Statement of Edward M. Bolen
President
General Aviation Manufacturers Association
For the Subcommittee on Technology
Committee on Science
U.S. House of Representatives
Hearing on Aviation Manufacturing and Fastener Quality
May 7, 1998
INTRODUCTION
Madame Chair and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important and timely hearing. My name is Edward M. Bolen, and I am President of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). GAMA represents 54 U.S. manufacturers of general aviation aircraft, engines, avionics and other components.
As the members of the subcommittee know, general aviation manufacturing is a driving force in our nation’s strong economy. Our companies employ hundreds of thousands of workers in high tech, well paying manufacturing jobs. We contribute positively to our nation’s balance of trade. We utilize cutting edge technology and sophisticated manufacturing techniques to produce the safest and most reliable aviation products in the world. And, we operate under the strict federal oversight of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Madame Chair, the general aviation manufacturing industry is seriously threatened by the federal regulations implementing the Fastener Quality Act scheduled to take effect on July 26. At best these regulations will slow production schedules and increase costs without improving safety. A more likely scenario is that production lines will halt and safety will be compromised.
I applaud you for holding this hearing to examine the issue.
I would like take a few minutes to explain to the subcommittee why GAMA does not believe Congress ever intended the proprietary fasteners of aviation manufacturers to be covered by the Fastener Quality Act. In addition, I would like to show how subjecting these fasteners to the requirements of the FQA would be redundant and could compromise safety.
It is my hope that based on the testimony presented by myself and others at today’s hearing that Congress will promptly move forward with legislation to correct the serious problems for aviation manufacturing associated with the FQA. As you know, the FQA is scheduled to be implemented on July 26 so time is of the essence.
HISTORY OF THE FASTENER QUALITY ACT
A report issued by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce found that during the 1980s "widespread counterfeiting and failures of high-strength fasteners" jeopardized public safety. In response, Congress passed the Fastener Quality Act in 1990. The Fastener Quality Act required fasteners that were held out as meeting certain standards and were used in a critical application to be tested in laboratories accredited by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The legislative history indicates that Congress envisioned a regulatory program that would apply to approximately one percent of all fasteners. (See Senate Report No. 101-388, July 23, 1990, page 2).
In 1996, Congress amended the Fastener Quality Act with a series of changes aimed at "reducing" the potential burden of the FQA. (See Public Law 104-113 and 61 Federal Register at page 50557).
Among other things, the 1996 amendment deleted confusing language in the 1990 Act which some people interpreted as applying the requirements of the FQA to the proprietary fasteners of original equipment manufacturers like the aviation manufacturing companies GAMA represents. Congress reportedly deleted the confusing language in order to "make it clear" that only those fasteners which are produced to a standard or specification published by a consensus standards organization or by a government agency are subject to the FQA. (See 61 Federal Register at page 50540).
Despite the actions of Congress in 1996, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published a very broad implementing rule which had the practical effect of subjecting the proprietary fasteners of aviation manufacturers to the requirements of the Fastener Quality Act.
For those interested in the details, the problem is as follows: NIST’s implementing rule subjects to the FQA fasteners which are "produced to any standard that references (directly or indirectly) standards and specifications published by a consensus standards organization or a government agency for purposes of delineating performance or materials characteristics of the fasteners." (See 61 Federal Register at page 50545). Here is an example of what this language means. If an aircraft manufacturer custom designs a special bolt for a landing gear, which has a unique size and shape for the unique function it performs, but uses "standard" threads, the implementing regulations would subject this custom bolt to the requirements of the FQA.
Since virtually all of the proprietary fasteners of aviation manufacturers inevitably reference to some limited extent consensus or government standards (usually for such things as dimensions or thread patterns), NIST’s implementing rule has the practical effect of subjecting those fasteners to the requirements of the FQA. This is true despite the fact that these are special use, custom designed fasteners—not the standard, commercial off-the-shelf fasteners Congress intended to be covered by the FQA.
Remember, when Congress passed the Fastener Quality Act in 1990 it expected one percent of all fasteners to be covered by the FQA. Today, however, it is estimated that the vast majority of fasteners will be covered by the FQA.
SUBJECTING AVIATION FASTENERS TO FQA IS UNNECESSARY
It is unnecessary to subject the proprietary fasteners of aviation manufacturers to the requirements of the FQA because these fasteners are already subject to the stringent quality assurance programs of the Federal Aviation Administration. By law, proprietary aviation fasteners must meet the comprehensive design, construction, testing and quality standards of the FAA. The standards include the suitability and durability of the materials used in construction, the methods of fabrication employed in the manufacturing process, and the testing of products which ensure quality and workmanship. It is a quality assurance program regularly reviewed and audited by the FAA.
The FAA quality assurance program clearly works. Proprietary fasteners of aviation manufacturers have not been a safety problem. In fact, the FAA has indicated that they know of no fatal aircraft accidents caused by the failure of a proprietary fastener.
GAMA itself has investigated several hundred cases in which the National Transportation Safety Board cited fastener failure as a contributing cause in an aviation accident. Our research found that in virtually every instance the fastener failure was the result of improper installation or maintenance—not improper design or manufacture. And, in those instances where the fastener failure was not related to improper installation or maintenance, we found that the problem usually stemmed from the fact that the aircraft was being operated well outside of its operating envelope. As a result, fasteners were being subjected to loads they were not designed or intended to handle.
The point is, GAMA’s research has shown that subjecting the proprietary fasteners of aviation manufacturers to the requirements of the Fastener Quality Act would not have saved a single life.
SUBJECTING AVIATION FASTENERS TO FQA IS PARTICULARY ONEROUS
Because of the unique nature of aviation manufacturing, forcing manufacturers to subject their proprietary aviation fasteners to the requirements of the FQA would be particularly difficult and onerous.
One of the unique features of the aviation industry which has already been discussed in some detail is the degree to which manufacturers are already subject to the quality assurance requirements of the FAA. And, since the FAA’s approach to quality assurance differs greatly from NIST’s, it is difficult to see how aviation manufacturers could reasonably be expected to reconcile the two.
The fact is that the FAA is a federal agency directly and deeply involved in the programs it approves. NIST, on the other hand, relies on "third parties" to establish standards and accredit facilities. Because the FAA cannot recognize NIST’s third party approach as meeting its oversight responsibilities, aviation manufacturers would be forced to develop separate testing processes for the two federal agencies. In some cases the processes would be redundant and in other cases the processes may conflict. In either event, costs and production times would increase without a corresponding increase in safety. In fact, the FAA believes that forcing manufacturers to develop a more complicated production process to meet the FQA may actually undermine safety. (See attached FAA letter to NIST dated April 22, 1998).
It should also be understood that aircraft manufacturers are different from other manufacturers in the sense that they produce a wide variety of very specialized parts in very small quantities. This unique feature of the industry again makes compliance with the FQA particularly onerous. There is not a large volume of individual fasteners among which the costs of compliance can be spread.
SERIOUS IMPLEMENATION PROBLEMS
In order for aviation manufactures to operate under the FQA as implemented by NIST, aviation manufacturers would have to examine all design drawings to determine what parts could be covered by the FQA. Unfortunately, guidance on that is matter has not been forthcoming. The FQA defines covered fasteners as any "nut, bolt, stud, or screw" that possesses certain identifying characteristics. However, neither the FQA itself nor the implementing regulations define the key terms "nut" "bolt" "stud" or "screw."
Because of the lack of guidance as to what a "nut, bolt, stud or screw" is, individual companies have been forced to develop their own definitions. Some companies have used Webster’s Dictionary as a reference. Other have relied on Industrial Fastener Institute definitions. However, neither of these sources seems directly applicable to aviation manufacturers.
The industry has concluded that one of the defining characteristics of all nuts, bolts, studs and screws is that their primary purpose is to hold two or more parts relative to each other. However, NIST officials have not endorsed any functionality test.
There are two examples that are especially helpful in displaying the importance of functionality. One is a metering pin. It is a threaded metal object that regulates the flow of fluid through a landing gear. It does not hold any two parts relative to each other. If anything, it is a valve. However, when NIST was asked if the metering pin could be covered by the FQA, they responded that because it was threaded and metal, it might be considered a fastener.
Another example is a sparkplug. Again, it is a threaded metal object but it does not hold two parts relative to each other. Instead, the threads exist for it to hold itself into place. However, when NIST was asked if the sparkplug could be covered by the FQA, they responded that because it was threaded and metal, it might be considered a fastener.
Given the criminal penalties that exist for non-compliance, I think you can understand the concern among aviation manufacturers about not getting more guidance on the fundamental question about what is and what is not covered by the FQA. We believe this lack of guidance by NIST is intolerable especially when there already exists a federal regulatory agency – FAA – that understands the nature of aviation manufacturing and oversees comprehensive safety programs.
In addition to the confusion over what products are covered by the FQA, there also remains a serious question about the availability of labs for the proprietary fasteners of aviation manufacturers. Here again, the small volume, but large number, of unique fasteners found in the aviation industry makes it difficult to create an economic incentive for labs to equip themselves to handle these fasteners.
CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons mentioned, GAMA proposes that the proprietary fasteners of aviation manufacturers continue to be regulated solely by the FAA and that commercial off-the-shelf fasteners be regulated by NIST under the FQA. We believe this approach is in the best interest of safety, efficiency and common sense.
Aviation manufacturing is, and hopes to remain, a vital part of our nation’s economy employing thousands and contributing to our nation’s balance of trade. The proprietary fasteners produced by aviation manufacturers are quality parts with an outstanding safety record. Moreover, they are already subject to strict federal oversight.
GAMA urges Congress to move forward with legislation that recognizes the FAA as the federal agency charged with ensuring the quality of the proprietary fasteners of aviation manufacturers.
Hearing on Aviation Manufacturing and Fastener Quality
May 7, 1998