This bill instructs the Federal Aviation Administration to publish a plan and concrete timelines to modernize the type‑certification process so it better accommodates new and novel aviation technologies, including advanced air mobility. It requires the FAA to amend its issue‑paper guidance, convert repeatable issue papers into stable policy, and release updated delegation criteria for when and how certification work can be delegated to others.
The statute couples predictability measures (published timelines, consultation requirements, and reporting to Congress) with a non‑justiciability rule that prevents courts from enforcing those timelines. For industry, the Act promises clearer paths for certification; for the FAA, it creates near‑term implementation duties and new oversight expectations that may shift resources and processes within Aircraft Certification Service operations.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires the FAA to publish a plan within 180 days and to amend internal guidance to set expected timelines for type‑certification milestones, establish criteria for creating issue papers, and publish updated delegation guidance within 90 days. It also mandates converting recurring issue papers into published policy or annual regulatory updates and directs annual reporting to two congressional committees.
Who It Affects
Aircraft and powerplant manufacturers pursuing type or supplemental type certificates—especially firms developing advanced air mobility vehicles—FAA Aircraft Certification Service staff and their certified designees, airport and vertiport infrastructure planners, and trade associations representing these groups.
Why It Matters
The measure aims to reduce unpredictable delays that slow commercialization of novel aircraft by creating standardized internal processes and clearer delegation rules; however, it explicitly prevents these timelines from creating new legal rights or judicially enforceable deadlines, which shapes how industry can rely on the new schedules.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill directs the FAA to produce a publicly available plan within 180 days that explains how the agency will improve the issue paper process tied to type and supplemental type certification. That plan must address when consensus industry standards can satisfy compliance requirements, efforts to create stable policy on matters that routinely require special conditions, and how performance‑based standards will be considered during certification.
Within 270 days the FAA must amend Order 8110.112A (or its successor) and related documents to set ranges of expected timelines for major certification milestones (for example, the expected FAA response times on issue papers, timing between closure of a special‑condition issue paper and any proposed/final rulemaking, and response times for exemption petitions and applicant submissions). The bill excludes from those timelines ‘‘complex issues’’ that the Administrator determines present an unsafe condition.Separately, the Administrator must, within 90 days, post updated delegation guidance describing who is eligible to receive delegation, how to classify routine versus safety‑critical compliance findings, documentation and management‑review processes when the FAA retains work, and how delegation choices should support safety while promoting predictable certification for novel technologies.
The bill also requires the FAA to consult specific stakeholders—industry trade groups, prospective infrastructure providers, and certified bargaining representatives for FAA technical staff—when developing the plans and timelines.To reduce recurring bottlenecks, the statute directs the FAA to convert stable means‑of‑compliance issue papers into formal policy instruments such as advisory circulars and to incorporate stable issue‑paper content into annual updates of product airworthiness standards. Finally, the Act requires the FAA to report annually to the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Transportation Committee on performance metrics, instances when timelines were missed and corrective steps, and progress toward stable policy—while making clear that the published timelines do not create enforceable legal rights or permit judicial review of missed timelines.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The FAA must publish a public plan for improving the issue paper process within 180 days of enactment.
The agency must amend Order 8110.112A (or its successor) within 270 days to establish standard expected timeline ranges for key type‑certification milestones and FAA response times.
The Administrator has 90 days to post updated delegation guidance that includes eligibility criteria for delegation and classifications of routine versus safety‑critical compliance findings.
Recurring issue papers that establish stable means of compliance must be converted into published policy (e.g.
advisory circulars) or incorporated into annual updates to product airworthiness standards.
Section 6 bars creation of any new legal rights from the published timelines and prevents judicial review of the FAA’s adherence to those timelines.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Transparency plan and standard expected timelines for type certification
This section obligates the FAA to publish a plan on its website describing improvements to the issue‑paper process and how consensus standards and performance‑based approaches will be used. It requires the FAA to set expected timeline ranges for milestones—such as issuing or closing issue papers, responding to exemption petitions, and applicant follow‑ups—by amending Order 8110.112A and related materials. Practically, this pushes the agency to quantify internal workflow expectations and provide industry a predictable framework, but it also lets the Administrator exclude technically complex safety issues from those timelines.
Criteria for initiating and resolving issue papers
The bill mandates concrete criteria in the FAA’s issue‑paper guidance to determine when an item is significant enough to require an issue paper and which FAA roles decide that. It explicitly directs the FAA to plan for performance‑based projects that split issue papers into means and methods of compliance, and to eliminate repetitive issue papers by elevating stable solutions to formal policy. That mechanism institutionalizes a pathway for recurring technical questions to become standardized guidance, reducing repeated case‑by‑case treatment.
Updated delegation guidance for type certification work
Within 90 days the Administrator must publish updated delegation guidance covering applicant eligibility, how to classify compliance findings, and documentation/management review procedures when the FAA opts not to delegate. The guidance must also weigh how delegation practices affect both safety and U.S. competitiveness. For delegated organizations and manufacturers, this will clarify the baseline for eligibility and the critical internal controls expected by the FAA.
Sense of Congress on U.S. leadership in aviation
This nonbinding section affirms Congress’s view that the U.S. should support advanced air mobility and maintain leadership in novel aviation technologies. It signals congressional intent behind the operational directives elsewhere in the bill but creates no separate legal obligations.
Rule of construction: timelines non‑justiciable
The Act explicitly states that establishing expected timelines does not create new legal rights and that adherence or failure to meet those timelines is not reviewable in court. This limits industry’s legal remedies if the FAA misses its self‑imposed schedules and shifts the emphasis toward administrative oversight rather than litigation.
Definitions
This short section defines terms used in the Act, including Administrator, FAA, and advanced air mobility referencing the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024. The cross‑reference to an existing statutory definition ensures consistency with prior legislative vocabulary for advanced air mobility use cases.
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 — gain clearer, published expectations on certification pathways and response timelines, reducing uncertainty for project planning and investment decisions.
- U.S. aerospace OEMs and exporters — benefit from a formal push to use consensus standards and convert repeatable issue papers into stable policy, helping scale production and support international acceptance of U.S. practices.
- Infrastructure planners (airports/vertiport operators) — receive a formal consultative role and earlier visibility into certification requirements that could affect facility design and permitting.
Who Bears the Cost
- FAA (Aircraft Certification Service) — must allocate staff, update orders and processes, run consultations, and produce annual performance reporting, creating near‑term administrative and resource burdens.
- Applicants and delegated designees — face new documentation expectations, potential additional management‑review steps when FAA retains work, and uncertainty about how delegation eligibility criteria will be applied.
- Congressional oversight functions — committees will need to analyze performance metrics and corrective actions annually, adding workload and potential demands for resources or follow‑up directives.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between speeding and standardizing certification to support U.S. competitiveness and preserving the FAA’s capacity to exercise case‑by‑case technical judgment to protect safety; the bill pushes for predictability without giving industry legal recourse if predictability fails, shifting the balance toward administrative fixes rather than judicial enforcement.
The bill pursues predictability by imposing internal timelines and formalizing recurring technical decisions, but it stops short of creating enforceable deadlines. That non‑justiciability clause protects the FAA from litigation over missed timelines, which reduces the legal leverage industry might hope to gain and places the onus on administrative transparency and congressional oversight to compel compliance.
This design trades legal enforceability for administrative flexibility.
Delegation guidance and the push to convert recurring issue papers into published policy are double‑edged. Delegation can speed approvals but increases reliance on non‑federal actors; the bill requires documentation and management review but does not prescribe funding or staffing increases for FAA supervision.
Converting issue papers to advisory circulars promotes consistency, yet it risks ossifying solutions that later prove suboptimal for novel designs if the conversion process lacks a robust review cadence. Finally, the requirement to consult bargaining representatives and industry creates a structured stakeholder input channel but does not resolve how conflicting technical judgments between FAA staff, labor, and private applicants will be adjudicated.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.