# Wheels and Wings

Issue 3

April 2008

www.gsa.gov/vehiclepolicy or aircraftpolicy

Page 1

# article AFDC Features Wealth of Compliance-Related Data

Photo -- Review of a fuel cell equipped Chevrolet SUV being fueled

The alternative fuel use requirements outlined in the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA) and Executive Order (E.O.) 13423
are presenting federal fleets with new compliance challenges. In these
times of change, easily obtaining pertinent, factual, unbiased
information on alternative fuels and advanced vehicles is critical in
making decisions on how to meet petroleum-reduction goals.

The Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center (AFDC) can help.
Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy' s Clean Cities initiative
and administered by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the AFDC
(www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/about.html) is a comprehensive clearinghouse
of data, publications, tools, and information related to advanced
transportation technologies. It hosts 3,000-plus documents, interactive
tools that help fleets and consumers make transportation decisions, and
a wealth of information to educate the public on alternative fuels and
advanced vehicles.

Make the AFDC your first stop when researching alternative fuels and
advanced vehicles to meet EPAct, EISA, and E.O. 13423 requirements.

For example:

-   Do you need to find out if E85 or another alternative fuel is
    available in your area? Visit the Alternative Fueling Station
    Locator (www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/stations.html) and enter the
    address of your vehicle' s garaging address. The Station Locator
    will pull up a list of stations within a chosen radius.

-   Are you thinking about installing onsite alternative refueling
    infrastructure? Visit the AFDC' s Alternative Fueling Stations
    section (http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/stations.html) and
    scroll to the bottom of the page. There you' ll find links to
    information on the development of infrastructure for ethanol,
    biodiesel, natural gas, and propane. In addition, the AFDC' s E85
    Fleet Toolkit (www.eere.energy.-gov/afdc/e85toolkit) walks fleets
    through the process of installing E85 refueling stations.

-   Are you looking for general information on alternative and advanced
    fuels? The AFDC' s Fuels
    section(http://www.eere.energy.gov/-afdc/fuels/index.html) features
    detailed descriptions of all EPAct-approved alternative fuels,
    including E85, biodiesel, natural gas, and propane. It also covers
    advanced fuels, such as biogas, P-Series, and Fischer-Tropsch
    diesel.

As you can see, the AFDC is a valuable resource in researching
information on compliance options. However, if you need additional
assistance, contact your local Clean Cities coordinator. Coordinators
routinely work with fleets to help them meet petroleum-consumption
goals. To find the coordinator in your area, visit the Contacts section
of the Clean Cities Web site
(www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/-progs/coordinators.php).

Page 2

# CONTENTS Section

AFDC Features Wealth of Compliance-Related Data page 1

GovEnergy Conference page 3

"Where does it say...?" page 4

# SAFETY

Driving Defensively page 5

Aggressive Drivers, "Who Are They?" page 6

Older Adult Drivers: Fact Sheet page 7

# GREEN ZONE

Study Shows Biodiesel Industry Steps Up

to Fuel Quality Challenge page 8

LNG: Receiving Renewed Attention page 9

If You Have to Choose Between Buying Tires,\
Helping the Environment, Increasing Productivity and Saving Money,

You' re Not On Retreads page 10

# ON THE HORIZON

Unmanned Aircraft Systems: In Need of a Flight Plan page 11

Capital Acquisition and Planning Tools page 12

A Standard for Unmanned Systems page 13

Rough Seas Ahead for USVs page 14

# GSA UPDATE

GSA Moves Forward in Implementing a Vehicle Registration System page 17

2007 Annual Federal Fleet Report Released page 18

Would You Like OGP to Attend Your Agency Meetings? Page 18

GSA Hosts Aviation Strategic Planning Workshop page 19

# COMMUNITY NEWS

Bulletin Board page 20

# Wheels and Wings

Director Jan Dobbs phone (202) 208-6601

Vehicle Management Policy Contacts

The Office of Governmentwide Policy, Vehicle Management Policy Program's
mission is to ensure the effective and efficient use of the Federal
Government's 640,000 motor vehicles and the expenditure of close to \$2
billion annually on fleet operations through innovative policies,
adoption of best practices, effective communication, and leading edge
technologies.

Jacquie Perry phone (202) 501-3347

Jim Vogelsinger phone (202) 501-1764

Connie Aaron phone (202) 208-7634

Ed Lawler phone (202) 501-3354

Mike Moses phone (202) 501-2507

Please address your questions or comments concerning Wheels & Wings to
the editor:

Jacquie Perry phone (202) 501-3347 or e-mail to Jacquie.Perry@gsa.gov.

Aviation Management Policy Contacts

The aviation management policy team, in collaboration with the
Interagency Committee for Aviation Policy (ICAP), develops
governmentwide policies for managing the acquisition, use, and disposal
of aircraft that the federal civilian agencies own or hire. In addition,
it collects, analyzes, and reports information on government aircraft,
using the Federal Aviation Interactive Reporting System (FAIRS); and
promotes best practices in federal aviation management. In cooperation
with ICAP-member agencies, the overarching goal is to foster, most
effective and efficient aviation in U.S. government agencies.

Elizabeth Allison phone (202) 219-1729

Mike Miles phone (202) 219-1356

Bob Sherouse phone (202) 208-0521

Jay Spurr phone (202) 501-1764

Please address your questions or comments concerning Wheels & Wings to
the editor:

Elizabeth Allison phone (202) 219-1729 or e-mail to
Elizabeth.Allison@gsa.gov.

Graphic Design: Tom Pearlman

GSA Office of Citizen Services and Communications

Page 4

**article "Where does it say...?"**

Most often when I hear a question regarding a specific fleet management
issue, the person begins with "Where does it say...?", and then finishes
the question citing their particular circumstance. These folks are
naturally looking for an answer in black and white so they have a
documented reference to support their position or decision.

Sometimes the answer may be directly spelled out in a text, but more
often, the answer lies within an interpretation of data gathered from
many sources.

Guidance for Federal motor vehicle management does not come from one
definitive reference, but is derived from many places. Laws,
regulations, Executive Orders, advisory bulletins, agency-specific
policy, Comptroller General Decisions, OMB Circulars, Office of General
Counsel guidance, are some of the many resources that can inform the
Federal fleet management process.

Resolving fleet management issues can best be approached by consulting
these sources and applying sound decision-making to develop a solution.
Links to these sources may be found in the online "Guide to Federal
Fleet Management" found at gsa.gov/vehiclepolicy.

Contact: Jim Vogelsinger @ 202-501-1764 or james.vogelsinger \@gsa.gov

Page 5

# SAFETY section

# article Driving Defensively

Provided by the National Safety Council

More than 41,000 people lose their lives in motor vehicle crashes each
year and over two million more suffer disabling injuries, according to
the National Safety Council. The triple threat of high speeds, impaired
or careless driving and not using occupant restraints threatens every
driver---regardless of how careful or how skilled.

Driving defensively means not only taking responsibility for yourself
and your actions but also keeping an eye on "the other guy." The
National Safety Council suggests the following guidelines to help reduce
your risks on the road.

-   Don' t start the engine without securing each passenger in the car,
    including children and pets. Safety belts save thousands of lives
    each year! Lock all doors.

-   Remember that driving too fast or too slow can increase the
    likelihood of collisions.

-   Don' t kid yourself. If you plan to drink, designate a driver who
    won' t drink. Alcohol is a factor in almost half of all fatal motor
    vehicle crashes.

-   Be alert! If you notice that a car is straddling the center line,
    weaving, making wide turns, stopping abruptly or responding slowly
    to traffic signals, the driver may be impaired.

-   Avoid an impaired driver by turning right at the nearest corner or
    exiting at the nearest exit. If it appears that an oncoming car is
    crossing into your lane, pull over to the roadside, sound the horn
    and flash your lights.

-   Notify the police immediately after seeing a motorist who is driving
    suspiciously.

-   Follow the rules of the road. Don' t contest the "right of way" or
    try to race another car during a merge. Be respectful of other
    motorists.

-   Don' t follow too closely. Always use a "three-second following
    distance" or a "three-second plus following distance."

-   While driving, be cautious, aware and responsible.

Page 6

# article Aggressive Drivers, "Who Are They?"

Provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Here' s what we know of them, so far:

These high risk drivers climb into the anonymity of an automobile and
take out their frustrations on anybody at any time.

-   For them, frustration levels are high, and level of concern for
    fellow motorists is low.

-   They run stop signs and red lights, speed, tailgate, weave in and
    out of traffic, pass on the right, make improper and unsafe lane
    changes, make hand and facial gestures, scream, honk, and flash
    their lights.

-   They drive at speeds far in excess of the norm which causes them to:
    follow too closely, change lanes frequently and abruptly without
    notice (signals), pass on the shoulder or unpaved portions of the
    roadway, and leer at and/or threaten - verbally or through
    gestures - motorists who are thoughtless enough to be in front of
    them.

-   

When Confronted by Aggressive Drivers:

-   First and foremost make every attempt to get out of their way.

-   Put your pride in the back seat. Do not challenge them by speeding
    up or attempting to hold-your-own in your travel lane.

-   Wear your seat belt. It will hold you in your seat and behind the
    wheel in case you need to make an abrupt driving maneuver and it
    will protect you in a crash.

-   Avoid eye contact.

-   Ignore gestures and refuse to return them.

-   Report aggressive drivers to the appropriate authorities by
    providing a vehicle description, license number, location, and if
    possible, direction of travel.

-   If you have a "Cell" phone, and can do it safely, call the police
    --- many have special numbers (e.g. 9-1-1 or #77).

-   If an aggressive driver is involved in a crash farther down the
    road, stop a safe distance from the crash scene, wait for the police
    to arrive and report the driving behavior that you witnessed.

-   

Remember How to Deal with Aggressive Drivers.

Avoid the challenges or confrontations of an aggressive driver and
support law enforcement' s efforts to rid the streets and highways of
this menace.

Page 7

# Article Older Adult Drivers: Fact Sheet 

Provided by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention

Overview

-   In the United States, 3,355 occupants ages 65 and older died in
    motor vehicle crashes during 2004 (CDC 2006).

-   In the United States, more than 177,000 adults ages 65 and older
    suffered nonfatal injuries as occupants in motor vehicle crashes
    during 2005 (CDC 2006).

-   In 2004, there were more than 28 million licensed drivers age 65
    years and older a 17-percent increase from the number in 1994.
    During this same time period, the total number of licensed drivers
    increased by only 13 percent (NHTSA 2006).

National Goals

-   By 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services aims to reduce
    motor vehicle-related deaths among people of all ages to no more
    than 8 per 100,000 people. For adults older than age 70, the motor
    vehicle death rate has remained stable at about 23 per 100,000 for
    over a decade (Department of Health and Human Services 2000).

Occurrence

-   Drivers ages 80 and older have higher crash death rates per mile
    driven than all but teen drivers (IIHS 2006).

-   During 2005, most traffic fatalities involving older drivers
    occurred during the daytime (79%) and on weekdays (73%); 73% of the
    crashes involved another vehicle (NHTSA 2006).

Consequences

-   Older drivers who are injured in motor vehicle crashes are more
    likely than younger drivers to die from their injuries (IIHS 2006).

Groups at Risk

-   Across all age groups, rates for motor vehicle-related fatalities
    are higher for men than for women (IIHS 2006).

Risk Factors

-   Age-related decreases in vision, cognitive functions, and physical
    impairments may affect some older adults driving ability.

Protective Factors

-   Older adults wear safety belts more often than any other age groups
    except infants and preschool children (CDC 1997).

-   Among older occupants involved in fatal crashes, 75% were using
    restraints at the time of the crash, compared to 62% for other adult
    occupants (18 to 64 years old) (NHTSA 2006).

-   Older adult drivers tend to drive when conditions are safest. They
    limit their driving during bad weather and at night, and they drive
    fewer miles than younger drivers.

-   Older adult drivers are less likely to drink and drive than other
    adult drivers.

Page 8

# GREEN ZONE section

# article Study Shows Biodiesel Industry Steps Up to Fuel Quality Challenge

BQ-9000 quality assurance program shines

The aggressive fuel quality outreach program put into place by the
National Biodiesel Board (NBB) has demonstrated positive results. A new
study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) shows the
biodiesel industry has achieved a high degree of success in meeting
national fuel quality standards.

According to the results, which NREL Senior Chemist Teresa Alleman
presented today at the National Biodiesel Conference & Expo in Orlando,
Fla., the in-spec samples represent 90 percent of the biodiesel produced
in the U.S. last year. This demonstrates a significant improvement in
fuel quality since a previous NREL survey in 2006.

This conclusion is based on a relatively large sample size. The sample
covered 70 percent of actual U.S. production in 2007 and is believed by
NREL to be representative of biodiesel production nationwide. NREL, a
Department of Energy laboratory based in Golden, Colo., collected the
samples from biodiesel producers between April and October 2007. The
plants made biodiesel from different vegetable oils and fats, and ranged
in actual production from 3,000 to 30 million gallons per year. NREL
then tested each sample for the most critical parameters required by
ASTM D 6751, the national standard for biodiesel.

"These data show that the biodiesel industry has achieved dramatic
improvements in fuel quality since 2006," said Steve Howell, NBB
Technical Director. "We expect that this trend will continue so that
virtually all biodiesel sold in the U.S. meets these requirements in the
very near future."

The study showed that plants certified under BQ-9000, the industry' s
voluntary quality control program, faired the best. BQ-9000 producers
consistently hit the mark, no matter how large or small the plant.

According to NREL, the one sample that was out of specification from a
BQ-9000 producer was most likely a sampling or contamination error, not
an actual manufacturing issue. There are 27 companies certified under
BQ-9000. Industry-wide, those producers represent about 75 percent of
biodiesel produced.

"In the summer of 2006, our Board of Directors put into place a strong
fuel quality policy with the goal of increasing the level of
in-specification biodiesel in the U.S. to 100 percent," said Joe Jobe,
CEO of the National Biodiesel Board (NBB). "The NBB' s outreach efforts
with enforcement agencies and our investment in the BQ-9000 program have
yielded terrific results, and we' ll continue to push for 100 percent."

In addition to putting more resources into BQ-9000, the NBB has worked
with the Internal Revenue Service and Environmental Protection Agency on
enforcing fuel quality. In order to receive the federal tax incentives
for biodiesel, the biodiesel must meet D 6751.

NBB is also working with all state Divisions of Weights and Measures,
encouraging them to adopt ASTM D 6751 into regulatory laws, and enforce
it. Currently, 36 states have adopted the standard. Sixteen states now
proactively test biodiesel or biodiesel blends, and 33 states will react
to complaints about out-of-spec biodiesel. An online Fuel Quality
Enforcement Guide (www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelqualityguide)
provides guidance on actions for anyone who has concerns that a company
might not be producing in-spec fuel.

"ASTM standards are in place to protect consumers, and demonstrating
that the vast majority of our producers are meeting that standard will
continue to build consumer confidence," said Howell. "This will also
reassure engine makers that their growing support for biodiesel is
wellplaced."

The study confirmed that feedstock choice was irrelevant to whether the
fuel met the standard. Biodiesel made from recycled cooking oil, for
example, was just as likely to meet spec as fuel made from more common
feedstocks like soybean oil. Biodiesel is a cleaner burning alternative
fuel that can be used in any diesel engine, usually in a blend of 20
percent or below. The use of biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine
results in a substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, and particulate matter.

Readers can learn more about biodiesel by visiting www.biodiesel.org.
For a list of BQ-9000 suppliers, visit
[www.bq-9000.org](http://www.bq-9000.org/).

For more information contact Jenna Higgins/NBB at phone 800-841-5849

Page 9

# article LNG: Receiving Renewed Attention

Photo -- Image at top of page of a Liquefied Natural Gas LNG refinery.

It' s no wonder Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is playing an increasingly
important role in the U.S. transportation fuels market. With its
relatively low cost per diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) and with it being
the cleanest burning fuel available, LNG offers a good solution to many
fleets facing the ever-rising price of petroleum based fuels and the
greater awareness and understanding of the environmental impact of
traditional fossil fuels.

According to the International Association of Natural Gas Vehicles,
worldwide there are more than seven million natural gas vehicles,
including those powered by compressed natural gas (CNG) and LNG. The
number of LNG fueling stations is also increasing. This growth in LNG
fueling infrastructure is, of course, key to the increased purchase and
use of LNG powered vehicles.

"Significant recent developments have redefined the natural gas playing
field," said Leo Thomason, Executive Director of the Natural Gas Vehicle
Institute. "From port regulations that focus the spotlight on LNG, to
fuel prices that are at least \$1.50 per gallon more than compressed or
liquid natural gas, the marketplace has aligned to draw renewed
attention to this clean-burning fuel."

So what exactly is LNG?

LNG is composed mainly of methane. It is natural gas that has been
cooled to the point that it condenses into a liquid. This condensation
occurs at a temperature of approximately minus 259 degrees Fahrenheit.
In this form, it is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic fuel. In the
transportation industry, LNG is especially popular among heavy-duty
fleet operators because it allows for increased driving range compared
to CNG.

Why use LNG for your fleet?

LNG has many characteristics that distinguish it from other fuels.
First, liquefaction reduces the volume of natural gas by 600 times which
makes it more economical to transport and easier to store. Second,
natural gas is a widely available and can be a renewable resource.
Natural gas reserves are estimated at 6,813 trillion cubic feet,
according to the Energy Information Administration. In the U.S., there
are more than 113 active LNG facilities, found at marine terminals,
storage facilities, and LNG vehicular fuel operations. Third, LNG
vehicles produce fewer emissions compared to traditional and other
alternative fuels. Fourth, because LNG transforms from its liquid state
into a gaseous state readily before it is consumed in the engine, it is
far more efficient, and because it does not contaminate the engine,
reduces wear and tear, adding to engine life. This, of course, is an
additional economic benefit. Finally, LNG has an excellent safety
record. There have been no reported burn accidents, loss of life, or
other serious injuries related to the use of LNG as a vehicular fuel.

It is still, of course, very important to remember that drivers,
mechanics, and fuel handlers know and use recommended safety practices.
This is especially true given current growth trends in the LNG fuel
industry. To learn more about LNG, its characteristics and properties,
as well as the safety procedures for LNG powered vehicles, and to hear
about NGVi' s one-day LNG safety course, please review a recently
broadcast webinar. It' s called "A Primer: LNG as a Transportation Fuel"
and is available by going to www.afvi.org.

Page 10

**article If You Have to Choose Between Buying Tires,**

**Helping the Environment, Increasing Productivity and Saving Money,
You're Not On Retreads**

The Tire Retread & Repair Information Bureau

Photo -- Image at bottom right of page shows a front-end loader piling
chunked used tires in a tire recycling facility.

When it comes to saving money and helping the environment it is a good
idea to remember that the new black is green. By using retreads you can
do the planet a favor while actually improving your company' s bottom
line. A win-win.

The retreads being produced today by top quality retreaders can actually
outperform many new tires and they cost less, use less oil and energy to
produce and reduce the number of tires sent to landfills.

Whether you are a fleet of one or ten thousand, and whether you are in
the private or public sector, if you aren' t already using retreads you
are not doing your part to help the environment and you are leaving a
lot of money on the table.

Today' s retreads don' t mean compromise; they mean money in the bank.
It' s not often that you can do well while doing good, but that' s
exactly what today' s top quality retreads allow you to do. And you don'
t have to sacrifice safety, performance or handling. Now is a great time
to make the change to retreads, and we can help you set up a retread
program for your fleet.

The Tire Retread & Repair Information Bureau can provide a complete
packet of materials about the economic and environmental benefits of
retreads, Our materials are non commercial and include a Retread Tire
Buyers Guide listing the names and contact information for top quality
retreaders worldwide. To order your packet, call our toll free number
888-473-8732 from anywhere in North America, or send an email to:
<info@retread.org>.

We are also a great resource for all types of tire related information
and are always happy to hear from you and to answer your tire related
questions. Again our toll free number is 888-473-8732. And don' t forget
to visit and bookmark our web site,
[www.retread.org](http://www.retread.org/).

Still not convinced? Let us arrange a tour of a modern retread plant in
your area. You will be amazed at how much care goes into the retreading
of a tire -- which is why today' s top quality retreads often have a
failure rate lower than comparable new tires.

What are you waiting for?

You can also contact us at:

The Tire Retread & Repair Information Bureau (TRIB)

900 Weldon Grove, Pacific Grove, CA 93950 USA

831-372-1917, Fax 831-372-9210,

E-Mail: info@retread.org

Toll Free U.S. & Canada 888-473-8732

TRIB is a non-profit, industry supported association dedicated to the
recycling of tires through tire retreading and tire repairing.

Page 11

# ON THE HORIZON section

**article Unmanned Aircraft Systems: In Need of a Flight Plan**

By Mike Miles, GSA, Aircraft Management Policy

Photo -- Image at top right of page shows a Predator remotely piloted
vehicle performing a runway take-off in Afghanistan.

The FAA established the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Program Office
(AIR-160) to manage integration of UAS operations into the national
airspace system (NAS). The focus of the FAA has been to meet the needs
of the military, Federal agencies, state and local governments, as well
as private companies. As more and more operators of UAS operators have
emerged, the FAA has realized the necessity to address the regulatory
needs of all groups that will fly UAS in the NAS.

The documents that are currently used to "regulate" UAS operations are
the FAA Order 7610.4, Special Military Operations; the AFS-400 UAS
Policy 05-01; and the Federal Register Notice, docket FAA-2006-25714,
Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System. One last
document, the FAA Advisory Circular 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating
Standards, has received more attention in the last year than it did when
it was first released in 1981.

The FAA Order 7610.4K, Special Military Operations describes how the FAA
handles military requests to fly UAS in civil airspace. The FAA has also
applied the provisions of this order to non-military (government and
commercial) UAS operations. The Order basically divides UAS into two
groups: those that weigh less than 55 pounds and operate at or below
1,000' above ground level (or AGL) and all others. Those UAS that weigh
more than 55 pounds must meet equipment requirements for the class of
airspace of intended operations, to include a detect-and-avoid system.
In other words, the UAS must have some method of detecting other
aircraft, and avoiding them if necessary.

On September 16, 2005, the FAA issued AFS-400 UAS POLICY 05-01. It
provides guidance to the FAA when evaluating applications for a
Certificate of Authorization (COA). The COA is issued by the FAA and
gives the operator permission to operate a UAS in the NAS.

The Federal Register Notice (docket FAA-2006-25714), Unmanned Aircraft
Operations in the National Airspace System (February 6, 2007) clarifies
the FAA's current policy concerning operations of UAS in the NAS. The
Federal Register Notice clearly states that "no person may operate a UAS
in the NAS without specific (FAA) authority. It also states that the FAA
is continuing to develop regulations and guidance for UAS operations.

Last but not least, the FAA has determined that a UAS used for
recreation or sport is a model aircraft and governed by Advisory
Circular 91-57. The document also states that a UAS used to perform any
type of work, is not a model aircraft. So, if you are flying a 'model
remote controlled aircraft' you must follow the guidelines in AC 91-57.
In other words, stay below 400 feet above ground level, and away from
populated areas.

We, as Federal agencies, must be committed to safety in order to
integrate UAS operations into the NAS. The General Services
Administration (GSA) and its Interagency Committee for Aviation Policy
(ICAP) are doing just that. UAS are considered aircraft and Federal
agencies must follow the Federal Management Regulation 102-33 --
Management of Government Aircraft. This regulation outlines Federal
aircraft operations from acquisition, use, to disposal. The 'use' as
contained in the regulation includes management, operations,
maintenance, training, and safety of all government aircraft, including
UAS.

UAS are the next generation of aircraft and GSA and the ICAP are working
with the FAA to develop reasonable regulations that will allow for the
safe operation of Federal agency UAS in the National Airspace System.

Page 12

**article Capital Acquisition and Planning Tools**

By Bob Sherouse, GSA Aircraft Management Policy

Photo -- Image across top of page shows a man on a step-ladder scanning
the horizon with binoculars against an ocean sunset.

Capital acquisitions are significant and generally require planning
years in advance. How far in advance? If done effectively, the
replacement capital asset planning begins when the original item is
procured. "What... you may be asking at this point? Let me clarify.
Let's say you need to buy a new airplane or specialty vehicle. Let's
assume you are also using the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular, A-11, Part 7, Exhibit-300. Keep in mind, this OMB Planning,
Budgeting, Acquisition, and Management of Capital Assets process
provides valuable decision making tools, including a requirement to
determine total life cycle costs. With a well understood life cycle and
all life cycle costs established for your airplane or specialty vehicle,
you know going in, exactly when the item must be replaced. Done
correctly, you may even factor in the actual future year cost of the
follow-on replacement item. Why is this important? The simple answer --
you know when the item will be worn out, you know how much it will cost
to replace, you establish the residual value of the item being replaced,
and can determine when to begin budgeting for the necessary acquisition
dollars to replace the old item. Following are a few key considerations
when establishing your capital asset plan.

Life Cycle Costs

Your life cycle may be a few years, a decade or more. Life cycle costs
include fixed and variable costs. It looks at the cost to acquire the
item, the cost to own and operate it and any residual value at the end
of the cycle. You might consider this a trade in or offset value.

Choosing the right airplane/vehicle

This is done through the risk analysis and alternative analysis portion
of the Exhibit-300 process, and will align your aircraft mission with
the agency's mission. You'll need an aircraft/vehicle that is capable of
performing your key missions without providing unnecessary or unneeded
capacity. You might consider this "right sizing". Remember, bigger,
faster and farther all increase your costs.

How to time your replacement

How long should you plan to keep the item? Provided the key missions
don\'t change or fixed or variable costs don't increase dramatically,
life cycle costs will help you make this call. Utilization rates are
typically the key to watching actual and planned cost trends. Typically
utilization rates are based on costs per hour or mile. To be accurate,
you must measure using the same criteria.

Establishing a baseline

If an existing aircraft/vehicle is to be replaced, that becomes your
baseline. If you buy, rent or lease; continuing to do so is your
baseline. The baseline forms a basis for any comparison. Does a new
option cost less then the current baseline? Does it cost more? If more,
what do you get for the increased cost?

How often do I baseline?

Obviously, you must establish a life cycle cost baseline when you buy,
rent or lease a new item. Annually thereafter, you must compare your
baseline (planned costs) with actual operational costs. If there is a
difference in planned and actual operations costs of more or less than
10%, you are obligated to report the difference and explain the
variance. Periodically, you must reassess your baseline, and if
necessary, you may also adjust the base line to factor in new lifecycle
realities. Dramatic increases in fuel costs, usage rates, or labor costs
would be addressed as part of new baseline.

Time value of your money

So should you buy, rent or lease your airplane/vehicle? If you rent/
lease the aircraft rather than buy it, you may be able to free up money
for other purposes in your operations. Typically, however, in the long
run, statistics indicate that rent/lease decisions cost significantly
more that a straight purchase. Net Present Value and Cost-Benefit
Analysis are common tools and part of a Life Cycle Cost analysis. With
different OMB scoring rules, this is also where you might consider a
lease-purchase agreement.

Page 13

**article A Standard for Unmanned Systems**

By Peter A. Buxbaum, Special to Defense Systems

Photo -- Image at top right of page shows The Protector, manufactured by
BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Rafael Armament Development Authority,
Ltd., is a remote-controlled Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV) equipped
with a stabilized mini-Typhoon weapon system (MK 49 Mod 0), cameras,
radar equipment and electro optics.

One such set of standards is specified in the Navy' s Unmanned Surface
Vehicle Master Plan: the Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems which
specifies data formats and communication methods for unmanned systems.
JAUS describes a language to be used for communications between
components developed and manufactured by different vendors.

The various USVs and their communications, navigation, command and
control, weapons and other systems, each presumably developed and
manufactured by disparate companies, would need to include a JAUS
interface to allow them to communicate with one another. "This means, at
the most basic level, that regardless of the communications method, the
bytes going across the airwaves are all based on the JAUS messaging
protocol," said Carl Evans, a senior engineer at Applied Perception, a
developer of unmanned systems.

Although work began on JAUS in 1994, the Defense Department did not
begin to push for its inclusion in unmanned vehicle projects until 2006.
Even then, as the Army scrambled to send unmanned ground systems to Iraq
and Afghanistan, the service was still buying systems that were
commercial, proprietary, noninteroperable and not compliant with JAUS.

"We are now seeing JAUS compliance being increasingly specified in
requests for proposals for new Defense Department contracts," Evans
said.

Building JAUS standards into the family of USVs could help the Navy
achieve some of the mission goals articulated in the master plan, said
Evans, who is chairman of a JAUS working group subcommittee. The JAUS
mission-planning task group is developing protocols for describing a
mission in a general way and allowing this to be converted into an
unmanned vehicle' s internal language, he said.

JAUS standards are also designed around plug-and-play weapons and
payloads. An unmanned system equipped with a JAUS-compliant standard
communications interface can accommodate video, audio and data
communications capabilities, Evans said.

JAUS also accommodates the control of disparate weapons systems on
unmanned vehicles from a single operator, Evans said. "It is difficult
to control systems if you have to use two or more operator control
units. We have demonstrated in JAUS experiments that a single operator
can control as many as four different systems from separate vendors with
a single control unit."

But JAUS does not provide a complete solution to interoperability.
Although the JAUS language --- which Evans said he regards as most
important --- has been developed to an advanced state of maturity, some
messaging protocol issues remain. For example, different JAUS-compliant
manufacturers persist in using different rates and orders of messaging.
Some transmit messages individually, and others transmit them in a batch
for certain functions. Those issues are still being hashed out in JAUS
industry group committees.

All of which leads Evans to conclude that "JAUS is not the perfect
answer to interoperability. It' s not the best or the worst solution.
It' s just \[a\] solution.

"The whole push to interoperability was sponsored by DOD to reduce its
costs," he said. "The biggest selling point for JAUS is that it allows
for very quick capability creation and implementation. We have
demonstrated that you can easily adapt this open technology to new
unmanned systems."

Source: "A Standard for Unmanned Systems," Defense Systems,
January/February 2008, p. 13.

Page 14

**article Rough Seas Ahead for USVs**

By Peter A. Buxbaum, Special to Defense Systems

Photo -- The USS Cole (DDG 67) is towed away from the port city of Aden,
Yemen, into open sea by the Military Sealift Command ocean-going tug
USNS Catawba (T-ATF 168) on Oct. 29, 2000. Cole will be placed aboard
the Norwegian heavy transport ship M/V Blue Marlin and transported back
to the United States for repair. The Arleigh Burke class destroyer was
the target of a suspected terrorist attack in the port of Aden on Oct.
12, 2000, during a scheduled refueling. The attack killed 17 crew
members and injured 39 others.

Unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) might be the Navy' s future, but they
have obstacles to overcome

In October 2000, the guided missle destroyer USS Cole was attached in
the Gulf of Aden. The Cole attack, accomplished by ramming the warship
with a small speedboat laden with explosives, killed 17 sailors and left
a huge gash in the Cole' s hull.

A warship equipped with an outer network of unmanned surface vehicles
--- small craft propelled along the water' s surface --- might have
repelled such an attack. That is part of the vision for USVs outlined in
the Navy' s Unmanned Surface Vehicle Master Plan, issued in July.

"The USV vision is \[to\] develop and field cost-effective USVs to
enhance Naval and Joint capability to support Homeland Defense, the
Global War on Terror, Irregular Warfare and conventional campaigns," the
USV Master Plan states. "USVs will be highly automated to reduce
communication/-data exchange requirements and operator loading. They
will deploy and retrieve devices, gather, transmit or act on all types
of information, and engage targets with minimal risk or burden to U.S.
and Coalition Forces." Navy officials declined to comment further for
this story.

Unmanned vehicles have been viewed as a key component of defense
transformation at least since the mid-1990s. The Navy Department, which
includes both the Navy and Marine Corps, will be unique among U.S.
military services by eventually acquiring every major kind of unmanned
vehicle.

At the policy and acquisition levels, unmanned air and ground vehicles
have captured the lion' s share of government attention and energy. The
fiscal 2001 Defense Authorization Act, for example, set goals for the
proportion of unmanned aircraft and ground vehicles to be fielded by
2010 and 2015, respectively.

A 2005 report from the Naval Studies Board recommended acceleration of
the Navy' s introduction of unmanned air, underwater and ground vehicles
without paying much attention to USVs.

The military services have been historically resistant to the
introduction of unmanned vehicles, said Robert Work, a senior defense
analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a
Washington think tank. "There was clear operational need for unmanned
air vehicles, yet the Air Force pretty much fought against them until
the 1990s."

Advances in flight control software changed the Air Force' s attitude,
Work said, and now, the Navy is playing catch-up.

What got the Navy interested in USVs, Work said, was the advent of the
Littoral Combat Ship. The LCS is designed as a high-speed vessel for
operations in shallow waters close to shore. It is equipped with
interchangeable mission modules that allow the ship to support
anti-submarine, surface and mine warfare missions.

The LCS' modular design supports the incorporation of USVs. General
Dynamics Robotic Systems has been awarded \$12.7 million to develop USVs
for the LCS.

"The LCS is designed from the get-go to use USVs," Work said. Using USVs
with other naval warfare platforms, such as the DD(X) destroyer,
requires cramming specialized cranes on to the deck of the warship for
loading and unloading the craft.

If the LCS has inspired the accelerated development of USVs, it could
also be the source of problems on several levels. But the LCS has run
into trouble with Washington policy-makers. The Navy has canceled
construction of one LCS contracted to Lockheed Martin because of cost
overruns, according to reports in the Navy Times. A report from the
Government Accountability Office found that some of the LCS' woes stem
from the Navy' s desire to build a completely integrated and
interoperable capability, taking the system-of-systems approach.

The Navy USV master plan calls for the same type of approach. This tack
has landed other government programs in hot water because of technical
and management difficulties. But the master plan' s emphasis on the
adherence to communications standards could mitigate some of those
problems, said Carl Evans, a senior engineer at Applied Perception, a
developer of unmanned systems.

That does not mean the Navy' s USV program is dead in the water, but it
is unclear how USVs will be used in future naval combat.

The Navy' s Unmanned Surface Vehicle Master Plan reviewed various
available USV types and characteristics, analyzed the attributes
associated with USV missions and compared vehicle attributes to mission
needs. The review led to the conclusion that smaller USVs, seven to 11
meters in length, should be the backbone of the USV fleet. These are
divided into four classes of vehicles --- X, Harbor, Snorkeler and Fleet
--- to perform missions such as searching, minesweeping, towing,
anti-submarine activity, electronic warfare and others. The master plan
also advocated technology investments that would minimize the use of
bandwidth by individual USVs, enable obstacle and collision avoidance,
and develop coupled payloads and weapons. The plan also called for
developing USVs consistent with the Defense Department' s Joint
Architecture for Unmanned Systems (JAUS). "What is striking about the
master plan is that it essentially says that we' re going to take
standard stuff we already have and develop a master plan around them,"
Work said. "The plan advocates the continued use of the seven- and
11-meter rigid inflatable boats (RIBs). The Navy already has the
infrastructure to support them. Most ships have the cranes to support
seven- and 11-meter USVs."

Work said the Navy will follow the pattern the Air Force has set for
unmanned aerial vehicles. "First they built the Predator, then they went
to the Global Hawk. The same thing will happen with USVs. If they prove
useful, they will build bigger ones. They may go to a 20-meter RIB with
more payload and more capabilities. But you have to get them into the
fleet first to prove their worth. A squadron of 40 or 50 USVs could do
what a frigate has done in the past and do it cheaper because there are
no personnel onboard."

The system-of-systems approach in the master plan means at the simplest
level that "every piece fits within the whole," Work said. At a higher
level, "all parts of the network are interconnected so that they can
talk to each other and share data."

"Interoperability involves more than the cross-compatibility of
information systems and messaging," Evans said. "What we want to do is
make a generic base platform on which different modules can be placed.
If the vehicle' s mission is a rescue operation, a patient bay module
would be slid on. If the next mission is for reconnaissance, you can
take that off and put on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
sensors. This will involve incorporating a standard mounting interface
into the design." Standard power, network and video interfaces will also
be included.

But, Work said, developing separate components that "sync up is one of
the consistent challenges present in any network system." The Navy wants
a series of products manufactured by different vendors that will be able
to interoperate with one another, share data seamlessly and be operated
from a single location. This system-of-systems approach employed by DOD
in the past involves an "arrangement of interdependent systems that are
related or connected to provide a given capability," a January 2006 GAO
report said. But this same approach has been discredited in several
instances, especially in cases that demand high levels of systems
engineering and integration.

"There is a tendency for big defense contractors to want to propose and
build these very complex and elaborate programs," said Philip Coyle,
senior adviser at the Center for Defense Information, a Washington-based
research organization, and a former assistant secretary of Defense.
"These programs can be very difficult to manage and very expensive and
complex. They say you should never run before you walk or walk before
you crawl, but in these programs, the contractors often jump in with
both feet, and the programs then crash of their own weight."

GAO has documented some of the management difficulties associated with
large integrated projects. "Programs that are intended to produce
interdependent systems are too often managed independently," GAO said in
its January 2006 report. "DOD program management and acquisition
oversight tend to focus on individual programs and not necessarily on
synchronizing multiple programs to deliver interdependent systems at the
same time, as required to achieve the intended capability. Developing
more technical complex families of weapon systems as one package "vastly
increases management challenges and makes it more difficult to oversee
contractors," GAO said.

Those management difficulties have manifested themselves in the Coast
Guard' s Deepwater modernization program, an effort run jointly by
Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin.

"That program continues to face a degree of underlying risk, in part
because of the unique system-of-systems approach with the contractor
acting as overall integrator," GAO said in an April 2006 report.

In addition to the management difficulties inherent in large government
procurements there are technical difficulties associated with the
integration of technologies and data.

"Software problems in complex systems can be quite daunting," Coyle
said. "If some of the code is written by one company in India and
another part by a different company in the United States, it is easy for
things to go wrong unless communications are outstanding."

As GAO said in its January 2006 report, there are significant risks
inherent in attempting to develop a fully integrated system. "The loss
of any part of the system will significantly degrade the performance or
capabilities of the whole," the report states.

There are several cases in point. The Navy' s DDG-51 destroyer, FFG-7
frigate and LPD-4 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship, each representing an
integrated systems approach, experienced problems with subsystems. The
problems, GAO said, have affected the vessels' day-to-day operations,
including online training and personnel activities. The Army' s Future
Combat Systems, another network-centric project, has also faltered on
requirements and schedules, according to GAO. A December 2005 GAO report
cited two key FCS components, the Joint Tactical Radio System and the
Warfighter Information Network-Tactical, for raising "uncertainty about
the ability of the FCS network to perform as intended," GAO recommended
establishing low-risk schedules for JTRS and WIN-T.

Thereafter, the JTRS program was reorganized to reflect more modest but
achievable goals. WIN-T took a hit on its funding and scheduling and was
also reorganized.

Despite the difficulties in developing an interoperable family of USVs,
Work said he expects demand for USVs to grow during the next 10 years.
"The next iteration of USVs will probably call for bigger and more
capable craft."

Nor does Work expect the fate of the LCS to dictate the future of USVs.
"The Navy has said that even if the LCS goes away, USVs will still be
utilized by other ships," he said. "I foresee the Navy issuing tenders
for USVs in the 20s and 30s rather than onesies and twosies."

Work said he believes the master plan is a "good first step" to the
eventual introduction of USVs to the arsenal of naval combat
capabilities. "It outlines the conceptual mission and leverages existing
infrastructure. It lays out a relatively reasonable approach. If the
concept proves out, it will lead to bigger and better things."

Work said he expects the future development of USVs to follow the trend
already established by the Air Force in the development of unmanned
aerial vehicles. "No one is clamoring for USVs right now," he said. "But
once you get them in the water and in the hands of sailors who have been
trained in their use, they will probably find ways to use them that have
not even been considered today."

Source: "Rough Seas Ahead for USVS," Defense Systems, January/February
2008. p.10

Page 17

# GSA UPDATE section

**article GSA Moves Forward in Implementing a Vehicle Registration
System**

By Mike Moses, GSA Vehicle Management Policy

GSA's Office of Governmentwide Policy has been working closely with all
Federal agencies since January 2007 to develop the methodology for a
government-wide motor vehicle registration system. During this period,
agencies and other stakeholders have met numerous times to design and
document the system's methodology, address security concerns, and
identify resource and budget impacts. This collaborative effort lead to
an agreement with the GSA Federal Acquisition Service's Fleet Program to
expand its vehicle registration system, and fully deployed a
government-wide system in Fiscal Year 2009.

Presently, the Federal Government does not maintain a central repository
of license plate information for Government's motor vehicles, making it
difficult to quickly identify valid license plates and the vehicle's
location. The new system will contain all vehicles owned and
commercially-leased by Federal agencies that display official license
plates. Agencies are encouraged to enter Federal motor vehicles
displaying state license plates, as well as delivery vehicles of the
United States Postal Service, in the new system, but entry of these
license plates is optional at this time. The system will be accessible
by law enforcement officials at the Federal, State and local levels
through the International Justice and Public Safety Network (Nlets).
Access to the Federal Motor Vehicle Registration System will be similar
to the access law enforcement officials have to all State licensed
vehicles through individual State Motor Vehicle Administrations.
Developed to address national security concerns and accountability of
motor vehicle assets, this system will allow law enforcement activities
to quickly identify and verify Federal vehicles, including valid
licensing and operational location.

An associated goal of this initiative was to increase the security and
accountability of official U.S. Government license plates. Currently,
official plates never expire and could be used for unofficial purposes
for extended periods of time. As a result of this initiative, Federal
agencies will begin using a newly-designed license plate in Fiscal Year
2009 that will have a new graphic image and an expiration date.
Additionally, all official plates will be entered into the system when
manufactured, and tracked throughout the plate's life.

GSA Fleet already provides access to Nlets for its 200,000 motor vehicle
fleet. Because of their existing program to supply Nlets data on their
vehicles and their vision to enhance national security, GSA Fleet is
expanding the development and operation of the Federal Motor Vehicle
Registration System at no cost to Federal agencies. Their extensive
experience in the management of vehicle fleets and their automation
accomplishments makes their operation a perfect fit for implementing
this system.

Agencies will receive instructions on how to enter their existing,
in-use vehicles into the Registration System during the third quarter of
Fiscal Year 2008. We anticipate that all existing vehicles will be
entered into the system by January 2009.

Contact: Edward Lawler @ (202) 501-3354 or ed.lawler@gsa.gov

Page 18

**article 2007 Annual Federal Fleet Report Released**

The Federal Fleet Report for Fiscal Year 2007 was published on the FAST
website on January 31, 2008. It can be viewed here:
[https://fastweb.inel.gov](https://fastweb.inel.gov/).

Some highlights:

Inventory grew significantly, about 1.8 percent overall. That's a 12,000
vehicle increase in one year, from 630,000 for fiscal year 2006 to
642,000 for fiscal year 2007. The military led with 2.9 percent,
followed by the Postal Service (1.7 percent), and the rest of the
civilian agencies (1.1 percent).

Acquisitions were stable, but with some interesting things going on
under the surface. In previous years diesel and alternative fuel vehicle
acquisitions have grown while gasoline vehicles declined; in 2007
gasoline and diesel both declined, probably due to new emissions
requirements for diesels raising their cost.

The recent trend from sedans toward SUVs appears to have leveled off.
But now there's a new movement from compact sedans to midsize. This
seems to be the result of the effort to get E-85s that are not available
as compacts, and an anomalous situation where compacts were actually
costlier than midsize last year.

The dramatic reduction in fuel consumption reported in 2006 was almost
exactly reversed in 2007. This is almost certainly a reflection of
agencies' continuing difficulty in collecting and reporting accurate
fuel data.

Miles traveled was almost perfectly flat from 2006 to 2007, despite the
substantial increase seen in overall inventory.

Operating costs, like miles, was almost perfectly flat, even declining
slightly.

New for 2008:

In 2007 an OMB Budget reconciliation sheet was attached to FAST as an
Excel spreadsheet. It will be integrated into the FAST reporting process
in 2008. The data entry for this will be completely redesigned, and
there will be revised and expanded instructions. It will also be
addressed during FAST training sessions at the FedFleet event in Dallas,
June 24-26, 2008.

If your agency needs special onsite training, you can contact Michelle
Kirby at INL on (208) 536-4273 or via email at
<michelle.kirby@inel.gov>.

With the rapid turnover in fleet personnel agencies are experiencing, if
someone who uses FAST in your agency is leaving, please make sure that a
replacement is trained before the next data call. It is so much easier
and more efficient to train someone before the system opens for data
entry and you have a crisis on your hands.

Contact: Edward Lawler @ 202-501-3354 or ed.lawler@gsa.gov

**article Would You Like OGP to Attend Your Agency Meetings?**

GSA's Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP), Office of Travel,
Transportation and Asset Management, is available to participate in
agency meetings, whether they are regional or national -- small or
large. Many agencies take advantage of OGP's fleet management expertise
by inviting us to attend agency meetings and conferences and provide
presentations on government-wide policies and programs. OGP views this
interaction as part of our core mission to assist agencies, and
attendance at agency meetings also helps OGP understand the varied
issues and complexities of fleet operations outside of the Washington DC
area. OGP believes that this interaction helps create good, workable
policies in collaboration with agencies, while also helping field
personnel understand why policies and programs are developed and
implemented.

To help us plan, OGP asks that agencies desiring our participation in
agency meetings notify us at the start of the fiscal year to assure that
appropriate personnel are available.

Contact: Jan Dobbs @ (202) 501-6601 or janet.dobbs@gsa.gov

Page 19

**article GSA Hosts Aviation Strategic Planning Workshop, March 18-20,
2008**

GSA's Office of Governmentwide Policy hosted the Interagency Committee
on Aviation Policy's (ICAP) Strategic Planning Workshop at GSA's Federal
Acquisition Service conference center in Crystal City, VA in March 2008.
Representatives from each agency that own or lease aircraft participated
in the planning session to develop a plan to enhance government-wide
aircraft programs. The plan outlines strategies to identify future
challenges and maximize limited resources by sharing aviation expertise
and talent throughout the Federal aviation community.

The ICAP has defined the following four strategic goals to ensure that
executive agencies are able to meet agency missions in the safest,
securest, and most efficient and effective manner. Safety: The goal of
this initiative is to foster the safest aviation program within the
Federal Government.

Stewardship: The goal of this initiative is to improve the acquisition,
use and disposal of aircraft.

Policy Effectiveness: The goal of this initiative is to effectively
engage with external stakeholders to shape the US/International aviation
policies. Management and Performance: The goal of this initiative is to
ensure the accuracy and reliability of all cost and utilization data
across Federal Aviation Programs.

Contact: Jan Dobbs @ (202) 501-6601 or janet.dobbs@gsa.gov

Page 20

# COMMUNITY NEWS section

**article Retirements**

John T. Hughes

John Hughes was the U.S. General Services Administration' s Agency
Internal Fleet Manager. During his career with GSA, John also worked for
the National Archives Record Service in the Records Management Division
and was the GSA FOIA Appeals Officer. He also worked at MCI as the
Corporate Records Manager. John volunteered to be Chairman of the
FedFleet Steering Committee and was master of ceremonies at the annual
FedFleet Workshop. For pleasure, he a Civil War reenacter, serving as
Commander of an artillery unit.

David Fuchs

Dave Fuchs was responsible for Headquarters, Department of the Army
staff supervision of the Army's Non Tactical Vehicle (NTV) Program. He
managed the development, coordination, defense and execution of the
Army' s NTV programs. In September 1974 he began his career with the
Military Traffic Management and Terminal Service and entered their
intern program in October 1975. Upon completion of his intern program,
Dave held a series of increasing responsible positions.

**article Welcome!**

Bob Dunn

Bob Dunn is a contractor who is the Department of Homeland Security' s
aviation program manager. His company is Defense Solutions. His primary
duties are with FAIRS, required uses and policy development.

**article KUDOS FOR SCORECARD RATINGS**

Labor and Treasury got a "green" score for Current Status and Progress
on the Transportation Scorecard. Energy, Interior, and Social Security
got a "yellow" score for Current Status and "green" for Progress.