This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-500 
entitled 'Transportation Research: Actions Needed to Improve 
Coordination and Evaluation of Research' which was released on May 01, 
2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

Report to the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives:

May 2003:

Transportation Research:

Actions Needed to Improve Coordination and Evaluation of Research:

GAO-03-500:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-500, a report to the Committee on Appropriations, 
House of Representatives

Why GAO Did This Study:

The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) within the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for strategically 
planning,  coordinating and ensuring the evaluation of DOT research 
programs to promote the efficient use of departmental research funds, 
which in fiscal year 2002 totaled over $1 billion.  RSPA is also 
responsible for conducting multimodal research that cuts across 
different modes of transportation. The House Committee on 
Appropriations directed GAO to examine RSPAs coordination and 
evaluation of research within DOT and the status of its own multimodal 
research.  

What GAO Found:

RSPA has met some, but not all, legislative and DOT requirements 
pertaining to the coordination of departmental research efforts.  For 
example, while RSPA develops an annual plan and meets monthly with 
other DOT research officials, RSPA does not review the status of all 
DOT research activities.  Thus, it cannot determine whether duplication 
of research efforts within DOT does or does not occur.  Additionally, 
RSPA has not developed standards against which to measure its 
performance in coordinating research within DOT.  Moreover, RSPA has 
not fully met all legislative and DOT requirements to measure research 
results and oversee research evaluations across DOT.  RSPA officials 
cited a lack of ready information on DOT research activities budget 
constraints and a lack of authority over other DOT agencies as reasons 
why they served primarily an information-sharing role, rather than as 
an overseer and manager of the coordination and evaluation processes. 

Extent to Which RSPA Meets Coordination and Evaluation Requirements: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]
 
Since 1999, RSPA has budgeted $37 million to conduct four major 
research programs with applicability to more than one mode of 
transportationfor example, using technology to improve energy 
efficiency and reduce emissions and transportation dependence on 
petroleum.  According to the Associate Administrator for Innovation, 
Research, and Education, RSPAs current multimodal research programs 
are scheduled for completion by the end of fiscal year 2004 and have 
had a variety of positive results.  However, RSPA does not have an 
evaluation process to systematically evaluate the results of its 
multimodal research programs.     

What GAO Recommends:

GAO is recommending that DOT and RSPA develop strategies to identify 
potential research duplication and ensure that the results of all DOT 
transportation research activitiesincluding those conducted by RSPA
are evaluated.  Further, GAO recommended that RSPA assess the 
effectiveness of its research coordination efforts by developing 
appropriate performance measures.  

DOT reviewed a draft of this report and generally agreed with its 
contents but did not comment on the reports recommendations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-500

To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Kate Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 
siggerudk@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

RSPA Has Met Some, but Not All, Legislative or DOT Requirements for 
Coordinating DOT Research Efforts:

RSPA Has Met Some, but Not All, Legislative or DOT Requirements to 
Evaluate DOT Research:

RSPA Has Conducted Multimodal Research in Four Areas but Does Not Have 
a Process to Systematically Evaluate Program 
Results:

Conclusions:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Stakeholders and Researchers Involved in the Four
Multimodal Programs Conducted by RSPA:

Tables:

Table 1: Information on and Status of Multimodal Research Programs 
Conducted by RSPA from Fiscal Years 1999 to 2003:

Table 2: Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program:

Table 3: Commercial Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Technologies 
Program:

Table 4: Human-Centered Systems: Operator Fatigue Management Program:

Table 5: Transportation Infrastructure Assurance Program:

Figures:

Figure 1: Extent to Which RSPA Meets Selected Legislative and DOT 
Requirements for Coordinating DOT Research Efforts:

Figure 2: RSPA Funding Dedicated to Research and Development Planning 
and Management Activities (Fiscal Years 1999-2003):

Figure 3: Extent to Which RSPA Meets Selected Legislative and DOT 
Responsibilities for Evaluating DOT Research Efforts:

Figure 4: Electric Vehicle at a Recharging Station:

Figure 5: Satellite-based Photographic Image of U.S. Interstates 25 and 
40 in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

Figure 6: Airline Pilots Participating in Fatigue Research:

Figure 7: Global Positioning Satellite:

Figure 8: RSPA's Multimodal Research Funding (Fiscal Years 1999-2003):

Abbreviations:

DOT : Department of Transportation:

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:

FMCSA: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration :

FRA : Federal Railroad Administration:

FTA : Federal Transit Administration:

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993:

MARAD: Maritime Administration:

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:

RSPA: Research and Special Programs Administration:

TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century:

TRB: Transportation Research Board:

TSA: Transportation Security Administration:

USCG: United States Coast Guard:

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain 
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce
copyrighted materials separately from GAOs product.

Letter May 1, 2003:

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young
Chairman
The Honorable David R. Obey
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives:

In fiscal year 2002, the Department of Transportation's (DOT) research 
and development budget totaled more than $1 billion. This sum supported 
the many individual projects undertaken by the Federal Highway 
Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the other 
operating administrations that constitute DOT. This research is vital 
to meeting the department's key transportation priorities, such as 
increasing transportation safety, enhancing mobility for all Americans, 
supporting the nation's economic growth, and protecting the 
environment. The Congress has recognized the importance of coordinating 
and evaluating research throughout DOT and established requirements in 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century to ensure that those 
tasks are accomplished. In turn, the department has given 
responsibility to the Research and Special Programs Administration's 
Office of Innovation, Research, and Education (hereafter referred to as 
RSPA) for coordinating, and ensuring the evaluation of, DOT research 
programs to promote the efficient use of research funds. RSPA is 
additionally responsible for conducting multimodal research--research 
that applies to more than one mode of transportation--for the 
department that contributes to the safe, effective, and efficient 
transportation of people and goods.

In House Report 107-722, accompanying the DOT and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2003, the House Committee on 
Appropriations, directed us to examine RSPA's role in coordinating 
research activities and conducting multimodal research throughout the 
department. Specifically, in subsequent discussions with Committee 
staff, we agreed to address the following questions: (1) To what extent 
has RSPA fulfilled requirements for coordinating DOT research efforts? 
(2) To what extent has RSPA fulfilled requirements for evaluating 
research within DOT? and (3) What types of multimodal research has RSPA 
conducted since 1999, and what have been the results?

To address questions regarding RSPA's efforts to coordinate and 
evaluate the department's research efforts, we examined pertinent 
legislation, DOT policy guidance, and DOT performance reports and plans 
as well as reports and documents provided by RSPA, including the 
department's Research, Development, and Technology Plan. Although we 
did not review the individual research programs and agendas of each DOT 
modal administration, we reviewed external assessments conducted by us 
and the National Research Council's Transportation Research Board 
regarding RSPA's role and efforts in coordinating DOT 
research.[Footnote 1] Further, we interviewed RSPA officials, including 
RSPA's Associate Administrator for Innovation, Research, and Education 
(hereafter Associate Administrator); officials from the Volpe National 
Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts; and all of 
the members of the department's Research and Technology Coordinating 
Council (hereafter Coordinating Council), to discuss research 
coordination efforts and identify potential improvements. At the time 
of our review, the council was made up of 15 members representing the 
department's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation 
Policy, Office of Intelligence and Security, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Budget, Office of Intermodalism, United States Coast 
Guard, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Transit Administration, 
Maritime Administration, RSPA, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and Transportation 
Security Administration.[Footnote 2] In addition, to determine the 
types and status of multimodal research that RSPA conducted, we (1) 
reviewed and analyzed RSPA budget data from fiscal years 1999 through 
2003 and (2) reviewed RSPA's multimodal project plans agreements and 
published project results for the same period. (One of RSPA's 
multimodal research programs--the Transportation Infrastructure 
Assurance Program--is also the subject of a separate GAO 
review.)[Footnote 3]

We conducted our review from September 2002 through February 2003 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief:

RSPA has met some, but not all, legislative and DOT requirements for 
coordinating departmental research efforts. To meet the requirements of 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century, RSPA developed an 
annual surface transportation research and development plan and holds 
monthly meetings of the department's Research and Technology 
Coordinating Council to coordinate surface transportation research and 
technology development activities. The council also provides a venue 
for discussing research processes, procedures, and policies as well as 
a forum for networking among the department's researchers to meet DOT 
requirements for routinely sharing research information. However, RSPA 
has not met all of its legislative and DOT requirements for 
coordinating ongoing research efforts to avoid unnecessary duplication 
of effort because it does not review all DOT research projects. 
According to RSPA's Associate Administrator, RSPA has not reviewed all 
DOT research projects to identify unnecessary duplication because (1) 
RSPA does not have ready access to information on all research 
activities across the department because efforts to implement a DOT-
wide computer-based research tracking system have stalled and (2) staff 
and resources dedicated to research coordination activities have 
declined. The Associate Administrator said that he did not believe that 
unnecessary duplication of research projects occurred, and that even if 
such duplication were identified, RSPA's limited authority within DOT 
would hinder efforts to eliminate that duplication.

RSPA has met some, but not all, legislative and DOT requirements for 
evaluating research within DOT. The Secretary of Transportation 
delegated responsibility to RSPA for measuring the results of federal 
surface transportation research--a legislative requirement--and 
overseeing and developing ways to improve research evaluations 
throughout the department, which is a DOT requirement. Of these 
requirements, RSPA partially meets one: it oversees research evaluation 
by discussing the issue at Coordinating Council meetings. According to 
RSPA officials, they do not measure the results of surface 
transportation research throughout DOT because the operating 
administrations perform their own evaluations and RSPA lacks the 
resources needed to review the individual research evaluation efforts 
of each of the operating administrations. Because RSPA does not oversee 
specific research evaluation efforts, it cannot ensure that evaluations 
are being conducted or assess the quality of DOT's operating 
administrations' evaluations. Neither RSPA nor DOT has developed a 
strategy to address the resource limitations cited by RSPA officials, 
and our previous work indicates that more specific oversight is 
warranted. For example, we have previously reported that the Federal 
Highway Administration does not have an agencywide systematic process 
to evaluate whether its research projects are achieving intended 
results and does not generally use a peer review approach,[Footnote 4] 
consistent with federal research best practices.[Footnote 5]

Since 1999, RSPA has conducted multimodal research in the following 
four areas: using technology to improve energy efficiency, reduce 
emissions, and reduce transportation dependence on petroleum; using 
satellite images to improve transportation safety and disaster 
planning; developing more effective means to reduce the fatigue of 
drivers and pilots; and assessing key transportation systems' 
vulnerabilities to damage from disasters or terrorist threats. RSPA 
budgeted about $37 million to conduct these four multimodal research 
programs from fiscal years 1999 through 2003. According to RSPA's 
Associate Administrator, all four programs have resulted or will result 
in significant contributions and improvements to the transportation 
industry. For example, he said that research aimed at advanced vehicle 
technologies has resulted in the testing and development of components 
currently used in the production of commercially available hybrid 
electrical vehicles. RSPA officials said they use expert or peer review 
to assess their multimodal research process and status of their 
research programs, an approach that is widely recognized as a research 
evaluation best practice. However, we found that RSPA has not 
established a systematic approach for using peer or expert review to 
evaluate the results of all of its multimodal research programs. For 
example, RSPA has no plans to evaluate the results of its 
Transportation Infrastructure Assurance Program. As a result, RSPA is 
limited in its ability to determine the extent to which these programs 
are achieving their intended goals.

This report contains recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation 
and the Administrator of RSPA for actions to improve RSPA's ability to 
meet its legislative and DOT requirements pertaining to research 
coordination and evaluation. In commenting on this draft, DOT officials 
generally agreed with our findings and provided technical comments that 
we incorporated, as appropriate. They did not comment on the report's 
recommendations.

Background:

RSPA has both legislative and departmental responsibilities for 
coordinating and evaluating DOT's research and development programs, 
which, in fiscal year 2002, amounted to about $1 billion. The 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century (TEA-21)[Footnote 6] 
made DOT responsible for establishing a strategic plan for surface 
transportation research. The plan is to include a discussion of efforts 
to coordinate federal surface transportation research and technology 
development activities to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. It 
also is to contain a description of program evaluations and a schedule 
for future evaluations of DOT research projects, among other things. 
DOT policy delegates the responsibility for meeting this and other 
legislative mandates related to research and development activities to 
RSPA's Associate Administrator as chair of the department's 
Coordinating Council. Moreover, DOT policy requires RSPA's Associate 
Administrator, through the Coordinating Council, to coordinate all 
research activities by developing processes for sharing information 
about research and technology and reviewing the status of all research 
and technology projects throughout DOT.

RSPA's Office of Innovation, Research, and Education had nine full-time 
employees and a budget of about $560,000 for fiscal year 2003. In 
addition to coordination and evaluation duties, RSPA manages and 
supports a variety of other programs for the department, including its 
Technology Transfer and Technology Sharing Programs, Small Business 
Innovation Research Program, and University Transportation Centers 
Program.[Footnote 7] RSPA also conducts research on multimodal issues 
that affect the U.S. transportation system as a whole in contrast to 
the other operating administrations within DOT that focus on specific 
sectors of the U.S. transportation system.[Footnote 8] In fiscal year 
2003, RSPA conducted and managed four major multimodal research 
programs. Participants in RSPA's multimodal research programs include 
stakeholders from the departments' operating administrations; other 
federal departments and agencies; state departments of transportation; 
private and state universities; private-sector partners; and various 
consortia.[Footnote 9] (See app. I for a listing of project 
stakeholders and researchers involved in RSPA's multimodal research 
programs.):

RSPA Has Met Some, but Not All, Legislative or DOT Requirements for 
Coordinating DOT Research Efforts:

Although RSPA has developed an annual plan and taken other steps to 
facilitate research coordination, it has not fully met legislative and 
DOT requirements for coordinating departmental research. Figure 1 
summarizes these requirements and the extent to which RSPA has met 
them.

Figure 1: Extent to Which RSPA Meets Selected Legislative and DOT 
Requirements for Coordinating DOT Research Efforts:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

RSPA Facilitates Research Coordination by Developing an Annual Plan and 
Conducting Monthly Meetings:

RSPA has met its legislative requirement under TEA-21 to develop an 
annual surface transportation research and technology development plan 
to coordinate and document research efforts. The plan covers not only 
surface transportation but also air and maritime. Now in its fourth 
edition, the plan discusses state and local transportation research 
activities; describes each operating administration's mission; and 
conveys priorities for the department's research activities, including 
identifying examples of research programs that are necessary to achieve 
the department's strategic goals. According to the Associate 
Administrator, the plan is an important resource for the department's 
budget and program deployment processes and helps to avoid unnecessary 
duplication of research among the operating administrations. In March 
2000, the National Research Council, acting through the Transportation 
Research Board (TRB), assessed DOT's strategic planning process, 
including the first edition of its research plan, and generally 
commended RSPA's efforts in coordinating the department's 
research activities.[Footnote 10] In September 2001, we reported that 
the department's research plan achieved a number of important strategic 
functions, including supporting the department's budget and program 
development process, conveying priorities, linking research and 
development initiatives occurring throughout the department to specific 
strategic goals, and focusing on research and technology needs that 
concern the department as a whole.[Footnote 11] However, upon reviewing 
the fiscal year 2003 research plan, we found that it does not summarize 
results of the previous year's surface transportation research 
programs. Such a summary is also absent from the department's overall 
performance plan and reports, where it is required by TEA-21.[Footnote 
12] Since the explicit intent of the research plan is to focus the 
department's research efforts, and the department is required to gather 
summary information on the previous years' research results, this 
information could provide continuity and context for observations about 
planned research for future years.

The research plan is the culmination of monthly Coordinating Council 
meetings in which the Associate Administrator meets with members from 
each of DOT's operating administrations as well as representatives from 
DOT's Office of Policy, Office of Budget, Office of Intelligence and 
Security, and Office of Intermodalism. These meetings also serve as a 
means to fulfill the legislative requirement to coordinate surface 
transportation research and technology development and the DOT 
requirement to coordinate research across all modes within DOT. Agendas 
and minutes from these meetings indicate that the Coordinating 
Council's discussions involve research processes, procedures, 
policy,[Footnote 13] and presentations from council members and guest 
speakers. According to the Associate Administrator, these meetings 
further provide a forum for networking among DOT researchers, a venue 
for DOT operating administrations to learn about each other's research, 
and an opportunity for information sharing and technology transfer. In 
addition, in instances where research has multimodal applicability, the 
Associate Administrator said RSPA staff and representatives from the 
other operating administrations have been active in sharing information 
through working groups, such as the Human Factors Coordinating 
Committee, which shares information on research conducted by each of 
the operating administrations focusing on identifying ways to better 
manage human operator fatigue.

RSPA Has Not Reviewed All DOT Research Projects to Identify Unnecessary 
Duplication:

RSPA does not fully meet its legislative requirement to coordinate 
surface transportation and technology development activities because it 
does not review all surface transportation research projects to 
determine whether surface transportation researchers within DOT are 
unnecessarily duplicating research efforts. A similar DOT requirement 
broadens this responsibility to make RSPA responsible for reviewing the 
status of all research projects throughout DOT for the same purpose. In 
its March 2000 report, TRB reported the absence of information on the 
current status of all DOT research programs in the department's annual 
research plan.[Footnote 14] We discovered that this information also 
remained absent from DOT's fiscal year 2003 research plan. The 
Associate Administrator said that RSPA lacked (1) readily accessible 
data on the research activities of other parts of DOT and (2) the staff 
and resources to review all research projects across the department to, 
at a minimum, identify and report on the extent of unnecessary 
duplication, if any, across the department. He also said that even if 
RSPA reviewed all of the department's research activities and 
identified any unnecessary duplication of effort, RSPA does not have 
the program and budget authority to direct changes in other operating 
administrations' research activities.

RSPA's Associate Administrator explained that RSPA does not have 
readily accessible data on the research activities of other parts of 
DOT because efforts to develop a computer-based tracking system to 
share DOT research program and budget information have stalled. RSPA's 
1998 strategic plan discussed the need to create and deploy such a 
system to meet its strategic goal for coordinating research and 
technology. In fiscal year 1999, RSPA planned to allocate $200,000 
annually for 4 years to develop and implement a system. According to 
the Associate Administrator, as of January 2003, RSPA had spent about 
$500,000 of its allocation and completed development of a prototype 
database. He said that implementing the centralized information system 
would (1) make basic project information (such as project 
methodologies, funding levels and sources, schedules, and planned 
products) across the department more accessible; (2) provide greater 
levels of organization and clarity on historical research; (3) 
facilitate strategic planning and coordination; and (4) improve the 
department's annual research plan by providing decision-makers with 
more complete, accurate, and timely information on all DOT research 
activities. According to the Associate Administrator and Coordinating 
Council members, some operating administrations do not support 
implementation of the system because they believe that the system would 
put additional demands on limited resources and would produce little in 
terms of tangible results. Coordinating Council members also said it 
would duplicate existing information systems already in place at some 
operating administrations and the new system would not be integrated 
into their other, modal-unique information systems (such as budget and 
accounting information systems). According to the RSPA official in 
charge of developing the database, each operating administration would 
require up to approximately 2 full-time employees for up to 1 year to 
input the historical research project data going back 5 years, and an 
additional  to 1 full-time employees per year to manage and update the 
database.

The Associate Administrator also said that RSPA did not review the 
status of all operating administrations' research projects to identify 
any unnecessary duplication because his office lacks sufficient staff 
and resources to do so. He noted, for example, that RSPA's total 
research and technology budget for fiscal year 1999 was about $3.7 
million--of which $2.2 million was allocated for research and 
development planning and management activities[Footnote 15]--and 13 
full-time employees. However, in fiscal year 2003, this decreased to a 
total budget of about $2.9 million--of which $560,000 was allocated for 
research and development planning and management activities--and 9 
full-time employees. The Associate Administrator said that the decline 
in RSPA's staff and resources--the only such staff and resources in the 
department for conducting long-term transportation research planning 
and coordinating research plans and programs--has also severely limited 
RSPA's efforts to coordinate with transportation research stakeholders 
outside of DOT, such as state, local, and other federal agencies. 
Figure 2 shows RSPA's funding levels for its research and development 
planning and management activities from fiscal years 1999 through 2003.

Figure 2: RSPA Funding Dedicated to Research and Development Planning 
and Management Activities (Fiscal Years 1999-2003):

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

RSPA's Associate Administrator said he believes that little or no 
duplication of research activities occurs. He said that, because the 
monthly Coordinating Council meetings provided a forum for discussing 
ongoing and planned research, unnecessary duplication of research 
efforts would be identified. Also, he said that most DOT operating 
administrations have discrete research programs and budgets that 
support their mode-specific regulatory and safety mandates. For 
example, the Federal Highway Administration research focuses on public 
roads and highways, and its primary users are state and local 
transportation departments that seek better ways to repair the public 
infrastructure and find improved materials for pavements. Similarly, 
the Federal Railroad Administration focuses on the rail industry's 
privately owned infrastructure and these owners--freight railroads, 
Amtrak, commuter railroads, and shippers--look to Federal Railroad 
Administration to conduct research that will reduce track failure, 
equipment failure, and human error.

According to members of the Coordinating Council, apparent duplication 
in research programs might reflect a number of conditions--for example, 
research that was intended to validate previous research results, 
expand research applications, and address different needs (such as 
pavement research for airport runways and highways)--or an effort to 
explore alternative approaches before selecting one for further 
development. None of the council members, however, could provide us 
with specific examples of research projects that reflected these 
conditions.

Other Coordinating Council members with whom we spoke, however, said 
that the council should take further steps to more effectively 
coordinate DOT research. For example, one member said the Coordinating 
Council should review all of the current projects across the department 
to improve the level and quality of the department's research 
coordination efforts. Another member said that the primary functions of 
the Coordinating Council should be to universally review DOT research 
projects to eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort and to provide 
opportunities for joint research partnerships on similar work. Such 
opportunities might include research focusing on safety, environmental, 
training, and human factor issues. However, Coordinating Council 
members said that DOT support for the council and research coordination 
in general had declined in recent years (e.g., lower ranking members of 
the operating administrations attend the meetings, instead of the more 
senior personnel that had once attended, and meetings were shortened 
from 2 hours to 1 hour per month), and that greater departmental 
support for this effort was warranted.

The Associate Administrator said that RSPA did not have the program and 
budget authority over the department's operating administrations' 
research activities to direct changes in research programs, even if 
opportunities for greater joint efforts or elimination of unnecessary 
duplicative research were found. In a 1996 report examining the status 
of the department's coordination of surface transportation research, we 
identified RSPA's lack of internal clout within the department as an 
obstacle to its ability to function effectively as its research 
strategic planner because it had no direct program or budget authority 
over the department's operating administrations' research 
activities.[Footnote 16] Although DOT proposed the creation of such an 
organization to have budgeting and program authority for DOT research 
in its fiscal year 1996 budget submission, the Congress did not approve 
the agency's proposal. According to the Associate Administrator, there 
are no current legislative or budget initiatives to pursue this 
proposal.

Although DOT's earlier effort to overcome RSPA's lack of internal 
authority was not implemented, neither the department nor RSPA has 
developed alternative approaches to overcome this obstacle as well as 
to address the information and resource limitations that continue to 
hinder RSPA's efforts to meet legislative and DOT requirements for 
coordinating departmental research. Developing a strategy that 
incorporates information about the costs involved in reviewing research 
projects throughout DOT to ensure that unnecessary duplication does not 
occur, and that determines whether finalizing the development and 
implementation of the DOT-wide research tracking system database could 
serve this purpose, is an important first step for RSPA to meet the 
legislative and DOT requirements entrusted to it. A strategy is also 
critical for communicating to the Congress and the Secretary of 
Transportation the challenges RSPA faces, and the specific actions it 
can take, in meeting the requirements with the resources it possesses.

RSPA Has Not Developed Performance Standards Against Which to Measure 
Its Coordination Efforts:

RSPA has not established performance measures to systematically 
document the results and benefits of coordinating DOT research 
activities.[Footnote 17] In the absence of systematically gathered data 
on research activities across the department and associated performance 
measures, it is difficult to determine RSPA's overall success in 
coordinating DOT's billion-dollar research program. Demonstrated 
successes could garner greater departmental support for RSPA's research 
coordination efforts. In its fiscal year 2003 budget submission, RSPA 
cited the difficulty in defining and measuring the effectiveness of 
research coordination activities. According to RSPA, it is because of 
this difficulty that it relies upon external program assessments to 
provide independent evaluation of its research and coordination 
activities.[Footnote 18]

Although we support the use of external assessments, we have reported 
that quantifiable measures are necessary to assess agency performance 
to meet the intent of the Government Performance and Results Act of 
1993 (GPRA).[Footnote 19] Among the stated purposes of GPRA is the 
improvement of federal program effectiveness and public accountability. 
For agencies to successfully become high-performing organizations, 
their leaders need to foster performance-based cultures, find ways to 
measure performance, and use performance information to make decisions. 
A fundamental element in an organization's efforts to manage for 
results is its ability to set meaningful goals for performance and, 
using performance information, measure performance against those goals. 
High-performing, results-oriented organizations establish a set of 
measures to gauge progress over various dimensions of performance.

In crafting GPRA, the Congress expressed its interest in American 
taxpayers' getting quality results from the programs they pay for as 
well as its concern about waste and inefficiency in federal programs. 
The fundamental reason for collecting information on a program's 
performance is to take action in managing the program on the basis of 
that information. By using performance information to assess the way a 
program is conducted, managers can consider alternative approaches and 
processes in areas where goals are not being met and enhance the use of 
program approaches and processes that are working well. Performance 
information also allows program managers to compare their programs' 
results with goals and thus determine where to target program resources 
to improve performance. When managers are forced to reduce their 
resources, the same analysis can help them target the reductions to 
minimize the impact on program results.

GPRA's emphasis on results implies that federal programs contributing 
to the same or similar outcomes should be closely coordinated to ensure 
that goals are consistent and complementary, and that program efforts 
are mutually reinforcing. Thus, measuring the effectiveness of RSPA's 
coordination of DOT research is a critical element of fulfilling its 
legislative and departmental coordination responsibilities--an element 
RSPA has not yet addressed.

RSPA Has Met Some, but Not All, Legislative or DOT Requirements to 
Evaluate DOT Research:

RSPA has not fully met all legislative and DOT requirements for 
evaluating research within the department. RSPA does not meet a 
legislative requirement for measuring the results of federal surface 
transportation research and partially meets a related DOT policy 
requirement to oversee and develop ways to improve research evaluations 
throughout the department. Figure 3 summarizes these requirements and 
the extent to which RSPA has met them.

Figure 3: Extent to Which RSPA Meets Selected Legislative and DOT 
Responsibilities for Evaluating DOT Research Efforts:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Although the department has delegated to RSPA the responsibility for 
meeting legislative and DOT requirements for evaluating research 
projects throughout the department, RSPA's oversight of DOT research 
evaluation is limited to facilitating exchange of information on 
evaluation approaches. As delegated by the Secretary of Transportation, 
RSPA is responsible for measuring the results of federal surface 
transportation research activities and how these results impact the 
performance of the surface transportation systems of the United States, 
as stated in TEA-21.[Footnote 20] Also, TEA-21 calls for a strategic 
planning process[Footnote 21] that includes information on research 
program evaluations conducted and a schedule of future 
evaluations.[Footnote 22] RSPA has not taken steps to meet these 
legislative responsibilities for measuring the results of DOT surface 
transportation research, describing research program evaluations, and 
establishing a schedule for future evaluations.[Footnote 23]

In terms of DOT policy, RSPA is responsible for overseeing and 
developing more efficient, effective, and participative ways to 
evaluate and measure research program effectiveness and progress across 
all operating administrations.[Footnote 24] RSPA has taken steps to 
develop and communicate more effective means of evaluation by 
discussing this issue at monthly Coordinating Council meetings. For 
example, in October 2002, the council provided a forum for discussing 
four different agency approaches to research evaluation. In addition, 
according to RPSA officials, the council has discussed criteria 
established by the Office of Management and Budget for federal 
investment in research and how these criteria can have an impact on 
performance evaluation. RSPA, however, does not oversee operating 
administrations' research evaluation efforts and therefore cannot 
ensure that steps are being consistently taken to improve evaluation 
approaches.

The Associate Administrator said that RSPA does not measure the results 
of federal transportation research activities or provide oversight of 
the operating administrations' research program evaluation processes 
for the following two reasons: (1) the operating administrations have 
responsibility for performing and measuring their own research programs 
and (2) the resource constraints that have limited RSPA's ability to 
coordinate DOT-wide research also limit the agency's ability to oversee 
research program evaluations across the department.

Coordinating Council members said that increased oversight of DOT-wide 
research programs would be beneficial. Our previous work examining 
DOT's research activities also indicates that such oversight is 
warranted. For example, in reviewing the Federal Highway 
Administration's research program, which accounts for almost half of 
DOT's research budget, we found that the Federal Highway Administration 
lacked a systematic process for conducting research evaluations, and 
that the processes it used were not always consistent with federal 
research best practices because it generally did not use a peer review 
approach.[Footnote 25]Thus, without oversight, RSPA and the department 
have no assurance that, at a minimum, operating administration research 
programs are routinely evaluated or that approaches to evaluations are 
consistent with established best practices.  :

DOT and RSPA also have not developed a strategy to meet the requirement 
to measure the results of federal transportation research activities 
and how they impact the performance of the surface transportation 
systems of the United States. Developing such a strategy that 
incorporates information about the costs involved in ensuring that 
evaluations are completed and performed according to best practices is 
an important first step for DOT and RSPA to meet the requirement. A 
strategy also is critical for communicating to the Congress and the 
Secretary of Transportation (1) the challenges that RSPA and the 
department face and (2) the specific actions that can be taken to meet 
this requirement given available resources. After we raised these 
issues to senior RSPA officials as a result of our review, they 
developed a proposed model for reorganizing the Coordinating Council to 
provide an opportunity for RSPA to meet legislative and departmental 
requirements to oversee DOT research evaluation. They said they were 
still considering the proposal when we completed our review.

RSPA Has Conducted Multimodal Research in Four Areas but Does Not Have 
a Process to Systematically Evaluate Program Results:

Since 1999, RSPA has conducted four multimodal research programs--
advanced vehicle technologies, commercial remote sensing and spatial 
information, operator fatigue management, and transportation 
infrastructure assurance. According to RSPA's Associate Administrator, 
these four programs have resulted or will result in significant 
contributions and improvements to the transportation industry. For 
example, he said that research aimed at advanced vehicle technologies 
has resulted in the testing and development of components currently 
used in the production of commercially available hybrid electrical 
vehicles. Nonetheless, RSPA does not have a process to systematically 
evaluate the results of all its multimodal research programs. In the 
absence of such a process, RSPA manages its multimodal research 
programs by monitoring research contract agreements and using expert or 
peer review panels to assess the quality and relevance of ongoing 
research. By not systematically evaluating program results, however, 
RSPA is limited in its ability to determine the extent to which its 
multimodal research programs are achieving their intended goals.

Status of RSPA's Multimodal Research Programs:

Since 1999, RSPA has conducted four multimodal research programs, of 
which two were congressionally mandated. Specifically, TEA-21 required 
DOT to conduct research on using (1) technology to improve energy 
efficiency, and reduce emissions and transportation dependence on 
petroleum, and (2) satellite images to improve transportation safety 
and disaster planning. Transportation research experts within DOT 
developed a third RSPA research program to develop more effective means 
to increase the endurance and reduce fatigue of drivers and pilots. 
Finally, the catalyst for research in a fourth area that assesses key 
transportation system vulnerabilities to damage from disasters or 
terrorist threats came from the National Research Council's 
TRB.[Footnote 26]

According to the Associate Administrator, RSPA identified and selected 
individual projects for these multimodal research programs by obtaining 
input from experts within and outside DOT. For example, RSPA, in 
conjunction with other DOT operating administrations, published a plan 
in June 1999 to guide the selection of human fatique-related projects. 
In addition, in April 2000, RSPA issued a strategic multimodal research 
and development program plan to help focus advanced vehicle technology 
research. Also, in December 2000, RSPA and TRB held a conference on 
remote sensing and spatial information research to, among other things, 
discuss and define issues and possible research needs with 
representatives from academia, transportation agencies, remote sensing 
businesses, consulting firms, and other groups.[Footnote 27] (See app. 
I for a list of project stakeholders and researchers involved in RSPA's 
multimodal research programs.) Table 1 provides summary data concerning 
the scope, funding, and status of RSPA's four multimodal research 
programs.

Table 1: Information on and Status of Multimodal Research Programs 
Conducted by RSPA from Fiscal Years 1999 to 2003:

[See PDF for image]

[End of table]

* The Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program was mandated in 1998 under 
section 5111 of TEA-21. This program combines transportation 
technologies and innovative program elements to produce new vehicles, 
components, and infrastructure for medium-and heavy-duty 
transportation needs. Since 1999, approximately $15 million has been 
allocated toward 55 separate research projects, 43 of which have been 
completed, with the goal of improving energy efficiency and U.S. 
competitiveness while reducing emissions and transportation dependence 
on petroleum. According to the Associate Administrator, the program has 
resulted in (1) the testing of components that are being used in the 
development and production of commercially available hybrid electrical 
vehicles and (2) the development and implementation of electric vehicle 
recharging stations in Hawaii. A picture of an electric vehicle at a 
recharging station is shown in figure 4. RSPA plans to have all of the 
projects completed by the end of 2004.

Figure 4: Electric Vehicle at a Recharging Station:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

* The Commercial Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Technologies 
Program was mandated in 1998 under section 5113 of TEA-21. The joint 
program between RSPA and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) began in 1999. This research program focuses in 
part on using satellite images to assess transportation hazards and 
improve disaster recovery; provide opportunities to monitor and 
evaluate regional traffic flow, including the movement of freight; plan 
for improvements in the maintenance and security of transportation 
infrastructures; and aid in transportation corridor planning. Figure 5 
shows an example of satellite-based photography of interstate highways. 
According to the Associate Administrator, RSPA has also supported 
transportation security technology project activities in the aftermath 
of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. For instance, according 
to RSPA officials, the Remote Sensing Program reoriented two unmanned 
aerial vehicle projects toward monitoring for security as well as 
traditional transportation applications. RSPA has allocated $18 million 
to this research program since it began in 1999 and has disseminated 
program information; results to date have been disseminated through Web 
sites, publications,[Footnote 28] workshops, and conferences. Eighteen 
separate research projects constitute the program; 4 have been 
completed, and RSPA plans to complete the remaining 14 projects by the 
end of 2003.

Figure 5: Satellite-based Photographic Image of U.S. Interstates 25 and 
40 in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

* The Human Centered Systems: Operator Fatigue Management Program was 
conceived by DOT researchers and experts with the primary goal to 
develop techniques that transportation operating companies can employ 
to ensure endurance and fatigue-free performance of their workforces. 
Since fiscal year 1999, approximately $1 million has been allocated to 
the Human Centered Systems: Operator Fatigue Management Program. 
According to the Associate Administrator, this program has resulted in 
significant benefit to the varied DOT transportation community 
stakeholders. For example, in January 2003, the program resulted in the 
production of the Commercial Transportation Operator Alertness 
Management Handbook, which describes measures to better manage driver 
and pilot fatigue. According to RSPA's Associate Administrator, this 
handbook has been in high demand by the U.S. Coast Guard, the Maritime 
Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration. Two of the four 
projects being conducted are ongoing. RSPA plans to complete the 
program by the end of 2004. In figure 6, airline pilots participate in 
NASA research in this area.

Figure 6: Airline Pilots Participating in Fatigue Research:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

* The Transportation Infrastructure Assurance Program[Footnote 29] 
consists of assessments on four separate transportation 
vulnerabilities. These include assessing the (1) relationship between 
the safety and security of the nation's transportation infrastructure 
and some of the nation's other critical infrastructures, such as 
energy, e-commerce, banking and finance, and telecommunications; (2) 
transportation and logistical requirements for emergency response teams 
in response to terrorist attacks using biochemical, nuclear, and 
explosive weapons of mass destruction; (3) costs, benefits, and 
practicality of alternative backup systems for the global positioning 
system; and (4) trade-offs between the different modes of 
transportation and security for hazardous materials. Since fiscal year 
2001, the Congress has appropriated $3 million to conduct these 
assessments. In total, RSPA plans to publish 11 formal reports on the 
four vulnerabilities being assessed and develop a series of 
presentations and workshops to further disseminate the information. 
Figure 7 shows a picture of a global positioning satellite.

Figure 7: Global Positioning Satellite:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

From fiscal years 1999 through 2003, RSPA budgeted about $37 million to 
conduct these four major multimodal research programs. Of this $37 
million, about 9 percent, or $3.3 million, came to RSPA from direct 
congressional appropriations. For example, in fiscal year 2001, the 
Congress appropriated $1 million for the Transportation Infrastructure 
Assurance Program and $300,000 for the Human Centered Systems: Operator 
Fatigue Management Program; in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, RSPA 
received an additional $1 million for the Transportation Infrastructure 
Assurance Program. The remaining $33.7 million for these programs was 
provided through reimbursable funding from other DOT 
administrations.[Footnote 30] Figure 8 summarizes RSPA's annual budget 
for multimodal research from fiscal years 1999 to 2003.

Figure 8: RSPA's Multimodal Research Funding (Fiscal Years 1999-2003):

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

According to the Associate Administrator, RSPA's current multimodal 
research programs are scheduled for completion by the end of fiscal 
year 2004. He added that RSPA has made budgetary and legislative 
proposals to undertake future multimodal research to, among other 
things, further examine applications of unmanned aerial vehicles for 
commercial remote sensing or examine infrastructure safety issues in 
hydrogen energy systems. He noted, however, that there are no approved 
plans for future multimodal research, pending the President's budget 
proposal for the department and the reauthorization of TEA-21, which 
might affect RSPA's multimodal research roles and responsibilities.

RSPA Oversees Research Contracts and Assesses the Status of Its Ongoing 
Research but Lacks a Systematic Process for Evaluating the Results of 
Its Multimodal Research:

RSPA oversees its multimodal research programs by monitoring research 
contract agreements. Specifically, the Associate Administrator said 
that RSPA assesses project progress against contractual milestones to 
ensure that the research is being completed on time and within cost, 
while meeting research objectives. He added that researchers must meet 
or exceed contractual expectations, or corrective actions are taken. 
These actions may include project cancellation. RSPA provided a recent 
example of the impact of its monitoring efforts that dealt with a 
project being conducted under its Commercial Remote Sensing and Spatial 
Information Technologies Program. The evaluation focused on an unmanned 
aerial vehicle application to real-time traffic flow monitoring, a 
demonstration project with the Ohio Department of Transportation and 
several universities and industry partners. Due to a technical problem, 
the scheduled demonstration could not be conducted. The Remote Sensing 
Program Manager, working with the Federal Highway Administration 
Project Manager assigned to the project, pulled together a technical 
team to assess the state of the project. The technical team became 
convinced that the contractor could remedy the technical situation, 
allowed 3 additional months to make the milestone, and successfully 
encouraged the project partners to cover the costs of the delay. 
According to the Associate Administrator, these actions resulted in a 
demonstration to a state partner with no cost increase to RSPA.

In addition to providing this contractual oversight, RSPA uses the 
principles of expert or peer review through the use of multimodal and 
multiagency program oversight panels to assess the status, quality, and 
relevance of its ongoing multimodal research programs, according to the 
Associate Administrator. For example, in December 2000, TRB and RSPA 
held a conference on remote sensing and spatial information research 
with representatives from academia, transportation agencies, remote 
sensing businesses, consulting firms, and other groups. During the 
conference, participants met in breakout sessions to discuss and assess 
research progress and interim results. As we have reported, expert or 
peer review is
a particularly effective means to evaluate federally funded 
research.[Footnote 31] The Committee on Science, Engineering, and 
Public Policy has also reported that expert review is widely used to 
evaluate the quality of current research as compared with other work 
being conducted in the field and with the relevance of research to the 
agency's goals and mission.[Footnote 32] However, RSPA has not 
established a process or policies for systematically using peer or 
expert reviews to evaluate the results of all its multimodal research. 
For example, RSPA has no plans to evaluate the results of its 
Transportation Infrastructure Assurance Program.

We, among others, recognize that federal agencies that support research 
in science and engineering have been challenged to find the most useful 
and effective ways to evaluate the performance and results of the 
research programs. For example, since GPRA was passed in 1993, some 
questions have been raised about its applicability to the research 
activities of government agencies. Because the process required by GPRA 
is based on a 5-year strategic planning horizon, concerns exist that 
GPRA constrains, and perhaps prohibits, the long-term thinking and 
planning that characterize the federal role in research. This concern 
is particularly relevant for basic research, but even successes from 
highly applied research (the type sponsored by DOT) can require 5 to 10 
years before achieving widespread recognition.[Footnote 33] 
Nonetheless, as we noted in our report examining DOT highway 
research,[Footnote 34] without systematic program evaluation, it is 
unclear as to whether research efforts are having the intended results. 
Such a systematic approach to evaluation, according to best practices 
used in other federal research programs, includes review of all ongoing 
and completed research on a regular basis and in accordance with GPRA 
principles.

RSPA's Associate Administrator acknowledged that a documented process 
for systematically evaluating the results of its multimodal research 
programs would be beneficial, but that the process should be tailored 
to match the type of research and its objectives. He added that RSPA 
had not developed and implemented a process for systematically 
evaluating the results of its multimodal research because of a lack of 
funding and staffing resources. For example, he estimated that an 
external evaluation to assess the results of its multimodal programs 
could cost as much as $100,000 for each program. Nonetheless, without 
establishing and implementing a process for systematically evaluating 
the results of its research, RSPA cannot ensure that its multimodal 
research programs are achieving their intended goals.

Conclusions:

To its credit, RSPA has taken steps in recent years to meet its 
legislative and department responsibilities for coordinating and 
overseeing the evaluation of the department's transportation research 
activities. Nevertheless, ensuring that no unnecessary duplication of 
research programs occurs and that research programs--including the ones 
that RSPA conducts--are evaluated for results are critical 
responsibilities, given the importance of, and amount of money spent 
on, DOT research. Without a strategy to meet legislative and DOT 
requirements to coordinate and oversee evaluation of departmental 
research, RSPA may not be able to meet these responsibilities, 
particularly given its lack of authority within the department and 
resource limitations. In addition, a lack of performance standards 
against which to measure coordination efforts limits RSPA's ability to 
identify areas where coordination is working effectively and areas that 
could be improved upon. With a strategy and performance measures in 
place, however, RSPA and DOT should be in a better position to assure 
the Congress that the department is making the most of its significant 
research dollars through effective coordination and evaluation of its 
research programs.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

To better meet legislative and DOT requirements for coordinating and 
evaluating transportation research within the department, we recommend 
the Secretary, in conjunction with RSPA's Administrator, work with DOT 
operating administrations to:

* Develop a strategy for reviewing all DOT research projects to 
identify areas of unnecessary research duplication, overlap, and 
opportunities for joint efforts. The strategy should address time 
frames for implementing this review as well as discuss the extent to 
which finalizing the development and implementation of a DOT-wide 
research tracking system database could serve to facilitate this 
process. Once this strategy has been developed and implemented, the 
results of this effort should be incorporated in the department's 
annual research plan and reported to the Congress on an annual basis.

* Develop and apply quantifiable performance measures to assess the 
effectiveness of research coordination efforts (once a strategy for 
review has been developed and implemented), and document the results of 
these efforts in the department's annual research plan. These measures 
could include the number of research projects identified as possible 
candidates for joint effort or elimination and/or the associated 
reduction in the department's research spending.

* Develop a strategy to ensure that the results of all DOT's 
transportation research activities are evaluated according to 
established best practices. This strategy should include estimates of 
the costs for ensuring that evaluations are completed. Once the 
strategy has been developed and implemented, the results of these 
efforts should be incorporated in the department's annual research plan 
and reported to the Congress on an annual basis.

* Include in the department's annual research plan a summary of all 
research program evaluations conducted and a schedule of future 
evaluations.

In addition, we recommend that the Secretary direct RSPA's 
Administrator to document RSPA's process for systematically evaluating 
the results of its own multimodal research programs, and apply this 
process to any future multimodal research programs that RSPA conducts.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from RSPA 
officials, including the Associate Administrator for Innovation, 
Research, and Education. These officials generally agreed with the 
contents of the draft report but did not comment specifically on the 
report's recommendations. They also provided technical comments that we 
incorporated as appropriate.

Regarding RSPA's evaluation of its own multimodal research, the 
officials said that RSPA had conducted evaluation activities--peer and 
expert reviews of the progress of three of its four multimodal research 
programs and had no plans to evaluate the fourth. We acknowledge that 
RSPA has used peer and expert review to evaluate the status of at least 
one of its ongoing multimodal research programs--commercial remote 
sensing and spatial information technology--and we describe this 
example in this report. Nevertheless, we continue to believe that our 
recommendation for documenting and applying a process for 
systematically evaluating the results of any future multimodal research 
programs conducted by RSPA is warranted to ensure that such evaluations 
are consistently conducted in accordance with established best 
practices.

We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees and 
subcommittees with responsibilities for transportation, the Secretary 
of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration 
Administrator, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 
We will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://
www.gao.gov.

If you have questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 
512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Other key contributors were Colin 
Fallon, Christopher Keisling, Bert Japikse, Steve Morris, and Jason 
Schwartz.

Katherine Siggerud
Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:

Signed by Katherine Siggerud:

[End of section]

Appendixes :

Appendix I: Stakeholders and Researchers Involved in the Four Multimodal 
Programs Conducted by RSPA:

Table 2: Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program:

Project title: Model Park; Project performer(s): Northeast Advanced 
Vehicle Consortium/Boston Edison; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Hybrid School Bus; Project performer(s): Northeast 
Advanced Vehicle Consortium/Solectria; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Extended Hybrid Electric Heavy Duty Vehicle Emission 
Test Certification; Project performer(s): Northeast Advanced Vehicle 
Consortium/MJ Bradley; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Jet Vapor Deposition for Catalyzing Fuel Cell 
Membranes; Project performer(s): Northeast Advanced Vehicle 
Consortium/Jet Process Corporation; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: AV 900 Cycler for a 600-900 Volt System for Heavy Duty 
Hybrid Electric Vehicles; Project performer(s): Electricore/Allison 
Transmission Division of General Motors Corporation; Project 
stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Installation of Capstone Microturbines into AVS 
Passenger Trams; Project performer(s): Electricore/Advanced Vehicle 
Systems, Inc.; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Novel Silicon Carbide JFET-Gated Thyristor; Project 
performer(s): Electricore/Rutgers University; Project stakeholders: 
FTA.

Project title: Electric Vehicle Ready State; Project performer(s): 
Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project; Project stakeholders: 
FTA.

Project title: Zero Emission 100-Passenger Electric Tram for 
Airports; Project performer(s): Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration 
Project/U.S. Electricar; Project stakeholders: FTA, FAA.

Project title: Battery Life Cycle Prediction; Project performer(s): 
Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project/Hawaii Natural Energy 
Institute/University of Hawaii/SOEST; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Extension of the Hybrid Electric HMMWV Power Train 
Development Program; Project performer(s): Southern Coalition for 
Advanced Transportation/PEI Electronics; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Optimization of Hybrid Electric Vehicles Compression 
Ignition Auxiliary Unit Control Strategy for Emissions Reduction and 
Improved Fuel Economy; Project performer(s): Mid Atlantic Regional 
Consortium for Advanced Vehicles/Navistar International Transportation 
Corporation; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Integrated Simulation and Testing System for Electric 
Vehicle Batteries; Project performer(s): Mid Atlantic Regional 
Consortium for Advanced Vehicles/Pennsylvania Transportation 
Institute; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Smaller Better Inverters with Polymer Multi-Layer 
Capacitors; Project performer(s): Mid Atlantic Regional Consortium 
for Advanced Vehicles/Sigma Technologies International, Inc.; Project 
stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: NiMH Battery System Development for an Electric 
Vehicle Bus; Project performer(s): Sacramento Municipal Utility 
District/Ovonic Battery; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Advanced PLI Hybrid Electric Vehicle Battery; : 
Project performer(s): Sacramento Municipal Utility District/Compact 
Power; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Reliable Electric Propulsion System for Medium and 
Heavy Duty Vehicles; Project performer(s): CALSTART/Santa Barbara 
Electric Bus Works; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: All-Purpose Electric Tractor; Project performer(s): 
CALSTART/ISE Research Corporation; Project stakeholders: FTA, FAA.

Project title: Development of Advanced Electrochemical Capacitors 
Using Carbon and Lead-Oxide Electrodes for Hybrid Vehicle Applications; 
Project performer(s): CALSTART/University of California, Davis; 
Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Hybrid Transit Bus with Flywheel; Project 
performer(s): CALSTART/Trinity Flywheel Power; Project stakeholders: 
FTA.

Project title: Auxiliary Power Unit Project Using Fuel Cell 
Technology; Project performer(s): CALSTART/Freightliner Corporation; 
Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Caterpillar Heavy Duty Powertrain Applicable to Heavy 
Duty Machines; Project performer(s): Northeast Advanced Vehicle 
Consortium; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Design/Integrate/Test Auxiliary Power Units/Hybrid 
Electric Vehicles for Deployment in Commercial Delivery Fleet; : 
Project performer(s): Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium; Project 
stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Low Cost, Modular, Highly Reliable, Universal 
Propulsion Inverter for Heavy-Duty Commercial and Military Hybrid 
Vehicles; Project performer(s): Electricore; Project stakeholders: 
FTA.

Project title: Design and Fabrication of 4H-SiC Hybrid JBS Diode for 
High Temperature and High Efficiency Inverters for Medium and Heavy 
Duty Applications; Project performer(s): Electricore/Rutgers 
University; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Electric Vehicle Ready State (Phase II); Project 
performer(s): Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project; Project 
stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Hybrid Drive System for Heavy Duty Transit Buses and 
Trucks (Phase I); Project performer(s): Hawaii Electric Vehicle 
Demonstration Project/Hawaii Technology Development Corporation; 
Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Georgia 1 - Design, Manufacture and Test a Low Speed 
Industrial Motor System in Heavy-Duty Vehicles; Project performer(s): 
Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation; Project stakeholders: 
FTA.

Project title: Texas 1 - Enhanced Safety and Risk Reduction for 
University of Texas Demonstration Program; Project performer(s): 
Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation; Project stakeholders: 
FTA.

Project title: Simulation and Field Test Hybrid Ultra-Capacitor 
Battery Energy Storage System for Electric Transit Vehicles; Project 
performer(s): Mid Atlantic Regional Consortium for Advanced Vehicles/
Pennsylvania Transportation Institute; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Development of Scalable Direct-Methanol Fuel Cell 
Stacks; Project performer(s): Mid Atlantic Regional Consortium for 
Advanced Vehicles/GATE Center for Advanced Energy Storage; Project 
stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Zebra Battery Demonstration in an Electric School Bus; 
Project performer(s): Sacramento Municipal Utility District/Santa 
Barbara Electric Bus Works; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Fuel Cell Auxiliary Power Unit Demonstration in a 
Heavy-Duty Truck; Project performer(s): Sacramento Municipal Utility 
District/ISE Research Corporation; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: DOT Center for Climate Change and Environmental 
Forecasting Conference Support; Project performer(s): CALSTART/
WestStart Corporation; Project stakeholders: All modes.

Project title: Hybrid Electric Prototype Truck, Phase II Program; : 
Project performer(s): CALSTART/ISE Research Corporation; Project 
stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: 150 kW Traction Drive/Hybrid Auxiliary Power Unit 
System for Large Electric or Hybrid Electric Vehicle Applications; : 
Project performer(s): CALSTART/Unique Mobility, Inc.; Project 
stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Hickam Air Force Base Project Development; Project 
performer(s): Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project; Project 
stakeholders: FTA, Department of the Air Force.

Project title: Rapid Chargers; Project performer(s): Hawaii 
Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project; Project stakeholders: FTA, 
Department of the Air Force.

Project title: Electric Bus Conversion; Project performer(s): 
Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project; Project stakeholders: 
FTA, Department of the Air Force.

Project title: U.S.S. Arizona Memorial Tour Boat Study; Project 
performer(s): Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project; Project 
stakeholders: FTA, Department of the Navy, National Park Service.

Project title: Advanced Vehicles for Great Smoky Mountains National 
Park; Project performer(s): Mid Atlantic Regional Consortium for 
Advanced Vehicles/Electric Power Research Institute; Project 
stakeholders: FTA, National Park Service.

Project title: Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles Energy Control System; : 
Project performer(s): Mid Atlantic Regional Consortium for Advanced 
Vehicles; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Phase I Fast Track Fuel Cell Bus Project; Project 
performer(s): Sacramento Municipal Utility District/Sacramento 
Electric Transportation Consortium/CALSTART/WestStart; Project 
stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Development of NiMH Battery System for Application in 
Heavy Duty Hybrid Electric Vehicles; Project performer(s): Sacramento 
Municipal Utility District/Sacramento Electric Transportation 
Consortium; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Lightweight Hybrid Electric Transit Bus Program; : 
Project performer(s): CALSTART/NOVA Bus Incorporated; Project 
stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Airport Clean Fuel Vehicle Outreach --Targeted Project 
Development; Project performer(s): CALSTART/WestStart Corporation; 
Project stakeholders: FTA, FAA.

Project title: Phase I, Fast Track Fuel Cell Bus Project; Project 
performer(s): CALSTART/WestStart/Sacramento Electric Transportation 
Consortium; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: National Conference on Climate Change; Project 
performer(s): Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium; Project 
stakeholders: All modes.

Project title: Development and Fabrication of a PEM Fuel Cell Power 
Plant for Heavy Duty Vehicle Applications; Project performer(s): 
Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium/University Transportation 
Centers Fuel Cells; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Drive Line Development Team and Industry Work Group; : 
Project performer(s): Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium; Project 
stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Route-Ready Fuel Cell Component Testing; Project 
performer(s): Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium/Concurrent 
Technologies Corporation; Project stakeholders: FTA.

Project title: Hybrid Electric Bus (Phase II); Project 
performer(s): Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project; Project 
stakeholders: FTA, Department of the Air Force.

Project title: Multi-Vehicle Charging System; Project performer(s): 
Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project; Project stakeholders: 
FTA, Department of the Air Force.

Project title: Data Acquisition Systems; Project performer(s): 
Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project; Project stakeholders: 
FTA, Department of the Air Force.

Project title: Aircraft Loader; Project performer(s): Hawaii 
Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project; Project stakeholders: FTA, 
Department of the Air Force.

Source: RSPA.

Legend:

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:

Note: This program is performed in partnership with seven major 
consortia consisting of (1) Sacramento Electric Transportation 
Consortium; (2) Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium; (3) CALSTART-
WESTSTART; (4) Electricore, Inc.; (5) Mid-Atlantic Regional Consortium 
for Advanced Vehicles; (6) Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration 
Project; and (7) Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation.

[End of table]:

Table 3: Commercial Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Technologies 
Program:

Project title: Airborne Sensor Fusion: A Fast-Track Approach to 
National Environmental Policy Act Streamlining and Environmental 
Assessment; Project performer(s): NCRST-E/Earthdata Int'l of NC; 
Project stakeholders: FHWA.

Project title: Remote Sensing of Environmental Parameters for Use in 
National Environmental Policy Act Documentation in Support of Highway 
Corridor Studies; Project performer(s): NCRST-E/ICF Consulting; 
Project stakeholders: FHWA.

Project title: Remote Sensing Applications in Transit; Project 
performer(s): NCRST-F/Bridgewater State College; Project stakeholders: 
FHWA, FTA.

Project title: Airborne Ground-Penetrating Radar to Support 
Monitoring of Pipeline Safety and Performance; Project performer(s): 
NCRST-H/Aeris Inc.; Project stakeholders: RSPA/Office of Pipeline 
Safety.

Project title: Environmental Impact and Risk Modeling of Petroleum 
and Gas Transmission Lines Using Interferometry and High Resolution 
Imagery from Satellite and Airborne-based Remote Sensing Systems; : 
Project performer(s): NCRST-H/EarthWatch, Inc.; Project stakeholders: 
RSPA/Office of Pipeline Safety.

Project title: Facilitating the Operation Efficiency and Growth of 
Intermodal Freight Traffic: Application of Remote Sensing Technology to 
the Alameda Corridor, Los Angeles, CA; Project performer(s): NCRST-I/
ASL Consulting Engineers (Tetra Tech Corp.); Project stakeholders: 
Office of the Secretary of Transportation/; Office of Intermodalism.

Project title: Remote Sensing Applications Supporting Regional 
Database for Transportation Planning; Project performer(s): NCRST-F/
Veridian System Division (formerly Veridian ERIM); Project 
stakeholders: FHWA, FTA.

Project title: Road Network Planning Tool; Project performer(s): 
NCRST-F/Technology Service Corp.; Project stakeholders: FHWA.

Project title: Impact of Instant Imagery Access on a Regional 
Database for Transportation Planning; Project performer(s): NCRST-I/
Orbimage; Project stakeholders: FHWA.

Project title: Development of Regional Databases for Transportation 
Planning; Project performer(s): NCRST-E/Veridian Systems Division; 
Project stakeholders: FHWA, FTA.

Project title: Remote Sensing for Airport Development and 
Transportation Planning; Project performer(s): NCRST-F/Grafton 
Technologies, Inc.; Project stakeholders: FAA, FHWA.

Project title: Remote Sensing of Invasive Aquatic Plant Obstruction 
in Navigable Waterways; Project performer(s): NCRST-F/TerraMetrics, 
Inc.; Project stakeholders: MARAD.

Project title: Using an Unmanned Airborne Data Acquisition System 
(ADAS) for Traffic Surveillance, Monitoring, and Management; Project 
performer(s): NCRST-F/GeoData Systems, Inc.; Project stakeholders: 
FHWA.

Project title: The Application of Remote Sensing
Technologies in Post-Disaster Damage
Assessment; Project performer(s): NCRST-H/ImageCat, Inc.; Project 
stakeholders: All modes.

Project title: Long-Term Monitoring of Changes in Transportation and 
Land Use Associated with the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel in 
Boston, MA.; Project performer(s): NCRST-I/University of 
Massachusetts; Project stakeholders: FHWA.

Project title: Implementing Remote Sensing Applications to Develop 
and Environmental Impact Statement and Decision Options to Relocate the 
Current CSX Railroad from Mississippi Gulf Coast townships to the I-10 
Right of Way; Project performer(s): NCRST-E/FHWA/Mississippi 
Department of Transportation; Project stakeholders: FHWA, FRA.

Project title: Remote Sensing Applications for
Environmental Analysis in Transportation
Planning; Project performer(s): NCRST-E/Washington State Department 
of Transportation; Project stakeholders: FHWA.

Project title: Highway Features and Characteristics Database 
Development Using Commercial Remote Sensing Technology, Combined with 
Mobile Mapping, GIS and GPS.; Project performer(s): NCRST-I/Florida 
Department of Transportation; Project stakeholders: FHWA.

Source: RSPA.

Legend:

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration 
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration
FRA: Federal Railroad Administration 
FTA: Federal Transit Administration
MARAD: Maritime Administration 
RSPA: Research and Special Programs Administration:

Note: This program is performed in partnership with four major 
consortia consisting of (1) the National Consortia for Remote Sensing 
in Transportation - Environmental Assessment/Application (NCRST-E); 
(2) the National Consortia for Remote Sensing in Transportation - 
Traffic Flow (NCRST-F); (3) the National Consortia for Remote Sensing 
in Transportation - Safety, Hazards, and Disasters (NCRST-H); and (4) 
the National Consortia for Remote Sensing in Transportation - 
Infrastructure Management (NCRST-I).

[End of table]

Table 4: Human-Centered Systems: Operator Fatigue Management Program:

Project title: Framework for Multimodal Synthesis and Cost Benefit 
Analyses; Project performer(s): ORC Macro; Project stakeholders: All 
DOT modes through the Human Factors Coordinating Committee.

Project title: Work Schedule Representation Analysis Software; : 
Project performer(s): XIMES GmbH; Project stakeholders: All DOT modes 
through the Human Factors Coordinating Committee.

Project title: Development of a Fatigue Management Reference 
Handbook; Project performer(s): Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus 
Operations; Project stakeholders: All DOT modes through the Human 
Factors Coordinating Committee.

Project title: Fatigue Analysis Systems for Transportation 
Operations: Railroad Applications; Project performer(s): Science 
Applications International Corporation; Project stakeholders: All DOT 
modes through the Human Factors Coordinating Committee.

Source: RSPA.

Legend:

DOT: Department of Transportation:

[End of table]

Table 5: Transportation Infrastructure Assurance Program:

Project title: Interdependency of the Transportation System with 
Other Critical Infrastructures; Project performer(s): Volpe National 
Transportation Systems Center; Project stakeholders: Office of 
Intelligence and Security, TSA, FAA, Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, TRB..

Project title: Transportation and Logistical Requirements for 
Emergency Response Teams in Dealing with Weapons of Mass Destruction; : 
Project performer(s): Volpe National Transportation Systems Center; 
Project stakeholders: DOT Maritime Academy, FAA, Federal Emergency 
Management Adminstration, FHWA, MARAD, RSPA's Office of Emergency 
Transportation..

Project title: Feasibility of Alternative Backup Systems for the 
Global Positioning System; Project performer(s): Volpe National 
Transportation Systems Center; Project stakeholders: Booz-Allen 
Hamilton, DOT Office of the Secretary, FAA, FRA, Northrop-Grumman, 
USCG..

Project title: Options to Transition Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Security Guidelines to Security Requirements; Project 
performer(s): Volpe National Transportation Systems Center; Project 
stakeholders: TSA, American Association of Railroads, American 
Chemistry Council, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, DOT Office of 
the Secretary, FMCSA, FRA, GAO, TRB, RSPA's Office of Hazardous 
Materials Safety, RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety, and USCG, American 
Institute of Chemical Engineers, the National Transportation Safety 
Board, the Inland Rivers, Ports and Waterways Association, the Bureau 
of the Census, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Vanderbilt 
University..

Source: RSPA.

Legend:

DOT: Department of Transportation
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration 
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA: Federal Railroad Administration 
MARAD: Maritime Administration 
RSPA: Research and Special Programs Administration 
TRB: Transportation Research Board
TSA: Transportation Security Administration
USCG: United States Coast Guard:

[End of table]

(542013):

:

:

FOOTNOTES

[1] The Transportation Research Board is a unit of the National 
Research Council, a private, nonprofit institution that is the 
principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the 
National Academy of Engineering. The board's mission is to promote 
innovation and progress in transportation by motivating and conducting 
research, facilitating the dissemination of information, and 
encouraging the implementation of research results. 

[2] The U.S. Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration 
were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security in March 2003.

[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, Transportation Security Research: 
Coordination Needed in Selecting and Implementing Infrastructure 
Vulnerability Assessments, GAO-03-502 (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2003). 

[4] Peer review is a process that includes an independent assessment of 
the technical and scientific merit or quality of research by peers with 
essential subject area expertise and perspective equal to that of the 
researchers.

[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Research: Systematic 
Selection and Evaluation Processes Needed for Research Program, GAO-02-
573 (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2002).

[6] Section 5108 codified at 23 U.S.C.  508.

[7] Through the University Transportation Centers Program, DOT supports 
33 university-based research centers to advance transportation research 
and education. In fiscal year 2003, RSPA received almost $30 million in 
reimbursable funds from the Federal Highway Administration and the 
Federal Transit Administration to manage the program. 

[8] Operating administrations include the Federal Aviation 
Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal 
Transit Administration, Maritime Administration, and National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration. 

[9] A consortium focuses on research and development of products in a 
priority area and includes technical application and demonstration 
projects carried out in partnership with industries and service 
providers.

[10] TRB study conducted by the Committee for Review of the National 
Transportation Science and Technology Strategy (Washington D.C.: Mar. 
28, 2000) 3.

[11] U.S. General Accounting Office, Combating Terrorism: Selected 
Challenges and Related Recommendations, GAO-01-882 (Washington D.C.: 
Sept. 20, 2001) 85.

[12] According to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, 
each federal department is required to submit a performance plan to the 
Congress annually. The TEA-21 requirement to include results of the 
year's research in the department's annual performance plan is at 23 
U.S.C.  508 (c) (4) (A). 

[13] For example, in October 2002, the Coordinating Council was 
delegated responsibility for coordination of all actions related to 
research misconduct, including providing guidance in research 
misconduct policy implementation. The federal policy on research 
misconduct was released in December 2000 by the Executive Office of the 
President's Office of Science and Technology Policy and directs all 
federal agencies that conduct or support research to implement this 
policy. In addition, the council is revising DOT Order 1700.18B dealing 
with acquisition, publication, and dissemination of DOT scientific and 
technical reports. 

[14] TRB study, 13.





[15] According to RSPA, research and development planning and 
management includes funding for transportation research and development 
strategic planning, DOT research facilitation, coordination and 
partnerships, DOT technology transfer and technology sharing programs, 
National Science and Technology Council activities, Small Business 
Innovation Research Program support, and international research and 
development activities. 

[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Surface Transportation: Research 
Funding, Federal Role, and Emerging Issues, RCED-96-233 (Washington, 
D.C.: Sept. 6, 1996). 

[17] In RSPA's fiscal year 2003 budget submission to the Congress, it 
reported one quantifiable performance measure. This measure is aimed at 
gauging RSPA's progress in administrating the University Transportation 
Centers Program and focuses on the number of students graduating with 
advanced degrees from universities funded under the program. For fiscal 
year 2003, RSPA's performance goal is 1,228 students. 

[18] TRB conducted such an assessment in March 2000.

[19] GPRA requires federal agencies to set strategic goals and 
establish performance measures for management.

[20] 23 U.S.C.  508 (a) (3) and (b) (3). 

[21] As defined at 5 U.S.C.  306.

[22] 23 U.S.C.  508 (a) (1). 

[23] We noted that the department's performance plan for fiscal year 
2003 contained an appendix detailing DOT program evaluation methods, 
results, and schedule for future evaluations for programs that 
represent significant DOT activities (other than research) that 
contribute to its strategic goals. 

[24] DOT Order 1120.39.

[25] GAO-02-573.

[26] TRB, Improving Surface Transportation Security, A Research and 
Development Strategy (1999).

[27] See GAO-03-502 for a discussion of the coordination issues 
involved in developing and implementing RSPA's Transportation 
Infrastructure Assurance Program.

[28] In April 2002, DOT and NASA issued Achievements of the DOT-NASA 
Joint Program on Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Technologies: 
Application to Multimodal Transportation, which presented 3-year 
accomplishments from the program. 

[29] GAO-03-502. 

[30] RSPA conducts and manages its multimodal research programs, 
excluding the Transportation Infrastructure Assurance Program, almost 
exclusively using reimbursable funds provided by the DOT administration 
sponsoring the research--that is, the Federal Highway Administration, 
Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

[31] U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal ResearchPeer Review 
Practices at Federal Science Agencies Vary, GAO/RCED-99-99 (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 17, 1999) 2.

[32] Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Evaluating 
Federal Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and 
Results Act (Washington, D.C.: February 1999) 39. The Committee on 
Science, Engineering, and Public Policy is a joint committee of the 
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and 
the Institute of Medicine. 

[33] Applied research is original work undertaken to develop new 
knowledge with a specific, practical application in mind.

[34] GAO-02-573.

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 
released products" under the GAO Reports heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: