AVIATION SAFETY

STATUS OF 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

IMPROVE FAA'S 

CERTIFICATION AND 

APPROVAL PROCESSES

Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Testimony 

Before the Aviation Subcommittee, 

Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, House of 

Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10 a.m. EDT

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

GAO-14-142T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-142T, a testimony

before the Aviation Subcommittee, Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 

Representatives

October 30, 2013

AVIATION SAFETY

Status of Recommendations to Improve FAA’s 

Certification and Approval Processes

Why GAO Did This Study

Among the agency’s responsibilities for 

aviation safety, FAA issues certificates 

for new aircraft and parts and grants 

approvals for changes to air operations 

and aircraft. In 2010, GAO made 

recommendations to improve FAA’s

certification and approval processes. 

Subsequently, the Act required FAA to 

work with industry to assess the 

certification process and address some 

of the findings in GAO’s report. In July 

2013, FAA issued reports on its efforts, 

including those in response to 

committee recommendations and 

FAA’s implementation plans. This 

testimony addresses FAA’s responses 

to the recommendations made by GAO

in 2010 and the two joint FAA-industry 

committees concerning (1) the 

certification and approval processes 

and (2) the consistency of regulatory 

interpretation. It also discusses future 

challenges facing FAA’s certification 

and approval processes.

This statement is based in part on 

GAO’s 2010 report. More detailed 

information on the objectives, scope, 

and methodology for that work can be 

found in that report. In addition, for this 

statement, GAO interviewed industry 

representatives, reviewed the 

methodologies used to develop the 

committees’ recommendations, and 

assessed the recommendations and 

FAA’s planned responses to those 

recommendations in terms of whether

they were relevant, clear, actionable, 

and feasible.

GAO is not making any new 

recommendations in this testimony.

What GAO Found

In 2010, GAO reported that industry stakeholders and experts believed that the 

Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) certification and approval processes 

contribute positively to the safety of the national airspace system. However, 

stakeholders and experts also noted that negative certification and approval 

experiences—such as duplication of approvals—although infrequent, can result 

in delays that industry says are costly. GAO made two recommendations 

requiring, among other things, that FAA develop a continuous evaluative process 

and a method to track submission approvals. FAA addressed one 

recommendation and partially addressed the other. An FAA-industry committee

established in response to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the 

Act) made six recommendations to improve the certification and approval 

processes, including establishing a performance measurement process. In 

response to recommendations from the certification process committee, FAA 

developed an implementation plan with 14 initiatives, but the initiatives do not 

contain some elements essential to a performance measurement process, such 

as performance measures. Without performance measures, FAA will be unable 

to evaluate current and future programs.

GAO also reported in 2010 that variation in FAA’s interpretation of standards for 

certification and approval decisions is a long-standing problem. A second FAAindustry committee, established in response to the Act, made recommendations 

concerning the consistency of regulatory interpretation. FAA reported that it is 

determining the feasibility of implementing the recommendations and expected to 

develop an action plan by December 2013. Further, FAA reported it would

measure implementation, but not outcomes; measuring outcomes helps to 

understand if the action is having the intended effect.

Among the challenges facing FAA, its certification and approval workload is 

expected to grow due to the introduction of new technologies and materials and

expected progress in the deployment of the Next Generation Air Transportation 

System. Having efficient and consistent certification and approval processes 

would allow FAA to better use its resources to meet these increasing workload 

demands and better ensure aviation safety in an era of limited resources.

FAA Conducts Inspections as Part of Certification

View GAO-14-142T. For more information, 

contact Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. at (202) 

512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov.
Page 1 GAO 14-142T

Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and Members of the 

Subcommittee,

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA) certification process. FAA is responsible for 

aviation safety, in part, by issuing certificates for new air operators, new 

aircraft, and aircraft parts and equipment, as well as by granting 

approvals for such things as changes to air operations and aircraft. FAA 

issues certificates and approvals based on its evaluation of aviation 

industry submissions against standards set forth in federal aviation 

regulations and related FAA guidance. In 2010, we found that variation in 

FAA’s interpretation of standards for certification and approval decisions 

was a long-standing issue.1 While we found that the processes for 

certification and approval are viewed by the aviation industry as generally 

working well, the industry believes process inefficiencies have negatively 

affected it. We made recommendations to address some of these 

inefficiencies. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Act) 

required FAA to work with industry to assess and recommend 

improvements to the certification and approval processes (in Section 312) 

and to establish an advisory group to address the findings in our report 

related to consistency of regulatory interpretation (in Section 313). In July 

2013, FAA issued reports on these issues, including recommendations 

and implementation plans.2

My statement today discusses FAA’s responses to the recommendations 

we made in our 2010 report and the recommendations by the two industry 

committees that FAA established in response to the Act concerning (1) 

FAA’s certification and approval processes and (2) FAA’s consistency of 

regulatory interpretations. It also discusses challenges to making further 

improvements to the certification and approval processes. This statement 

is based in part on our 2010 report.3

 1

GAO, Aviation Safety: Certification and Approval Processes Are Generally Viewed as 

Working Well, but Better Evaluative Information Needed to Improve Efficiency, 

For that report, we convened a panel 

GAO-11-14

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2010). 

2

Federal Aviation Administration, Report to Congress: Consistency of Regulatory 

Interpretation, FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95)—Section 313, 

July 19, 2013 and Federal Aviation Administration, Detailed Implementation Plan For The 

Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law No. 

112-95, Section 312, July 31, 2013. 

3

GAO-11-14.
Page 2 GAO 14-142T

of aviation industry and other experts. The panel included FAA senior 

managers; officials representing large and small air carriers, aircraft and 

aerospace product manufacturers, aviation services firms, repair stations, 

and aviation consultants; and academicians specializing in aviation and 

organization theory. We also interviewed aviation trade groups and 

certificate and approval holders of various sizes that represented a broad 

range of aviation industry sectors—including air carriers, repair stations, 

and manufacturers. More detailed information on our objectives, scope, 

and methodology for that work can be found in the report. In addition, in 

preparing for this hearing, in October 2013 we interviewed selected

industry officials representing aircraft and parts manufacturers, airlines, 

and repair stations and reviewed the two July 2013 reports prepared by 

FAA and the industry committees it established to respond the Act. The 

FAA-industry reports contain recommendations to FAA, information on 

the method used to develop the recommendations, and FAA’s response 

to the recommendations. We reviewed the methodologies used to 

develop the committees’ recommendations using best practices.

4 We also 

assessed whether the committees considered the feasibility of the 

recommendations in developing them. In addition, we reviewed the 

recommendations and FAA’s responses to the recommendations 

contained in the two reports. We assessed the recommendations and 

FAA’s planned responses to those recommendations, including 14 FAA 

initiatives, in terms of whether they were relevant, clear, and actionable 

using relevant criteria.5

We conducted the work on which this statement is based in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives.

We reviewed prior GAO work, including our 2010 

report, to identify challenges.

 4

GAO, Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision, GAO-12-208G (Washington, D.C.: January 

2012).

5

See for example, GAO, Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring 

Performance, GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 1997).
Page 3 GAO 14-142T

FAA’s Aircraft Certification Service (Aircraft Certification) and Flight 

Standards Service (Flight Standards) issue certificates and approvals for 

the operators and aviation products used in the national airspace system 

based on standards set forth in federal aviation regulations. FAA 

inspectors and engineers working in Aircraft Certification and Flight 

Standards interpret and implement the regulations governing certificates 

and approvals via FAA policies and guidance, such as orders, notices, 

and advisory circulars. (See fig. 1.)

Figure 1: FAA Conducts Inspections as Part of Certification

Aircraft Certification’s approximately 950 engineers and inspectors in 42

field offices issue approvals to the designers and manufacturers of aircraft 

and aircraft engines, propellers, parts, and equipment. Since 2005, 

Aircraft Certification has used project sequencing to prioritize certification 

submissions on the basis of available resources. Projects are evaluated 

against several criteria, including safety attributes and their impact on the 

air transportation system. Figure 2 outlines the key phases in Aircraft 

Certification’s approval process.

Background
Page 4 GAO 14-142T

Figure 2: Key Phases in FAA’s Aircraft Certification Service’s Process for 

Approving Aviation Products

Note: During each phase, both the applicant and FAA staff are involved. FAA staff include managers, 

engineers, inspectors, flight test pilots, a chief scientist, and technical advisors, as well as an aircraft 

evaluation group from Flight Standards.

In Flight Standards, approximately 4,000 inspectors issue certificates 

allowing individuals and entities to operate in the National Airspace 

System (NAS). These include certificates to commercial air carriers, 

operators of smaller commercial aircraft, repair stations, and pilot schools 

and training centers. Flight Standards also issues approvals for programs, 

such as training. Flight Standards field office managers in over 100 field 

offices use the Certification Services Oversight Process to initiate 

certification projects within their offices. Delays occur when FAA wait-lists 

certification submissions because it does not have the resources to begin 

work on them. Once FAA determines that it has the resources to oversee 

an additional new certificate holder, accepted projects are processed on a 

first-in, first-out basis within each office. Figure 3 illustrates the key steps 

in the Flight Standards certification process.
Page 5 GAO 14-142T

Figure 3: Key Steps in FAA’s Flight Standards Service’s Process for Issuing 

Certificates to Air Operators and Air Agencies

Note: These steps are accomplished within a four-phase process for part 121 (scheduled service) 

certifications and a five-phase process for part 135 (commuter and on-demand service) and repair 

station certifications. For part 121, the phases include application, design assessment, performance 

assessment, and administrative functions. For part 135 and repair stations, the phases are 

preapplication, formal application, document compliance, demonstration and inspection, and 

certification. 

Responsibility for the continued operational safety of the NAS is shared

by Aircraft Certification and Flight Standards, which oversee certificate 

holders, monitor operators’ and air agencies’ operation and maintenance 
Page 6 GAO 14-142T

of aircraft, and oversee designees and delegated organizations (known 

as organization designation authorizations or ODA).6

In 2010, we reported that many of FAA’s certification and approval 

processes contribute positively to the safety of the NAS, according to 

industry stakeholders and experts.7

 6

Designees are private persons and organizations to which FAA designates much of its 

safety certification work, allowing FAA to concentrate its limited staff resources on the 

most safety-critical functions, such as certifying new and complex aircraft designs. For 

more information on designees, see GAO, Aviation Safety: FAA Needs to Strengthen the 

Management of Its Designee Programs, 

They also noted that the certification 

and approval processes work well most of the time because of FAA’s 

long-standing collaboration with industry, flexibility within the processes, 

and committed, competent FAA staff. Industry stakeholders and experts 

noted that negative certification and approval experiences, such as

duplication of approvals, although infrequent, can result in costly delays 

for them, which can disproportionately affect smaller operators. We made 

two recommendations to improve the efficiency of the certification and 

approval processes. FAA addressed one recommendation and partially 

addressed the other. We found that while FAA had taken actions to 

improve the efficiency of its certification and approval processes, it lacked 

outcome-based performance measures and a continuous evaluative 

process to determine if these actions were having the intended effects. To 

address these issues, we recommended that FAA develop a continuous 

evaluative process and use it to create measurable performance goals for 

the actions, track performance toward those goals, and determine 

appropriate process changes. To the extent that this evaluation of agency 

actions identifies effective practices, we further recommended that FAA 

consider instituting those practices agency wide, i.e., in Aircraft 

Certification and Flight Standards. In response to our recommendation, 

FAA implemented new metrics that provide the ability to track process 

performance and product conformity to standards. These metrics would 

allow FAA to set measurable performance goals necessary to determine 

the effectiveness of the certification and approval processes and assist 

FAA in deciding on necessary and appropriate actions to address 

systemic issues that could negatively impact agency processes and their 

outcomes. These actions addressed the intent of our recommendation. 

We also recommended that FAA develop and implement a process in 

GAO-05-40 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 8, 2004). 

7

GAO-11-14.

FAA’s Certification 

and Approval 

Processes
Page 7 GAO 14-142T

Flight Standards to track how long certification and approval submissions 

are wait-listed, the reasons for wait-listing them, and the factors that 

eventually allowed initiation of the certification process. As of October 

2013, FAA had partially addressed this recommendation by altering the 

software in its Flight Standards’ Certification Service Oversight Process 

database to designate when certification submissions are wait-listed. The 

database now tracks how long certification submissions are wait-listed. 

As a result, FAA now has the capability to track how long certification 

submissions are wait-listed and reallocate resources, if appropriate, to 

better meet demand. 

In April 2012, as required by Section 312 of the Act, FAA established the 

Aircraft Certification Process Review and Reform Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee (certification process committee). Its role is to make 

recommendations to the director of FAA’s Aircraft Certification Service to 

streamline and reengineer the certification process. The committee 

considered guidance and current certification issues—including methods 

for enhancing the use of delegation and the training of FAA staff in safety 

management systems8

—and assessed the certification process.9

• develop comprehensive implementation plans for certification process 

improvement initiatives, including measuring the effectiveness of the

implementation and benefits of improvements as well as developing a 

means to track and monitor initiatives and programs;

It 

developed six recommendations, which called for FAA to 

• continue to improve the effectiveness of delegation programs;

• develop an integrated, overarching vision of the future state for 

certification procedures;

 8

A safety management system (SMS) is a proactive approach to safety in which all 

aspects of safety operations are continually monitored and appropriate data is collected to 

identify emerging safety problems before they result in death, injury, or significant property 

damage. FAA is overseeing implementation of SMS within FAA and throughout the U.S. 

aviation industry. For more information on SMS, see GAO, Aviation Safety: Additional FAA 

Efforts Could Enhance Safety Risk Management, GAO-12-898 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 

12, 2012). 

9

A Report from the Certification Process Review and Reform Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee to the Federal Aviation Administration, May 22, 2012.
Page 8 GAO 14-142T

• update Part 21 certification procedures to reflect a systems approach 

for safety;

• develop and implement a comprehensive change management plan 

to prepare the workforce for its new responsibilities in a systems 

safety approach to certification and oversight; and 

• review continued operational safety and rulemaking processes and 

implement reforms to improve efficiency.

We found these recommendations to be relevant, clear, and actionable.

In response to the committee’s recommendations, FAA developed a plan 

that includes 14 initiatives to implement the committee’s 

recommendations and publicly reported the plan in July 2013.10

We believe that the committee took a reasonable approach in assessing 

FAA’s aircraft certification process and developing recommendations by 

assessing the status of previous recommendations from 19 reports 

related to the certification process, reviewing certification guidance and 

processes as well as major initiatives, and reviewing other areas that it 

believed required consideration when making recommendations for 

improving efficiencies in the certification process. FAA has many 

initiatives and programs underway that it believes will respond to the 

committee’s recommendations to improve efficiency and reduce costs 

related to certifications. For example, FAA and two industry groups had 

already developed an ODA action plan to address the effectiveness of the 

ODA process. We found these initiatives were generally relevant to the 

recommendations and clear and measurable. However, FAA’s initiatives 

and programs to implement the recommendations do not contain some of 

the elements essential to a performance measurement process.11 For 

example, the certification process committee recommended that FAA 

develop an integrated roadmap and vision for certification process 

reforms, including an integrated overarching vision of the future state for 

certification procedures. While FAA has outlined a vision in AIR: 2018,

12

 10FAA, Detailed Implementation Plan for the Federal Aviation Administration 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-95, Section 312, July 31, 2013.

it 

11GAO, Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance,

GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138, (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 1997).

12FAA, AIR: 2018, Aircraft Certification Service. 
Page 9 GAO 14-142T

has not yet developed a roadmap. FAA is planning to roll out its roadmap, 

which is to include information on major change initiatives and a scaled 

change management process, concurrently with or following 

implementation of many of its certification process improvement 

initiatives. This calls into question FAA’s ability to use the roadmap to 

guide the initiatives.

FAA has developed milestones for each initiative and deployed a tracking 

system to track and monitor the implementation of all certification-related 

initiatives. However, FAA has not yet developed performance measures 

to track the success of most of the initiatives and programs. The agency 

plans to develop these measures of effectiveness after it has 

implemented its initiatives. Without early performance measures, FAA will 

not be able to gather the appropriate data to evaluate the success of 

current and future initiatives and programs. In addition, in response to the 

certification process committee’s recommendation to review rulemaking 

processes and implement reforms to improve efficiency, FAA plans to 

expedite the rulemaking process by implementing a new rulemaking 

prioritization model. However, this model will have no effect on the 

duration of the rulemaking process since it only prioritizes potential 

rulemaking projects for submission to the rulemaking process and makes 

no changes to the rulemaking process per se.

In 2010, we reported that variation in FAA’s interpretation of standards for 

certification and approval decisions is a long-standing issue that can 

result in delays and higher costs for industry.13 For example, a 1996 study 

found that, for air carriers and other operators, FAA’s regulations are 

often ambiguous; subject to variation in interpretation by FAA inspectors, 

supervisors, or policy managers; and in need of simplification and 

consistent implementation.14

 13

Experts on our panel and most industry 

officials we interviewed for our 2010 report indicated that although 

variation in decisions is a long-standing, widespread problem, it has rarely 

led to serious certification and approval process problems, and experts on 

our panel generally noted that serious problems occur less than 10 

GAO-11-14.

14Booz Allen & Hamilton, Challenge 2000: Recommendations for Future Aviation Safety 

Regulation, prepared for FAA, Office of Policy, Planning and International Aviation 

(McLean, VA: Apr. 19, 1996).

Consistency of 

Regulatory 

Interpretation
Page 10 GAO 14-142T

percent of the time. Nonetheless, when such occasions occur, experts on 

our panel ranked inconsistent interpretation of regulations, which can lead 

to variation in decisions, as the most significant problem for Flight 

Standards and as the second most significant problem for Aircraft 

Certification. Panelists’ concerns about variation in decisions included 

instances in which approvals are reevaluated and sometimes revised or 

revoked in FAA jurisdictions other than those in which they were originally 

granted. Such situations can result in delays and higher costs for industry

but also may catch legitimate safety concerns. According to industry 

stakeholders we spoke with, variation in FAA’s interpretation of standards 

for certification and approval decisions is a result of factors related to 

performance-based regulations, which allow for multiple avenues of 

compliance, and the use of professional judgment by FAA staff. FAA’s 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety and union officials 

representing FAA inspectors and engineers acknowledged that variation 

in certification and approval decisions occurs and that FAA has taken 

actions to address the issue, including the establishment of a quality 

management system to standardize processes across offices.

A second FAA-industry committee—the Consistency of Regulatory 

Interpretation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (regulatory consistency 

committee)—established to respond to Section 313 of the Act, identified 

three root causes of inconsistent interpretation of regulations—(1) unclear 

regulatory requirements; (2) inadequate and nonstandard FAA and 

industry training in developing regulations, applying standards, and 

resolving disputes; and (3) a culture that includes a general reluctance by 

both industry and FAA to work issues of inconsistent regulatory 

application through to a final resolution and a “fear of retribution.” The root 

causes are consistent with issues raised in our 2010 review and those 

raised by industry during that review. To address the root causes, the 

committee made six recommendations to promote clearer regulations and 

guidance, more standardized application of rules, a consolidation and 

cross-reference of guidance and rules, and improved communication 

between FAA and industry. In priority order, those recommendations 

called for

• developing a single master source for guidance organized by Title 14 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (which covers commercial 

aviation);

• developing instructions for FAA staff with policy development 

responsibilities;
Page 11 GAO 14-142T

• reviewing FAA and industry training priorities and curriculums;

• setting up a board to provide clarification to industry and FAA on 

regulatory compliance issues; 

• improving the clarity in final rules issued by FAA; and 

• creating a communications center to act as a central clearinghouse to 

assist FAA staff with queries about interpretation of regulations.

We found that the committee took a reasonable approach in identifying 

these root causes and developing its recommendations. It compiled and 

reviewed case studies involving issues of regulatory application, obtained 

additional information by surveying industry stakeholders, and reviewed 

FAA regulatory guidance material. The recommendations are relevant to 

the root causes, actionable, and clear. The committee also considered 

the feasibility of the recommendations by identifying modifications to 

existing efforts and programs and prioritizing the recommendations.

FAA reported on July 19, 2013, that it is determining the feasibility of 

implementing these recommendations. The agency told us that it 

expected to develop an action plan to address the recommendations and 

metrics to measure implementation by December 2013. We note that 

measuring implementation may provide useful information, however, FAA 

is not intending to measure outcomes. Measuring outcomes can help in 

understanding if an action is having the intended effect.

FAA’s certification and approval processes generally work well. However, 

when the certification and approval processes do not work well, the result 

can be costly for industry and FAA. Inconsistent interpretation of 

regulations can lead to rework by FAA and industry. Likewise, inefficient 

processes can require extra time and resources. FAA faces challenges in 

implementing the committees’ recommendations and further improving its 

certification and approval processes. FAA’s certification and approval 

workload is expected to grow over the next 10 years because of activities 

such as the introduction of new technologies and materials, such as 

composite materials used in airplanes, according to one industry 

Challenges Moving 

Forward
Page 12 GAO 14-142T

committee report.15 Additional work will be needed to establish new 

means of compliance and establish new standards. In addition, FAA’s 

certification and approval workload is likely to increase substantially as 

the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) progresses 

and operators will need to install additional equipment on their aircraft to 

take full advantage of NextGen capabilities.16

To its credit, FAA has taken steps toward improving the efficiency of its 

certification and approval processes. It will be critical for FAA to follow 

through with its plans for implementing the key recommendations to 

achieve the intended efficiencies and streamlining. However, making 

fundamental changes to the certification and approval processes can 

require a cultural change by its workforce and resistance to change can 

cause delays. Some improvements to the processes, such as those 

requiring new rulemakings, will likely take years to implement and, 

therefore, will require a sustained commitment as well as congressional 

oversight. 

Having certification and 

approval processes that work well will allow FAA to better meet these 

increasing workload demands and better ensure aviation safety in an era 

of limited resources.

Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions at this time.

For further information on this testimony, please contact Gerald L. 

Dillingham, Ph.D., at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. In 

addition, contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and 

Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals 

 15A Report From the Aircraft Certification Process Review and Reform Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee to the Federal Aviation Administration: Recommendations on the 

Assessment of the Certification and Approval Process, May 22, 2012. In addition, we 

discuss FAA’s certification processes and oversight of composite airplanes in GAO, 

Aviation Safety: Status of FAA’s Actions to Oversee the Safety of Composite Airplanes, 

GAO-11-849 (Washington, D.C.: Sep. 21, 2011). 

16NextGen refers to FAA’s efforts to transform the U.S. national airspace system from a 

ground-based system of air traffic control to a satellite-based system of air traffic 

management.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgements
Page 13 GAO 14-142T

making key contributions to this testimony include Teresa Spisak 

(Assistant Director), Pamela Vines, Melissa Bodeau, David Hooper, Sara 

Ann Moessbauer, Josh Ormond, and Jessica Wintfeld.

(540268)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.