GAO-20-642, Accessible Version, AVIATION SAFETY: Actions Needed to Evaluate Changes to FAA’s Enforcement Policy on Safety Standards

AVIATIONSAFETY

ActionsNeededto

EvaluateChangesto

FAA’sEnforcement

PolicyonSafety

Standards

Accessible Version

August 2020

ReporttoCongressionalCommittees

GAO-20-642

United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-20-642, a report to

congressional committees

August 2020

AVIATION SAFETY

Actions Needed to Evaluate Changes to FAA’s

Enforcement Policy on Safety Standards

What GAO Found

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directed individual offices to

implement the Compliance Program, and FAA has increasingly used compliance

actions rather than enforcement actions to address violations of safety standards

since starting the Compliance Program. FAA revised agency-wide guidance in

September 2015 to emphasize using compliance actions, such as counseling or

changes to policies. Compliance actions are to be used when a regulated entity

is willing and able to comply and enforcement action is not required or warranted,

e.g., for repeated violations, according to FAA guidance. FAA then directed its

offices—for example, Flight Standards Service and Drug Abatement Division—to

implement the Compliance Program as appropriate, given their different

responsibilities and existing processes. Under the Compliance Program, data

show that selected FAA offices have made increasing use of compliance actions.

Total Number of Federal Aviation Administration Enforcement Actions and Num ber of

Compliance Actions Closed for Selected Program Offices, Fiscal Years 2012-2019

No specific FAA office or entity oversees the Compliance Program. FAA tasked a

working group to lead some initial implementation efforts. However, the group no

longer regularly discusses the Compliance Program, and no office or entity was

then assigned oversight authority. As a result, FAA is not positioned to identify

and share best practices or other valuable information across offices. FAA

established goals for the Compliance Program—to promote the highest level of

safety and compliance with standards and to foster an open, transparent

exchange of data. FAA, however, has not taken steps to evaluate if or determine

how the program accomplishes these goals. Key considerations for agency

enforcement decisions state that an agency should establish an evaluation plan

to determine if its enforcement policy achieves desired goals. Three of eight FAA

offices have started to evaluate the effects of the Compliance Program, but two

offices have not yet started. Three other offices do not plan to do so—in one

case, because FAA has not told the office to. FAA officials generally believe the

Compliance Program is achieving its safety goals based on examples of its use.

However, without an evaluation, FAA will not know if the Compliance Program is

improving safety or having other effects—intended or unintended.

View GAO-20-642. For more information,

contact Heather Krause at (202) 512-2834 or

krauseh@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

FAA supports the safety of the U.S.

aviation system by ensuring air

carriers, pilots, and other regulated

entities comply with safety

standards. In 2015, FAA announced

a new enforcement policy with a

more collaborative and problem-

solving approach called the

Compliance Program. Under the

program, FAA emphasizes using

compliance actions, for example,

counseling or training, to address

many violations more efficiently,

according to FAA. Enforcement

actions such as civil penalties are

reserved for more serious violations,

such as when a violation is reckless

or intentional.

The FAA Reauthorization Act of

2018 included a provision that GAO

review FAA’s Compliance Program.

This report examines (1) how FAA

implemented and used the

Compliance Program and (2) how

FAA evaluates the effectiveness of

the program. GAO analyzed FAA

data on enforcement actions

agency-wide and on compliance

actions for three selected offices for

fiscal years 2012 to 2019 (4 years

before and after program start).GAO

also reviewed FAA guidance and

interviewed FAA officials, including

those from the eight offices that

oversee compliance with safety

standards.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making three

recommendations including that

FAA assign authority to oversee the

Compliance Program and evaluate

the effectiveness of the program in

meeting goals. FAA concurred with

the recommendations.

Page i GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Contents

Letter 1

Background 4

FAA Directed Individual Program Offices to Implement the

Compliance Program, and Data Show an Increase in Use of

Compliance Actions 11

FAA Has Taken Limited Actions to Monitor and Evaluate the

Effectiveness of Its Compliance Program 25

Conclusions 34

Recommendations for Executive Action 35

Agency Comments 36

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 37

Appendix II: Additional Analysis of Federal Aviation Administration’s Enforcement Data 45

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Transportation 54

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 56

GAO Contact 56

Staff Acknowledgments 56

Appendix V: Accessible Data 57

Data Tables 57

Agency Comment Letter 71

Tables

Table 1: Federal Aviation Administration Program (FAA) Offices,

Oversight Responsibilities, and Inspection Staff 8

Table 2: Examples of Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA)

Program Office Guidance before and after the Start of the

Compliance Program 15

Table 3: Number of Enforcement Actions Closed by Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) Program Offices, Fiscal

Years 2012 and 2019 19

Page ii GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Table 4: List of Industry Associations, Unions, and Regulated

Entities Interviewed by GAO 44

Table 5: Number of Actions Resulting from Cases That Initiated an

Enforcement Action for Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) Certificate Types That Comprise a Majority of all

Actions, Fiscal Years 2012 to 2019 49

Table 6: Number of Actions Resulting from Cases That Initiated an

Enforcement Action by Type and by Regional Office, by

Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019 51

Table 7: Amounts of Proposed and Final Civil Penalties for

Enforcement Actions by Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019 52

Figures

Figure 1: Description of Compliance and Enforcement Actions

Available to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 7

Figure 2: Examples of Federal Aviation Administration’s Safety

Standards and Aviation Stakeholders 9

Figure 3: Summary of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA)

Enforcement Policy and Guidance Prior to and under the

Compliance Program 12

Figure 4: Total Number of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Enforcement Actions and Number of Compliance Actions

Closed for Three Selected Program Offices, Fiscal Years

2012–2019 17

Figure 5: Number and Type of Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) Enforcement Actions, by Fiscal Year Closed,

2012–2019 18

Figure 6: Median Number of Days Taken to Close Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) Enforcement Actions,

Fiscal Years 2012–2019 20

Figure 7: Number of Non-enforcement Actions for Selected

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Program Offices,

Fiscal Years 2014-2019 22

Figure 8: Median Number of Days to Close Non-enforcement

Actions for Selected Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) Program Offices, Fiscal Years 2016-2019 24

Figure 9: Number of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Cases

That Initiated an Enforcement Action, by Fiscal Year

Closed, 2012–2019 46

Page iii GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Figure 10: Number and Type of Actions Resulting from Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) Cases That Initiated an

Enforcement Action, by Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019 47

Figure 11: Number of Actions from Cases That Initiated an

Enforcement Action by Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) Program Office, by Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019 48

Figure 12: Number of Actions Resulting from Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) Cases That Initiated an

Enforcement Action by Violation Category, by Fiscal Year

Closed, 2012–2019 50

Figure 13: Median Number of Days for Proposed and Final

Sanctions for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Enforcement Actions Involving Certificates by Fiscal Year

Closed, 2012–2019 53

Accessible Data for Total Number of Federal Aviation

Administration Enforcement Actions and Number of

Compliance Actions Closed for Selected Program

Offices, Fiscal Years 2012-2019 57

Accessible Data for Figure 1: Description of Compliance and

Enforcement Actions Available to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) 58

Accessible Data for Figure 2: Examples of Federal Aviation

Administration’s Safety Standards and Aviation

Stakeholders 59

Accessible Data for Figure 3: Summary of the Federal Aviation

Administration’s (FAA) Enforcement Policy and Guidance

Prior to and under the Compliance Program 60

Accessible Data for Figure 4: Total Number of Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) Enforcement Actions and Number

of Compliance Actions Closed for Three Selected

Program Offices, Fiscal Years 2012–2019 61

Accessible Data for Figure 5: Number and Type of Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) Enforcement Actions, by

Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019 62

Accessible Data for Figure 6: Median Number of Days Taken to

Close Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Enforcement

Actions, Fiscal Years 2012–2019 63

Accessible Data for Figure 7: Number of Non-enforcement Actions

for Selected Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Program Offices, Fiscal Years 2014-2019 64

Accessible Data for Figure 8: Median Number of Days to Close

Non-enforcement Actions for Selected Federal Aviation

Page iv GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Administration (FAA) Program Offices, Fiscal Years

2016-2019 65

Accessible Data for Figure 9: Number of Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) Cases That Initiated an

Enforcement Action, by Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019 66

Accessible Data for Figure 10: Number and Type of Actions

Resulting from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Cases That Initiated an Enforcement Action, by Fiscal

Year Closed, 2012–2019 67

Accessible Data for Figure 11: Number of Actions from Cases

That Initiated an Enforcement Action by Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) Program Office, by Fiscal Year

Closed, 2012–2019 68

Accessible Data for Figure 12: Number of Actions Resulting from

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Cases That

Initiated an Enforcement Action by Violation Category, by

Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019 69

Accessible Data for Figure 13: Median Number of Days for

Proposed and Final Sanctions for Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) Enforcement Actions Involving

Certificates by Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019 70

Page v GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Abbreviations

CCMIS Certification and Compliance Management Information

System

CETS Compliance and Enforcement Tracking System

DOT Department of Transportation

EIS Enforcement Information System

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

PTRS Program Tracking and Reporting Subsystem

SAS Safety Assurance System

SMS safety management system

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Page 1 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

Letter

August 18, 2020

The Honorable Roger Wicker

Chairman

The Honorable Maria Cantwell

Ranking Member

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology

United States Senate

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio

Chairman

The Honorable Sam Graves

Ranking Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The U.S. airspace system is one of the safest in the world. The Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), within the Department of Transportation

(DOT), helps ensure the safety of the system by overseeing and

enforcing safety standards for air carriers, pilots, airports, and other parts

of the aviation system. In accordance with broader agency changes to a

more proactive, data-driven approach to overseeing safety, FAA

announced a change to its enforcement policy in June 2015 through the

Compliance Program. According to FAA, the Compliance Program

emphasizes an open, problem-solving approach to examine and address

violations of safety standards in law and regulation.

As such, the

program emphasizes collaboration and use of compliance actions, such

as counseling or training, to address violations. However, FAA continues

to use a range of more punitive enforcement actions, including assessing

civil penalties and suspending a person’s or entity’s certificate, when

warranted, to try to ensure that regulated entities comply with safety

standards.

While FAA implemented this change to its enforcement policy to improve

safety, recent events have raised questions about the effectiveness of

FAA, Order 8000.373, Federal Aviation Administration Compliance Philosophy, June 26,

2015. Initially known as the Compliance Philosophy, FAA renamed this change to its

enforcement and compliance policy to the Compliance Program in 2018.

Letter

Page 2 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

FAA’s enforcement efforts. For example, DOT’s Office of Inspector

General reported that FAA allowed one airline to continue to operate

aircraft for nearly 2 years, even though many of its aircraft were out of

compliance with weight and balance regulations.

The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 included a provision for GAO to

review FAA’s enforcement policy under the Compliance Program.

This

report

· describes how FAA has implemented and used the Compliance

Program, and

· examines how FAA monitors and evaluates the effectiveness of its

Compliance Program.

To describe how FAA implemented and used the Compliance Program,

we reviewed current and prior FAA-wide guidance on compliance and

enforcement.

We also reviewed guidance and manuals for the eight

program offices responsible for overseeing regulated entities’ compliance

with safety standards to understand how these offices applied the

Compliance Program to their responsibilities. These program offices are

listed in table 1 of the report.

We interviewed FAA officials from these

program offices and the Enforcement Division in the Office of Chief

Counsel to further understand implementation and use of the Compliance

Program.

In addition, we analyzed FAA data to examine FAA’s use of compliance

and enforcement actions over time. Specifically:

· First, we analyzed Enforcement Information System (EIS) data on

enforcement actions closed for fiscal years 2012 through 2019.

DOT Office of Inspector General, FAA Has Not Effectively Overseen Southwest Airlines’

Systems for Managing Safety Risks, AV2020019 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2020).

Pub. L. No. 115-254, § 324, 132 Stat. 3186, 3271. While FAA refers to its new approach

as the Compliance Program, it is a change in the agency’s enforcement policy.

This includes versions FAA Order 2150, FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program .

We did not include examining FAA’s designee program or organization authorization

designation program in our review. Through these programs, FAA authorizes individuals

or organizations, respectively, to conduct exams, perform tests, and issue approvals and

certificates on behalf of FAA. One example of organization delegation authorization is

when the organization is responsible for managing the engineering and manufacturi ng

approvals needed to issue type certificates or supplemental type certificates for aircraft.

Letter

Page 3 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

We selected this time period to cover 4 years before and after the

start of the Compliance Program and to include the most recent

full fiscal year of available data.

· Second, we analyzed data on compliance actions as well as

informal actions (i.e., non-enforcement actions) for three selected

program offices to examine the number of such actions closed for

fiscal years 2014 through 2019. The program offices were Flight

Standards Service, the Drug Abatement Division, and Airport

Safety and Standards.

We chose these program offices to vary in

terms of size (e.g., number of inspectors), number of enforcement

actions taken in years prior to the Compliance Program, and

availability of data, among other criteria.

We assessed the reliability of each data source by reviewing documents

and interviewing knowledgeable agency officials, among other things. We

determined that the data sources were sufficiently reliable for our

purposes of describing the number and type of actions FAA used over

time.

To examine how FAA monitors and evaluates the Compliance Program,

we reviewed FAA-wide guidance and other information. We also

interviewed FAA officials in the Enforcement Division and all eight

program offices to understand efforts to monitor and evaluate the

effectiveness of the Compliance Program. We compared FAA’s efforts to

(1) federal internal control standards for establishing structure,

responsibility, and authority; designing control activities; and using quality

information; and (2) key considerations for agency design and

enforcement decisions.

Data from EIS included several types of actions. These actions include legal enforcement

actions, such as civil penalties; administrative actions, such as w arning letters; referrals to

other agencies; and no actions, meaning the collected evidence did not support the finding

of a violation. We reported on all of these actions in EIS collectively as enforcement

actions unless otherwise noted.

Informal actions are non-enforcement actions that FAA could use to address less serious

violations prior to the Compliance Program. Two selected program offices—Flight

Standards and Airport Safety and Standards—used informal actions prior to the start of

the Compliance Program. For these offices, we analyzed available data on informal

actions for fiscal years prior to the Compliance Program.

See GAO, Federal Regulations: Key Considerations for Agency Design and Enforcement

Decisions, GAO-18-22 (Washington, D.C.: Oct.19, 2017) and Standards for Internal

Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2014).

Letter

Page 4 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

To inform both objectives, we interviewed 11 selected industry

associations, two unions representing FAA inspectors in the selected

program offices, and eight selected regulated entities (e.g., air carriers,

airports) to gather their views on the implementation and use of the

Compliance Program. We selected industry associations to align with the

operations overseen by the selected program offices and to cover a range

of aviation operations. We selected regulated entities to also align with

the selected program offices and to vary by size and location. The

information and viewpoints obtained from these interviews cannot be

generalized to all industry associations, FAA inspectors, or regulated

entities but offer insight into understanding the issues examined in this

report. Appendix I contains more information on our objectives, scope,

and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2019 to August 2020 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Background

Over the last several decades, FAA has evolved its oversight of aviation

safety in response to changes in the industry and technologies. Due to

increasing complexity of the aviation system, FAA has stated that it

cannot rely on traditional, enforcement-based oversight to further improve

safety. In particular, FAA has stated that new technologies and users,

such as unmanned aircraft system (i.e., drone) users, mean that it cannot

wait for violations and accidents to occur but must take a more proactive

approach to identify and address potential new safety hazards. More

specifically, the low accident rate in the U.S. aviation system reflects the

importance of analyzing less serious incidents and available data for

causes and indicators of potential hazards, rather than identifying these

hazards after the fact when investigating accidents. In 2005, FAA began

implementing a data-driven and risk-based safety management system

(SMS) oversight approach. SMS is a formalized process that involves

collecting and analyzing data on aviation operations to identify emerging

safety problems, determining risk severity, and mitigating that risk to an

Letter

Page 5 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

acceptable level.

In addition, FAA’s transition to its more proactive

oversight approach aligns with applicable global standards for safety

management and the international aviation community.

FAA describes the Compliance Program as a part of the agency’s shift to

a proactive, risk-based oversight approach. Under the Compliance

Program, FAA aims to collaborate with regulated entities to address the

root cause of any violations of safety standards upfront, using counseling,

remedial training, or other compliance actions, when possible.

In this

manner, FAA states that it aims to identify and correct violations as

effectively, quickly, and efficiently as possible. FAA’s goals for the

Compliance Program, according to FAA, are to (1) promote the highest

level of safety and compliance with regulatory standards and (2) foster an

open and transparent exchange of data.

According to FAA guidance,

when a regulated person is willing and able to comply with safety

standards and the conduct does not meet the criteria for legal

enforcement action, FAA will resolve the issue with a compliance action.

However, according to this guidance, FAA will use enforcement actions

when it finds evidence of reckless, intentional, or criminal behavior, such

FAA started implementing SMS in 2005. This type of approach is recognized by aviation

leaders and aligns with global standards for aviation. For more information on SMS, see

GAO, Aviation Safety: Additional Oversight Planning by FAA Could Enh ance Safety Risk

Management, GAO-14-516 (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2014).

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) adopted standards and

recommended practices covering safety management and safety management systems

between 2001 and 2007. ICAO encouraged civil aviation authorities, including FAA, to

issue regulations to implement safety management systems across their service providers

such as air carriers and maintenance organizations. ICAO is an agency of the United

Nations that promotes the safe and orderly development of international civil aviation

worldwide. ICAO has 193 member states.

We use the term violation in this report, but FAA and other agencies often refer to

violations as noncompliances or deviations. As outlined in FAA guidance, the Compliance

Program also can be used to address any non -regulatory safety concerns. In particular,

FAA personnel can use a compliance action to encourage regulated persons to adopt

FAA-recommended best practices to address safety concerns that are not regulatory in

nature. See FAA, Order 2150.3C. For the purposes of our report, we focused on FAA’s

actions to address violations.

FAA, Order 8000.373.

Letter

Page 6 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

as a pilot deliberately flying into restricted airspace without clearance, or

when FAA identifies a significant safety risk.

FAA is not unique in its decision to emphasize compliance over

enforcement. In October 2017, we reported that federal agencies

generally have the flexibility to tailor their compliance and enforcement

strategies. In particular, we reported that selected agencies often adapted

the appropriate mix of compliance assistance, together with monitoring

and enforcement efforts, to ensure safety and other positive outcomes.

For example, we reported that when the Food and Drug Administration

identifies a violation, it may not immediately use an enforcement action.

Instead, it may begin with a meeting or call with the regulated entity to

address the issue and gradually implement more serious measures as

needed.

Although the Compliance Program emphasizes use of compliance actions

in certain circumstances, FAA can still use enforcement actions to

address instances of noncompliance (see fig. 1).

FAA personnel are required in some circumstances and have discretion in other

circumstances to refer matters to FAA’s Enforcement Division to evaluate using legal

enforcement action and, if appropriate, initiating a legal enforcement action. For example,

FAA personnel are required to refer matters that arise from a regulated person’s failure to

complete corrective action, where legal enforcement action is required by law, and where

a certificate holder lacks the care, judgment, or responsibility to hold the certificate. FAA

personnel have the discretion to take legal enforcement action in other instances, such as

where a person has committed repeated violations. FAA, Order 2150.3C, Chapter 5.

GAO-18-22. This report examined how selected federal agencies made decisions

related to regulatory design, compliance and enforcement, and updating regulations .

Letter

Page 7 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Figure 1: Description of Compliance and Enforcement Actions Available to the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Note: FAA Order 2150.3 outlines the circumstances for which legal enforcement action is required. In

such circumstances FAA personnel are required to refer matters to FAA ’s Enforcement Division for

evaluation and, if appropriate, initiation of legal enforcement action against a regulated person. FAA

personnel also have the discretion to refer matters for legal enforcement action for other

circumstances detailed in guidance.

Inspectors and staff in eight program offices within FAA are responsible

for overseeing regulated entities’ compliance with safety standards (see

table 1).

Letter

Page 8 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Table 1: Federal Aviation Administration Program (FAA) Offices, Oversight Responsibilities, and Inspection Staff

Program office

Examples of oversight responsibilities

Number of reported

inspection staff

Aircraft Certification Service

Provides oversight of persons involved in the production and

manufacture of aircraft and aircraft parts.

818

Commercial Space Transportation

Regulates the U.S. commercial-space transportation industry, including

protecting persons, property, and national security during commercial

launch or reentry activities.

Drug Abatement Division, Office

of Aerospace Medicine

Oversees the aviation industry’s compliance with drug and alcohol testing

laws and regulations, covering safety-sensitive employees such as pilots,

mechanics, and flight dispatchers at aviation companies.

Flight Standards Service

Provides standards, certification, and oversight of a variety of persons,

aircraft, and aircraft operations. For example, regulates air carriers,

commercial and general aviation pilots, unmanned aircraft system (i.e.,

drone) users, and aviation mechanics.

3,267

Medical Certification Division,

Office of Aerospace Medicine

Oversees airman medical certification and investigates cases involving

an airman’s medical qualifications, including issuing or denying

applications based on whether an applicant meets medical standards set

forth in regulation.

n/a

Office of Airport Safety and

Standards

Oversees airports that meet specific thresholds for scheduled and

unscheduled air carrier operations. For example, inspects pavement

conditions, runway lighting, and aircraft rescue and firefighting training at

these airports.

Office of Hazardous Materials

Safety

Oversees entities that offer, accept, or transport hazmat to, from, or

within the United States or on U.S. registered aircraft. Regulated entities

include the operators that transport hazmat, businesses that handle or

offer hazmat, and individuals (e.g., passengers with hazmat in luggage).

Office of National Security

Programs and Incident Response

Investigates the failure of pilots with certificates to timely provide reports

of driving under the influence/driving while intoxicated motor vehicle

actions and investigates intentional falsifications and incorrect statements

on applications for medical certificates. Also provides assistance to

federal, state, local, and other law enforcement agencies investigating

areas that overlap with FAA regulatory responsibilities (e.g., transporting

prohibited drugs by aircraft).

Source: GAO analysis of FAA documents and interviews with FAA officials. | GAO-20-642

Number of inspection staff as reported to GAO by program offices in fall 2019.

The Medical Certification Division does not employ inspector staff. Aviation medical examiners

designated by the FAA evaluate applications and conduct physical examinations necessary for

determining qualification for medical certificates, and may issue or defer medical certificates based on

w hether an applicant meets medical standards set forth in regulation. Cases involving potential

falsifications or incorrect statements on applications for medical certification are referred to FAA ’s

Enforcement Division.

All aviation stakeholders play a role in ensuring the safety of the aviation

system. For example, regulated persons such as pilots, airlines, and

airports are responsible for complying with applicable safety standards.

FAA inspectors and other staff conduct inspections, investigations, and

other means of surveillance to help ensure regulated entities understand

and comply with standards. FAA also relies on regulated entities to share

Letter

Page 9 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

data and information on safety risks and violations to aid its efforts to

improve aviation safety. Air traffic controllers and local law-enforcement

officials provide FAA investigative personnel with information on possible

violations, such as a pilot not following instructions from air traffic control,

to prompt an FAA investigation. Figure 2 highlights some of these

stakeholders and examples of FAA safety standards.

Figure 2: Examples of Federal Aviation Administration’s Safety Standards and Aviation Stakeholders

14 C.F.R. Part 25 (larger aircraft), 14 C.F.R. Part 23 (smaller aircraft).

14 C.F.R. Part 139.

14 C.F.R. Part 61, 14 C.F.R. Part 91.

After an FAA inspector identifies and confirms a violation, the inspector is

responsible for recommending the appropriate action to address the

violation. The inspector’s recommended compliance or enforcement

Letter

Page 10 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

action and related information are to be reviewed by managers.

addition, any proposed legal enforcement action is to be sent to FAA’s

Enforcement Division in the Office of the Chief Counsel. The Enforcement

Division is responsible for evaluating and, if appropriate, initiating legal

enforcement action.

Legal enforcement actions as well as administrative

actions are tracked in FAA’s enforcement database, EIS. During the

manager’s or legal counsel’s review, the type of action and any related

sanction, like the number of days to suspend a certificate, may change.

A decision that no action is warranted can also be made.

One FAA program office—the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety—does not use

compliance actions to address violations involving non -certificated persons, such as

shippers or freight forwarders. Instead, this office uses informal actions —typically oral or

written counseling—or administrative and legal enforcement actions, to address violations

involving non-certificated persons.

FAA program offices are to create an enforcement investigative report for cases with a

proposed legal enforcement action(s). This report is to be sent to the Enforcement

Division and information on the case, violations, and proposed and final actions is entered

into EIS.

FAA changed its guidance on September 18, 2018, so that inspectors in most program

offices would no longer propose a sanction amount. According to FAA officials, this

change allowed the agency to speak with one voice about sanction amounts. In particular,

FAA officials said the Enforcement Division selects the final sanction based o n guidance

in FAA Order 2150. One program office—Hazardous Materials Safety—retained the ability

for its inspectors to recommend sanction amounts.

Letter

Page 11 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

FAADirectedIndividual ProgramOfficesto

Implement theComplianceProgram,andData

ShowanIncreaseinUseofCompliance

Actions

FAAUpdatedEnforcementPolicyandGuidanceto

IncorporatetheComplianceProgram

Adoption of the Compliance Program changed FAA’s emphasis from

enforcement to compliance actions to promote safety. When violations

occur, FAA states that it aims to use the most effective means to return

the regulated entity to full compliance and prevent recurrence. In addition,

according to FAA documents, FAA believes that when violations occur

due to, for example, flawed procedures or simple mistakes, compliance

actions such as training or improvements to procedures can most

effectively address the violation. The primary way FAA operationalized

this was by changing guidance for FAA’s inspectors on which type of

actions to take in response to violations. For example, in September

2015, FAA’s Enforcement Division updated the agency-wide guidance to

outline the general circumstances under which the agency may use a

compliance action, administrative action, and legal enforcement action.

As noted above, the guidance describes that legal enforcement action is

appropriate for cases involving, among other things, conduct that is

intentional or reckless or that creates or threatens to create an

unacceptable risk to safety.

The Compliance Program gives inspectors more leeway to choose

compliance actions over enforcement actions. Figure 3 summarizes

changes to agency-wide guidance prior to and then under the

Compliance Program.

FAA, Order 2150.3C, Chapter 5.

Letter

Page 12 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Figure 3: Summary of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Enforcement

Policy and Guidance Prior to and under the Compliance Program

Although non-enforcement actions were previously allowed, the

Compliance Program now encourages FAA inspectors to use non-

enforcement actions to address violations when appropriate. Prior to the

Compliance Program, agency-wide guidance permitted inspectors to use

informal actions—which are non-enforcement actions—under certain

conditions.

For example, an inspector could take an informal action,

such as oral or written counseling, or an administrative action to address

violations that presented a low risk of occurring or causing damage.

However, officials in three of seven FAA field offices we interviewed said

that it was difficult to use an informal action in the past as the

Prior to the Compliance Program, investigative personnel could take an admi nistrative or

informal action if the case met eight criteria: (1) legal enforcement action was not required

by law; (2) administrative action would have been an adequate deterrent to future

violations; (3) lack of qualification was not indicated; (4) the a pparent violation was

inadvertent, i.e., not the result of purposeful conduct; (5) a substantial disregard for safety

or security was not involved; (6) the circumstances of the apparent violation were not

aggravated; (7) the alleged violator had a constructive attitude toward compliance; and (8)

a trend of noncompliance was not indicated. If all eight criteria were met, the inspector had

to evaluate whether the risk of the apparent violation was high , medium, or low, per the

potential severity and likelihood of the hazard. Investigators could take an informal action

for apparent violations that presented a low risk. In addition, if a lack of qualification is

evidenced by a lack of the care, judgment, and responsibility to hold that certificate, FAA

personnel were to refer the matter for legal enforcement action evaluation.

Letter

Page 13 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Enforcement Decision Process pushed them to pursue enforcement

actions.

Moreover, officials in five of seven FAA field offices said the

Compliance Program now encourages inspectors to use compliance

actions when appropriate. By encouraging use of compliance actions,

officials in four of these offices said they have greater flexibility to better

address the cause of a violation.

FAA officials in six of seven field

offices said that it is easier to get a regulated entity’s cooperation and

attention under the Compliance Program. They said that this is because

inspectors can work with the entity to take action to address potential or

realized problems rather than to simply recommend an enforcement

action.

In addition to updating agency-wide guidance, FAA leadership tasked a

risk-based decision-making working group to guide initial implementation

of the Compliance Program. During the spring of 2014, the working

group, which was composed of staff from various program offices, began

developing goals, drafting an Order outlining the Compliance Program,

and creating a communications plan to announce it.

FAAProgramOfficesImplementedtheCompliance

ProgramatTheirOwnDiscretion

In addition to updating agency-wide guidance, FAA also directed each

program office to implement the Compliance Program according to each

We used open-ended questions to guide our interviews with officials in FAA field offices.

Here and throughout the draft, we present the number of field offices for which a topic or

view was raised during the discussion; the remaining field offices did not specifically

comment on the topic or view.

FAA Order 2150.3C requires a legal enforcement action when a regulated person’s

noncompliance arises from: (1) intentional conduct; (2) reckles s conduct; (3) failure to

complete a corrective action; (4) creating or threatening to create an unacceptable risk to

safety; or (5) an act where the express terms of a statute or regulation require initiation of

a legal enforcement action. In addition, if a lack of qualification is evidenced by a lack of

the care, judgment, and responsibility to hold that certificate, FAA personnel refer the

matter for legal enforcement action evaluation.

According to FAA, this working group’s meetings aimed to execute on e part of the FAA’s

risk-based decision-making strategic initiative—to evolve the safety oversight model to

leverage industry's use of safety management principles, and to exchange safety-

management lessons learned and best practices. This strategic initia tive covered several

past and ongoing items, including implementing the Compliance Program, developing

standardized safety oversight terminology for FAA, and conducting a gap analysis of

FAA’s oversight policies, processes, and tools.

Letter

Page 14 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

office’s differing oversight responsibilities and existing processes. FAA’s

program offices oversee regulated entities that vary from individuals to

large companies. These offices also oversee compliance with rules that

range from drug testing to record keeping to transporting hazardous

materials. FAA officials said that each program office therefore

implemented the Compliance Program at its own discretion consistent

with agency-wide guidance.

According to these officials, the risk-based

decision-making working group provided a forum for program office

officials to share information during implementation. For example, during

such meetings, program offices shared updates on the status of

implementing the Compliance Program within their respective offices,

according to officials from one program office.

Most program offices implemented the Compliance Program by creating

or updating their guidance to align with the new enforcement policy in

agency-wide guidance. Officials from seven of eight program offices told

us they created or updated their guidance to incorporate the Compliance

Program during fall 2015 or later.

However, the extent of changes made

to guidance varied across program offices based on several factors,

including the following:

· A few program offices frequently used informal actions prior to the

Compliance Program. These program offices, therefore, already

had language or processes in their guidance to account for using

non-enforcement actions. For example, officials from one program

office said they used informal actions in the past for violations that

did not have a safety effect, such as signing a form with black

rather than the required blue ink. Once the Compliance Program

was implemented, this office further formalized guidance on when

to use compliance actions. Other program offices that rarely used

or did not use informal actions had to make more changes to

guidance to reflect the new approach.

· As FAA’s agency-wide guidance shifted from the Enforcement

Decision Process to broader, more flexible guidance, some

This agency-wide guidance is outlined in FAA Order 2150.3C, Chapter 5, as of May

2020.

Officials from the Medical Certification Division said the office was excluded from the

Compliance Program because it involves whether a medical standard is met. That is, the

decision to issue or deny a medical certificate is based on whether a pilot meets the

medical standards set forth in regulation, or whether limitations can be added to the

medical certificate to allow issuance. Therefore, the office has not made any changes to

its guidance or procedures.

Letter

Page 15 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

program offices had to develop their own specific processes to

replace the Enforcement Decision Process. For example, one

program office created a new worksheet with steps for inspectors

to use to identify the action to take for a violation. A second

program office also created a worksheet with a decision tree to

help inspectors determine the action to take based on the risk

associated with a violation.

Table 2 below provides examples of how program offices updated their

guidance to implement the Compliance Program.

Table 2: Examples of Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Program Office Guidance before and after the Start of the

Compliance Program

Program office

Guidance prior to the Compliance Program

Guidance under Compliance Program

Drug Abatement Division

Inspectors were required to use either an

administrative or legal enforcement action when

they discovered a violation.

Inspectors may use a compliance action to

address most violations that used to result in

administrative actions.

Flight Standards

Inspectors could use an administrative action for

violations that presented a moderate-risk or an

informal action to address low-risk violations.

Inspectors can use a compliance action to

address instances of violations as long as the

person is willing and able to comply and the

conduct does not meet criteria for using legal

enforcement action.

Office of Airport Safety and

Standards

Inspectors worked with airports to educate and

assist them with compliance as required, and

inspectors used an informal action (that took the

form of a letter) to address any violations.

Inspectors can use a compliance action (that

continues to take the form or a letter) to address

any violations.

Source: GAO analysis of FAA documents and interviews with FAA officials. | GAO-20-642

Program offices took steps to communicate about the Compliance

Program and changes in guidance to staff as they deemed appropriate,

recognizing the varying size and purpose of their office. Seven program

offices reported offering training to announce and implement the

Compliance Program. In one program office, training on the Compliance

Program was offered to managers before training was offered to all of the

workforce. FAA officials said the program office did this because it

believed that managers needed to first understand and support the

Compliance Program for it to be successful. Four program offices also

reported holding town hall or all-staff meetings to present the Compliance

Program and new guidance to staff. One of these program offices

supplemented these meetings with presentations to explain the

Compliance Program and associated changes in guidance to staff.

Letter

Page 16 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

DataShowThatEnforcementActionsHaveDecreased

andBeenOffsetbyComplianceActionssince2015

Mix of Compliance Actions and Enforcement Actions

Our analysis of FAA data found that the total number of enforcement

actions, counted by the fiscal year the actions were closed, decreased

across the agency under the Compliance Program. At the same time, the

number of compliance actions closed for three selected program offices

has increased since the start of the Compliance Program (see fig. 4).

According to FAA officials, this shift aligns with what FAA officials

expected would happen under the Compliance Program.

While data on enforcement actions are tracked centrally, individual program offices track

data on compliance actions. We selected three program offices—Flight Standards

Service, Drug Abatement Division, and Airport Safety and Standards—to examine the

number and type of compliance actions taken by FAA. See appendix I for more

information on how we selected program offices and the data we examined from these

offices.

Letter

Page 17 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Figure 4: Total Number of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Enforcement

Actions and Number of Compliance Actions Closed for Three Selected Program

Offices, Fiscal Years 2012–2019

Notes: Enforcement actions includes (1) legal enforcement actions like civil penalties and suspending

or revoking a regulated entity’s certificate and (2) administrative actions like w arning letters and

letters of correction.

The number of compliance action are based on data for three selected program offices: Flight

Standards Service, Airport Safety and Standards, and Drug Abatement.

Enforcement Actions

As noted above, the number of enforcement actions closed decreased

after the start of the Compliance Program. The number of legal

enforcement actions closed decreased slightly from fiscal year 2012 to

fiscal year 2019 (see fig. 5). However, the number of administrative

actions closed declined more substantially from above 6,000 to under

2,000 per year over this period. There was a notable decrease in

administrative actions from 2015 to 2016 following the start of the

Compliance Program.

Letter

Page 18 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Figure 5: Number and Type of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Enforcement Actions, by Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019

Looking further at the change in enforcement actions, all but one of eight

program offices had a decrease in the number of enforcement actions

closed from fiscal year 2012 to 2019 (see table 3).

Flight Standards had

the greatest decrease in the number of enforcement actions closed. This

outcome is not a surprise as Flight Standards has historically initiated the

most enforcement actions and is responsible for the majority of FAA’s

oversight. Only the Medical Certification Division saw an increase in the

number of enforcement actions over this time period, mostly during the

last 3 years. Officials from this program office said the increase is

possibly due to changes associated with the start of BasicMed in 2017, a

program that provides certain pilots that meet specific requirements

The count of enforcement actions in this section includes lega l enforcement and

administrative actions tracked in FAA’s EIS database. See appendix I for further detail.

Letter

Page 19 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

potential relief from having to hold a medical certificate.

Table 3: Number of Enforcement Actions Closed by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Program Offices, Fiscal Years 2012

and 2019

FAA program office

2012

2019

Percentage change

Aircraft Certification

280

(90)

Flight Standards

4,998

881

(82)

Hazardous Materials Safety

1,788

578

(68)

Airport Safety and Standards

(100)

Drug Abatement

1,289

345

(73)

National Security Programs and Incident Response

579

378

(35)

Medical Certification

142

451

218

Source: GAO analysis of FAA’s Enforcement Information System database. | GAO-20-642

Commercial Space is not included in the table as it did not take any enforcement actions during fiscal

years 2012 through 2017, so w e could not look at change over the 8-year period for this program

office.

Enforcement actions include (1) legal enforcement actions like civil penalties and suspending or

revoking a regulated entity’s certificate and (2) administrative actions like w arning letters and letters of

correction.

While FAA is using fewer enforcement actions, our analysis of data found

that the time needed to process and close these actions has not

decreased. According to FAA, it expected that the greater use of

compliance actions would help decrease the time it takes the agency to

process all types of actions and allow it to target resources to more

egregious cases. For enforcement actions, we found that it is taking FAA

roughly the same amount of time to process administrative actions and

more time to close legal enforcement actions since the start of the

Compliance Program (see fig. 6).

The FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-190, § 2307, 130

Stat. 615, 641, permits pilots who would normally be required to hold a third -class medical

certificate to forego the process under certain conditions and instead fly under a new

process and standards. FAA named this process and standards BasicMed. Pilots could

use BasicMed if they held a driver’s license, held a medical certificate after July 1 5, 2006,

got a physical exam that used a specific checklist, and completed a medical education

course, among other requirements. A pilot cannot use BasicMed if their medical

certification application has ever been denied, suspended, revoked , or withdrawn. With

the start of BasicMed, according to FAA officials, the FAA determined that it could not

allow applications to remain open indefinitely without a decision while awaiting information

needed from an applicant to determine if the applicant is medically qualified. The start of

BasicMed provided a potential opportunity for these applicants to instead apply through

BasicMed, because their application for medical certification had neve r been denied,

suspended, revoked, or withdrawn.

Letter

Page 20 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Figure 6: Median Number of Days Taken to Close Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) Enforcement Actions, Fiscal Years 2012–2019

FAA officials said legal enforcement actions involve different steps and

circumstances than administrative or compliance actions, and such steps

can contribute to more time being needed to close legal enforcement

actions. First, a legal enforcement action may require specific events to

occur before it is closed, even after FAA issues the action. For example,

the officials said that FAA will not close a civil penalty, one type of legal

enforcement action, until all payments of the penalty are made. Second,

Enforcement Division officials said the cases for legal enforcement action

they have received in recent years are more complex. These cases, such

as those involving illegal charter operations or requiring emergency action

to suspend a pilot’s medical or other certificate, take longer to process

and close.

Finally, FAA officials said that other factors outside the

agency’s control, including appeals of legal enforcement actions, affect

For example, due to BasicMed, the Enforcement Division initiates more emergency

orders to suspend medical certificates than in the past, according to FAA officials. FAA

officials said that these cases require the immediate surrender of medical certificates, but

the suspension remains pending, or open, until the certificate holder provides the

requested information and qualifies for an unrestricted airman medical certification.

Therefore, FAA cannot close a case and the corresponding actions until the suspended

medical certificate expires, which can take several years .

Letter

Page 21 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

how long it takes to close an action. Regarding the sharp increase in

fiscal year 2016, FAA officials said it is likely due to an internal initiative to

clean up FAA’s enforcement data system. For the initiative, Enforcement

Division staff identified cases left in open or pending status in the system

but requiring no further work and subsequently took steps to close them.

Also, while FAA is taking fewer enforcement actions, the amounts

obtained in civil penalties and amounts of other sanctions associated with

legal enforcement actions has not lessened according to our analysis of

FAA data. For actions involving civil penalties, the median amount of the

final civil penalty that FAA assessed fluctuated but generally ranged

between $5,000 and $6,000 over the 8 years of data we analyzed.

contrast, for actions involving certificate actions, mainly suspensions, the

median number of days FAA suspended an entity’s certificate has

increased in recent years, from 60 days to 90 days.

Compliance Actions

Based on data for the three selected program offices we reviewed, the

number of non-enforcement actions—informal and compliance—

increased since the start of the Compliance Program. Examining by fiscal

year closed, the use of these actions increased overall after the start of

the program, though year-to-year changes differed by program office.

(See fig. 7.)

The median amount of civil penalties recommended by the regional office and legal

counsel decreased over the 8 years we analyzed. For the last 3 years, the median amount

recommended by the regional office and legal counsel moved closer to the final median

amount assessed for civil penalties. In September 2018, FAA changed its guidance so

that most offices no longer propose a sanction amount; rather, legal counsel determine

the sanction amount using tables on sanction amounts included in FAA guidance . See

appendix II for more detail on civil penalties and other sanctions related to enforcement

actions and additional analysis of FAA’s EIS data.

Letter

Page 22 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Figure 7: Number of Non-enforcement Actions for Selected Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) Program Offices, Fiscal Years 2014-2019

Notes: The Drug Abatement Division did not use informal actions under FAA policy prior to the

Compliance Program. For the other tw o program offices, data w ere available for informal actions for

both offices for fiscal years 2014 and 2015.

Informal actions and compliance actions both represent non-enforcement action available to FAA.

Compliance actions did not exist prior to the start of the Compliance Program.

The increase in non-enforcement actions, including the large increase in

compliance actions closed by Flight Standards, was driven by the start of

the Compliance Program, as well as other factors according to FAA

officials. Officials from the three selected program offices identified factors

beyond the start of the Compliance Program that influenced some year-

to-year changes in the number of informal and then compliance actions

closed. Airport Safety and Standards, for example, extensively used

informal actions prior to the Compliance Program. However, an official

from this program office said that the recent increase in compliance

actions is primarily due to its new effort to identify emphasis areas for

inspections that started in 2017. Due to this new effort, FAA officials from

this office said that inspectors tend to identify more violations in the

Letter

Page 23 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

emphasis areas and as a result have taken more compliance actions for

these violations. FAA officials also said they have seen a decrease in the

number of compliance actions in these areas in subsequent years as

airports learn from and receive additional training to correct mistakes.

We also found the length of time it takes the three selected program

offices to close compliance actions has not decreased over time. As

shown in figure 8, the median number of days for these program offices to

close these actions has not gone down, based on the fiscal year closed.

Officials from one regulated entity we spoke with said that FAA and the

entity had been taking a longer time to close compliance actions due to

the higher volume of compliance actions it receives from FAA. According

to FAA officials, inspectors can leave a compliance action open as long

as needed to ensure a regulated entity has addressed the problem.

However, according to FAA guidance, inspectors must also ensure that

applicable time limits do not prevent FAA from taking further action, such

as a legal enforcement action, if the regulated entity fails to address the

problem to FAA’s satisfaction.

FAA guidance notes that it may consider a progressive response to repeated

noncompliance. For example, if a corrective action does not remediate a noncompliance,

it may be appropriate for FAA personnel to pursue legal enforcement action. However,

FAA may be prevented from taking an enforcement action if it does not comply with

certain time limits in regulation. For example, FAA must file a notice of proposed civil

penalty within 2 years from the date of an apparent violation under 14 C.F.R. § 13.208(d).

Failure to comply with these time limits could p reclude the FAA from bringing legal

enforcement action or result in the dismissal of a case .

Letter

Page 24 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Figure 8: Median Number of Days to Close Non-enforcement Actions for Selected

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Program Offices, Fiscal Years 2016-2019

Notes: The selected program offices track different dates that can be used to mark the start of an

informal or compliance action. Therefore, the median number of days it took to close an informal or

compliance action across offices cannot be directly compared.

The Drug Abatement Division tracks dates using month and year, so w e tracked time to close actions

in monthly increments.

Flight Standards’ Safety Assurance System data w e analyzed, which cover a limited number of

actions closed in 2018 and 2019, did not include a date w e could use to mark the start of a

compliance action. Therefore, time to close actions for Flight Standards includes only actions from the

Program Tracking and Reporting System.

Letter

Page 25 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

FAAHasTakenLimitedActionstoMonitorand

EvaluatetheEffectivenessofItsCompliance

Program

FAAHasNotAssignedAuthoritytoOverseethe

ComplianceProgram

FAA implemented the Compliance Program in a decentralized manner,

directing program offices to tailor it to their specific needs. FAA initially

relied on a working group for centralized leadership during initial

implementation. According to officials who participated in the group, the

meetings served as an opportunity for program office officials to ask

questions about the Compliance Program and better understand FAA’s

expectations for the program. Although the working group still meets

regularly, according to the officials that lead this group, it is now focused

on other efforts, and currently the group does not regularly monitor or

discuss the Compliance Program.

While initially tasked with some

aspects of its implementation, FAA officials said the working group is not

directly responsible for the Compliance Program.

No specific office or entity is responsible for overseeing the ongoing use

of the Compliance Program across FAA. Federal standards for internal

control state that an agency should establish structure, assign

responsibility, and delegate authority to achieve the agency’s objectives.

In particular, an agency should develop an organizational structure with

an understanding of overall responsibilities, and assign these

responsibilities to discrete units to enable it to operate in an efficient and

effective manner. A sound internal control environment also requires that

an agency consider how its units interact to fulfill their overall

responsibilities and establishes appropriate lines of reporting. Based on

our review of FAA documents and our prior review of FAA’s enforcement

policy, FAA’s oversight used to be more centralized in the Enforcement

Division, where all administrative and legal enforcement actions were

These other efforts include performing a comprehensive gap-analysis of FAA’s oversight

processes. The gap analysis involves FAA offices comparing their existing policies and

procedures to the requirements of FAA’s Integrated Oversight Philosophy. Once these

gaps are identified, offices will update their policies and procedures to align with

requirements.

GAO-14-704G, Principle 3.

Letter

Page 26 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

tracked in a single database.

Now, as FAA emphasizes compliance

actions over enforcement actions, tracking of actions is less centralized

and occurs more in individual program offices, according to FAA officials.

Without a centralized oversight entity, no one is looking across program

offices to identify or share any best practices or lessons learned. We

previously reported (1) that the independent nature of FAA offices creates

challenges for implementing safety initiatives within FAA and (2) that the

agency could improve internal communication to advance safety efforts.

This observation is also applicable for the Compliance Program, as

individual offices have information that might benefit other offices. For

example, Flight Standards surveyed its workforce to systematically collect

feedback when initially implementing the Compliance Program. A

centralized oversight entity could facilitate Flight Standards’ sharing

information on this practice with other offices, such as the survey

methodology or any actions it took in response to what it learned from the

survey. Further, officials from one FAA field office told us that the

Compliance Program could be improved by better sharing information on

its use across the agency. These officials noted that there are lessons to

be learned from how other program offices are using this and other

related safety programs.

In the past, FAA has assigned a single authority to coordinate other

safety efforts, including efforts that cross FAA program offices. For

example, in 2008, FAA established the SMS Committee to coordinate the

implementation of SMS across the agency. Specific offices that oversaw

the detailed implementation of SMS internally and externally then

reported directly to the SMS Committee.

Besides the working group,

FAA also has several options for offices or entities that could oversee the

Compliance Program, such as the following:

GAO, Aviation Safety: Better Management Controls are Needed to Improve FAA’s

Safety Enforcement and Compliance Efforts, GAO-04-646 (Washington, D.C.: July 6,

2004)

GAO, Aviation Safety: Additional FAA Efforts Could Enhance Safety Risk Management,

GAO-12-898 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2012) and GAO, Aviation Safety: Opportunities

Exist for FAA to Improve Airport Terminal Area Safety Efforts, GAO-19-639 (Washington,

D.C.: Aug. 30, 2019).

GAO-12-898. Additionally, FAA established the SMS Executive Council, composed of

high-level officials from each program office to oversee the implementation of SMS. The

SMS Committee reported directly to the SMS Executive Council.

Letter

Page 27 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

· Flight Standards, the largest of the eight program offices, created

a team that continues to lead and oversee implementation of the

Compliance Program in that program office.

· The Enforcement Division within the Office of Chief Counsel

provides guidance on compliance and enforcement actions

agency-wide and processes cases referred for civil penalties and

other legal enforcement actions.

A centralized oversight entity could enable improved information sharing

and direction across program offices that use the Compliance Program.

FAAHasCollectedLimitedAgencyWideDatatoMonitor

ComplianceProgram

Program offices collect data and track some measures related to the

Compliance Program, but FAA is no longer regularly collecting that data

centrally as it did during initial implementation. FAA officials said that

during the initial implementation of the Compliance Program, program

offices discussed using data to help gauge how each office was using the

Compliance Program during risk-based decision-making working group

meetings. In particular, they discussed measures that could be used in

presentations to the FAA Executive Council. FAA officials said that each

program office individually determined what measures to track quarterly.

Ultimately, the separate offices tracked data for many of the same

measures. For example, seven program offices reported tracking the

number of enforcement actions taken. Six program offices reported

tracking the number of compliance actions taken. Program offices also

chose to track data for other measures that ranged from the number of

reports made by regulated entities to voluntarily disclose violations, to the

time needed to close actions.

Although most FAA program offices reported tracking data on the

Compliance Program, no one office is collecting and analyzing the data

FAA has several programs that allow voluntary self-disclosure reports through which

regulated entities share information regarding an instance of non -compliance with FAA

through a designated program. Submitting a report protects the entity from an

enforcement action if the appropriate process is followed. For example, the Office of

Hazardous Materials Safety operates its Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program for air

carriers to disclose violations of the Hazardous Materials Regulations without receiving a

civil penalty, if the process is followed correctly.

Letter

Page 28 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

on an ongoing basis to communicate a comprehensive picture of how the

program is working across offices. FAA has not assigned an office or

entity to continue to oversee the Compliance Program since the risk-

based decision-making working group completed its implementation work.

Federal standards for internal control state that an agency should design

control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks.

A control

activity could include, for example, a review at the functional or office

level to compare actual performance to expected results and to analyze

major differences. Federal standards for internal control also state that an

agency should internally communicate the necessary quality information

to achieve its objectives.

Currently, some program office data are

assembled into agency-wide presentations to brief the executive council,

inspector general, or other groups, but this activity is done as needed

rather than on a regular basis. The presentations compile specific

information on use of the Compliance Program, presenting it office by

office. The presentations do not, however, look across offices to present a

comprehensive message on the health of the program agency-wide

based on the data collected.

FAA is missing the opportunity to use available program office data to

monitor use of the Compliance Program across the agency. In the course

of our review, we analyzed data from three program offices and identified

changes over time. Some of these changes differed across the three

offices, such as the number of compliance actions closed each year since

the Compliance Program started. Other changes were similar across

offices; for example, the time each office is taking to close compliance

actions has not decreased over time. Monitoring such information across

offices could help FAA manage the Compliance Program, such as

determining if data suggests changes might be needed to agency-wide

guidance or if program offices need to take additional action to train

GAO-14-704G, Principle 10.

GAO-14-704G, Principle 14.

Letter

Page 29 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

staff.

With a broader review of available data, FAA will also be better

positioned to know if observations from data for the three program offices

we examined hold true for other program offices as well.

Leadership

officials of one program office said they need to examine similarities in

how their and other program offices have implemented the Compliance

Program, a process that could then help FAA find ways to summarize

data across offices. Collecting and using this data for the Compliance

Program across program offices would also align with FAA’s broader

strategic initiative to integrate and standardize data.

By regularly collecting and monitoring data on use of the Compliance

Program, FAA would also be positioned to use what is found or learned in

additional ways, such as sharing information on the program with

stakeholders outside the agency.

Officials from ten industry associations

and organizations we spoke with stated they had not seen any data from

FAA on the use of the Compliance Program. Officials from two

associations noted that FAA had shared only limited data, such as counts

of compliance and enforcement actions taken by a single program office.

Moreover, officials from one industry association told us that FAA could

share more information on the types of actions it takes, or on types of

violations that lead to use of enforcement actions each year. The officials

In December 2019, the DOT Inspector General reported that FAA did not provide its

inspectors with guidance and comprehensive training to ensure that an airline, Allegiant

Air, took effective action to correct violations. Specifically, the Inspector General

recommended that FAA revise its guidance to clarify how inspectors address recurring

violations as a factor in considering whether to initiate compliance or enforcement actions.

The Inspector General also recommended that FAA perform a comprehensive review of

its root-cause analysis training for inspectors, as it found current training was insufficient.

U.S. DOT Office of Inspector General, FAA Needs to Improve Its Oversight To Address

Maintenance Issues Impacting Safety at Allegiant Air, AV202013 (Washington, D.C.: Dec.

17, 2019).

In presentations of program office data, each office’s information is presented

individually, but the data are not connected across offices for a look at the program’s use

agency-wide. Additionally, some program offices also face data limitations.

FAA’s 2019 strategic priorities include, as part of its systemic safety approach, specific

initiatives to build on safety management principles and to improve the collection,

management, and integration of safety data to enhance safety analysis across the

agency. FAA Strategic Plan FY 2019-2022.

In our October 2017 report on key considerations to strengthen agency decisions related

to regulatory design and enforcement, we reported that transparency and availability of

data are important to promoting compliance and achieving regulatory objectives .

GAO-18-22.

Letter

Page 30 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

explained they could use such information in educational materials for

their members.

FAAandSelectedStakeholdersGenerallyStatedThat

theComplianceProgramHasImprovedSafetyandIs

AchievingItsGoals

FAA officials stated that the Compliance Program has contributed to

safety improvements since it began in 2015. According to FAA officials,

the agency now has a wider view into regulated entities since the

Compliance Program encourages transparency and information sharing

between FAA and regulated entities. As a result, they said FAA has an

expanded ability to make aviation safer. FAA officials also pointed to a

continued decrease in fatalities and fatal accidents in the aviation

industry. Although FAA officials acknowledged that the Compliance

Program is not solely responsible for this decrease, they believe it plays a

large role. FAA officials also stated that they see regulated entities

participating more in identifying the root cause of a violation and then

taking action to address the issue under the Compliance Program.

Officials from FAA program offices and field offices we interviewed

generally told us that the Compliance Program has been effective in

achieving its goals—to promote the highest level of safety and

compliance with regulatory standards and to foster an open and

transparent exchange of data. For example, in interviews with officials in

seven FAA field offices, officials from five field offices said they think the

Compliance Program has improved regulated entities’ compliance with

safety standards. Officials from four field offices also said the Compliance

Program has improved the open and transparent flow of information and

data between FAA and the aviation industry. Officials from one field office

expanded on this point saying the Compliance Program’s biggest effect to

date has been increased transparency and improved relationships with

regulated entities. FAA officials provided examples where entities no

longer felt the need to hide things from FAA, whereas previously these

entities may have chosen not to engage with inspectors as any

information shared could be used to initiate an enforcement action. With

this increased transparency, regulated entities are more willing to work

with FAA to focus on the root cause of a violation or event and work to

address it, according to FAA officials.

Officials from most industry associations and organizations we

interviewed also expressed support or positive feedback for the

Letter

Page 31 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Compliance Program. Officials from 8 of the 13 industry associations and

organizations we interviewed said they believe the Compliance Program

has been effective in improving compliance with safety standards and

improving transparency with industry.

For example, officials from one

industry association said the Compliance Program allows FAA to address

violations using tailored approaches that address the underlying issues

and aim to prevent any repeat issues. Officials from some regulated

entities we interviewed also told us there is more collaboration with FAA

under the Compliance Program, since entities know they may not be fined

or face an enforcement action.

FAAHasNotEvaluatedtheEffectivenessofthe

CompliancePrograminMeetingItsGoals

Despite this overall positive impression of the Compliance Program from

FAA and stakeholders, FAA has not evaluated the effectiveness of the

Compliance Program agency-wide and does not plan to do so, according

to FAA officials. This situation is consistent with findings and

recommendations from our past work that FAA lacked an evaluative

process for its prior enforcement policy and other safety programs and

initiatives to determine their effect on safety.

FAA defined overall goals

of the Compliance Program when it was announced—to improve

compliance with safety standards and improve the open and transparent

flow of information and data between it and regulated entities. However, it

has not taken steps to evaluate if or determine how the program

accomplishes those goals. According to FAA officials, each program

office was directed to develop its own long-term measures to assess the

effect of the Compliance Program, based on that specific office’s roles

and responsibilities. As noted above, FAA collects and updates these

measures on an ad-hoc basis for presentations. However, FAA has not

further directed program offices to evaluate the effect of the Compliance

Officials from one organization did not feel the Compliance Program has been effective

in meeting its goals. The other two associations and one organization we interviewed did

not have a specific view on the effectiveness of the Compliance Program toward achieving

this goal.

In September 2012, we reported that FAA had not yet established performance

measures for its planning and implementation of SMS. As a result, we recommended that

FAA develop a system to assess whether SMS meets its goals and objective s by

identifying and collecting data on performance measures. In 2016, we confirmed that FAA

had developed such a system for SMS. See GAO-12-898. We have made similar

recommendations to FAA to evaluate the outcomes of other programs, including its

enforcement policy and terminal area safety efforts. See GAO-04-646 and GAO-19-639,

respectively. FAA has not taken action to address all these recommendations.

Letter

Page 32 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Program. The main reason FAA has not done so is because the agency

has not charged an office or entity to oversee the program agency-wide.

Some program offices told us they have started to evaluate the

effectiveness of their office’s use of the Compliance Program, but these

efforts vary in scope and depth. Specifically:

· Officials from three program offices we interviewed said they were

evaluating the effectiveness of the Compliance Program, but their

approaches varied. For example, in light of the Compliance

Program, one office began calculating and tracking recidivism

rates, total number of violations, and number of voluntary self-

disclosure reports made by aviation stakeholders. In contrast,

another office uses an annual process that predates the

Compliance Program. Through this process, the office compares

data on the number of compliance actions and the types of

violations the actions sought to address to data from prior years.

The office then uses this information to inform inspectors’ training

needs and future inspection efforts.

· Officials from two other program offices said they were not yet

evaluating the Compliance Program but planned to do so in the

future. For example, officials from one office said they would not

be able to evaluate any outcomes until they replace their current

data system with a new one starting in 2022.

· Officials from the remaining three program offices said they do not

plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the Compliance Program.

Officials from one program office said they do not plan to evaluate

the Compliance Program because FAA has not told them to do so.

Officials from another program office said they already understand

the benefit of and need for using compliance actions, so an

evaluation of the Compliance Program is not needed.

Without an evaluation, FAA does not know if the Compliance Program is

improving safety, or having any other intended or unintended effects. Key

considerations for agency design and enforcement decisions state that an

agency should establish a performance evaluation plan for its

enforcement policy to determine if it achieves desired outcomes.

addition, in the 2016 Evaluation Roadmap for a More Effective

Government, the American Evaluation Association stated that agencies

GAO-18-22.

Letter

Page 33 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

should consistently use program evaluation to improve program design,

implementation, and effectiveness and to assess what works, what does

not work, and why.

FAA field offices and external industry associations generally pointed to

examples and anecdotes to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

Compliance Program instead of data or other means to evaluate

outcomes. For example:

· One association noted a case where a pilot made an error in

crossing the hold-short line on a runway. The pilot collaborated

with an FAA inspector to explain the reason for the violation and

sought additional training. Association officials stated that prior to

the Compliance Program the inspector would have conducted an

investigation and suspended the pilot’s certificate, and the pilot

may not have received additional training to help ensure

compliance going forward.

· Officials from one FAA office described how one air carrier self-

reported a high number of instances where incorrect parts were

installed in an aircraft, a type of action that officials said carriers

are more willing to do under the Compliance Program. An FAA

team examined the reports to find the root cause of the violations

and worked with the air carrier to implement a solution targeted to

one cause—an overly complicated parts catalog. The air carrier

has since reported fewer instances of incorrect part installations

and was also able to share this issue and solution with others in

the industry.

At the same time, recent reports from the DOT Inspector General

highlighted challenges that indicate the Compliance Program may not

always be effective in ensuring the highest level of compliance with

standards. For example, the Inspector General reported that one airline’s

maintenance provider did not complete its required inspections for 20

months, despite FAA inspectors issuing compliance actions for the

violation. FAA did not pursue an enforcement action in this case, despite

its own guidance to elevate such an action when a regulated entity

American Evaluation Association, An Evaluation Roadmap for a More Effective

Government (Washington, D.C.: October 2016).

Letter

Page 34 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

demonstrates it is unwilling or unable to resolve identified issues.

addition, the DOT’s Office of the Inspector General named balancing

collaboration with regulated entities and enforcement of regulations in air

carrier safety oversight as one of the key challenges FAA currently

faces.

FAA will not know if the move to make greater use of compliance actions

under the Compliance Program is meeting its goals without planning and

conducting an evaluation. Officials from two program offices told us that it

was difficult for them to assess the effectiveness of the Compliance

Program. In particular, officials from these offices said it is hard to choose

metrics. Such difficulties indicate that program offices’ efforts could

benefit from additional guidance or direction. Evaluating the effectiveness

of the Compliance Program could also help FAA identify needed changes

as it continues to emphasize a more risk-based approach to improving

safety. As part of its implementation of SMS, FAA developed a system to

measure safety performance and help the agency determine if its goals

and objectives were being met. Moreover, officials from several industry

associations and organizations we interviewed noted they would like to

see FAA evaluate the Compliance Program to better understand its effect

on safety. An evaluation would also enable FAA to share information on

the effectiveness of the program with Congress, industry associations,

and other external stakeholders.

Conclusions

FAA views the Compliance Program as a necessary step to evolve the

oversight of aviation safety. FAA undertook a concerted effort to explain

the reasoning for this change, inside and outside FAA, and it charged a

working group to implement the Compliance Program. Following

implementation, however, this working group has moved on to other

agency efforts, and FAA has not directed another office or entity to

oversee the Compliance Program’s use across the agency. With no

central authority to serve in this role, FAA lacks some controls to ensure

the Compliance Program is working as intended. First, no office regularly

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, FAA Needs To Improve

Its Oversight To Address Maintenance Issues Impacting Safety at Allegiant Air (2019),

and FAA Has Not Effectively Overseen Southwest Airlines’ Systems for Managing Safety

Risks (2020).

DOT, Office of Inspector General, DOT’s Fiscal Year 2020 Top Management

Challenges, PT2020003 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 23, 2019).

Letter

Page 35 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

collects and monitors data on the use of the Compliance Program. As a

result, FAA lacks information to help it holistically manage the day-to-day

functioning of its compliance and enforcement efforts, as well as the

means to communicate information to Congress and industry. Second,

FAA has not evaluated this new approach to enforcement to determine

whether the approach has met its goals. Without such an evaluation, FAA

cannot know the true effect of the Compliance Program. An agency can

always benefit from such information to adjust its policies and procedures.

FAA could particularly benefit from an evaluation of the Compliance

Program given the changes this new approach aims to accomplish

agency-wide and the central role the Compliance Program plays in

supporting the FAA’s safety mission.

RecommendationsforExecutiveAction

We are making the following three recommendations to FAA:

· The FAA Administrator should assign authority to an office or

other entity to oversee use of the Compliance Program across

program offices. (Recommendation 1)

· The FAA Administrator should collect and analyze data to monitor

use of the Compliance Program across all program offices.

(Recommendation 2)

· The FAA Administrator should conduct an evaluation of the

Compliance Program to assess the effectiveness of the program

in meeting its goals. (Recommendation 3)

Letter

Page 36 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

AgencyComments

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. In its

comments, reproduced in appendix III, DOT concurred with our three

recommendations. DOT told us that it had no comments on the draft

report.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional

committees, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and other

interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the

GAO website at https://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact

me at (202) 512-2834 or krauseh@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report

are listed in appendix IV.

Heather Krause

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Appendix I:Objectives,

Scope,andMethodology

The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 included a provision for GAO to

review the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) enforcement policy

under the Compliance Program, including examining effects of the

Compliance Program.

This report (1) describes how FAA has

implemented and used the Compliance Program and (2) examines how

FAA monitors and evaluates the effectiveness of its Compliance Program.

To describe how FAA implemented and used the Compliance Program,

we reviewed current and prior FAA-wide guidance on compliance and

enforcement, including Order 2150, FAA Compliance and Enforcement

Program, and Order 8000.373, Federal Aviation Administration

Compliance Philosophy.

We also reviewed orders, guidance, and

manuals for the eight program offices responsible for overseeing

compliance with safety standards to understand how these offices applied

the Compliance Program to their responsibilities.

In addition, we

interviewed FAA officials from these program offices and the Enforcement

Division in the Office of Chief Counsel to further understand the

implementation and use of the Compliance Program, including

procedures that outline FAA’s use of compliance and enforcement actions

Pub. L. No. 115-254, § 324, 132 Stat. 3186, 3271.

As outlined in FAA guidance, the Compliance Program also can be used to address any

non-regulatory safety concerns. In particular, FAA personnel can use a compliance action

to encourage regulated persons to adopt FAA-recommended best practices to address

safety concerns that are not regulatory in nature. See FAA, Order 2150.3C. For the

purposes of our report, we focused on FAA’s actions to address violations.

The eight program offices are Aircraft Certification Service, Commercial Space

Transportation, Drug Abatement Division, Flight Standards Service, Medical Certification

Division, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, and

Office of National Security Programs and Incident Response.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

and key changes to guidance and procedures following the start of the

Compliance Program.

In addition, we analyzed FAA data to examine the agency’s use of non-

enforcement actions (e.g., compliance actions) and enforcement actions

before and after the start of the Compliance Program. Specifically, we

analyzed data from FAA’s Enforcement Information System (EIS) on

cases involving enforcement actions for fiscal years 2012 through 2019—

representing 4 years before and after announcement of the Compliance

Program and including the most recent full fiscal year of available data.

We examined the number of enforcement actions by the fiscal year in

which FAA closed the action (i.e., FAA determined the action was

complete) as well as by type of action, initiating program office, time from

starting to closing an action, and other characteristics. We sorted the

types of actions tracked in EIS into the six following categories, based on

FAA guidance and discussions with FAA officials:

· legal enforcement actions, such as civil penalties and certificate

suspension;

· administrative actions, which include warning letters;

· referrals to other federal agencies or foreign governments;

· returned to the program office to take an informal or compliance

action, whether before or after the start of the Compliance

Program, respectively;

· no actions, meaning the collected evidence did not prove

violations; and

· uncategorized.

In the report, we report collectively on these actions unless otherwise

noted. To assess the reliability of EIS data, we reviewed the EIS data

dictionary, interviewed knowledgeable agency officials, and conducted

data checks for obvious errors and missing values. Based on this work,

We did not examine FAA’s designee program or organization designation authorization

program in our review. Through these programs, FAA authorizes individuals or

organizations, respectively, to conduct exams, perform tests, and issue approvals and

certificates on behalf of FAA. One example of organization delegation authorization is

when the organization is responsible for managing the engineering and manufacturing

approvals needed to issue type certificates for aircraft.

We only included actions for which FAA entered a final date in our analysis. For the 8

years of data we analyzed, only three actions were uncategorized.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purpose of

describing the number and type of enforcement actions taken by FAA

over time.

As individual program offices track data on non-enforcement actions (e.g.,

compliance actions), we selected three program offices—Flight Standards

Service, Drug Abatement Division, and Airport Safety and Standards—to

examine the number and type of these actions taken by FAA. We chose

these program offices to vary by size (e.g., number of inspectors), to vary

by number of enforcement actions taken in the 4 years prior to the

Compliance Program, and based on the availability of consistent data

across fiscal years, among other criteria.

Non-enforcement actions

include informal actions (which FAA could use to address less serious

violations prior to the Compliance Program)

and compliance actions

(which FAA can use to address violations where the regulated entity is

willing and able to comply with regulations, administrative action is not

warranted, and legal enforcement action is not required). We analyzed

data on closed informal and compliance actions for the three selected

program offices as follows:

· Flight Standards Service. First, we analyzed data from the

Program Tracking and Reporting Subsystem (PTRS) on all

informal and compliance actions closed during fiscal years 2012

through 2019. We assessed the reliability of the PTRS data

provided by FAA by reviewing them for anomalies, outliers, or

missing information, and reviewing related documentation on

PTRS. Based on these steps, we determined them to be

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of describing the number and

type of non-enforcement actions closed by fiscal year.

Some program offices used informal actions, which are similar to compliance actions,

prior to the start of the Compliance Program . Therefore, we sought to examine the number

of compliance actions closed for fiscal years 2012 to 2019 . However, due to data

availability and limitations, we were not able to examine data for all 8 fiscal years for each

of the three program offices.

One FAA program office—the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety—does not use

compliance actions to address violations involving non -certificated persons, such as

shippers or freight forwarders. Instead, this office can use informal actions —typically oral

or written counseling—as well as enforcement actions, to address violations involving non-

certificated persons.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Beginning in March 2018, Flight Standards began using the Safety

Assurance System (SAS) to manage certificates and track

inspections—which includes tracking compliance actions—for air

carriers that operate under 14 C.F.R. parts 121 (scheduled service)

and 135 (commuter or on-demand service), and for repair stations

that operate under 14 C.F.R. part 145. Therefore, we analyzed data

from SAS on compliance actions closed from March 2018 through the

end of fiscal year 2019.

SAS tracks data on violations and resultant

actions on the following two levels:

1. Assessment, where an inspector assesses issues found through

inspections and other surveillance activities conducted during the

prior quarter. There are four options for the assessment, and an

inspector could initiate a compliance action for two assessment

options—non-systemic regulatory issues observed and

regulatory/systemic issues observed.

2. Action, where an inspector specifies the one or many actions

taken to correct issues found through the assessment. One option

for the action is regulatory compliance action.

For its purposes, Flight Standards counts compliance actions at the

assessment level. According to FAA officials, some inspectors may

not have used the regulatory compliance action option to identify

compliance actions when initially using SAS, as the workforce started

to use the new database.

As it works to address these data quality issues, Flight Standards

therefore does not count compliance actions at the action level.

For

In SAS, work is planned on a quarterly basis, including the assessments through which

an inspector determines whether to take a compliance, enforcement, or other action in

response to identified violations. FAA provided us with data on all assessments with a

regulatory noncompliance (i.e., violation) assigned for the first quarter of fiscal year 2018

through the fourth quarter of fiscal years 2019. Using these data, we only analyzed data

for assessments with closed actions.

Flight Standards started a data-quality review program in April 2019 to review and

improve SAS and PTRS data on compliance actions. According to FAA, when analyzing

data on compliance actions to calculate a recidivism rate, Flight Standards found that

many records had insufficient information to determine why a compliance action was

taken. For the program, managers review compliance actions documented in PTRS and

SAS to identify any critical missing information (e.g., the who, what, when, where, and why

of a violation, the root cause of a violation). Managers then return the record to the

originating office for correction and/or awareness. Flight Standards expects the program to

run for approximately one year.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

our purposes, we counted the number of closed compliance actions,

by fiscal year closed, for both the assessment and action levels to

create a high and low estimate. To assess the reliability of the SAS

data provided, we reviewed the data for anomalies and missing

information, reviewed related documentation, and interviewed agency

officials responsible for SAS. Based on these steps, we determined

the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of counting the

number of compliance actions closed by fiscal year for 2018 and

2019. However, given the data quality issues identified by FAA and

given that SAS data comprises a small part of our years of interest,

we did not use SAS data to describe other characteristics of

compliance actions, such as time to close an action.

· Drug Abatement Division. We analyzed data on closed

compliance actions from the Compliance and Enforcement

Tracking System (CETS). Drug Abatement did not use informal

actions prior to the start of the Compliance Program, so we only

analyzed data for fiscal years 2016 through 2019. The data from

CETS track each violation as an individual entry, but Drug

Abatement issues a compliance action—in the form of a letter—to

cover all eligible violations from an inspection. Therefore, we

examined the number of compliance actions, by fiscal year closed,

and several characteristics of compliance actions using the

inspection as the unit of analysis. However, as actions needed to

address different violations from a single inspection could be

closed at different times, we examined the time to close a

compliance action using the violation as the unit of analysis. To

assess the reliability of the CETS data provided, we reviewed the

data for anomalies, outliers, and missing information, reviewed

related documentation, and interviewed knowledgeable agency

officials. FAA could provide data on compliance actions that

resulted from inspections, but could not provide data on any

compliance actions resulting from investigations of employers due

to limitations with CETS. FAA officials said that it is rare, however,

for an investigation of an employer to result in a compliance

action. Therefore, we determined the data to be sufficiently

reliable for the purposes of describing the number and type of

compliance actions closed by fiscal year.

· Airport Safety and Standards. We analyzed data on closed

informal and compliance actions from the Certification and

Compliance Management Information System (CCMIS). Due to a

change in the contractor that manages CCMIS, FAA could not

provide data for inspections (from which any violations and actions

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

would initiate) for fiscal year 2012. FAA provided data on informal

and compliance actions initiated from inspections started in fiscal

years 2013 through 2019; however, as it can take months for an

entity to take steps to close an action, we analyzed data on

actions closed for fiscal years 2014 to 2019 to ensure more

complete data. We assessed the reliability of the CCMIS data

provided by FAA by reviewing them for anomalies, outliers, or

missing information; interviewing knowledgeable agency officials;

and reviewing related documentation. Based on these steps, we

determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of

describing the number and type of non-enforcement actions

closed by fiscal year.

For each program office, we examined informal and compliance actions

by location, type of operation or certificate, and time to close the action.

The three selected program offices track different dates that can be used

as the start date to determine time to close an action. Therefore, the

number of days to close actions across program offices is not directly

comparable.

We did not seek to attribute any changes in FAA’s use of enforcement

and non-enforcement actions identified in our analysis to specific

causes.

We did interview FAA officials, as well as industry stakeholders

as described below, to obtain views on factors that could affect use of

actions over time.

To examine how FAA monitors and evaluates the Compliance Program,

we reviewed FAA-wide guidance for the Compliance Program. We also

interviewed FAA officials in the Enforcement Division to understand its

role in monitoring and evaluating FAA’s enforcement policy before and

after the start of the Compliance Program. We also reviewed

presentations on the Compliance Program given to FAA leadership and

prepared for GAO. We interviewed officials and reviewed documents from

all eight program offices to understand their efforts to monitor and

evaluate the effectiveness of the Compliance Program, including what

direction or guidance was given to the offices. For our three selected

program offices, we conducted interviews with officials to further

understand these offices’ efforts to monitor or evaluate the Compliance

We chose to assess FAA’s past and future plans to evaluate the effectiveness of the

Compliance Program rather than conduct an analysis to assess the effects of the program

(e.g., an econometric analysis) given the time elapsed since the Compliance Program

began and due to differences in data across program offices. As a result, we sought to

identify key issues FAA may want to examine for the Compliance Program in the future.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Program, including use of measures or information, relevant reports or

presentations, or direction from FAA leadership or working groups. We

assessed information collected on FAA’s efforts through these means

against two sets of criteria: (1) key considerations for agency design

identified in our prior work, in particular to identify compliance and

enforcement objectives, to assess the optimal mix of compliance and

enforcement, and to establish a performance evaluation plan for chosen

compliance and enforcement options,

and (2) federal standards for

internal control, specifically principles 10 and 12 to design and implement

internal control activities, principle 14 to internally communicate

necessary quality information, and principle 16 to establish and operate

monitoring activities.

To inform both objectives, we interviewed 11 selected industry

stakeholders—industry associations, unions, and regulated entities—to

gather their views on the implementation and use of the Compliance

Program. We selected industry associations to align with the aviation

operations overseen by the three selected program offices and to cover a

variety of operations. We interviewed two unions that represent FAA

inspectors who work in selected program offices. Finally, we selected 8

regulated entities to also align with the selected program offices as well

as to vary by size and location. Table 4 lists the industry stakeholders we

interviewed.

GAO, Federal Regulations: Key Considerations for Agency Design and Enforcement

Decisions, GAO-18-22 (Washington, D.C.: Oct.19, 2017)

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2014).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Table 4: List of Industry Associations, Unions, and Regulated Entities Interviewed

by GAO

Entity type

Entity

Industry associations

Aeronautical Repair Station Association

Industry associations

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

Industry associations

Airlines for America

Industry associations

Airports Council International-North America

Industry associations

American Association of Airport Executives

Industry associations

Cargo Airline Association

Industry associations

Flight Safety Foundation

Industry associations

Helicopter Association International

Industry associations

National Air Transportation Association

Industry associations

National Business Aviation Association

Industry associations

Regional Airline Association

Unions

National Air Traffic Controllers Association

Unions

Professional Aviation Safety Specialist, AFL-

CIO

Regulated entities

Air Wisconsin Airlines

Regulated entities

Alaska Airlines

Regulated entities

American Airlines

Regulated entities

FedEx Express

Regulated entities

Cleveland Airport System

Regulated entities

King County International Airport/Boeing Field

Regulated entities

Syracuse Hancock International Airport

Regulated entities

United Airlines

Source: GAO. | GAO-20-642

Appendix II: Additional Analysis of Federal

Aviation Administration’s Enforcement Data

Page 45 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Appendix II:Additional

Analysis ofFederalAviation

Administration’s Enforcement

Data

This appendix includes additional analysis of data from the Federal

Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Enforcement Information System (EIS).

EIS tracks data on cases for which program offices initiated one or more

enforcement actions. Figure 9 below describes the number of cases for

which FAA initiated an enforcement action(s), while figures 10 through 13

and tables 5 through 7 describe the actions resulting from these cases.

The actions that result from these cases are as follows:

· legal enforcement actions, such as civil penalties and certificate

suspensions;

· administrative actions, such as warning letters;

· referrals to other agencies (e.g., Department of Defense) or

foreign governments to investigate or take action;

· returned to the program office to take an informal or compliance

action, whether before or after the start of the Compliance

Program, respectively; and

· no action, meaning the collected evidence did not prove violations.

Unless otherwise noted, the figures below present counts of all actions by

the fiscal year in which FAA determined the action was closed or

completed.

Appendix II: Additional Analysis of Federal

Aviation Administration’s Enforcement Data

Page 46 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Figure 9: Number of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Cases That Initiated an

Enforcement Action, by Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019

Notes: A case involving an enforcement action may include one or more actions. For cases with one

action, w e used the date FAA entered to note the action w as complete to determine fiscal year

closed. For cases with more than one action, w e used the date FAA entered for the most severe

action to determine fiscal year closed.

For each case, FAA initiated an enforcement action. While the final action in many cases w as an

enforcement action—administrative action or legal enforcement action—some cases resulted in, for

example, no action or a case being returned to a program office for a compliance action.

Appendix II: Additional Analysis of Federal

Aviation Administration’s Enforcement Data

Page 47 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Figure 10: Number and Type of Actions Resulting from Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) Cases That Initiated an Enforcement Action, by Fiscal Year

Closed, 2012–2019

Note: Referrals are actions FAA referred to other federal agencies or foreign governments for

investigation. Returned to the program office to take an informal or compliance action are actions

FAA’s Office of Chief Counsel sent back for a non-enforcement action before or after the start of the

Compliance Program, respectively. No actions are actions for w hich the collected evidence did not

prove violations or w here legal enforcement action w as otherwise not w arranted.

Appendix II: Additional Analysis of Federal

Aviation Administration’s Enforcement Data

Page 48 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Figure 11: Number of Actions from Cases That Initiated an Enforcement Action by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Program Office, by Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019

Notes: Actions include (1) legal enforcement actions, such as civil penalties; (2) administrative

actions, such as w arning letters; (3) referrals to other federal agencies or foreign governments to

investigate or take action; (4) returned to the program office to take an informal or compliance action,

w hether before or after the start of the Compliance Program, respectively; and (5) no action, meaning

the collected evidence did not prove violations.

Relative to other program offices, Airport Safety and Standards and Commercial Space

Transportation had 10 or fewer actions each year.

Appendix II: Additional Analysis of Federal

Aviation Administration’s Enforcement Data

Page 49 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Table 5: Number of Actions Resulting from Cases That Initiated an Enforcement Action for Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) Certificate Types That Comprise a Majority of all Actions, Fiscal Years 2012 to 2019

Certificate

Number of actions

Percentage of all actions for

certificated entities

Private pilot

7,192

Airline transport pilot

5,655

Commercial pilot

5,547

Repair station

3,807

Scheduled air carrier part 121 and/or 135

3,495

On-demand air carrier part 135

3,393

Mechanic airframe-powerplant

3,385

Source: GAO analysis of FAA Enforcement Information System data. | GAO-20-642

Notes: FAA categorized data on actions using 52 certificate types, as well as by those w ith no

certificate and by other. The seven types of certificates in this table account for 73 percent of all

actions closed during fiscal years 2012 to 2019 involving regulated entities w ith certificates (32,474 of

44,339). An additional 15,733 actions w ere closed involving regulated entities w ith no certificate.

Actions include (1) legal enforcement actions, such as civil penalties; (2) administrative actions, such

as w arning letters; (3) referrals to other federal agencies or foreign governments to investigate or take

action; (4) returned to the program of fice to take an informal or compliance action, w hether before or

after the start of the Compliance Program, respectively; and (5) no action, meaning the collected

evidence did not prove violations.

Appendix II: Additional Analysis of Federal

Aviation Adm inistration’s Enforcement Data

Page 50 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Figure 12: Number of Actions Resulting from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Cases That Initiated an Enforcement Action by Violation Category, by Fiscal Year

Closed, 2012–2019

Notes: FAA categorized data on actions using 34 violation categories. The six FAA violation

categories in this figure are those that made up the top five categories for each fiscal year we

examined; medical w as in the top five categories only for fiscal year 2019. In total, violations in these

categories accounted for 83 percent of all actions closed during fiscal years 2012 through 2 019.

Actions include (1) legal enforcement actions, such as civil penalties; (2) administrative actions, such

as w arning letters; (3) referrals to other federal agencies or foreign governments to investigate or take

action; (4) returned to the program office to take an informal or compliance action, w hether before or

after the start of the Compliance Program, respectively; and (5) no action, meaning the collected

evidence did not prove violations.

Appendix II: Additional Analysis of Federal

Aviation Administration’s Enforcement Data

Page 51 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Table 6: Number of Actions Resulting from Cases That Initiated an Enforcement Action by Type and by Regional Office, by

Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019

Regional Office

Administrative

action

Legal

enforcement

action

No action

Returned for

compliance

action

Other

outcome

Total

Alaskan

523

353

243

1,186

Central

2,285

677

532

3,597

Eastern

3,257

1,844

1,325

137

370

6,933

Great Lakes

3,146

1,287

883

110

5,512

New England

812

488

1,396

Northwest Mountain

2,881

1,769

945

5,736

Southern

5,313

2,756

2,525

100

344

11,038

Southwest

4,537

1,940

1,437

121

171

8,206

Western Pacific

4,377

2,396

1,447

336

8,630

Washington Headquarters

1,174

1,133

628

2,969

Aeronautical Center

662

2,309

635

3,609

Office of the Chief

Counsel

342

233

576

Total

28,968

17,294

10,920

663

1,543

59,388

Source: GAO analysis of the (FAA) Federal Aviation Administration’s Enforcement Information System data. | GAO-20-642

Notes: FAA uses additional categories to describe the regional office that initiated an enforcement

action. For instance, some actions are categorized generally to Flight Standards, European office, or

Office of National Security Programs and Incident Response. We excluded 684 actions tied to these

offices.

Referrals are actions FAA referred to other federal agencies or foreign governments for investigation.

Returned to the program office to take an informal or compliance action are actions FAA’s Office of

Chief Counsel sent back for a non-enforcement action before or after the start of the Compliance

Program, respectively. No actions are actions for w hich the collected evidence did not prove

violations or w here legal enforcement action w as otherwise not warranted.

Appendix II: Additional Analysis of Federal Aviation Administration’s Enforcement Data

Page 52 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Table 7: Amounts of Proposed and Final Civil Penalties for Enforcement Actions by Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019

Region Recommendation Civil Penalties

Legal Recommendation Civil Penalties

Final Sanction Civil Penalties

Fiscal

year

Entries

Median

Mean

Total

Entries

Median

Mean

Total

Entries

Median

Mean

Total

2012

1,243

10,000

42,713

53,092,699

1,109

9,000

23,477

26,036,338

964

5,000

29,347

28,290,951

2013

1,246

11,000

62,542

77,927,834

1,084

10,000

33,622

36,446,200

945

5,000

24,058

22,735,008

2014

1,188

11,000

1,526,597

1,813,596,987

975

10,200

22,949

22,375,147

871

5,500

17,183

14,966,141

2015

1,171

11,000

52,131

61,045,694

1,022

11,000

24,802

25,347,931

922

6,500

18,878

17,405,406

2016

1,237

11,000

469,760

581,092,954

1,031

10,900

30,844

31,800,552

765

7,700

93,244

71,331,333

2017

962

6,121

66,511

63,983,187

876

5,500

18,855

16,517,300

736

5,000

47,229

34,760,386

2018

694

8,750

41,454

28,768,859

602

9,038

24,359

14,663,904

542

5,960

16,535

8,961,937

2019

497

5,500

29,272

14,548,149

471

6,600

28,213

13,288,344

400

5,000

25,453

10,181,335

Total

8,238

10,588

327,028

2,694,056,363

7,170

9,000

26,008

186,475,716

6,145

5,500

33,952

208,632,497

Source: GAO analysis of the (FAA) Federal Aviation Administration’s Enforcement Information System data. | GAO-20-642

Notes: The amounts in the table are nominal amounts that have not been adjusted for inflation.

In September 2018, FAA changed its guidance so that program offices (i.e., regional offices in the Enforcement Information Sy stem) no longer proposed

a sanction amount, except for the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety. According to FAA officials, with the change in guidance, the program office

staff’s focus on providing details about a violation that FAA ’s Office of Chief Counsel can use to determine the amount of the sanction using tables on

sanction amounts included in FAA guidance. The change is reflected in FAA Order 2150.3C issued September 18, 2018.

Appendix II: Additional Analysis of Federal

Aviation Administration’s Enforcement Data

Page 53 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Figure 13: Median Number of Days for Proposed and Final Sanctions for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Enforcement

Actions Involving Certificates by Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019

Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of Transportation

Page 54 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Appendix III:Commentsfromthe

DepartmentofTransportation

Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of Transportation

Page 55 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgments

Page 56 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Appendix IV:GAOContact

andStaffAcknowledgments

GAOContact

Heather Krause, (202) 512-2834 or krauseh@gao.gov.

StaffAcknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Heather MacLeod (Assistant

Director); Joanie Lofgren (Analyst-in-Charge); David Hooper; Haley

Klosky; Bonnie Pignatiello Leer; Grant Mallie; Malika Rice; Amy

Rosewarne; and Kelly Rubin made key contributions to this report.

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 57 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Appendix V:AccessibleData

DataTables

Accessible Data for Total Number of Federal Aviation Administration Enforcement

Actions and Number of Compliance Actions Closed for Selected Program Offices,

Fiscal Years 2012-2019

Category

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Enforcement

actions

9,122

8,666

8,027

7,787

4,266

3,310

2,784

2,712

Compliance

actions

7,978

9,620

9,815

9,210

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 58 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Accessible Data for Figure 1: Description of Compliance and Enforcement Actions

Available to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Types of action

When used

Examples of actions

Compliance action

When FAA determines that a

regulated entity is willing and

able to comply with

regulations, administrative

action is not warranted, and

legal enforcement action is

not required.

· Counseling

· Remedial training

· Change to policy or

procedure

· On-the-spot correction

Administrative action

(enforcement action)

When FAA determines that a

compliance action will not

remediate a violation and

ensure future compliance,

and legal enforcement action

is not required or warranted.

· Warning letter (outlines

the violation)

· Letter of correction

(outlines the violation

and steps needed in

response)

Legal enforcement action

(enforcement action)

When required by law or

FAA policy, including when a

regulated entity intentionally

violates a standard.

At FAA’s discretion, such as

when a regulated entity has

multiple violations of a safety

standard.

· Civil penalty

· Certificate action, such

as suspending or

revoking a certificate

· Cease and desist

order

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 59 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Accessible Data for Figure 2: Examples of Federal Aviation Administration’s Safety

Standards and Aviation Stakeholders

Airlines

Airport

Pilot

Airlines must perform

routine maintenance on

their aircraft and ensure that

the aircraft complies with

rules such as load

distribution and weight

limits.

Airports must comply with

rules governing operations

such as maintenance of

paved areas, snow and ice

control, wildlife

management, and aircraft

rescue and firefighting

equipment and materials.

Pilots must comply with

medical requirements for

example, governing vision,

blood pressure, and

medication, as well as basic

rules governing flight

operations.

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 60 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Accessible Data for Figure 3: Summary of the Federal Aviation Administration’s

(FAA) Enforcement Policy and Guidance Prior to and under the Compliance

Program

Category

Prior to the Compliance

Program

Under the Compliance

Program

Overall policy

More enforcement-based,

with legal enforcement or

administrative action as the

primary means used to

address a violation(s)

More focused on using

compliance actions as the

primary means to address a

violation(s)

Role of agency-wide

guidance

Included a specific process—

the Enforcement Decision

Process—for inspectors to

use to determine what

specific action to take to

address an identified

violation(s)

Provides high-level guidance

about when each type of

action should be used but

removed Enforcement

Decision Process for

agency-wide use.

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 61 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Accessible Data for Figure 4: Total Number of Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) Enforcement Actions and Number of Compliance Actions Closed for Three

Selected Program Offices, Fiscal Years 2012–2019

Category

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Enforcement

actions

9,122

8,666

8,027

7,787

4,266

3,310

2,784

2,712

Compliance

actions

7,978

9,620

9,815

9,210

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 62 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Accessible Data for Figure 5: Number and Type of Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) Enforcement Actions, by Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019

Category

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

All

enforcement

actions

11,116

10,758

10,241

9,839

6,044

4,617

3,838

3,619

Administrative

actions

6,456

6,034

5,552

5,521

1,989

1,376

1,125

1,085

Legal

enforcement

actions

2,666

2,632

2,475

2,266

2,277

1,934

1,659

1,627

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 63 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Accessible Data for Figure 6: Median Number of Days Taken to Close Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) Enforcement Actions, Fiscal Years 2012–2019

Category

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Legal

enforcement

actions

252

253

306

292

481

348

350

330

Administrative

actions

101

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 64 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Accessible Data for Figure 7: Number of Non-enforcement Actions for Selected

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Program Offices, Fiscal Years 2014-2019

Category

Fiscal

year

Drug Abatement

Airport Safety and

Standards

Flight Standards

Service

Informal

actions

2014

1,989

1,010

Informal

actions

2015

1,836

1,180

Compliance

actions

2016

774

1,653

5,551

Compliance

actions

2017

793

1,632

7,195

Compliance

actions

2018

587

1,627

7,601

Compliance

actions

2019

509

1,991

6,710

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 65 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Accessible Data for Figure 8: Median Number of Days to Close Non-enforcement

Actions for Selected Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Program Offices, Fiscal

Years 2016-2019

Category

2016

2017

2018

2019

Drug

Abatement

Airport

Safety and

Standards

27.5

Flight

Standards

Service

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 66 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Accessible Data for Figure 9: Number of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Cases That Initiated an Enforcement Action, by Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019

Category

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Number

of cases

10,875

10,531

10,058

9,693

5,796

4,364

3,630

3,392

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 67 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Accessible Data for Figure 10: Number and Type of Actions Resulting from Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) Cases That Initiated an Enforcement Action, by

Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019

Category

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

All actions

11,116

10,758

10,241

9,839

6,044

4,617

3,838

3,619

Administrative

actions

6,456

6,034

5,552

5,521

1,989

1,376

1,125

1,085

Legal

enforcement

actions

2,666

2,632

2,475

2,266

2,277

1,934

1,659

1,627

No action

1,725

1,813

1,896

1,726

1,426

1,045

840

721

Referrals

217

226

239

225

180

177

158

118

Returned for

informal or

compliance

action

101

172

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 68 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Accessible Data for Figure 11: Number of Actions from Cases That Initiated an

Enforcement Action by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Program Office, by

Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019

Category

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Flight

standards

6,407

6,349

6,015

5,802

2,853

1,765

1,644

1,417

Aircraft

certification

287

358

384

441

172

Hazardous

materials

safety

2,011

2,012

1,875

1,884

1,526

1,241

668

629

National

security

programs &

incident

response

712

855

888

672

638

626

553

458

Airport safety

and

standards

Medical

certification

206

123

202

115

112

374

556

Drug

abatement

1,414

1,008

845

903

669

607

416

444

Commercial

space

transportation

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 69 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Accessible Data for Figure 12: Number of Actions Resulting from Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) Cases That Initiated an Enforcement Action by Violation

Category, by Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019

Category

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Flight

operations

3,065

3,311

3,140

3,117

1,338

905

757

597

Hazardous

Materials

2,003

2,008

1,873

1,886

1,497

1,232

665

608

Maintenance

1,707

1,506

1,410

1,238

660

307

294

278

Drug testing

1,414

1,010

850

907

678

610

429

448

Records and

reports

1,105

1,108

1,141

884

749

667

649

669

Medical

206

107

128

253

362

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 70 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Accessible Data for Figure 13: Median Number of Days for Proposed and Final

Sanctions for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Enforcement Actions Involving

Certificates by Fiscal Year Closed, 2012–2019

Category

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Recommended

by region

Recommended

by legal

counsel

Final sanction

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 71 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

AgencyCommentLetter

AccessibleTextforAppendixIIICommentsfromthe

DepartmentofTransportation

August 3, 2020

Heather Krause

Director, Physical Infrastructure

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)

441 G Street NW

Washington, DC 20548

Dear Ms. Krause:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the aviation community, and

the public at large, continue to benefit from the Compliance Program.

Since the program’s inception in 2015, the FAA has taken significant

actions to implement the program throughout the agency. The

Compliance Program is a natural evolution from the voluntary safety

programs and risk management activities the FAA has undertaken

through the years. These programs and activities provide the foundation

for the strong safety record that the FAA and the aviation community have

achieved. The FAA agrees with the conclusion of the Government

Accountability Office (GAO) that agency-wide oversight and

measurement of program effectiveness is necessary to ensure the FAA is

meeting Compliance Program goals.

The FAA is committed to the Compliance Program and has reviewed the

draft report carefully. The FAA concurs with the three recommendations

cited in the draft report and will provide a detailed response to each

recommendation within 180 days of the issuance of GAO’s final report.

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report. Please

contact Madeline Chulumovich, Audit Relations and Program

Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 72 GAO-20-642 FAA’s Compliance Program

Improvement, at (202) 366-6512 with any questions or if GAO would like

to obtain additional details about these comments.

Sincerely,

Keith Washington

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration

(103613)

GAO’sMission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining CopiesofGAO ReportsandTestimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is

through our website. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly

released reports, testimony, and correspondence. You can also subscribe to

GAO’s email updates to receive notification of newly posted products.

OrderbyPhone

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering

information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard,

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

ConnectwithGAO

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or Email Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

ToReportFraud,Waste,andAbuseinFederal

Programs

Contact FraudNet:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700

CongressionalRelations

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400,

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125,

Washington, DC 20548

PublicAffairs

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, DC 20548

StrategicPlanning andExternalLiaison

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814,

Washington, DC 20548