Aviation Safety:

Better Management Controls are Needed to Improve FAA's Safety Enforcement and Compliance Efforts

GAO-04-646: Published: Jul 6, 2004. Publicly Released: Jul 19, 2004.

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Gerald Dillingham, Ph.D.
(202) 512-6570
contact@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

The safety of the nation's flying public depends, in large part, on the aviation industry's compliance with safety regulations and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) enforcement of those regulations when violations occur. FAA attempts to gain the industry's compliance through enforcement tools, including levying fines and suspending or revoking operating certificates, and partnership programs that allow participating companies or individuals to self-report violations of safety regulations and mitigate or avoid fines or other legal actions. GAO was asked to assess how FAA uses its enforcement options to address noncompliance and what management controls are in place to ensure that enforcement efforts and partnership programs result in compliance with aviation safety regulations.

FAA relied on administrative actions such as warning notices to close most of its enforcement cases--53 percent of the nearly 200,000 enforcement actions taken during fiscal years 1993 through 2003--and closed about 28 percent with legal sanctions, such as fines. The administrative actions include those taken in response to violations that were self-reported under FAA's industry partnership programs, some of which allow airlines and pilots to self-report violations that, in many cases, FAA then closes administratively. In addition, when FAA managers recommend legal sanctions, they are often reduced by FAA legal counsel staff. For example, FAA managers recommended fines totaling about $334 million for fiscal years 1993-2003; that amount was subsequently reduced to about $162 million. According to FAA, it reduces or eliminates the sanctions when it has proof that the violator is attempting to correct the violation or new evidence arises that may exonerate the alleged violator. Annually, FAA closed about 3,200 cases (about 18 percent of the total cases) without taking action. Cases were often closed in this manner because the investigative reports prepared by inspectors who initially identified the possible violations lacked sufficient evidence, according to FAA. FAA has established some management controls over its enforcement efforts and partnership programs, such as guidance on detecting violations, but lacks management controls in other areas. Specifically, FAA lacks explicit, measurable performance goals for its enforcement actions and partnership programs. In addition, FAA does not evaluate its enforcement efforts and partnership programs. Because FAA has not evaluated the effect of its enforcement actions, it is not possible to tell whether those actions have had a deterrent effect on future violations. FAA is limited in its ability to evaluate enforcement efforts because the agency lacks comprehensive nationwide data. For example, FAA field offices maintain independent, site-specific databases on enforcement cases because of missing or incomplete information in the nationwide Enforcement Information System database, but these databases are not linked. Thus, data maintained in one office are not readily available to other offices

Recommendations for Executive Action

  1. Status: Closed - Implemented

    Comments: The safety of the nation's flying public depends, in large part, on the aviation industry's compliance with safety regulations and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) enforcement of those regulations when violations occur. In 2004, GAO reported that FAA established some management controls over its enforcement efforts, but it lacked controls to measure and evaluate performance. FAA did not evaluate its enforcement activities to determine if stated program goals, such as deterrence of future violations, are being achieved. For example, little was known about nationwide trends in the types of violations or whether systemic, nationwide causes of those violations were identified and addressed. Because FAA had not evaluated the impact of its enforcement efforts, it was not possible to tell whether past enforcement sanctions have had a deterrent effect. FAA was limited in its ability to evaluate enforcement efforts because the agency lacked comprehensive nationwide data. For example, FAA field offices maintained independent, site-specific databases on enforcement cases because of missing or incomplete information in the Enforcement Information System (EIS) database, which was also not user friendly. However, the site-specific databases were not linked; consequently, enforcement and compliance information maintained in one inspection office was not readily available to other inspection offices. Therefore, GAO recommended that FAA develop a continuous evaluative process and use it to create measurable performance goals for enforcement actions, track performance towards those goals, and determine appropriate program changes. In 2017, GAO confirmed that FAA had completed the modernization of EIS to shift the data entry and storage from antiquated platforms and processes to modern systems. The modernized EIS application is a web-based, user-friendly system that has the ability for conducting analysis about trends in violations and enforcement sanctions. The EIS application also exchanges information with other FAA applications to capture reference information and potential violations stored in these applications. As a result, FAA is in a better position to allow Congress, agency officials, and others to evaluate program data to determine if program goals are being achieved and safety risks, such as repeat violations and offenders, are being addressed or whether the enforcement program should be changed as a result of changes in industry compliance. Specifically, FAA's inspection offices now have the ability to query enforcement data easier than before and to create reports that are tailored to their specific oversight needs and can be used to develop performance goals and measures for their enforcement efforts.

    Recommendation: To determine the effectiveness of the agency's enforcement actions and partnership programs, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA Administrator to develop a continuous evaluative process and use it to create measurable performance goals for enforcement actions, track performance towards those goals, and determine appropriate program changes. The evaluation should consider the agency's use of administrative actions and closure of cases with no action, and to identify repeat violators and repeat types of violations.

    Agency Affected: Department of Transportation

  2. Status: Closed - Not Implemented

    Comments: In response to our recommendation, FAA created electronic data bases for entities that participate in FAA's industry partnership programs (i.e. Aviation Safety Action Program and Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program) to enter data on safety problems and track corrective actions. FAA uses this data to compile lists of safety accomplishments. However, the agency does not use this data as part of a continuous evaluative process to track performance toward set goals or determine appropriate program changes. The agency has no plans to change this process.

    Recommendation: To determine the effectiveness of the agency's enforcement actions and partnership programs, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA Administrator to work with industry partners to develop a continuous evaluative process and use it to create measurable performance goals for the partnership programs, track performance towards those goals, and determine appropriate program changes. The evaluation should consider the use and effectiveness of administrative actions in certain partnership programs.

    Agency Affected: Department of Transportation

  3. Status: Closed - Implemented

    Comments: FAA is currently undertaking an EIS modernization effort. In 2007, FAA developed the EIS Modernization Functional Requirements Document. According to the document, modernizing the EIS will allow the FAA to implement several enhancements recommended by GAO in our 2004 report. The enhancements include: reducing duplicate data entry in multiple systems; improving links between inspection and enforcement information systems; providing a more user friendly system; and increasing the size of comment and remarks fields to provide more narrative information about enforcement cases (e.g., to describe the violation event more thoroughly, or to provide more information on why sanction amounts proposed by the Program Office are reduced by the Legal Staff). Further, FAA has updated its Compliance and Enforcement Program, through Order 2150.3B (finalized October 1, 2007), to include a requirement that legal counsel document in the case file any changes in a proposed sanction and the reasons that justify the change.

    Recommendation: To improve the usefulness of the Enforcement Information System (EIS) database to inspection offices and the Office of Chief Counsel, including providing them with historical data on which to base their sanctions, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA Administrator to make efforts to improve the completeness of enforcement information, such as consistently including information on why the sanctions are reduced, as part of the agency's planned efforts to enhance EIS.

    Agency Affected: Department of Transportation

 

Explore the full database of GAO's Open Recommendations »

Aug 3, 2017

Jul 27, 2017

Jul 26, 2017

Jul 20, 2017

May 31, 2017

May 22, 2017

May 18, 2017

May 4, 2017

Looking for more? Browse all our products here