation and aircraft tracking capabilities. In planning each
metroplex airspace reconfiguration, the FAA prepares an environmental assessment allowing for
input from communities that may be affected by proposed changes to flight patterns. Currently
there are 11 metroplex projects in various stages of study and implementation. The FAA reversed
an earlier airspace restructuring it had implemented in Phoenix, AZ, following numerous noise
complaints, criticism regarding limited community involvement in the process, and legal action
challenging implementation of the flight path changes. The FAA previously implemented a major

148 See CRS Report R46920, Federal Airport Noise Regulations and Programs, by Rachel Y. Tang.
Congressional Research Service

46

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

airspace redesign separate from its metroplex program in the New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia
region, which has also faced considerable community criticism. Some other major metropolitan
areas and airports, including Chicago, Boston, and Seattle, are not being considered under formal
FAA metroplex implementation plans but have faced community concerns about flight path
changes associated with NextGen implementation to varying degrees.
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95) included language allowing the
FAA to proceed with the lowest level of environmental review, known as a categorical exclusion.
Following backlash from this approach, particularly in Phoenix, Congress reexamined how the
FAA was conducting its noise analyses and engaging with communities regarding its metroplex
projects. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254) mandated that the FAA complete
its review of alternatives to DNL and 65 DNL guidelines. The legislation directed the FAA to
study the potential health and economic impacts of aircraft noise on communities and to assess
whether aircraft approach and takeoff speed restrictions could reduce noise impacts without
affecting flight safety. It also required the FAA to allow airports to request changes to departure
patterns and flight track variations to reduce the concentration of flight paths over certain
neighborhoods due to PBN, improve its community engagement practices, and appoint regional
noise ombudsmen to liaise with communities impacted by noise stemming from NextGen
changes. FAA officials testified in September 2019 that the agency was working to meet these
requirements.149
As NextGen transitions to full-scale operations, concerns over community noise from new flight
patterns may limit the extent to which NextGen improves airspace utilization and efficiency. As
part of the NextGen effort, the 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. Some of
these changes have increased overflights above communities that previously experienced
relatively little aircraft noise, triggering resident complaints. The FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018 included provisions directing the FAA to review its community engagement practices,
appoint regional noise ombudsmen, and assess the use of dispersed headings and lateral track
variations to approach and departure paths at airports that request such analyses. The legislation
also instructed the FAA to complete a study assessing alternative ways to gauge aircraft noise
impacts, but the FAA has largely concluded that its existing assessment methods are appropriate
while acknowledging that supplementary noise metrics may be helpful to support public
understanding of community noise effects.150 A 2021 FAA-sponsored study found that
communities around U.S. airports are much less tolerant of aircraft noise than policies based on
decades-old research.151 This suggests that the FAA will continue to grapple with community
noise concerns as it expands capacity and reconfigures airspace to improve efficiency utilizing
NextGen capabilities. In the context of FAA reauthorization, Congress may consider whether
FAA noise policies and its practices for assessing noise impacts around airports and under flight
paths should be updated to reflect apparent changes in community tolerance of aircraft noise as
indicated by the 2021 study.

149 See CRS In Focus IF11420, Aircraft Noise and Air Traffic Control Modernization, by Bart Elias.
150 FAA, Report to Congress, FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254), Section 188 and Sec 173, April 14,
2020, at https://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/congress/media/Day-
Night_Average_Sound_Levels_COMPLETED_report_w_letters.pdf.
151 Nicholas P. Miller et al., Analysis of the Neighborhood Environmental Survey, Final Report, DOT, DOT/FAA/TC-
21/4, February 2021, at https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Products/Airport-Safety-Papers-Publications/Airport-Safety-
Detail/ArtMID/3682/ArticleID/2845/TC-21-4-Analysis-of-NES.
Congressional Research Service

47

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

National Parks and Air Tour Management152
The statutory and regulatory framework for conducting air tours over national parks has been of
ongoing interest to Congress. The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Air Tour
Act) governs commercial air tours over most units of the National Park System as well as tribal
lands within or abutting park units.153 The Air Tour Act required the FAA and the National Park
Service (NPS) to create air tour management plans (ATMPs) for sites at which operators apply to
conduct commercial air tours.154 Each plan could prohibit or limit air tours, such as by route and
altitude restrictions.155 The purpose of a plan is to mitigate or prevent any harm commercial air
tours may cause to natural and cultural resources, visitor experiences, and tribal lands.
Development of an ATMP requires environmental review under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).156
Under the law and its implementing regulations, the FAA received applications to conduct
commercial air tours at more than 100 parks and/or tribal units.157 However, development of
ATMPs for these sites proceeded more slowly than expected after the law’s 2000 enactment, and
through 2021, no ATMPs had been completed. During this period, some air tour operators still
could continue activities under interim operating authorities provided in the act.158 Also during
this period, the 112th Congress enacted broad aviation legislation, the FAA Modernization and
Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95), with provisions amending the Air Tour Act to streamline
agency actions, in part because of the slow progress in completing ATMPs. These provisions
specified that, in lieu of an ATMP, the NPS Director and the FAA Administrator may enter into a
voluntary agreement with a commercial air tour operator that would govern commercial air tours
over a park unit.159 P.L. 112-95 also exempted park units with 50 or fewer annual air tour flights
from the requirement to establish an ATMP or voluntary agreement.160 As of February 2023, the

152 Laura B. Comay, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, contributed this section.
153 P.L. 106-181, Title VIII (49 U.S.C. §40128). The Air Tour Act does not apply to Grand Canyon National Park,
tribal lands in or abutting Grand Canyon National Park, or air routes over Lake Mead National Recreation Area used
solely for air tours over Grand Canyon National Park (49 U.S.C. §40128(e) and (f)). An earlier law, the National Parks
Overflight Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-91), and subsequent statutes contained provisions specific to Grand Canyon National
Park. For more information, see CRS Report R42955, Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands, by Laura
B. Comay, Carol Hardy Vincent, and Kristina Alexander, section on “Site-Specific Conflict: Grand Canyon National
Park.”
154 49 U.S.C. §40128(b)(1)(A). The requirement covers commercial air tours over National Park System units, tribal
lands within or abutting a unit, and areas within a half-mile of a unit’s borders (with exceptions described in the
previous footnote).
155 49 U.S.C. §40128(b)(3).
156 42 U.S.C. §§4321-4370f.
157 FAA, “Supplement to Notice of Interim Operating Authority Granted to Commercial Air Tour Operators Over
National Parks and Tribal Lands Within or Abutting National Parks,” 70 Federal Register 58778, October 7, 2005. The
FAA’s implementing regulations are at 14 C.F.R. §136.37. Also see FAA, “Act Requirements—Air Tour Management
Plan,” at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ara/programs/air_tour_management_plan/
more_tour_management_plan.
158 49 U.S.C. §40128(c). The interim authority is available specifically to “existing” commercial air tour operators who
were “actively engaged in the business of providing commercial air tour operations over a national park” in the year
proceeding the 2000 enactment of the Air Tour Act (49 U.S.C. §40128(g)(2)).
159 P.L. 112-95, Title V, Section 501(c). Voluntary agreements may contain conditions for the conduct of commercial
air tours (e.g., regarding routes, altitudes, or time-of-day restrictions), provide for air tour fees, and provide incentives
for the adoption of quiet aircraft technology, among other conditions. After an opportunity for public review and
consultation with any tribes whose lands may be flown over, a voluntary agreement may be implemented “without
further administrative or environmental process.”
160 P.L. 112-95, Title V, Section 501(b).
Congressional Research Service

48

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

agencies reported that 54 park units with air tours were exempted from requirements to establish
an ATMP or voluntary agreement because they had fewer than 50 annual flights.161
A 2020 court order required the FAA and the NPS to file a plan that would enable the agencies to
bring 23 eligible parks into compliance with the Air Tour Act in two years, or to provide specific
reasons why compliance would take longer.162 In 2022, the agencies completed 10 ATMPs
covering Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Death
Valley National Park, Glacier Bay National Park, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Mount
Rainier National Park, Natural Bridges National Monument, Olympic National Park, and the San
Francisco Bay Area parks.163 In the first half of 2023, the agencies completed voluntary
agreements with operators at the Statue of Liberty National Monument and Governors Island
National Monument.164 The agencies also released draft ATMPs for four parks (Haleakala
National Park, Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park, Mount Rushmore National Memorial, and
Badlands National Park), several of which propose to significantly curtail or eliminate authority
for air tours at the parks.165 Planning also is in progress for a number of other units.166
Congress has conducted oversight and considered legislation related to the agencies’ progress on
ATMPs and voluntary agreements, and related to park overflights more generally. Some
stakeholders seek to limit or prohibit commercial air tours over national parks owing to concerns
about noise, resource protection, and safety, while others advocate for greater flexibility for air
tour operators whose economic stability may depend on providing overflights and whose business
may contribute to local economies. In the 118th Congress, H.R. 1071 proposes a prohibition on
commercial air tours over national parks as well as certain other protected areas. H.R. 2613
proposes amending the Air Tour Act to require that voluntary agreements address the “wellbeing”
of communities that fall under park air tour flight routes.

161 FAA, “Air Tour Management Plans: Frequently Asked Questions,” February 2023, at https://www.faa.gov/about/
officeorg/headquartersoffices/ara/air-tour-management-plans-frequently-asked-questions. The number of exempted
parks may change from year to year based on changes by operators in the numbers of air tours flown. The NPS Director
also can withdraw an exemption in order to protect park resources and values or visitor use and enjoyment. Exemptions
have been withdrawn for Mount Rainier National Park, Death Valley National Park, Canyon de Chelly National
Monument, and Muir Woods National Monument.
162 In re Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, 957 F.3d 267 (D.C. Cir. 2020). For more information, see
FAA, “Air Tour Management Plan,” at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ara/programs/
air_tour_management_plan. Under the court order, the agencies also must submit quarterly updates on their progress.
163 Links to the plans are available from FAA at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ara/
programs/air_tour_management_plan; and from NPS at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sound/airtours.htm. The San
Francisco Bay Area parks include Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, San
Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, and Point Reyes National Seashore.
164 Ibid. Prior to the court order, NPS and FAA also had completed voluntary agreements with air tour operators at Big
Cypress National Preserve and Biscayne National Park, and with some (but not all) operators at Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area and Rainbow Bridge National Monument. As discussed, no ATMPs had been completed prior to the
court order.
165 Ibid. This information is current as of June 1, 2023. In particular, the draft plan for Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park
proposes to reduce air tours from a 2017-2019 annual average of 11,376 commercial air tours to an authorized 1,565
tours annually. For Mt. Rushmore National Memorial (2017-2019 annual average 3,914 tours) and Badlands National
Park (2017-2019 annual average 1,425 tours), air tours over the park or within one-half mile of the park’s boundary
would be prohibited altogether.
166 Additional parks with plans in progress include Bandelier National Monument, Canyon de Chelly National
Monument, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Mount Rushmore National
Memorial, and Rainbow Bridge National Monument. FAA, “Air Tour Management Plans: Frequently Asked
Questions,” February 2023, at https://www.faa.gov/about/officeorg/headquartersoffices/ara/air-tour-management-plans-
frequently-asked-questions.
Congressional Research Service

49

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

FAA Actions Regarding Aircraft Emissions
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 directs the EPA to establish air pollution standards, including
those applicable to aircraft exhaust. The FAA, in consultation with EPA, regulates the emissions
of gas turbine (jet) engines, including allowable limits for exhaust smoke, hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, and nitrogen oxides.167
In 2010, the FAA launched the Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN)
program, a partnership program with industry to foster advances in aircraft emissions reductions
as well as reduced noise and improved fuel efficiency. Section 743 of the FAA Reauthorization
Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254) specifically recognized the CLEEN program and directed the FAA to
enter into cost-sharing cooperative agreements using a competitive process and to set specific
performance objectives for the program regarding reduced fuel burn, emissions, and noise. Since
its inception, the program has progressed through three five-year phases, each with specific
quantitative goals for reductions in aircraft noise, fuel burn, and emissions levels of nitrous oxides
and nonvolatile particulates for progressively reducing environmental impacts beyond established
international standards. Industry partners participating in the CLEEN program must agree to
match federal funding. Through the first two phases of CLEEN from 2010 to 2020, the FAA
provided $225 million in funding while industry partners, generally consisting of large engine and
aircraft manufacturers, contributed $388 million.168
In addition to CLEEN, the FAA supports advancement in aircraft emissions reductions and
reductions in other environmental impacts of aviation through its Center of Excellence for
Alternative Jet Fuels and the Environment, also known as the Aviation Sustainability Center or
ASCENT. ASCENT is a cooperative research consortium led by Washington State University and
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that receives funding from the FAA, EPA, NASA, and
DOD. Its research is focused on meeting the environmental and energy goals of the NextGen
system, including reducing noise, improving air quality, reducing climate impacts, and energy
efficiency; exploring commercial-scale sustainable aviation fuel production; and exploring
science-based solutions to benefit the aviation industry and improve the health and quality of life
of those living and working around airports.169 In 2017, ASCENT replaced the Partnership for Air
Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) to carry on research and
development to address existing and anticipated aviation noise and emissions challenges.
In November 2021, the FAA published the United States Aviation Climate Action Plan addressing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, from
aviation sources.170 The plan sets a goal of net-zero GHG emissions from aviation sources in the
United States, including all domestic flights and all international flights to and from U.S. airports,
by 2050. The plan endeavors to achieve this objective through operational improvements in air
traffic management and supporting infrastructure, a transition to sustainable aviation fuel (SAF),
participating in international market-based mechanisms and standards to incentivize investment in
more efficient and sustainable aircraft technologies, and initiatives to reduce carbon emissions
from airport operations and infrastructure. These options are discussed in further detail below.

167 See 14 C.F.R. Part 34, Fuel Venting and Exhaust Emission Requirements for Turbine Engine Powered Airplanes.
168 FAA, “Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) Program,” at https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/
continuous-lower-energy-emissions-and-noise-cleen-program.
169 See “ASCENT—The Aviation Sustainability Center,” at https://ascent.aero/.
170 FAA, United States 2021 Aviation Climate Action Plan, November 9, 2021, at https://www.faa.gov/sustainability/
aviation-climate-action-plan.
Congressional Research Service

50

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Standards and Offsetting Schemes171
The EPA, in consultation with the FAA, sets emission levels for specified pollutants from aircraft
in accordance with Section 231 of the Clean Air Act.172 Aircraft emission standards currently exist
for fuel venting and engine hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and
carbon dioxide (CO2). The standard-setting language under CAA Section 231 is similar to the
statutory language for other mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, buses). As opposed to its regulation
of other vehicle emissions, the EPA must meet additional statutory requirements for aircraft and
aircraft engines: (1) the EPA Administrator must consult with the Administrator of the FAA and
the Secretary of Transportation in developing emission standards; (2) the EPA Administrator
cannot change standards if doing so would “significantly increase noise and adversely affect
safety”; and (3) the President may disapprove any such standards if the Secretary of
Transportation finds that they “would create a hazard to aircraft safety.” CAA Section 232
requires the FAA to enforce the standards at the time a newly manufactured engine is certified for
emissions.173
Due to the global nature of the commercial aircraft industry and its customer base, the EPA has
generally regulated emissions from aircraft only after the United States has negotiated an
international agreement through the ICAO.174 In March 2017, ICAO adopted international CO2
standards for newly developed commercial aircraft engines to begin in 2020.175 In accordance
with the ICAO negotiations and the CAA, EPA promulgated GHG emission standards for aircraft
engines equivalent to the CO2 standards adopted by the ICAO.176
Additionally, ICAO member states agreed on a Market-Based Mechanism (MBM) for offsetting
future carbon emissions from aviation, referred to as the “Carbon Offsetting and Reduction
Scheme for International Aviation” (CORSIA). CORSIA is to address “any annual increase in
total CO2 emissions from international civil aviation (i.e., civil aviation flights that depart in one
country and arrive in a different country) above the 2020 levels, taking into account special
circumstances and respective capabilities.”177 The program relies on the use of emissions units
from carbon markets to offset the amount of CO2 emissions that cannot be reduced through the
use of sustainable aviation fuels or technological and operational improvements. CORSIA began
in 2021, and participation is voluntary through 2026. The U.S. aviation industry agreed to
participate during ICAO negotiations. To fulfill the U.S. commitments under the Chicago

171 Richard K. Lattanzio, Specialist in Environmental Policy, contributed this section.
172 42 U.S.C. §7571; 40 C.F.R. Part 87, “Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and Aircraft Engines.”
173 42 U.S.C. §7572; 14 C.F.R. Part 34, “Fuel Venting and Exhaust Emission Requirements for Turbine Engine
Powered Airplanes.”
174 ICAO is a United Nations specialized agency established in 1944 to manage the administration and governance of
the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention), including environmental standards, to which
the United States is a member state. ICAO has no direct regulatory or enforcement authority. After member states agree
to a negotiated set of international standards, they implement these standards through their own domestic laws and
regulatory processes.
175 ICAO, Resolution A39-2: “Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to
environmental protection—Climate change.”
176 EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from Airplanes and Airplane Engines: GHG Emission Standards and Test
Procedures,” 86 Federal Register 2136, January 11, 2021.
177 ICAO, Resolution A39-3: “Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to
environmental protection—Global Market-based Measure (MBM) Scheme.” Due to the effects of the Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on 2020 air travel and emission levels, ICAO adopted Resolution A41-22, which
establishes adjustments to the definition of the CORSIA baseline as follows: for the pilot phase (2021-2023), the total
CO2 emissions covered by CORSIA in 2019; and for the first and second phases (2024-2035), 85% of the total CO2
emissions covered by CORSIA in 2019.
Congressional Research Service

51

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

Convention with respect to the MBM, the FAA implemented the CORSIA Monitoring, Reporting,
and Verification Program in 2019.178 Whether and what additional authorities would be needed by
EPA and FAA to “issue proposed emission standards” for CORSIA’s mandatory trading scheme
beginning in 2027 remains under consideration.
Sustainable Aviation Fuels179
Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is generally regarded as a drop-in fuel “derived from renewable
or waste-based feedstocks that, relative to petroleum-based fuels, provide reduced carbon dioxide
emissions.”180 Some in Congress and the Administration, as well as some industry and
stakeholder organizations, actively support the adoption of SAF for multiple reasons, including
environmental reasons (e.g., greenhouse gas emission reduction for the aviation sector) and
economic reasons (e.g., new market for biomass feedstock).181 In general, SAF can be blended up
to 50% by volume with conventional jet fuel.182 EPA reports that nearly 7.9 million gallons of
renewable jet fuel were produced domestically in 2022.183
Both Congress and the executive branch have taken recent measures to support SAF. For
instance, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA; P.L. 117-169) established a new SAF tax
credit (26 U.S.C. §40B) effective for 2023 and 2024. SAF will qualify for the new clean fuel
production tax credit (26 U.S.C. §45Z), when that provision becomes effective in 2025. The IRA
also established a competitive grant program at DOT to support “projects located in the United
States that produce, transport, blend, or store sustainable aviation fuel, or develop, demonstrate,
or apply low-emission aviation technologies” (49 U.S.C. §44504 note).184 In 2021, the Biden
Administration announced the new Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge with a goal to
produce 3 billion gallons of SAF by 2030, among other things.185 In addition, the private sector
has announced SAF purchase agreements, an airline-coordinated SAF fund, and the incorporation
of SAF in plans to reach net-zero commitments.186
Congress may consider certain items as it oversees current SAF initiatives and if it debates
changes to legislative support for SAF. For example, there is an ongoing discussion about SAF
lifecycle GHG emission reductions, including which method to use, what reporting measurements

178 FAA, “FAA’s CORSIA Monitoring, Reporting & Verification Program,” 84 Federal Register 9412, March 14,
2019.
179 Kelsi Bracmort, Specialist in Natural Resources and Energy Policy, contributed this section.
180 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), FAQ: Sustainable Aviation Fuels, March 22, 2023. Drop-in fuels are
interchangeable with petroleum fuels and can be used with existing fuel infrastructure.
181 For more information on SAF, see CRS Report R47171, Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF): In Brief, by Kelsi
Bracmort and Molly F. Sherlock.
182 DOE, Sustainable Aviation Fuel: Review of Technical Pathways, DOE/EE–204, September 2020.
183 EPA, “RINs Generated Transactions,” at https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/
rins-generated-transactions. The 2022 production volume is for jet fuel registered for the Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS) program. Compliant fuels for the RFS include transportation fuel, heating oil, and jet fuel. For more information
on the RFS, see CRS Report R43325, The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): An Overview, by Kelsi Bracmort.
184 For more information, see Federal Aviation Administration, IRA Section 40007 FAST-SAF and FAST-Tech Grant
Program, December 14, 2022.
185 The White House, FACT SHEET: Biden Administration Advances the Future of Sustainable Fuels in American
Aviation, September 9, 2021. The three principal agencies involved in the SAF Grand Challenge are DOE, the U.S.
Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. For more information, see DOE, Memorandum
of Understanding Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge, September 8, 2021.
186 For more information, see Delta, “Delta’s deal with Gevo pushes SAF goal forward,” press release, March 22, 2022;
Amrith Ramkumar, “United Airlines Creates Fund for Sustainable Aviation Fuel,” Wall Street Journal, February 20,
2023; and Boeing, “Boeing Takes New Role to Help Cut Aviation Emissions Faster,” press release, August 8, 2022.
Congressional Research Service

52

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

to use, what benchmark to use, and what components to include. Another item Congress may
consider is biomass feedstock availability, competition, and cost. Further, Congress may consider
the amount of time and level of financial support it wants to direct to SAF and if SAF will be a
“bridge” fuel to another aviation fuel or technology.
Unleaded Aviation Gasoline187
The general aviation (GA) sector in the United States consists mostly of small piston-engine
airplanes and helicopters, nearly all of which operate on aviation gasoline (avgas).188 Lead is
commonly added to avgas to achieve the octane rating needed for the safe operation of high-
performance aircraft with high-compression engines, which account for about one-third of the GA
fleet and a larger percentage of fleet fuel consumption. While leaded avgas—specifically
“100LL” grade avgas—is not required by a majority of the GA fleet, it can be used by all types of
piston-engine aircraft. Thus, 100LL avgas is typically the fuel grade made available to GA
operators at airports across the United States. Lead, however, is a highly toxic substance. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that exposure to even low
concentrations of lead, including prenatal exposure, has been linked to decreased cognitive
performance in children, among other health damages.189 EPA estimates that approximately 5.2
million people live within 500 meters of an airport runway, 363,000 of whom are children age 5
and under.190
EPA has authority under the CAA to issue emission standards for aircraft engines and fuels.191
Since at least 2007, EPA has evaluated the impact of lead emissions from the GA sector.192 In
October 2022, EPA issued a proposed determination that lead emissions from piston-engine
aircraft cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health and welfare.193 EPA’s proposed determination is the first step toward the application
of EPA’s and the FAA’s statutory authorities to address the pollution. If EPA makes an affirmative
final determination, the agency would be required to propose regulatory standards, which would
trigger the FAA’s statutory mandate to “prescribe standards for the composition or chemical or
physical properties of an aircraft fuel or fuel additive to control or eliminate aircraft emissions the

187 Richard K. Lattanzio, CRS Specialist in Environmental Policy, contributed this section.
188 Piston-engine aircraft, as opposed to turbine-engine jet aircraft, have one or more piston-powered engines connected
to a propeller to provide thrust to move the aircraft on the ground and through the air. Piston-engine aircraft are most
commonly used for personal and recreational transportation (67%), business (12%), instructional flying (8%), medical
transportation (less than 1%), and the remainder includes hours spent in other applications, such as aerial observation
and aerial application. Aerial application for agricultural activity includes crop and timber production, which involve
fertilizer and pesticide application and seeding cropland. FAA, General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Surveys—CY
2019, Chapter 1: “Historical General Aviation and Air Taxi Measures” Table 1.4—“General Aviation and Part 135
Total Hours Flown by Actual Use 2008-2019 (Hours in Thousands),” at https://www.faa.gov/data_research/
aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/CY2019/.
189 CDC, “Health Effects of Lead Exposure,” at https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/le,ad/prevention/health-effects.htm.
190 EPA, “National Analysis of the Populations Residing Near or Attending School Near U.S. Airports,” EPA-420-R-
20-001, 2020, at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100YG4A.pdf.
191 42 U.S.C. Part B and 42 U.S.C. §7545, respectively.
192 EPA, “Petition Requesting Rulemaking to Limit Lead Emissions from General Aviation Aircraft; Request for
Comments,” 72 Federal Register 64570, November 16, 2007.
193 EPA, “Proposed Finding That Lead Emissions from Aircraft Engines That Operate on Leaded Fuel Cause or
Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated to Endanger Public Health and Welfare,” 87 Federal
Register 62753, October 17, 2022. For data and analysis of piston-engine aircraft emissions of lead at U.S. airports, see
EPA, “Regulations for Emissions from Vehicles and Engines,” at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-
and-engines/epas-data-and-analysis-piston-engine-aircraft-emissions.
Congressional Research Service

53

link to page 23 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency decides under section 231 of the Clean
Air Act.”194 EPA’s final determination is scheduled for release in the fall of 2023.195
Over the past 25 years, the FAA has engaged with the GA industry and fuel developers on work
toward an unleaded drop-in replacement fuel for 100LL that can satisfy the performance
requirements of the entire piston-engine fleet. Currently, the FAA is developing a multilayered
strategy based on various recommendations in the 2021 National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine report commissioned by Section 177 of the FAA Reauthorization Act
of 2018 (P.L. 115-254).196 This includes continued collaboration with industry through the Piston
Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI).197
Electric Aircraft
Similar to the ongoing transition to electric automobiles, one option for moving aircraft away
from the use of fossil fuels is to replace engines, particularly reciprocating combustion engines on
smaller aircraft, with electric motors. The FAA has approved a few small electric-powered
training aircraft, and some larger electric aircraft capable of ferrying passengers and cargo are in
development and testing.198
A significant challenge to transitioning to electric propulsion for aircraft is the weight of batteries,
which correspondingly limits the effective range of current era electric aircraft. Safety
requirements further complicate this issue. This is in part due to the increased weight of aircraft
structures to improve occupant survivability and due to requirements for reserve fuel capacity as
an additional margin of safety. To fly only in daylight and good weather, aircraft are required to
have 30 minutes of reserve capacity.199 At night, that increases to 45 minutes. To operate under
instrument flight rules (IFR) and operate in lower visibility or in clouds, an aircraft must be able
to fly to its intended destination, be able to then proceed to a designated alternate, and thereafter,
be able to sustain flight for another 45 minutes.200 These requirements place considerable
challenges on using electric propulsion as a viable option for many existing commercial flight
operations, where adequate aircraft range and the capability to fly in clouds and reduced visibility
are necessary, using currently available battery technology.
Despite current limitations and challenges of electric motors, batteries, and fuel cell technologies,
electric propulsion is considered viable for electric-powered vertical takeoff and landing
(eVTOL) aircraft under consideration for AAM missions (see “Advanced Air Mobility”). The
short-range, low-altitude missions envisioned for AAM, such as urban air taxi operations, are
seen as particularly suitable candidates for electric propulsion. However, even for these

194 49 U.S.C. §44714.
195 Office of Management and Budget, “Fall 2022 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,” at
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain.
196 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Options for Reducing Lead Emissions from Piston-
Engine Aircraft (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press), 2021, at https://doi.org/10.17226/26050.
197 See FAA, “Piston Engine Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) Background and Program Update,” https://www.faa.gov/
about/initiatives/avgas/piston-engine-aviation-fuels-initiative-pafi-background-and-program-update.
198 Tom Page, “Why Electric Airplanes are Taking Off at Flight Schools,” CNN Business, September 8, 2022, at
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/01/business/pipistrel-velis-electro-flight-training-spc-intl/index.html; Adreas Spaeth,
“Are Electric Planes Ready for Takeoff?,” Deutsche Welle (DW), at https://www.dw.com/en/are-electric-planes-ready-
for-takeoff/a-64491147#; and Teresa Nowakowski, “NASA’s Electric Plane Will Take Flight This Year—but Its
Future Is Uncertain,” Smithsonian Magazine, January 27, 2023, at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/
nasas-electric-plane-will-take-flight-this-year-but-its-future-is-uncertain-180981521/.
199 See 14 C.F.R. §91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.
200 See 14 C.F.R. §91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.
Congressional Research Service

54

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

applications, questions remain regarding suitable batteries or potentially other options, such as
hybrid solutions using a combination of batteries and hydrogen fuel cells, to provide acceptable
range capabilities.201
Hydrogen-Powered Aircraft
Aircraft using hydrogen fuel for propulsion are in the early stages of development with no
certainty they will reach commercial deployment. Airbus and Boeing have fielded demonstrator
vehicles using hydrogen in fuel cells or in gas turbines or using both in hybrid propulsion
architectures.202 In 2020, Airbus announced its goal of having a commercial aircraft using
hydrogen propulsion by 2035.203 The International Energy Agency assesses hydrogen propulsion
for aviation as being at the concept and early prototype stages.204
Aviation programs on hydrogen are part of the multiagency activities coordinated by the U.S.
DOE’s Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office.205 DOE noted the continued challenge of
on-board storage of hydrogen and the weight of the containers for high-pressure gas or low-
temperature liquid storage.206 The FY2023 appropriation included $118 million for DOE to
address these and other challenges for hydrogen storage.207 Work on assembled vehicles
continues, and the Department of Defense has already demonstrated hydrogen fuel-cell unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs).208 In the context of current FAA reauthorization, Congress may explore
options for promoting and incentivizing alternative aircraft propulsion and power sources,
including electric battery and hydrogen power, as well as possible funding mechanisms to support
further research and development of these technologies.
FAA Research and Development
The FAA maintains a portfolio of research and development programs to support its operational
missions of operating the national airspace system, regulating safety among civil aviation
operators, and addressing aviation impacts on the environment. The FAA receives advice and
recommendations regarding its research program through the Research, Engineering, and
Development Advisory Committee (REDAC), a group of advisors from industry, academia, and

201 James Careless, “Are Batteries Truly Enough to Power eVTOLS?,” Avionics International (Digital),
February/March 2021, at https://interactive.aviationtoday.com/avionicsmagazine/february-march-2021/are-batteries-
truly-enough-to-power-evtols/.
202 Boeing, “Boeing Breakthrough in All-Composite Cryogenic Propellant Tank Advances Technology Readiness,”
press release, February 2, 2022, at https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=130996; and Airbus,
“Airbus reveals hydrogen-powered zero-emission engine,” press release, November 30, 2022, at
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-11-airbus-reveals-hydrogen-powered-zero-emission-engine.
203 Jillian Ambrose, “Airbus reveals plans for zero-emission aircraft fueled by hydrogen,” The Guardian, September
21, 2000.
204 International Energy Agency, ETP Clean Energy Technology Guide, September 21, 2022, at https://www.iea.org/
data-and-statistics/data-tools/etp-clean-energy-technology-guide?selectedSector=Aviation.
205 Sunita Satyapal, Director, DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office, 2022 AMR Plenary Session, June 6,
2022, p. 85, at https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/hfto-amr-plenary-satyapal-2022-1.pdf.
206 DOE, DOE National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap (Draft—September 2022), September 2022, p. 47.
Prepared pursuant to §40314 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58).
207 DOE, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, FY 2024 Congressional Justification: Volume 2, March 2023, p. 24, at
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/doe-fy2024-budget-volume-2-crosscutting-v3.pdf.
208 K. Swider-Lyons, Hydrogen Fuel Cells for Small Unmanned Air Vehicles, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, May
26, 2016, at https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/05/f32/
fcto_webinarslides_h2_fc_small_unmanned_air_vehicles_052616.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

55

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

other government agencies. REDAC assesses aviation research needs in five major areas:
operations, airport technology, aviation safety, human factors, and environment and energy. The
FAA is statutorily required to develop and update a five-year National Aviation Research Plan on
an annual basis.209 These plans serve as an important framework for FAA research, engineering,
and development goals, as well as priorities, and budget planning. The plan lays out the five-year
research and development (R&D) goals and anticipated funding requirements.
The FAA conducts research on aviation and air traffic systems at the William J. Hughes Technical
Center in Atlantic City, NJ, and research on training, human factors, and aeromedical research at
the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, in Oklahoma City, OK. The FAA also sponsors research
conducted at 13 centers of excellence (COEs). The COEs are organized as university consortia
that receive FAA grants as well as nonfederal funding. Other organizations that play important
roles in FAA research and development include the DOT Volpe Center in Cambridge, MA; the
MITRE Corporation Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD), which is the
FAA-sponsored federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) for civil aviation;
and the Transportation Research Board Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP). Both
MITRE CAASD and the ACRP have their own budget line items in the FAA budget. The Volpe
Center, however, operates as a cost reimbursable resource that receives no direct appropriations
but gets funding from the FAA and other DOT components. In addition to specific Research,
Engineering, and Development appropriations, FAA research activities are funded about 30%
through the Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account and about 15% is derived from the AIP.
In FAA reauthorization cycles, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has
historically worked to develop a stand-alone bill to serve as the basis for the FAA R&D title. For
example, in the 115th Congress, the FLIGHT R&D Act (H.R. 3198), served as the vehicle for
consideration of reauthorizing FAA R&D activities. That bill, as amended by the committees and
in conference, became the R&D title (Title VII) of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L.
115-254). Similarly, in the 112th Congress, the Federal Aviation Research and Development
Reauthorization Act of 2011 (H.R. 970), formed the basis for the R&D title that was incorporated
into the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95).
Key research and development issues that may arise in FAA reauthorization debate include
• modernizing air navigation services, air traffic control, and airspace management
technologies and services;
• addressing aviation safety, including safety research to support the FAA’s
missions of overseeing aircraft certification, aircraft maintenance, flight
operations, and the qualifications and medical fitness of pilots and other safety-
critical personnel;
• examining potential technological improvements to aviation infrastructure, such
as airport runways, and taxiways, and airport ecosystems; and
• studying options for mitigating environmental impacts of aviation, including
aircraft noise and emissions, and potential risks to aviation operations and
infrastructure from environmental factors, including weather.

209 See FAA, “National Aviation Research Plan,” at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ang/
narp.
Congressional Research Service

56

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Issues for the 118th Congress

Author Information

Bart Elias, Coordinator
Richard K. Lattanzio
Specialist in Aviation Policy
Specialist in Environmental Policy

Rachel Y. Tang, Coordinator
Kelsi Bracmort
Analyst in Transportation and Industry
Specialist in Natural Resources and Energy Policy

Daniel Morgan
Martin C. Offutt
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Analyst in Energy Policy

Laura B. Comay

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

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 not 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
R47608 · VERSION 2 · NEW
57