This bill requires the Federal Aviation Administration to take concrete administrative steps to make the aircraft type certification process more transparent, predictable, and suited to ‘‘new and novel’’ technologies. It directs the Administrator to publish a public plan, revise internal orders governing issue papers and timelines, and update delegation guidance that governs how the FAA uses authorized representatives and applicant personnel in certification tasks.
For industry and regulators alike, the bill targets the core pain point driving delays and cost in certifying electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and other advanced designs: repeated, ad hoc issue papers and unclear delegation criteria. If implemented, these changes aim to shorten approval uncertainty, provide clearer decision‑making roles inside the FAA, and create a better basis for performance‑based compliance — while leaving safety judgments explicitly with the Administrator.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the FAA to publish a public plan improving the issue paper process and to incorporate consideration of performance‑based standards. It requires the FAA to amend current internal guidance (including FAA order 8110.112A or its successor) to establish standard expected timelines and to publish updated delegation guidance for type certification.
Who It Affects
Manufacturers and applicants pursuing type and supplemental type certificates for novel aircraft (including advanced air mobility and powered‑lift designs), trade associations, airports/vertiport infrastructure providers, FAA certification staff, and authorized representatives who perform delegated certification tasks.
Why It Matters
By codifying transparency, timelines, and explicit delegation criteria, the bill aims to reduce regulatory uncertainty that has slowed commercialization of advanced aircraft. For compliance officers and product teams, it would shift part of the certification risk from opaque processes to documented standards and metrics.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill tackles four administrative points the sponsors identify as barriers to certifying new aircraft designs. First, it requires the FAA to publish a plan explaining how it will improve the ‘‘issue paper’’ process — the internal mechanism the agency uses to resolve novel technical questions during a certification project.
That plan must address when consensus industry standards will be acceptable as means of compliance and encourage performance‑based standards where feasible.
Second, the bill directs the FAA to set standard expected timelines in its guidance documents. The point is not to set hard statutory deadlines for safety decisions, but to create published ranges for milestone achievement and response times so applicants can plan staffing, investment, and market timing with more certainty.
The bill preserves FAA discretion for genuinely complex or unsafe issues the Administrator identifies as exceptions.Third, the legislation requires the FAA to adopt specific criteria for when an internal issue rises to the level of an issue paper and which FAA roles evaluate those criteria. The bill pushes the agency to convert repeatedly recurring issue papers into published, stable policy — for example through advisory circulars or annual updates to airworthiness standards — so the same questions don’t get relitigated in each certification project.Fourth, the bill requires updated delegation guidance: who is eligible to receive delegated authority, which findings are ‘‘routine’’ versus ‘‘safety‑critical,’’ and how the agency documents and manages cases where it chooses not to use authorized representatives.
Taken together, these provisions are administrative and procedural rather than substantive changes to safety standards; they reallocate risk from ad hoc processes into published processes, while keeping ultimate safety authority at the FAA.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Administrator must consult explicitly with certified bargaining representatives of FAA safety inspectors, specialists, technicians, and engineers when drafting the transparency plan and timelines.
The bill directs conversion of recurring issue papers into published policy or advisory circulars and annual updates to product airworthiness standards to reduce repeat adjudication.
It preserves the Administrator’s sole discretion to exclude ‘‘complex issues’’ that present unsafe conditions from the standard timelines.
Updated delegation guidance must include criteria for applicant eligibility for delegation and a categorical split between routine and safety‑critical compliance findings.
The FAA must report annually to the Senate Commerce Committee and House Transportation Committee on timeline metrics, instances where timelines were exceeded, and steps to address staffing or process shortfalls.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Transparency plan and expected timelines for issue papers
This section requires the FAA to publish a public plan explaining how it will improve the issue paper process and how it will favor consensus or performance‑based standards when consistent with safety. It also directs the FAA to amend its orders to establish standard expected timelines for major type certification milestones — including development of issue papers and FAA response windows — and to make conforming updates across related orders. Practically, this pushes the FAA to translate internal practices into published expectations, but it also leaves a carve‑out for the Administrator to treat unusually complex, safety‑critical matters outside those timelines.
Criteria for when the FAA creates an issue paper and how to stabilize recurring issues
This section mandates that the FAA specify objective criteria for when an issue requires an issue paper and assign which FAA roles evaluate those criteria. It requires the agency to account for both means‑and‑methods considerations under performance‑based projects and to eliminate recurring issue papers by converting stable approaches into advisory circulars or folding them into annual updates of airworthiness standards. For applicants and their compliance teams, this creates a pathway for questions that previously required case‑by‑case adjudication to become standing policy — reducing repeated justification and potentially shortening future reviews.
Updated delegation guidance for type certification activities
This section requires the FAA to post updated delegation guidance within a short timeframe and spells out required content: eligibility criteria for delegation, a classification scheme for routine versus safety‑critical findings, and processes for documentation and management review if the FAA chooses not to use authorized representatives. The practical implication is twofold: the agency must justify when it keeps work in‑house, and applicants will have clearer expectations about what tasks they can be delegated and how the FAA will oversee those delegations.
Congressional reporting on implementation and metrics
The law requires the FAA to report within a specified period after adopting standard timelines and then annually, providing metrics on performance against those timelines, descriptions of internal review processes, and explanations where timelines were missed along with staffing or process changes to address shortfalls. This creates an accountability loop that will surface whether published timelines are realistic and whether the FAA has the resources to meet them.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Advanced air mobility and novel aircraft manufacturers — clearer expectations on timelines, published policy in place of recurring issue papers, and defined delegation criteria reduce regulatory uncertainty and lower program risk.
- Applicants' certification and compliance teams — stability from converting recurring issue papers into advisory circulars lets in‑house compliance plans be reused across projects instead of recreated each time.
- Infrastructure providers (airports and vertiport developers) — earlier visibility into certification questions that affect infrastructure design helps align facility planning with vehicle certification timelines.
Who Bears the Cost
- FAA headquarters and Aircraft Certification Service — the agency must invest staff time to produce plans, amend orders, create metrics, and respond to reporting requirements, and may need to reallocate resources to meet published timelines.
- Small manufacturers and new entrants — if the FAA tightens delegation eligibility or reclassifies certain findings as safety‑critical, smaller firms may face higher compliance costs or need to hire qualified representatives.
- Authorized representatives and designated engineering organizations — clearer criteria and documentation requirements may increase oversight and administrative burdens, and some delegated activities could be pulled back into FAA review.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is predictability versus prudence: the bill pushes the FAA to make type certification more predictable and industry‑friendly, but doing so requires narrowing discretionary judgment and delegating more work — moves that can speed commercialization but also risk reducing the agency’s ability to catch novel safety problems unless the FAA invests in oversight, periodic review, and clear safeguards.
The bill is procedural: it directs publication of plans, timelines, criteria, and guidance rather than changing substantive airworthiness standards. That focus reduces the risk of immediate safety compromises, but it shifts attention to implementation details that will determine whether the changes actually speed certification.
The FAA must balance two operational demands: turning internal judgment calls into repeatable, published processes while preserving the flexibility to treat genuinely novel safety risks as exceptions. Implementation will also require staffing and governance investments; without commensurate resources the FAA risks producing timelines it cannot meet or metrics that encourage gaming.
Delegation updates are potentially the most consequential operational change. Clear eligibility criteria and a routine/safety‑critical split can streamline approvals, but they also raise governance and conflict‑of‑interest questions: increasing delegation to applicants reduces FAA oversight and can accelerate approvals, yet it requires robust documentation and management review to prevent blind spots.
Similarly, converting recurring issue papers into advisory circulars improves predictability but risks codifying interim solutions that were only appropriate for narrow technical contexts unless the agency ensures those conversions are well‑justified and periodically reviewed.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.