AVIATION

Status of DOT’s 

Actions to Address the 

Future of Aviation 

Advisory Committee’s

Recommendations

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2013

GAO-13-657

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-657, a report to 

congressional requesters

July 2013

AVIATION

Status of DOT's Actions to Address the Future of 

Aviation Advisory Committee’s Recommendations

Why GAO Did This Study

The aviation industry is important to 

the U.S. economy and is a critical link 

in the nation’s transportation 

infrastructure. However, the industry 

has faced challenges, such as an 

outdated national air-traffic 

management system and an 

increasingly competitive global market. 

In 2010, in response to these and other 

challenges, DOT established the FAAC 

to develop a manageable, actionable 

list of recommendations for DOT. In 

April 2011, the FAAC released a report 

outlining 23 recommendations in five 

areas: environment, financing, 

competitiveness and viability, labor and 

workforce, and safety.

GAO was asked to review the status of 

DOT’s efforts to implement the FAAC 

recommendations. GAO examined 10 

of the FAAC’s 23 recommendations to 

determine (1) DOT’s progress in 

addressing the selected 

recommendations, and any planned 

future actions; (2) the FAAC members’ 

perspective on the extent to which 

DOT’s actions address these 

recommendations; and (3) the 

challenges, if any, that DOT faces in 

addressing the recommendations. The 

10 selected recommendations covered 

each of the 5 areas and allowed GAO 

to leverage ongoing or recent GAO 

work. GAO did not analyze the validity 

of the FAAC’s recommendations, and 

our work does not take a position on, 

or represent an endorsement of, the 

recommendations. GAO reviewed 

agency documents and literature, and 

interviewed FAAC members and DOT 

and FAA officials. DOT provided 

technical comments, which were 

incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

While the Department of Transportation (DOT) is not required to implement the 

Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) recommendations, DOT and the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have taken actions on the 10 FAAC 

recommendations that GAO reviewed (see table). DOT and FAA officials noted 

that they continue to work on three recommendations as part of long-term efforts 

and have ongoing work related to some of the seven recommendations that they 

believe are addressed.

FAAC members recognized DOT’s actions to address the recommendations. 

However, a majority of the FAAC subcommittee members believe that more work 

remains to fully address 9 of the 10 recommendations (see table). FAAC 

members stated that some recommendations may not be fully addressed 

because they are linked to ongoing efforts that DOT also identified.

DOT, FAA officials, and FAAC members most frequently identified resource 

constraints and the need to collaborate with multiple stakeholders as 

implementation challenges and in some cases, noted efforts to address these 

challenges. DOT officials noted that fully addressing some recommendations 

may depend on factors outside of DOT’s control, such as extending the 

alternative minimum tax exemption, which would require legislation, and 

developing sustainable alternative fuels, which is a long-term, multi-agency effort.

Status of FAAC Recommendations Selected for GAO Review

Area and selected FAAC recommendations

Status per 

DOT/FAA 

officials

Status per 

majority of 

FAAC 

members

Environment

Exercise strong national leadership to promote U.S. aviation as a 

first user of sustainable alternative fuels In progress In progress

Establish a harmonized approach for aviation carbon dioxide 

emission reductions In progress In progress

Financing

Support extending the alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption

for airport private activity bonds Addressed In progress

Fund accelerated Next Generation Air Transportation System 

equipage of aircraft Addressed In progress

Review eligibility criteria for the Airport Improvement Program 

and Passenger Facility Charge Program Addressed In progress

Competitiveness and viability

Promote the global competitiveness of the U.S. aviation 

industry In progress In progress

Labor and workforce

Ensure coordination and focus on science, technology, 

engineering, and math (STEM) education programs Addressed Addressed

Safety

Seek legal protections for safety data Addressed In progress

Support predictive analytic capabilities for safety data Addressed In progress

Review and reprioritize FAA’s rulemaking initiatives Addressed In progress

Source: GAO analysis of DOT/FAA and FAAC member interviews.

View GAO-13-657. For more information, 

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

512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-657 Aviation

Letter 1 

Background 3

DOT and FAA Officials Believe That Seven of the Selected 

Recommendations Are Addressed and That Three Are In 

Progress 6

FAAC Members Acknowledge DOT’s Actions but Believe That 

More Work Remains in Responding to the Selected 

Recommendations 6

Resource Constraints and Stakeholder Collaboration Were Most 

Frequently Cited as Implementation Challenges for the Selected 

Recommendations 8

Agency Comments 10

Section 1 Selected FAAC Recommendations and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions 

to Address Them 12

1. FAAC Recommendation—Sustainable Alternative Fuels 13

2. FAAC Recommendation—Harmonized Approach to CO2

Reduction 20

3. FAAC Recommendation—Support Extending the Alternative 

Minimum Tax Exemption 25

4. FAAC Recommendation—Funding Accelerated NextGen 

Equipage of Aircraft 29

5. FAAC Recommendation—Review Criteria for the Airport 

Improvement Program and Passenger Facility Charge Program 

Related to NextGen 36

6. FAAC Recommendation—Promote Global Competitiveness 42

7. FAAC Recommendation—STEM Education 49

8. FAAC Recommendation—Legal Protections for Safety Data 57

9. FAAC Recommendation—Predictive Analytic Capabilities for 

Safety Data and Information 62

10. FAAC Recommendation—Prioritize Rulemaking 67

Appendix I Listing of the 23 Recommendations Made by the Future of 

Aviation Advisory Committee, by Area 72

Appendix II Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Members 74

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-657 Aviation

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 76

Tables

Table 1: FAAC Recommendations Selected for GAO Review 2

Table 2: Status of FAAC Recommendations Selected for GAO 

Review 7

Table 3: FAAC Recommendations Selected for GAO Review and 

Location in Report 12

Table 4: FAAC Recommendation on Sustainable Alternative Fuels 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of June 

2013 15

Table 5: FAAC Recommendation on Establishing a Harmonized 

Framework for Aviation CO2 Reductions and DOT’s and 

FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of June 2013 22

Table 6: FAAC Recommendation on Extending the AMT 

Exemption for Private Activity Bonds and DOT’s and 

FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of June 2013 26

Table 7: FAAC Recommendation on Accelerating NextGen 

Equipage and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of 

June 2013 31

Table 8: FAAC Recommendation on Airport Improvement Program 

(AIP) and Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Eligibility for 

NextGen Projects and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to 

Address It, as of June 2013 38

Table 9: FAAC Recommendation on Promoting Global 

Competitiveness and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

It, as of June 2013 45

Table 10: FAAC Recommendation on STEM Outreach and DOT’s 

and FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of June 2013 52

Table 11: FAAC Recommendation on Safety Data Protections and 

DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of June 2013 59

Table 12: FAAC Recommendation on Predictive Analytic 

Capabilities for Safety Data and Information and DOT’s 

and FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of June 2013 63

Table 13: FAAC Recommendation on Rulemaking Priorities and 

DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of June 2013 69

Table 14: Non-Government FAAC Members 74
Page iii GAO-13-657 Aviation

Abbreviations

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast 

ACE Aviation Career Education

AIP Airport Improvement Program

AMT alternative minimum tax

ARAC Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

ASAP Aviation Safety Action Program

ASIAS Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing 

ATOS Air Transportation Oversight System 

AVSED Aviation and Space Education

CAAFI Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative

CLEEN Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise 

CoSTEM Committee on Science, Technology, Engineering, and

 Math Education 

CO2 carbon dioxide

DataComm Data Communications

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency
Page iv GAO-13-657 Aviation

ETS Emissions Trading Scheme

EU European Union

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FAAC Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

FOQA Flight Operational Quality Assurance 

HEFA Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

NAC NextGen Advisory Committee 

NC3 National Coalition of Certification Centers 

NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation System 

NSTC National Science and Technology Council

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board 

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

PBN Performance-Based Navigation

PFC Passenger Facility Charge 

PREP Pre-Rulemaking Evaluation and Prioritization

RAISE Recognizing Aviation and Aerospace Innovation in Science

 and Engineering

RFS2 Renewable Fuel Standard

RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

RPWG Rulemaking Prioritization Working Group 

STEM science, technology, engineering, and math 

SMS safety management system 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

WAM Wide Area Multilateration

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.
Page 1 GAO-13-657 Aviation

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

July 25, 2013

Congressional Requesters

Over the past decade, the aviation industry has faced fluctuating oil 

prices, an economic recession, and safety concerns following the crash of 

a Colgan Air flight in Buffalo, New York, as well as ongoing changes in 

the industry related to air-traffic control modernization, increased global 

competition, and an aging workforce. On November 12, 2009, the 

Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT) convened an 

Aviation Summit to gather industry and expert opinion on actions that 

would promote future success of the aviation industry. The discussion 

centered on five areas: environment, financing, competitiveness and 

viability, labor and workforce, and safety. With these areas in mind, 

Secretary Ray LaHood chartered the Future of Aviation Advisory 

Committee (FAAC) on April 16, 2010, to develop a manageable, 

actionable list of recommendations in each of these five areas for DOT. 

The FAAC included 19 members—1 government official and 18 nongovernment representatives—from a cross-section of stakeholders, such

as air carriers, airports, airline labor unions, manufacturers, and 

representatives from the finance community, academia, and passenger 

interests. On April 11, 2011, the FAAC issued a final report listing 23 

recommendations that the FAAC identified as critical to the future of the 

U.S. aviation industry.

You asked us to review the status of DOT’s efforts to implement the 

FAAC recommendations. We examined 10 of the FAAC’s 23 

recommendations to determine (1) DOT’s progress in addressing the 

selected recommendations and any further planned actions; (2) the FAAC 

members’ perspectives on the extent to which DOT’s actions address 

these recommendations; and (3) the challenges, if any, that DOT faces in 

addressing the recommendations. The 10 selected recommendations 

cover each of the 5 areas reviewed by the FAAC and allowed us to 

leverage ongoing or recently completed GAO work. Given that the 10 

recommendations are directed toward specific, discrete actions, our 

statements regarding DOT’s progress in addressing the 

recommendations are specific to each recommendation and cannot be 

generalized to assess DOT’s overall progress across all 23 FAAC 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-657 Aviation

recommendations.1 We did not analyze the validity of the commission’s 

recommendations, and our work does not take a position on, or represent 

an endorsement of, the recommendations. See table 1 for a list of the 

recommendations we reviewed.

Table 1: FAAC Recommendations Selected for GAO Review

Area FAAC recommendations

Environment • Exercise strong national leadership to promote and showcase U.S. aviation as a first user of 

sustainable alternative fuels

• Establish a harmonized approach for aviation carbon dioxide emission reductions

Financing • Support extending the alternative minimum tax exemption for airport private activity bonds

• Fund accelerated Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)a equipage of aircraft

• Review eligibility criteria for the Airport Improvement Program and Passenger Facility Charge 

Program

Competitiveness and viability • Promote the global competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry

Labor and workforce • Ensure coordination and focus on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) 

education programs

Safety • Seek legal protections for safety data program participants

• Support predictive analytic capabilities for safety data and informationb

• Review and reprioritize FAA’s rulemaking initiatives

Source: FAAC report.

a

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in collaboration with other federal agencies and the 

aviation industry, is transforming the nation’s ground-based air-traffic control system to an air-traffic 

management system using satellite-based navigation and other technology. This transformation is 

referred to as the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen).

b

This recommendation is related to FAA’s efforts to shift toward a proactive, data-driven safety 

oversight approach, commonly referred to as a safety management system (SMS) approach.

To determine DOT’s progress and challenges in addressing the selected 

recommendations, we reviewed relevant GAO and DOT Office of 

Inspector General reports, agency documents, including plans for 

addressing the recommendations, DOT and Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) documentation of actions taken, and DOT’s website 

for tracking progress on the committee’s recommendations. We also 

reviewed legislation to determine the extent to which it affected or 

addressed the recommendations. In addition, we interviewed DOT and 

FAA officials about the steps they have taken to address the 

recommendations and any challenges they have faced in implementing 

the recommendations. We also interviewed 17 of the 18 FAAC non-

 

1

See appendix I for a complete list of all 23 recommendations from the FAAC.
 

Page 3 GAO-13-657 Aviation

government members to obtain their perspectives on the extent to which 

DOT’s actions addressed the recommendations from the subcommittees 

on which they served, any challenges DOT faces in addressing the 

recommendations, and what, if any, additional actions DOT should take to 

address the recommendations.2 Although DOT is not required to 

implement any of the FAAC’s recommendations, we solicited the 

committee members’ perspective on whether DOT should continue 

monitoring and reporting on its progress in addressing the 

recommendations. A list of the FAAC members we interviewed is 

available in appendix II.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 through July 

2013 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.

The U.S. aerospace industry contributes to the nation’s economic health 

and national security. The industry’s wide-ranging activities—including 

aircraft manufacturing and commercial aviation—make it a major 

contributor to U.S. economic growth. DOT and the FAA (an administration 

of DOT) each play a policy and regulatory role in aviation, with DOT 

involved in consumer and economic issues, such as licensing airlines and 

reviewing applications for antitrust immunity between airlines, and FAA’s 

overseeing the safety of civil aviation. To inform these efforts, various 

administrations and Congresses have periodically established 

committees or commissions comprised of external stakeholders to 

provide recommendations for DOT and FAA, as well as other agencies 

involved in aviation, to consider in their implementation of aviation policy. 

For example, in 1996, President Clinton established the White House 

Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, which provided 57 

recommendations in the areas of safety, air traffic control, security, and 

accident response. In 2001, Congress established the Commission on the 

Future of the United States Aerospace Industry to study issues 

associated with the future of this industry in the global economy, and to 

 

2

One FAAC member was not available for an interview. 

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-657 Aviation

recommend potential actions by the federal government to support the 

maintenance of a robust aerospace industry in the 21st century.3

In contrast to these two efforts, the FAAC was established as a federal 

advisory committee, subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA).4 Federal advisory committees exist throughout the executive 

branch of the federal government, providing input and advice to agencies 

in a variety of ways, such as preparing reports and developing 

recommendations. GAO has noted that advisory committees can be 

effective tools for agencies to gather input on topics of interest by 

informing agency leaders about issues of importance to the agencies’ 

missions, consolidating input from multiple sources, and providing input at 

a relatively low cost.5 While an advisory group’s input or 

recommendations may form the basis for a federal agency’s decisions or 

policies, other factors may play a role in determining what action an 

agency ultimately takes. Because such groups are by design advisory, 

agencies are not required to implement their advice or recommendations.

On April 16, 2010, Secretary Ray LaHood chartered the FAAC for a oneyear term and asked the DOT Assistant Secretary for Aviation and

International Affairs to lead the effort. The FAAC was directed to provide 

information, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary on ensuring 

the competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry and its capability to 

address the evolving transportation needs, challenges, and opportunities 

of the global economy. The FAAC was comprised of a cross-section of 

aviation stakeholders. During its first meeting, the Secretary asked the 

FAAC to develop consensus-based recommendations that could be acted 

upon immediately or in the near future, with tangible results.6 He also 

 

3

In 2006, GAO reviewed the progress that federal agencies, including the FAA, had made 

in addressing the recommendations made by the Commission on the Future of the United 

States Aerospace Industry. GAO, U.S. Aerospace Industry: Progress in Implementing 

Aerospace Commission Recommendations, and Remaining Challenges, GAO-06-920

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 13, 2006).

4

Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 (1972), codified, as amended, at 5 U.S.C. app. § 2. The 

FACA sets forth requirements for FACA advisory groups’ formation, their operations, and 

how they provide advice and recommendations to the federal government.

5

GAO, Federal Advisory Groups: DOT and DOE Can Take Steps to Better Assess 

Duplication Risk and Enhance Usefulness, GAO-12-472 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 

2012).

6

Future of Aviation Advisory Committee, Record of Meeting (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 

2010).
 

Page 5 GAO-13-657 Aviation

stated that the FAAC should remain cognizant of the tools that DOT and 

FAA could use to implement the recommendations, such as the federal 

rulemaking process, proposing legislation to Congress, and 

recommending compliance measures for industry. The FAAC established 

subcommittees to develop recommendations in the five areas specified in 

the FAAC charter: environment, financing, competitiveness and viability, 

labor and workforce, and safety. The subcommittees met multiple times 

over the course of 2010, and the full FAAC briefed the Secretary on its 23 

recommendations on December 15, 2010, with a final report outlining the 

recommendations and their underlying rationale released on April 11, 

2011.

The Secretary publicly emphasized that the FAAC recommendations 

would not “sit on a shelf,” and DOT established a process to implement 

the recommendations. DOT officials stated that the Office of Aviation and 

International Affairs has led DOT’s work on addressing the FAAC 

recommendations and has provided periodic updates to FAAC members. 

Each recommendation was assigned to an “owner”—DOT or FAA staff—

some of whom were already conducting work relevant to the 

recommendation. DOT officials also noted that some of the 

recommendations with multiple subactions have more than one owner. 

DOT staff collaborated with recommendation owners to create a “smart 

sheet” for addressing each FAAC recommendation. This document 

provided information on interim goals, or actions that must occur to reach 

the final goal; beneficiaries and allies of the recommendation; and 

potential challenges. The owners were not required to update these 

documents as time progressed. DOT officials stated that for about a year 

after the FAAC report was released, DOT’s Office of Aviation and 

International Affairs had regular status meetings with the recommendation 

owners to ascertain their progress, and recommendation owners then 

reported progress periodically to DOT officials. DOT periodically updates 

a website on the status of the FAAC recommendations. During the course 

of our review, we noted that some of the recommendations had not been 

updated for over one year; however, DOT updated the status of all of the 

recommendations on its website in June 2013.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-657 Aviation

DOT and FAA have taken actions on the 10 FAAC recommendations we 

reviewed. DOT and FAA officials noted that 3 of the 10 recommendations 

we reviewed—sustainable alternative fuels, global competitiveness, and a 

harmonized approach to carbon dioxide emission reductions—continue to 

be addressed as part of long-term efforts. For example, DOT officials 

noted that addressing the global competitiveness recommendation is tied 

to long-term policy efforts with no timetable for conclusion, such as 

negotiating agreements with other countries to reduce the barriers for 

U.S. carriers interested in serving markets in those countries. While 

officials stated that DOT and FAA have addressed the other seven 

recommendations, they highlighted ongoing work on issues related to 

some of these recommendations. For example, FAA officials noted they 

have addressed the recommendation to accelerate investment and 

installation of NextGen equipment on aircraft because they are working to 

develop a program to provide financial incentives and operational benefits 

to operators that install NextGen equipment early.7 However, the officials 

added that they are still working to determine what the program will entail, 

including soliciting input from aircraft operators and potential private 

partners to determine how to establish an incentive program that 

operators want to participate in. They also noted that the appropriations 

requirements for a credit program have not yet been met. For additional 

details on actions DOT and FAA have taken on the recommendations, 

see section 1 of this report. 

FAAC members acknowledged DOT and FAA efforts to address the 10 

recommendations selected for our work; however, a majority of the FAAC 

subcommittee members believe more work remains to fully address 9 of 

the 10 recommendations. See table 2 for a summary of the 

recommendations as well as their status according to DOT and the FAAC 

subcommittee members we interviewed.

 

7

FAA’s current NextGen implementation plans include midterm implementation activities 

through 2020 and the long term to 2025 and beyond.

DOT and FAA 

Officials Believe That 

Seven of the Selected 

Recommendations 

Are Addressed and 

That Three Are In 

Progress 

FAAC Members 

Acknowledge DOT’s 

Actions but Believe 

That More Work 

Remains in 

Responding to the 

Selected 

Recommendations 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Table 2: Status of FAAC Recommendations Selected for GAO Review

Area and selected FAAC recommendations

Status per

DOT/FAA officials

Status per majority 

of FAAC members

Environment

Exercise strong national leadership to promote U.S. aviation as a first user of 

sustainable alternative fuels

In progress In progress

Establish a harmonized approach for aviation carbon dioxide emission reductions In progress In progress

Financing

Support extending the alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption for airport private 

activity bonds

Addressed In progress

Fund accelerated Next Generation Air Transportation System equipage of aircraft Addressed In progress

Review eligibility criteria for the Airport Improvement Program and Passenger Facility 

Charge Program

Addressed In progress

Competitiveness and viability

Promote the global competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry In progress In progress

Labor and workforce

Ensure coordination and focus on science, technology, engineering, and math 

(STEM) education programs

Addressed Addressed

Safety 

Seek legal protections for safety data Addressed In progress

Support predictive analytic capabilities for safety data Addressed In progress

Review and reprioritize FAA’s rulemaking initiatives Addressed In progress

Source: GAO analysis of DOT/FAA and FAAC member interviews.

Similar to DOT and FAA officials, FAAC members stated that some 

recommendations may not be fully addressed due to the 

recommendation’s being linked to ongoing or long-term efforts. For 

example, FAAC members noted that DOT and FAA efforts to address the 

sustainable alternative fuels recommendation require collaborating across 

many agencies, such as the Department of Energy (DOE), the United 

States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), and a continued, long-term federal focus. In 

some cases, FAAC members stated that DOT and FAA should continue 

their current efforts to address the recommendations; but some FAAC 

members felt that DOT and FAA should take additional actions to address 

certain recommendations. For example, five of the six finance FAAC 

subcommittee members stated that the recommendation to fund 

accelerated NextGen equipage of aircraft was not addressed, and two 

suggested that the department take additional steps to collaborate with 

industry to design an incentive program and develop a stronger business 

case for airlines to invest in equipping early. Conversely, five of the seven 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-657 Aviation

subcommittee members believe that the department’s actions addressed 

the recommendation on science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) education. For additional details on FAAC 

members’ perspectives on the DOT and FAA actions to address the 

recommendations, see section 1 of this report.

While DOT is not required to monitor or report on the status of the FAAC 

recommendations, 13 of the 17 FAAC members generally agreed that the 

department should continue monitoring and reporting on the 

recommendations’ status, with some adding that this ensures continued 

focus on their implementation. On the other hand, two FAAC members 

stated that DOT should continue reporting only on certain 

recommendations, such as recommendations that would be implemented 

over the long term or recommendations it has not addressed. Another 

FAAC member stated that DOT and FAA should ensure that efforts to 

address the recommendations become ingrained into the daily work of 

agency staff, rather than DOT’s and FAA’s viewing them as a separate 

effort. The remaining FAAC member stated that DOT should reassess 

whether it makes sense to continue or close out the effort, adding that as 

time passes, the recommendations may become irrelevant or unlikely to 

be addressed. DOT officials told us that for ongoing recommendations, 

they will continue work on these recommendations and are determining 

the extent to which it will continue reporting on the status of the 

recommendations. However, DOT has not yet established a time frame 

for when it might make such a decision.

Resource constraints and the need to collaborate with multiple 

stakeholders were cited most frequently by DOT and FAA officials, as 

well as by FAAC members, as implementation challenges. Specifically, 

DOT and FAA officials or FAAC members identified resource constraints, 

such as limited funding for programs or staff, as a challenge in 

implementing 6 of the 10 FAAC recommendations that we reviewed. 

These 6 include the recommendations pertaining to sustainable fuels, 

carbon dioxide emission reductions, reviewing eligibility criteria for the 

Airport Improvement and Passenger Facility Charge Programs, STEM 

education, predictive safety risk-discovery capability, and prioritizing 

rulemaking. Agency officials and committee members also explained how 

constrained resources might affect progress in addressing these 

recommendations. For example, when discussing the recommendation 

that DOT and FAA establish a harmonized approach for aviation carbon 

dioxide emission reductions, FAA officials told us that resource 

constraints could hamper their ability to conduct necessary research and 

Resource Constraints 

and Stakeholder 

Collaboration Were 

Most Frequently Cited 

as Implementation 

Challenges for the 

Selected 

Recommendations 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-657 Aviation

participate in international forums designed to foster discussion on 

harmonized regulatory approaches. However, DOT and FAA officials also 

outlined their methods for operating within these constraints. For 

example, while noting that funding and limited resources pose challenges 

to maintaining long-term STEM efforts, officials stated that the agencies 

work to leverage resources through stakeholder partnerships. In addition, 

DOT and FAA officials or FAAC members identified challenges in 

collaborating with and gaining the consensus of a number of stakeholders 

for four recommendations, those related to sustainable fuels, carbon 

dioxide emission reductions, global competitiveness, and STEM 

education. These recommendations range in the type of involvement 

needed both within and outside DOT and FAA. For example, six of the 

seven FAAC labor and workforce subcommittee members we interviewed 

recognized DOT’s ongoing efforts on STEM issues require that DOT 

maintain the participation of outside groups, such as other agencies, 

industry, and other stakeholders.

However, each recommendation also had unique challenges. For 

example, with respect to the recommendation that the agencies ensure 

that safety data submitted by air carriers and other stakeholders is 

protected from public disclosure, FAAC members noted that despite legal 

protections provided by recent legislation,8 industry concerns remain 

regarding the disclosure of safety data during legal proceedings. FAA 

officials have recognized that such concerns could limit the 

implementation of FAA efforts to promote safety management systems, 

which depend upon the open sharing of safety information among 

aviation stakeholders.9 In addition, DOT and FAA officials noted that in 

some cases they took actions to address the recommendation, but factors 

beyond DOT’s control, such as the need for legislative action, affected 

DOT’s ability to fully implement the recommendation. For example, while 

the agency supported a provision that would have extended the 

alternative minimum tax exemption for all private activity bonds, including 

 

8

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 310, 126 Stat. 11, 64 

(2012).

9

GAO has reported that FAA is in the midst of a shift toward a proactive, data-driven 

safety oversight approach, commonly referred to as a safety management system (SMS) 

approach. Under this new approach, FAA plans to use aviation safety data to identify 

system-wide trends in aviation safety and manage emerging hazards before they result in 

incidents or accidents. See GAO, Aviation Safety: FAA Efforts Have Improved Safety but 

Challenges Remain in Key Areas, GAO-13-442T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2013).
 

Page 10 GAO-13-657 Aviation

airport private-activity bonds—as recommended by the FAAC—this 

provision did not become law. Agency officials view this recommendation 

as addressed since any further action would require legislative action, 

and there is not currently a legislative vehicle for this provision.

Section 1 of this report includes the 10 recommendations in our review, 

detailed discussions of DOT and FAA completed or planned actions to 

address each of the 10 FAAC recommendations, FAAC members’ 

assessment of DOT and FAA progress, and challenges to implementing 

each recommendation.

We provided DOT with a draft of this report for their review and comment.

DOT responded by email and provided technical clarifications, which we 

incorporated into the report as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and interested parties. This 

report will also be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

Should you or your staff have questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix III.

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Agency Comments
 

Page 11 GAO-13-657 Aviation

List of Requesters

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV

Chairman

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable Bill Shuster

Chairman

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Frank A. LoBiondo

Chairman

Subcommittee on Aviation

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable John L. Mica

House of Representatives

The Honorable Thomas E. Petri

House of Representatives
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 12 GAO-13-657 Aviation

This section presents the 10 FAAC recommendations we reviewed and 

includes detail on DOT and FAA actions to address the 

recommendations, FAAC members’ assessment of DOT and FAA 

progress on the recommendations, and challenges in implementing each 

recommendation. Also, we numbered these recommendations for 

reporting purposes, but these numbers do not align with the numbers 

assigned to these recommendations in the FAAC report.

Table 3: FAAC Recommendations Selected for GAO Review and Location in Report

Area FAAC recommendations Page number

Environment • Exercise strong national leadership to promote and showcase U.S. aviation as a 

first user of sustainable alternative fuels

13

• Establish a harmonized approach for aviation carbon dioxide emission reductions 20 

Financing • Support extending the alternative minimum tax exemption for airport private activity 

bonds

25

• Fund accelerated NextGen equipage of aircraft 29

• Review eligibility criteria for the Airport Improvement Program and Passenger 

Facility Charge Program

36

Competitiveness and 

viability

• Promote the global competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry 42

Labor and workforce • Ensure coordination and focus on STEM education programs 49

Safety • Seek legal protections for safety data program participants 57

• Support predictive analytic capabilities for safety data and information 62

• Review and reprioritize FAA’s rulemaking initiatives 67

Source: FAAC report.

Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 13 GAO-13-657 Aviation

According to the DOT’s Transportation and Climate Change 

Clearinghouse, commercial aircraft accounted for about 2.5 percent of the 

total U.S. contribution of greenhouse gas emissions in 2006. We reported 

in June 2009 that global aviation’s relative contribution to greenhouse gas 

emissions is forecasted to grow.1 The use of alternative fuels, including 

those derived from biological sources (biofuels), has the potential to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft in the future. A domestic 

source of alternative fuels also has the potential to provide energy 

security to the United States and fuel price stability for airlines. While the 

federal government has promoted biofuels as an alternative to petroleumbased fuels since the 1970s, advanced biofuels—defined as renewable 

fuels that meet certain criteria, including ones that use cellulosic 

feedstocks such as corn stover or switchgrass—are at the earliest stages 

of being commercially produced in the United States.2 Numerous 

logistical and economic challenges, such as developing a sustainable 

feedstock supply and producing cost-competitive fuels, must be 

overcome before they are commercially viable. Several federal 

agencies—including DOT, United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), and Department of Defense (DOD)—play a role in developing the 

supply chain for alternative aviation fuels. Federal agency programs and 

efforts include support for: research and development; developing new 

fuel feedstocks, fuel conversion methods, environmental standards, and 

production methods; scaling up commercial production; and certifying 

new fuel production pathways. Within DOT, FAA’s primary roles include 

sponsoring research studies; conducting and developing tools for 

 

1

GAO, Aviation and Climate Change: Aircraft Emissions Expected to Grow, but 

Technological and Operational Improvements and Government Policies Can Help Control 

Emissions, GAO-09-554 (Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2009)

2

Feedstock refers to the raw material from which fuel is derived. Cellulosic feedstocks are 

a specific type of feedstock that are made of cellulosic (plant-based) materials such as 

corn stover (the cobs, stalks, leaves, and husks of corn plants) or switchgrass.

1. FAAC 

Recommendation—

Sustainable 

Alternative Fuels

Issue Overview
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 14 GAO-13-657 Aviation

environmental and cost analysis; funding certification and qualification 

testing to inform efforts by the standard-setting organization ASTM 

International;3 and enabling government and aviation industry 

coordination. FAA officials told us FAA does not have authority or funding 

to provide financial incentives for development and deployment of 

alternative aviation fuels. However, other federal agencies—such as the 

Internal Revenue Service, USDA, and DOE—have administered 

programs that provide numerous incentives, including subsidies through 

tax credits, to produce feedstocks, and refine and use biofuels. In its 

report, the FAAC stated that the aviation industry has unique fuel 

requirements and is well-positioned to be a national and international 

leader in the use of sustainable renewable alternative fuels.

The FAAC recommended that DOT exercise strong national leadership to 

promote and display U.S. aviation as a first user of sustainable alternative 

fuels and provide increased support for FAA’s work on alternative fuels. 

The FAAC discussed four specific areas in supporting its 

recommendation.

Table 4 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation and 

underlying rationale, and DOT’s and FAA’s actions to address it, as of 

June 2013.

 

3

ASTM International, formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials, 

works to deliver the test methods, specifications, guides, and practices that support 

industries and governments worldwide.

DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to 

Address Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 15 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Table 4: FAAC Recommendation on Sustainable Alternative Fuels and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of June 

2013

FAAC recommendation—alternative fuelsa DOT/FAA actions 

Accelerate research and fuel approval—Additional federal support 

is needed to accelerate the development and approval of jet fuel 

specifications.b

FAA conducts testing that supports the certification and 

qualification for new alternative aviation jet fuels. These activities 

are conducted through its Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, 

and Noise (CLEEN) program,c as well as private contracts. 

Through these efforts, FAA supported ASTM International’s 

approval of a bio-derived sustainable alternative “drop-in” jet 

fueld known as Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA) 

for commercial use in July 2011.e As of May 2013, FAA had 8 

ongoing testing efforts that are intended to provide data to 

support certification and qualification of additional “drop-in” jet 

fuels from renewable sources, including sugars and cellulose.f

In 

addition, FAA plans to select a new Center of Excellence that will 

include a focus on alternative jet fuels later this fall and have it 

operational by the end of calendar year 2013.g FAA is also 

collaborating with other entities that conduct research supporting 

alternative aviation fuels, including other federal agencies and 

international governments, through the Commercial Aviation 

Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) as well as direct interaction.h

Provide incentives to accelerate development and deployment—It 

would be of significant help if in addition to FAA’s current research 

funding, it were empowered to provide and promote funding to 

support deployment of alternative aviation fuels.

Absent new legislation that provides FAA authority and a new 

funding source, FAA officials noted that they leverage existing 

mechanisms and funding within other federal agencies by 

encouraging them to include aviation fuels as part of their own 

incentive programs. For example, it supports EPA’s Renewable 

Fuel Standard program (RFS2)—which created a credit market 

for renewable transportation fuels, of which some aviation jet 

fuels are approved to receive credit—by conducting emissions 

testing of alternative fuels through one of its Centers of 

Excellence and providing data that support EPA’s approval of 

new fuels under the program.i

In addition, through the Farm to 

Fly initiative and its extension,j

FAA and USDA have partnered 

with industry in assisting American farmers in the selection and 

cultivation of energy crops for conversion into affordable and 

sustainable aviation biofuels. FAA officials also noted that FAA is 

coordinating with DOE and DOD on their deployment activities 

both directly and via CAAFI.

Ensure crediting of environmental benefit at the point of 

purchase—FAA should work to establish a regulatory structure that 

will provide the environmental credit to the air carrier purchasing 

the fuel—commonly referred to as a “book and claim” crediting 

approach.

FAA officials said that a precursor to developing a regulatory 

framework for how to credit alternative fuel purchases is to have 

a recognized method for calculating the credit. As discussed 

below, FAA undertakes such efforts through its own analyses, as 

well as collaborating with other agencies on efforts to analyze 

environmental and economic impacts, as well as sustainability of 

alternative jet fuels.
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 16 GAO-13-657 Aviation

FAAC recommendation—alternative fuelsa DOT/FAA actions 

Ensure accepted environmental criteria for alternative fuels, 

domestically and internationally—The DOT/FAA should develop 

and execute a plan, working with government, industry, and other 

relevant domestic stakeholders to develop and confirm 

environmental criteria, including associated life-cycle analysis 

protocols, for aviation alternative fuels. The DOT/FAA should also 

work to facilitate international acceptance of these criteria so the 

benefits of alternative aviation fuels can be available domestically 

and internationally.

As of May 2013, FAA had six on-going efforts—some of which 

are through one of its Centers of Excellence and the John A. 

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center—that focus on 

environmental impacts, economic impacts, feasibility, and 

sustainability of alternative jet fuels, among other things. FAA 

also collaborates with other Federal agencies—including DOD, 

EPA, and DOE—on domestic efforts to develop life-cycle 

analysis protocols. CAAFI stakeholders are currently examining 

how CO2 emissions would differ under different policies and 

regulatory assumptions, including those under EPA’s RFS2 

program and the European Union’s renewable energy directive. 

FAA follows international efforts and shares best practices with 

the United Nation’s International Civil Aviation Organization 

(ICAO) and other countries. For example, FAA has formal 

agreements to cooperate with Australia, Brazil, Germany, and 

Spain on issues related to alternative aviation fuels.

Source: FAAC report and GAO analysis of FAA documents and interviews.

a

The FAAC recommended that DOT exercise strong national leadership to promote and display U.S. 

aviation as a first user of sustainable alternative fuels and provide increased support for FAA’s work 

on alternative fuels. The FAAC discussed four specific areas in supporting its recommendation.

b

FAA does not certify aviation fuel, rather FAA certifies that aircraft, including engines and 

accessories, meet FAA airworthiness standards. Those standards require engines to use fuels that 

meet specific ASTM standards.

c

FAA’s CLEEN program is an effort to accelerate development and commercial deployment of 

environmentally promising aircraft technologies and sustainable alternative fuels. CLEEN is part of 

NextGen, FAA’s program to transform the nation’s ground-based air-traffic control system to an airtraffic management system using satellite-based navigation and other advanced technology.

d

”Drop-in” means that the fuel can be used without changes to aircraft systems or fueling 

infrastructure.

e

This approval was for a 50 percent blend of HEFA jet fuel with Jet A.

f

FAA provides data to five working groups within ASTM International that are currently each looking at 

a new potential alternative jet fuel pathway.

g

FAA issued a final solicitation for the new Center of Excellence, which closed March 20, 2013. 

Establishment of the Center was permitted under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 

112-95, § 911(d), 126 Stat. 11, 142.

h

CAAFI is a coalition of airlines, aircraft and engine manufacturers, energy producers, researchers, 

international participants, and U.S. government agencies seeking to enhance energy security and 

environmental sustainability for aviation by exploring the use of alternative jet fuels.

i

In 2010, EPA approved jet fuel pathways under the RFS2 program, and in March 2013, EPA clarified 

that these jet fuel pathways qualify for credits as renewable diesel.

j

The Farm to Fly initiative brought together the U.S. aviation community, government stakeholders, 

USDA, DOE, DOT, and DOD, to express unified support for the President’s goals of environmental 

stewardship and energy independence, and furthered a commitment of resources dedicated to 

research and development and deployment through public-sector leadership and financial incentives 

to bring production online. The Secretaries of Agriculture and Transportation joined others on April 

15, 2013, to sign a 5-year extension agreement of the Farm to Fly initiative.

FAA officials told us they view actions to address this recommendation as 

a long-term effort given that its goals for the development of alternative 

aviation fuels—that is, for the U.S. aviation industry to displace 1-billion 

DOT’s and FAA’s Planned 

Actions 
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 17 GAO-13-657 Aviation

gallons of petroleum jet fuel with alternative jet fuel by 2018 and to 

achieve carbon neutral growth by 2020 (baseline year of 2005)—are 

several years or more away. Because of the long-term nature of this 

effort, officials told us they plan to continue FAA’s research and 

collaboration with other agencies, industry groups, and other countries.

All five of the FAAC environmental subcommittee members we 

interviewed expressed support for FAA’s actions to address this 

recommendation, adding that fully addressing this recommendation will 

require a long-term, ongoing effort and collaboration with a number of 

parties. For example, some subcommittee members identified additional 

actions that they think FAA or the federal government should take in 

response to this recommendation. Two subcommittee members noted the 

need for an increased federal focus on supporting the deployment and 

commercial viability of alternative fuels through tax incentives, publicprivate partnerships, direct support, or other means to encourage industry 

to invest its capital. One subcommittee member stated that while DOT or 

FAA may not have the statutory authority to provide incentives to 

accelerate development and deployment, they should explore their 

authority to support additional deployment activities. In our discussions 

with FAA officials on this issue, they stated that FAA has not sought direct 

authority for these activities because they believe that it is a wiser use of 

federal resources to use existing federal support mechanisms that are 

funded by USDA and DOE. Another subcommittee member stated that 

more overall federal funding is needed for research on conversion 

technology and getting through the fuel approval process, and that the 

research projects that receive federal funding should be focused 

specifically on producing the data needed for fuel approval, rather than 

addressing broader issues. In addition, this subcommittee member stated 

that FAA should increase its outreach and collaboration with other groups 

such as the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group, the Sustainable 

Aviation Biofuels for Brazil effort, and the Midwest Aviation Sustainable 

Biofuels Initiative. According to FAA officials, the agency is engaged in 

the latter two initiatives. 

• Resource constraints. FAA officials and two of the subcommittee 

members stated that resources, specifically funding for the programs 

and staff time to work on the projects, pose a challenge in addressing 

this recommendation. Subcommittee members raised concerns about 

budget uncertainty affecting the agencies’ abilities to support longterm efforts in this area.

FAAC Members’ 

Assessment of DOT’s and 

FAA’s Progress

Challenges in 

Implementing the 

Recommendation 
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 18 GAO-13-657 Aviation

• Scalable, affordable, and sustainable fuel supply. FAA officials 

and two subcommittee members also pointed out the challenges 

related to scalability—that is, being able to produce sufficient 

quantities of alternative aviation fuel at a reasonable price. FAA 

officials noted that building a sustainable supply chain would be a 

challenge. However, officials said that the production activities by 

USDA, DOE, and DOD could help establish the market, and the 

programs at DOE, EPA, and USDA should help lower costs and make 

commercialization possible. FAA officials added that more time, 

continued funding, and political support will help them achieve their 

goals.

• Uncertainties inherent in new fuels technologies. According to 

FAA officials, part of the underlying challenge of developing a 

sustainable supply chain is the limited financial investment by private 

industry due, in part, to risk associated with uncertainties. Such 

uncertainties include the ability of alternative fuels to compete with 

petroleum and the effects of possible future regulatory changes, such 

as the sustainability of tax credits, grants, or loan guarantees that 

support the development and commercialization of alternative jet fuel, 

factors which are not under FAA’s authority.

• Collaboration with many stakeholders. Three subcommittee 

members identified challenges related to the need to collaborate with 

many stakeholders on this recommendation. For example, a 

subcommittee member also noted the need to collaborate with nonaviation stakeholders, such as agriculture-financing representatives, 

while two other members highlighted that work on this 

recommendation is a multi-agency process.

We recently began work in this area examining the progress made in 

developing alternative jet fuels in the United States, as well as the key 

challenges that exist and federal efforts that should be taken to address 

those challenges. We plan to report the results of our work in 2014.

Biofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required Increases in 

Production and Use. GAO-09-446. Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2009.

Aviation and Climate Change: Aircraft Emissions Expected to Grow, but 

Technological and Operational Improvements and Government Policies 

Can Help Control Emissions. GAO-09-554. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 

2009.

Related Products
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 19 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Aviation and the Environment: NextGen and Research and Development 

Are Keys to Reducing Emissions and Their Impact on Health and 

Climate. GAO-08-706T. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2008.
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 20 GAO-13-657 Aviation

As previously noted, commercial aviation’s contribution to greenhouse 

gas emissions is reported to be relatively small, but is forecasted to grow, 

with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions being the most significant 

greenhouse gas.4 The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to 

minimize the adverse effects of climate change, stated that greenhouse 

gases from aviation fuels should be limited or reduced, and that such 

efforts should be conducted through ICAO.5 In 2010, the ICAO Assembly 

agreed upon the following goals:

• achieve a global annual average fuel efficiency improvement rate of 2 

percent until 2020 and pursue an aspirational global fuel efficiency 

improvement rate of 2 percent per year from 2021 to 2050; and

• achieve global carbon-neutral growth from 2020 onward.6

The United States and two airline industry groups—the International Air 

Transportation Association and Airlines for America—also established 

greenhouse-gas emission reduction goals. In line with the ICAO goals, 

FAA adopted a goal improving the National Airspace System’s energy 

efficiency by at least 2 percent per year, and a goal of achieving carbon 

neutral growth by 2020 using a baseline of 2005. The industry groups 

agreed to a goal of improving fuel efficiency by 1.5 percent per year, 

rather than 2 percent, and achieving carbon-neutral growth from 2020, 

 

4

GAO, Aviation and Climate Change: Aircraft Emissions Expected to Grow, but 

Technological and Operational Improvements and Government Policies Can Help Control 

Emissions, GAO-09-554 (Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2009).

5

ICAO is an advisory organization affiliated with the United Nations that aims to promote 

the establishment of international civil aviation standards and recommended practices and 

procedures. 

6

In subsequent meetings, ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection also 

agreed on a metric to characterize aircraft CO2 emissions and aircraft emissions 

certification procedures. 

2. FAAC 

Recommendation—

Harmonized 

Approach to CO2

Reduction 

Issue Overview
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 21 GAO-13-657 Aviation

and set another explicit goal to halve CO2 emissions by 2050 relative to 

2005 levels.

However, the European Union (EU) took unilateral steps on this issue by 

including aviation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), a capand-trade system. Under ETS, the EU places a cap on emissions and 

requires airlines to secure allowances to emit greenhouse gasses. The 

EU provides most of the allowances at no charge, but sells about 15 

percent of the allowances to the airlines. ETS was to be applied to flights 

arriving or departing at an EU airport, including those arriving from and 

departing to non-EU ETS countries, beginning in January 2012, but those 

efforts have been delayed. In April 2013, the EU approved a one-year 

suspension. Under the terms of the suspension, ETS continues to apply 

to all flights that depart and land in an EU country, but does not apply to 

flights that depart to or arrive from another region. The EU is awaiting 

action by ICAO to determine its next steps.

Given that the large U.S. commercial airlines serve a global network, the 

FAAC raised concerns on the number of proposals for taxes, emissions 

trading, and other methods intended to constrain emissions, noting that 

overlapping and conflicting proposals could hinder progress and siphon 

funds from industry investments in effective emissions reduction methods. 

For example, in addition to the EU ETS, according to the FAAC report, 

some countries also have their own environmental fees on airline 

activities.

Table 5 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation to establish a 

harmonized framework for CO2 reductions and DOT’s and FAA’s actions 

to address it, as of June 2013.

DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to 

Address Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 22 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Table 5: FAAC Recommendation on Establishing a Harmonized Framework for Aviation CO2 Reductions and DOT’s and 

FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of June 2013

FAAC recommendation—emission reduction DOT/FAA actions

Lead an effort to align Federal aviation policy to support an 

aviation sector approach to carbon emissions by specifically:

• Building on the International Civil Aviation Organization 

(ICAO) resolution adopted on October 8, 2010, advocate 

for a coordinated global and domestic framework for 

aviation CO2 emissions.

• Taking advantage of industry assets to develop practical 

global implementation methods.

FAA officials stated they engaged with other agencies and industry to 

establish a domestic approach to reducing CO2 emissions and 

participate in ICAO’s efforts to establish an international consensus 

on CO2 reduction goals. According to FAA officials, while these 

discussions preceded the issuance of the FAAC report in April 2011, 

the effort to establish a framework to reduce emissions is an ongoing 

process. The officials said that the European Union’s (EU) Emissions 

Trading Scheme (ETS) and other unilateral efforts to curb emissions 

helped galvanize efforts to reach consensus at ICAO.

FAA and DOT publicly opposed the ETS in favor of multilateral 

discussions at ICAO. Congress reaffirmed this position in the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 passed in February 2012a and 

in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 

2011.b Partially as a result of this opposition, the EU approved a oneyear suspension of ETS in April 2013 for flights between countries 

participating in EU ETS and countries that are not. 

To meet the October 2011 goals agreed upon through ICAO, FAA—

working with other federal agencies and the aviation industry—

developed an Aviation Environmental and Energy Policy Statement 

(Policy Statement) as well as an Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Reduction Plan (Reduction Plan). The Reduction Plan describes how 

FAA, other federal agencies, and the industry will meet these goals:

• improve flight operations with NextGenc

• improve aircraft and engine technology;

• support the development and deployment of alternative fuels;

• develop policy mechanisms to supplement efforts on technology, 

operations and fuels; and

• conduct research into the environmental impacts of aviations 

emissions.

This approach is generally consistent with what aviation experts told 

us in 2009—that is, operational improvements stemming from 

NextGen, such as more direct plane routing, and research and 

development of engine and aircraft technologies will help reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions in the aviation sector.d

Source: FAAC report and GAO analysis of FAA documents and interviews.

a

Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 509, 126 Stat. 11, 106-107.

b

Pub. L. No. 112-200, §§ 2, 3, 126 Stat 1477, 1478 (2012).

c

FAA, in collaboration with other federal agencies and the aviation industry, is transforming the 

nation’s ground-based air-traffic control system to an air-traffic management system using satellitebased navigation and other technology. This transformation is referred to as NextGen. GAO has 

noted that NextGen, if implemented effectively, can help reduce aviation emissions by allowing for 

more direct routing, which could improve fuel efficiency and reduce carbon dioxide emission. 

Additional information on NextGen can be found in this report, in the discussion of recommendation 4.

d

GAO, Aviation and Climate Change: Aircraft Emissions Expected to Grow, but Technological and 

Operational Improvements and Government Policies Can Help Control Emissions, GAO-09-554

(Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2009).
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 23 GAO-13-657 Aviation

FAA officials stated that addressing this recommendation is a long-term 

effort and noted their ongoing efforts in this area. For example, FAA 

officials noted that continued domestic and international coordination are 

required to address this recommendation. FAA officials said implementing 

its Reduction Plan will continue to require sustained collaboration with 

partner agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration and the aviation industry. FAA officials said they would 

advocate that countries’ reduction plans be updated on a triennial basis 

and would plan to update the U.S. Reduction Plan in 2015 and triennially 

afterward, if requested by future ICAO agreements. Officials also told us 

that they will participate in discussions on market-based measures at the 

upcoming ICAO Assembly meeting in September 2013.7

All five of the FAAC environmental subcommittee members told us that 

the recommendation was not fully addressed, noting that work in this area 

was ongoing and that FAA should continue their involvement in ICAO’s 

ongoing efforts.

• Obtaining stakeholder consensus. GAO previously found that it is 

important to coordinate when dealing with a global aviation network.8

FAA officials and FAAC subcommittee members noted that an 

inherent challenge with this recommendation is the need to obtain 

consensus among an array of stakeholders, such as other federal 

agencies, industry stakeholders, and the many countries participating 

in ICAO. FAA officials recognized the threat of unilateral proposals to 

reduce aviation emissions via a market-based mechanism, such as 

the ETS, as a challenge to obtaining a harmonized approach. In 

addition, one subcommittee member raised concerns about FAA’s 

and the industry’s ability to meet FAA’s more stringent goal for 

carbon-neutral growth using 2005 as the baseline year versus ICAO 

and industry goals that use 2020 as the baseline year. FAA officials 

have acknowledged that industry was concerned with the 2005 

 

7

Market-based measures can establish a price for emissions and provide incentives to 

airlines and consumers to reduce emissions. Examples include a cap-and-trade system or 

a tax on emissions.

8

GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation: Collaborative Efforts with European Union 

Generally Mirror Effective Practices, but Near-Term Challenges Could Delay 

Implementation, GAO-12-48 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 3, 2011). 

DOT’s and FAA’s Planned 

Actions 

FAAC Members’ 

Assessment of DOT’s and 

FAA’s Progress

Challenges in 

Implementing the 

Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 24 GAO-13-657 Aviation

baseline, but said that they have adopted this goal because it is 

consistent with the U.S. government’s commitment made during the 

2009 round of U.N. negotiations on climate change (the Copenhagen 

Accord) and reflects the position that the United States, Mexico, and 

Canada jointly took prior to the ICAO Assembly meeting in 2010.

• Resource constraints. FAA officials and a FAAC member told us 

that sustained federal financial support will be necessary to achieve 

the technical and operational improvements that are expected to 

result in emissions reductions consistent with ICAO and FAA goals. 

For example, resource constraints at the agency could hamper efforts 

to implement NextGen within the expected time frames; conduct 

necessary research and development of new technologies, including 

sustainable alternative jet fuels; and participate in the work and 

discussions at ICAO and other forums.

NextGen Air Transportation System: FAA Has Made Some Progress in 

Midterm Implementation, but Ongoing Challenges Limit Expected 

Benefits. GAO-13-264. Washington, D.C.: April 8, 2013.

Aviation and Climate Change: Aircraft Emissions Expected to Grow, but 

Technological and Operational Improvements and Government Policies 

Can Help Control Emissions. GAO-09-554. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 

2009.

International Climate Change Programs: Lessons Learned from the 

European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol’s 

Clean Development Mechanism. GAO-09-151. Washington, D.C.: 

November 18, 2008.

Aviation and the Environment: NextGen and Research and Development 

Are Keys to Reducing Emissions and Their Impact on Health and 

Climate. GAO-08-706T. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2008.

Aviation and the Environment: Strategic Framework Needed to Address 

Challenges Posed by Aircraft Emissions. GAO-03-252. Washington, D.C.: 

February 28, 2003.

Related Products
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 25 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Municipal bond proceeds are a significant funding source for airports’ 

capital development.9 Municipal bonds for airports are generally classified 

as private activity bonds, since the bond proceeds are used for private 

business purposes. The private activity bonds for airports are tax-exempt 

(also known as “qualified” private activity bonds).10 However, qualified 

private activity bonds are subject to restrictions that do not apply to 

governmental bonds. Among these restrictions, the interest income from 

qualified private activity bonds is included in income when calculating the 

alternative minimum tax (AMT), whereas the interest on governmental 

bonds is not.11 A bondholder whose total income reached the level 

subject to the AMT would have to pay tax on the interest earned from 

airport qualified private activity bonds.

The FAAC argued that investors in these bonds demand an interest rate 

premium to compensate for the AMT tax liability, which can raise the 

costs of airport projects. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009 exempted new issuances of all private activity bonds from the 

 

9

See GAO, Airport Finance: Observations on Planned Airport Development Costs and 

Funding Levels and the Administration’s Proposed Changes in the Airport Improvement 

Program, GAO-07-885 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2007).

10The interest earned on most bonds issued by state and local governments is taxexempt, meaning that the interest paid to bondholders is generally not included in their 

gross income for federal income tax purposes. Tax-exempt bonds reduce the issuer’s 

borrowing costs because purchasers of such debt are willing to accept a lower rate of 

interest than that of taxable debt of comparable risk and maturity.

11AMT is a separate federal tax system that applies to both individual and corporate 

taxpayers. It parallels the income tax system but with different rules for determining 

taxable income, different tax rates for computing tax liability, and different rules for 

allowing the use of tax credits. 

3. FAAC 

Recommendation—

Support Extending 

the Alternative 

Minimum Tax 

Exemption 

Issue Overview
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 26 GAO-13-657 Aviation

AMT in 2009 and 2010, and allowed for the refinancing of some private 

activity bonds into non-AMT debt.12

Table 6 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation to support 

extending the AMT exemption and DOT’s and FAA’s actions to address it, 

as of June 2013.

Table 6: FAAC Recommendation on Extending the AMT Exemption for Private Activity Bonds and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions 

to Address It, as of June 2013

FAAC recommendation—AMT exemption DOT/FAA actions

Support federal legislation to provide a 4-year extension of the 

alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption for private activity bonds.

In May 2012, DOT sent a letter to Congress supporting 

adoption of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act.a DOT specifically supported a provision of the bill that 

included support for extending the AMT exemption for all 

private activity bonds, including airport private-activity bonds; 

however, the AMT exemption was not included in the final 

legislation.

Source: FAAC report and GAO analysis of DOT and FAA documents and interviews.

a

Adopted as the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 

405 (2012).

FAA officials told us that any further action on extending the AMT 

exemption to private activity bonds would require legislative action, and 

there is not currently a legislative vehicle for this provision.13 As a result, 

DOT does not plan to take any additional actions and considers the 

recommendation to be closed.

While all six of the FAAC finance subcommittee members acknowledged 

that extending the AMT exemption requires legislation, five of the six 

stated that DOT should continue to work for passage of an AMT 

exemption for airport private activity bonds. Two subcommittee members 

stated that in their view, DOT should reach out to aviation and airport 

industry stakeholders to leverage their support for the exemption. One 

 

12 Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 1503, 123 Stat. 115, 354 (2009), amending 26 U.S.C. §§ 56, 57.

13In addition, the President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2014 includes provisions that 

may affect AMT exemptions, such as a proposal to limit the tax rate at which high income 

taxpayers can reduce their tax liability to a maximum of 28 percent.

DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to 

Address Recommendation

DOT’s and FAA’s Planned 

Actions 

FAAC Members’ 

Assessment of DOT’s and 

FAA’s Progress
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 27 GAO-13-657 Aviation

subcommittee member did not think that an AMT exemption should be 

included in legislation without a cost-benefit analysis.

• Mixed perspectives on the appropriateness of the AMT 

exemption. FAA may face challenges encouraging congressional 

action on this recommendation due to mixed perspectives on the 

appropriateness of tax-exemptions for bond financing. Our prior work 

has shown the importance of determining the economic efficiency of 

applying preferential tax treatment to selected investments.14 Highlevel analyses of the AMT exemption have shown it leads to a loss of 

federal revenue, but data specific to airports is limited.15 However, 

FAA and industry stakeholders counter that exempting airport private 

activity bonds has led to significant savings. FAA conducted an 

analysis of the financial impact of the AMT exemption in the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and stated that the 

exemption resulted in significant savings for airports, increased capital 

investment, and increased employment. Our tax expenditure guide 

provides useful resources for evaluating the efficiency of applying 

preferential tax treatment to selected investments, and could assist 

Congress as it considers these provisions.16

• Legislative change. As previously noted, any further action on 

extending the AMT exemption to private activity bonds will require 

legislative action. One FAAC subcommittee member noted that airport 

stakeholders may face challenges in lobbying for such an exemption 

given their limited financial resources and lack of natural alliances with 

other industries that previously received an exemption from the AMT.

 

14GAO, Tax Expenditures: Background and Evaluation Criteria and Questions, 

GAO-13-167SP (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 29, 2012).

15The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that temporarily exempting all private 

activity bonds from the AMT for 2012 would have reduced federal revenue by $215 million 

over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2022. In addition, the Congressional Budget 

Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation issued a joint report in 2009 which found that 

tax-exempt bonds are a costly and inefficient method for delivering a subsidy, because the 

loss of federal receipts is greater than the reduction in the interest costs of tax-exempt 

issuers.

16GAO-13-167SP. 

Challenges in 

Implementing the 

Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 28 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Tax Expenditures: Background and Evaluation Criteria and Questions. 

GAO-13-167SP. Washington, D.C.: November 29, 2012.

Tax Policy: Tax-Exempt Status of Certain Bonds Merits Reconsideration, 

and Apparent Noncompliance with Issuance Cost Limitations Should Be 

Addressed. GAO-08-364. Washington, D.C.: February 15, 2008.

Airport Finance: Observations on Planned Airport Development Costs 

and Funding Levels and the Administration’s Proposed Changes in the 

Airport Improvement Program. GAO-07-885. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 

2007.

Related Products
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 29 GAO-13-657 Aviation

FAA is transforming the nation’s ground-based air-traffic control system to 

an air-traffic management system using satellite-based navigation and 

other technology. This transformation is referred to as NextGen. NextGen 

is intended to enhance airspace safety, reduce delays, save fuel, and 

reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other adverse environmental 

impacts.

While some operational improvements can be made with existing aircraft 

equipment, realizing more significant benefits of NextGen necessitates 

additional investment by airlines in new technologies to establish a critical 

mass of properly equipped aircraft.17 However, GAO and others have 

noted that a variety of disincentives may deter operators from investing 

early in NextGen equipment. For example, we have reported that aircraft 

operators may be hesitant to make investments in equipment if they do 

not have confidence that FAA will deliver the systems, procedures, and 

capabilities to realize the benefits from their investments.18 In addition, the 

FAAC report identified challenges for FAA to overcome in encouraging 

operators to equip early, including: (1) prior instances in which operators 

equipped aircraft but received little or no benefit because the FAA did not 

implement quickly enough the necessary procedures or approvals to 

enable operators to derive benefits from the equipment; and (2) the 

business case may be weak for individual operators to purchase and 

install equipment early, with costs far exceeding expected direct benefits 

to users.

 

17In April 2013, we reported on FAA’s efforts to deliver benefits in the midterm (through 

2018) by implementing operational improvements that use available technologies. See 

GAO, NextGen Air Transportation System: FAA Has Made Some Progress in Midterm 

Implementation, but Ongoing Challenges Limit Expected Benefits, GAO-13-264

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 2013).

18GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: FAA Faces Implementation 

Challenges, GAO-12-1011T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2012).

4. FAAC 

Recommendation—

Funding Accelerated 

NextGen Equipage of 

Aircraft

Issue Overview
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 30 GAO-13-657 Aviation

The FAAC noted that accelerated deployment of NextGen could lead to 

capacity, efficiency, environmental, and safety benefits. It also 

emphasized the need to overcome challenges in encouraging operators 

to equip early by providing some form of public financing to incentivize 

equipage. One FAAC finance subcommittee member formally dissented 

to this recommendation and questioned the need for public financing of 

airline equipment, citing a lack of evidence that the benefits gained from 

equipment investments would not be sufficient to encourage industry 

adoption without government subsidies.

Table 7 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation to accelerate 

investment and installation of NextGen equipment on aircraft and FAA’s 

actions to address it, as of June 2013.

DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to 

Address Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 31 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Table 7: FAAC Recommendation on Accelerating NextGen Equipage and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of June 

2013

FAAC recommendation—accelerated equipage DOT/FAA actions

Undertake a significant financial investment to achieve extensive 

public benefits through the accelerated equipage of commercial 

and general aviation aircraft with NextGen equipment and 

technologies.

• The federal commitment must be matched in some fashion by 

financial or operational commitments—for example reduced 

carbon dioxide emission on the part of aviation operators.

• This public-private partnership should focus on equipping 

aircraft and training staff to use key NextGen technology and 

operational capabilities including Performance-Based 

Navigation (PBN), Automatic Dependent SurveillanceBroadcast (ADS-B), Ground-Based Augmentation System, 

and Data Communications.

• A menu of financial options—grants, loans, leases, and loan 

guarantees—should be designed in consultation with 

industry, and this financing could be managed through an 

infrastructure bank or other financing vehicle. The form and 

structure of the financial options offered depend on the 

appropriateness of the incentive for the technology and 

capability being funded, the aviation operators involved, the 

costs and benefits associated with the particular technology 

or operational capability, and the shared responsibility 

between the public and private partners. An important part of 

this program will be the detailing of commitments that both 

the FAA and operators should make to deliver promised 

benefits or mitigate financial or other risk. 

At the request of FAA, in September 2011, the NextGen Advisory 

Committee (NAC)a recommended specific avionics required to 

achieve NextGen midterm capability goals, as well as the types of 

operational benefits necessary to incentivize operators to further 

invest in these avionics. In February 2012, FAA received authority 

through the FAA Modernization and Reform Act to establish a 

program to facilitate public-private financing for equipping 

commercial- and general-aviation aircraft with NextGen 

technologies.b

FAA is in the process of determining how to structure a financial 

incentive program that would encourage deployment of NextGencapable aircraft sooner than would have occurred without such 

funding assistance in place. Since FAA does not have funding for 

the incentive program and the statute directed FAA to maximize 

private sector capital, FAA officials said that they reached out to 

other federal agencies, such as the Departments of Agriculture, 

Education, Energy, and the modal administrations of 

Transportation to understand various options for establishing a 

loan-guarantee program. Based on the NAC’s recommendations,

FAA proposed two avionics equipage bundles focused on 

operators: one for air carriers flying in the busiest metroplexes 

and one for operators that fly elsewhere. Each equipage bundle 

identified minimum and operational equipment. FAA then 

conducted outreach through public meetings, market surveys, and 

individual meetings with aviation representatives to get industry 

perspectives on the overall program structure and the proposed 

equipage bundles.

FAA officials noted that the efforts to establish a financial 

incentive program is one piece in a broader effort to develop 

incentives for aircraft operators. FAA has also noted the need to 

demonstrate the benefits of NextGen equipment, which would 

help create a business case for operators to equip early.c For 

example, FAA has entered into agreements with JetBlue, UPS, 

and United Airlines to provide or upgrade equipment and obtain 

ADS-B data to validate the business case for early adoption of 

ADS-B.d FAA officials stated that these ADS-B data will help the 

agency measure operational benefits, reduce uncertainty, and 

help to determine time frames for the carriers to obtain a return on 

their investment. In addition, FAA’s Data Communications 

(DataComm) contract includes an incentives goal to equip 1,900 

aircraft to create a critical mass of equipped aircraft and 

demonstrate the benefits of equipping with this technology.e

Source: FAAC report and GAO analysis of DOT and FAA documents and interviews.

a

The NAC is comprised of aviation stakeholders from the government and industry. The NAC was set 

up by RTCA at the request of FAA, and is the follow-on to RTCA’s Air Traffic Management Advisory 

Committee. The NAC working group seeks to develop a common understanding of priorities in the 

context of overall NextGen capabilities and implementation constraints, with an emphasis on 

improvements through 2018. The committee primarily focuses on implementation issues, including 
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 32 GAO-13-657 Aviation

prioritization criteria at a national level, joint investment priorities, and location and timing of capability 

implementation.

b

Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 221(a), 126 Stat. 11, 53.

c

FAA’s current NextGen implementation plans includes midterm implementation activities through 

2020 and the long term to 2025 and beyond.

d

ADS-B is a surveillance technology that, in part, enables aircraft to continually broadcast flight data, 

such as position, air speed, and altitude, among other types of information, to air traffic controllers 

and other aircraft for more precise tracking of aircraft.

e

DataComm is a next generation data communications system that is intended to provide a digital 

communications link for two-way data exchanges between controllers and flight crews.

FAA officials stated FAA has addressed this recommendation, with the 

help of the authority granted in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. 

Officials noted that they are still working to determine what the program 

will entail, including soliciting input from aircraft operators and potential 

private partners to determine how to establish an incentive program that 

operators want to participate in. In addition, the appropriations 

requirements for a loan guarantee program has not yet been met.19 FAA 

officials also noted that they are considering how to administer the loan 

guarantee program and FAA may need to issue a contract for an external 

group to fulfill this role; however, FAA currently does not have funding to 

do so.

Five of the six finance FAAC subcommittee members stated that the 

recommendation was not fully addressed, although one subcommittee 

member did not agree with the recommendation, as noted earlier. The 

remaining subcommittee member said FAA had addressed the 

recommendation, but noted that it still needed legislative authority to 

issue loan guarantees. Of the five subcommittee members who said it 

was not fully addressed, two members stated that FAA is taking steps to 

address the recommendation. Two other members stated that FAA 

should take additional steps to collaborate with industry to design an 

incentive program and develop a stronger business case for airlines to 

invest in equipping early. These two subcommittee members felt that FAA 

should conduct additional outreach on these issues, with one stating that 

FAA should have reached out to industry to discuss various incentive 

options prior to taking steps to create a loan-guarantee program. FAA 

 

19See Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 93–344, § 504, as added by Pub. L. 

No. 101–508, 104 Stat. 1388–609 (1990), codified at 2 U.S.C. § 661c(b).

DOT’s and FAA’s Planned 

Actions 

FAAC Members’ 

Assessment of DOT’s and 

FAA’s Progress
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 33 GAO-13-657 Aviation

officials noted that while they have been focused on possibly establishing 

a loan guarantee program given the mandate to maximize private 

investment and a lack of funding for a different type of program, they have 

solicited input from industry on ideas for other incentive programs that 

would maximize private investment and have not received any specific 

suggestions.

• Demonstrating benefits to encourage industry participation. FAA 

officials and two FAAC members noted that beyond providing financial 

incentives, demonstrating operational benefits is key to encouraging 

early equipage by operators. However, FAA officials explained that 

the extent to which a new capability or procedure provides an 

operational benefit will vary among carriers. For example, if a new 

procedure is deployed in airspace where a carrier is not operating, the 

carrier will not receive a benefit from early equipage. FAA officials 

noted they are working to address this challenge by asking 

operators—through market surveys, as well as public and private 

meetings—whether providing certain services in certain locations 

would encourage operators to invest in equipment earlier. However, 

FAA officials told us they have generally faced difficulties in collecting 

specific information on which capabilities and locations specific 

operators would be interested in.

• Reducing uncertainty with NextGen time frames. We have found 

that stakeholders are concerned that FAA has not made sufficient 

progress in deploying systems and producing benefits. For example, a 

past FAA program’s cancellation contributed to skepticism about 

FAA’s commitment to follow through with its plans.20 Two FAAC 

subcommittee members noted that FAA’s timely installment of 

infrastructure, including equipment at airports and FAA facilities, is 

essential to realizing NextGen benefits. Along those same lines, 

another FAAC subcommittee member noted that FAA needs to make 

a business case for airlines to invest within time frames that FAA can 

deliver on the benefits so that the equipment does not become 

obsolete. Three subcommittee members also noted that uncertainty 

regarding NextGen time frames would pose a challenge to convincing 

 

20GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: Progress and Challenges Associated 

with the Transformation of the National Airspace System, GAO-07-25 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov. 13, 2006).

Challenges in 

Implementing the 

Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 34 GAO-13-657 Aviation

operators to equip, with two subcommittee members noting that 

sequestration21 has introduced an additional level of uncertainty into 

NextGen implementation time frames. In April 2013, we noted that 

stakeholders, including RTCA and the NextGen Advisory Committee, 

have stressed the need for additional information to understand the 

potential direct costs, benefits, and return on investments that might 

be realized from technological and equipage investments.22 While 

FAA’s NextGen plans include some examples of benefits, RTCA 

reported in 2011 that available FAA plans do not include sufficient 

information for airlines making investment decisions such as forecast 

benefits by either location or usage, or the proportion of the local fleet 

that is currently equipped.23,24 We noted that without greater certainty 

on when and where NextGen improvements are planned, airlines and 

others are unlikely to invest in the equipment, staffing, and training 

needed to help achieve the full benefits of NextGen implementation. 

We recommended FAA assure that NextGen planning documents 

provide stakeholders information on how and when operational

improvements are expected to achieve NextGen goals and targets.25

In June 2013, DOT concurred with our recommendation and stated 

that it has efforts underway to better integrate various NextGen plans 

to provide more of this type of information. 

 

21The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA), as amended, 

established discretionary spending limits for fiscal years 2012 to 2021. 2 U.S.C. § 901. 

BBEDCA also required the Office of Management and Budget to calculate, and the 

President to order, a sequestration, i.e., cancellation, of budgetary resources on March 1, 

2013. See 2 U.S.C. § 901a. For fiscal year 2013, the President ordered a sequestration 

of about $85 billion. Sequestration Order for Fiscal Year 2013 Pursuant to Section 251A of 

the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, As Amended, 78 Fed. Reg. 

14633 (Mar. 6, 2013). 

22GAO-13-264. Organized in 1935, RTCA (once known as Radio Technical Commission 

for Aeronautics) is a private, not-for-profit corporation that develops consensus-based 

recommendations for communications, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic 

management system issues. 

23RTCA, NextGen Equipage: User Business Case Gaps, A Report of the NextGen 

Advisory Committee in Response to Tasking from the Federal Aviation Administration

(September 2011).

24Information about the level of local equipage is important because the level of equipage 

can affect how often airlines are able to use new routes. A new route into Chicago, for 

example, that allows for the simultaneous use of runways at O’Hare International and 

Midway has to be closed whenever a non-equipped aircraft arrives on the approach to 

Midway.

25GAO-13-264. 
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 35 GAO-13-657 Aviation

NextGen Air Transportation System: FAA Has Made Some Progress in 

Midterm Implementation, but Ongoing Challenges Limit Expected 

Benefits. GAO-13-264. Washington, D.C.: April 8, 2013.

Next Generation Air Transportation System: FAA Faces Implementation 

Challenges. GAO-12-1011T. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2012.

Next Generation Air Transportation System: FAA Has Made Some 

Progress in Implementation, but Delays Threaten to Impact Costs and 

Benefits. GAO-12-141T. Washington, D.C.: October 5, 2011.

Next Generation Air Transportation System: Challenges with Partner 

Agency and FAA Coordination Continue, and Efforts to Integrate Near-, 

Mid-, and Long-term Activities Are Ongoing. GAO-10-649T. Washington, 

D.C.: April 21, 2010.

Next Generation Air Transportation System: FAA Faces Challenges in 

Responding to Task Force Recommendations. GAO-10-188T. 

Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2009.

Next Generation Air Transportation System: Progress and Challenges 

Associated with the Transformation of the National Airspace System. 

GAO-07-25. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2006.

Related Products 
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 36 GAO-13-657 Aviation

The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and Passenger Facility Charge 

(PFC) Program provide airports with funding for airport development and 

planning projects.26 Under AIP, FAA may provide eligible airports with 

grants,27 using funds drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund,28 for 

projects related to planning, development, or noise-compatibility projects. 

In general, airports can use AIP funds on most airfield capital 

improvements, such as new runways or runway lengthening, or repairs 

and in some specific situations, for terminals, hangars, and non-aviation 

development.29 The PFC program allows eligible airports to collect fees 

 

26The AIP was established by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 

No. 97-248, § 505, 96 Stat. 324, codified as positive law at 49 U.S.C. chapter 471), and 

the PFC was authorized under the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 

(Pub. L. No. 101-508, § 9110, 104 Stat. 1388-353, codified as positive law at 49 U.S.C. § 

40117).

27To be eligible for AIP, an airport must be included in FAA’s National Plan of Integrated 

Airport Systems, which identifies airports that are significant to national air transportation 

and contribute to the needs of civil aviation, national defense, and the Postal Service.

28The Airport and Airway Trust Fund is funded principally by a variety of excise taxes paid 

by users of the national airspace system, as well as by interest revenue. The excise taxes 

are imposed on airline ticket purchases and aviation fuel, as well as the shipment of 

cargo. 

29Projects related to airport operations and revenue-generating improvements are typically 

not eligible for funding. For example, operational costs, such as salaries, equipment, and 

supplies, and commercial revenue-producing portions of airports and airport terminals are 

generally not eligible for AIP grants. 

5. FAAC 

Recommendation—

Review Criteria for 

the Airport 

Improvement 

Program and 

Passenger Facility 

Charge Program 

Related to NextGen

Issue Overview
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 37 GAO-13-657 Aviation

up to $4.50 for every boarded passenger at commercial airports.30

Airports can use this funding for FAA-approved projects related to 

enhancing airport safety, capacity, security, noise compatibility, and for 

enhancing competition among airlines.31 Project eligibility is almost 

identical between AIP and the PFC program except that airports may use 

PFC funding for repaying bonds and for airline waiting areas and gates 

that generally are not eligible for AIP grants because they are considered 

revenue producing for airlines.

In its report, the FAAC noted interest among the aviation community in 

broadening AIP and PFC eligibility criteria to support aviation 

infrastructure projects, including those related to NextGen—FAA’s 

initiative to transform the nation’s ground-based air-traffic control system 

to an air-traffic management system using satellite-based navigation and 

other advanced technology. However, the FAAC noted that current 

regulations do not generally allow AIP or PFC funds to be used for 

NextGen-related projects.

Table 8 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation to assess AIP 

and PFC eligibility criteria for NextGen projects and FAA’s actions to 

address it, as of June 2013.

 

30PFCs are collected as part of the current ticket payment and distribution process, which 

involves many parties. Airlines remit PFCs to airports minus a small administrative charge 

per PFC collected. GAO, Alternative Methods for Collecting Airport Passenger Facility 

Charges, GAO-13-262R (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2013).

31According to a 2013 GAO report, most PFC funds, or 74 percent of approved collection 

revenue for PFC projects, are used to enhance capacity and reduce congestion. 

GAO-13-262R. 

DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to 

Address Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 38 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Table 8: FAAC Recommendation on Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Eligibility for 

NextGen Projects and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of June 2013

FAAC recommendation—AIP and PFC DOT/FAA actions

Review the eligibility criteria for AIP and PFC programs and 

consider whether investing AIP and PFC dollars in NextGen 

equipment, operational capabilities, and performance-based 

procedures is needed. If so, FAA should do as much as 

possible to administratively update the eligibility criteria and 

develop legislative recommendations to the Secretary of 

Transportation for the remainder of the suggested changes.

Prior to the FAAC recommendation, in September 2010, FAA created a 

working group tasked to review AIP and PFC funding eligibility for 

NextGen systems that would be beneficial to airports and also to make 

recommendations for expanded AIP eligibility through legislation or 

other means. This group identified several airport projects that were 

already being funded with AIP and PFC funds and assisted NextGen 

systems, such as clearing obstructions, which enable lower approaches 

for aircraft using NextGen technologies, and other airfield 

improvements, such as the installation of lighting and signs.a

During the course of the working group’s review, FAA issued a 2011 

finding that allowed AIP grants to be used for the purchase of 

transponders (“squitters”) for airport ground vehicles, such as snow 

plows, airport rescue and firefighting vehicles, and airside operations 

vehicles. Squitters emit a signal from the vehicles, which is tracked 

using NextGen surveillance technology, improving vehicle visibility and 

enhancing airport safety.b In fiscal year 2012, three airports applied and 

received grants, totaling $1,265,625, for this equipment. The working 

group also identified other NextGen-related projects that would require 

statutory changes before they could be eligible for AIP funding. For 

example, the group reviewed the use of sensors that rely on NextGen 

surveillance technology for airports located in mountainous areas where 

radars cannot track aircraft.c FAA officials said while the sensors are a 

low-cost investment that could improve capacity, they determined that 

funding such an investment with AIP would require legislative changes. 

According to FAA officials, the existing AIP authorizing statute does not 

allow AIP funding for surveillance technology that provides airborne 

aircraft tracking data for air traffic control services, such as 

multilateration technologies. In June 2013, DOT’s website on the status 

of the FAAC recommendations stated that, for the next FAA 

authorization, FAA is considering recommending a pilot program to 

permit states to fund installation of ADS-B ground stations to provide 

airborne surveillance coverage. 

Source: FAAC report and GAO analysis of DOT and FAA documents and interviews.

a

Although our discussion with FAA officials focused on the AIP program, they noted that projects 

eligible under AIP would also be eligible under PFC.

b

One of the programs under NextGen is the use of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast 

(ADS-B), which includes a surveillance system where an aircraft or other vehicle uses a global 

navigation satellite system to determine and broadcast its position. Squitters are one type of ADS-B 

Out reporting units and can be used in the land-based vehicles, allowing them to broadcast their 

location to air traffic control and other suitably equipped vehicles.

c

For example, in Colorado, mountainous terrain made installing traditional radar too expensive. 

Because of the lack of radar coverage, FAA limits the number of aircraft flying in the area. To address 

this issue, the Colorado Department of Transportation installed Wide Area Multilateration (WAM) 

stations, which rely on distributed sensors that would allow Denver’s air traffic control center to 

determine an aircraft’s position and allow a greater number of aircraft to fly in the area. While the 

Colorado Department of Transportation funded the installation of the radars because FAA determined 

that traditional radars were too expensive, FAA funded the installation of the sensors with support 

from FAA’s Surveillance Broadcast Services office.
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 39 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Although FAA officials told us they consider this recommendation 

addressed, they said that they continue to track other potential NextGenrelated projects that could be recommended for funding through AIP and 

PFC. As noted in table 8, DOT’s June 2013 update on the status of this 

recommendation stated that for the next FAA authorization, FAA is 

considering recommending a pilot program to permit states to fund 

installation of ADS-B ground stations to provide airborne surveillance 

coverage.

Four of the six FAAC finance subcommittee members felt that the 

recommendation was not fully addressed. Of the two remaining 

subcommittee members, one did not feel that he had enough information 

about DOT’s actions on the recommendation to determine whether it was 

fully addressed, while the other said that the recommendation with 

respect to AIP was addressed, but it was unclear what action DOT had 

taken with respect to the PFC program. Two of the subcommittee 

members, including one that did not provide an opinion on the status of 

the recommendation, stated that FAA’s approach to the recommendation 

was very narrow and that the FAAC envisioned a broader review to 

determine how to expand the scope of the AIP and PFC programs. One 

of these subcommittee members stated FAA should have had additional 

meetings with airport representatives after the FAAC completed its work 

to explore options for rewriting the AIP and PFC program. Another 

subcommittee member stated that discussions related to AIP and PFC 

should reflect the context of the FAAC’s recommendation to commission 

an independent study of federal aviation taxes and fees, which we did not 

examine as part of this report. Two subcommittee members noted the 

need to address funding issues, which are discussed in the challenges 

section.

• Legislative change. FAA officials told us that the challenge with 

implementing this recommendation is that extending eligibility for AIP 

and PFC funding often requires making changes to the authorizing 

statute. Two subcommittee members acknowledged this issue, but 

added that FAA should work with Congress to explore changing the 

programs. While during the course of our audit, FAA officials stated 

that they did not plan to recommend extending AIP and PFC eligibility 

to fund projects outside of traditional AIP projects because that 

funding is still needed by airports and NextGen has its own funding 

mechanism; as previously noted, DOT’s June 2013 update stated that 

FAA is considering recommending legislation for a pilot program to 

DOT’s and FAA’s Planned 

Actions 

FAAC Members’ 

Assessment of DOT’s and 

FAA’s Progress

Challenges in 

Implementing this 

Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 40 GAO-13-657 Aviation

permit states to fund installation of ADS-B ground stations—a key 

NextGen technology—which could potentially expand the use of PFC 

funds.

• Limited funding. FAA officials and two subcommittee members 

stated that airports are struggling to address their immediate needs 

with the existing AIP and PFC funds, making it difficult to expand use 

of these funds to include NextGen projects. Appropriations for AIP 

have been flat—roughly $3.5 billion for fiscal years 2005 through 

2011—and are reduced under current authorized levels to be $3.35 

billion from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2015. In addition, a 

recent statute allowed DOT to transfer funds from AIP to avoid air 

traffic controllers’ furloughs and reduce the impacts of other 

reductions.32 With respect to PFC, two subcommittee members noted 

that the PFC has not been increased. (The PFC has remained capped 

at $4.50 since 2000.)33 As we have noted, airports have long sought 

to increase the PFC cap, arguing that the fee cap has not been 

adjusted for inflation, while airlines counter that raising the PFC 

inhibits demand for air travel.34 One subcommittee member stated 

that expanding AIP and PFC eligibility to include additional costs 

would require a significant study to determine the most appropriate 

use of the funds.

Transportation: Alternative Methods for Collecting Airport Passenger 

Facility Charges. GAO-13-262R. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2013.

Airport Noise Grants: FAA Needs to Better Ensure Project Eligibility and 

Improve Strategic Goal and Performance Measures. GAO-12-890. 

Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2012.

Airport Finance: Observations on Planned Airport Development Costs 

and Funding Levels and the Administration’s Proposed Changes in the 

 

32Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-9, § 2, 127 Stat. 443, 444 (2013).

33The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget submission includes a proposal to raise the 

PFC cap from $4.50 to $8.00 and lower AIP funding to $2.9 billion, offset in part by 

eliminating passenger and cargo entitlement funding for large hub airports. This proposal 

also would allow all commercial service airports to increase their non-federal passenger 

facility charge.

34GAO-13-262R. 

Related Products
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 41 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Airport Improvement Program. GAO-07-885. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 

2007.
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 42 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Ongoing growth in the demand for international air travel presents 

opportunities for expansion for U.S. carriers. However, we previously 

found that U.S. carriers’ ability to establish new routes can be limited by 

the policies of foreign governments.35 Preferential treatment of national 

airlines restricts U.S. carriers’ access to possibly large international 

markets. Other impediments to entry to foreign markets include barriers, 

such as slot restrictions, that limit the potential for service by U.S. 

carriers.36

DOT has taken steps to address restrictive market access policies. In 

1992, DOT launched an initiative to enter into new “Open Skies” 

agreements with foreign countries. Open Skies agreements remove the 

vast majority of restrictions on how airlines of the two signatory countries 

may operate between and beyond their respective territories. For 

example, these agreements remove prohibitions on the routes that 

airlines of the signatory countries can fly or the number of airlines that can 

fly them. Open Skies agreements also provide underlying traffic rights 

and provisions for cooperative marketing arrangements that allow airlines 

from different countries to form alliances with one another. Operating in 

an alliance allows an airline to greatly expand its service network, without 

having to increase the number of routes it flies using its own aircraft. U.S. 

 

35GAO, Transatlantic Aviation: Effects of Easing Restrictions on U.S.-European Markets, 

GAO-04-835 (Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2004). For decades, international air service has 

been governed by aviation agreements negotiated between countries to specify “traffic 

rights,” such as the number of airlines that can operate between markets, the airports from 

and to which they operate, the number of flights that can be provided, and the fares that 

airlines could charge.

36Airport slots refer to the permission to land or take-off at a congested airport at a specific 

time on a specific day, and are also used at certain airports in the United States, such as 

three in New York and New Jersey. We reported on FAA’s administration of slot 

restrictions. See, GAO, Slot-Controlled Airports: FAA’s Rules Could be Improved to 

Enhance Competition and Use of Available Capacity, GAO-12-902 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 13, 2012). 

6. FAAC 

Recommendation—

Promote Global 

Competitiveness 

Issue Overview
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 43 GAO-13-657 Aviation

and foreign air carriers wishing to enter into an alliance may also request 

that DOT grant them immunity from the U.S. antitrust laws.37 Antitrust 

immunity allows these airlines to coordinate their fares, services, and 

capacity as if they were a single carrier in these markets, subject to 

certain conditions. As part of its antitrust immunity review, DOT 

determines the effects of the immunized alliance on competition and 

whether the alliance serves the public interest. However, there is not 

universal agreement that alliances best serve the traveling public.38

DOT issued a 1995 Statement of U.S. International Air Transportation 

Policy recognizing the importance of international air service and the 

need to enable U.S. carriers to serve foreign markets. The policy provides 

a broad umbrella under which actions such as bilateral negotiations and 

antitrust immunity alliance reviews are taken and emphasized a number 

of objectives, including, but not limited to: 

• providing carriers with unrestricted opportunities to develop services 

and systems to meet market demand;

• eliminating market distortions internationally, such as government 

subsidies and unequal access to infrastructure; and,

• encouraging the development of a cost-effective and productive airtransportation industry through addressing infrastructure needs, 

privatizing airlines, and reducing barriers to the creation of global 

aviation systems, such as limitations on cross-border investment, 

wherever possible.39

 

3749 U.S.C § 41308.

38Economists in the Department of Justice’s Economic Analysis Group published a review 

of DOT’s prior decisions to grant antitrust immunity for alliance requests and found that a 

grant of antitrust immunity to carriers in an alliance reduces competition in routes where 

these carriers offer competing flights and that fares paid by passengers for travel in nonstop trans-Atlantic flights are higher in routes with fewer independent competitors. The 

review’s authors also stated that the data show that alliances can produce pricing 

efficiencies for trans-Atlantic passengers who travel with connecting itineraries, but 

antitrust immunity within an alliance is not necessary to achieve such efficiencies. 

Gillespie, William and Oliver M. Richard, Antitrust Immunity and International Airline 

Alliances, EAG 11-1 (February 2011), accessed April 11, 2013, 

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/267513.htm. 

39Many countries limit foreign ownership of national airlines. For example, non-US citizens 

may not own more than 25 percent of the controlling interest in an American airline (or 50 

percent of an equity interest). 
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 44 GAO-13-657 Aviation

The Secretary of Transportation also serves as a member of the 

President’s Export Promotion Cabinet.40 This cabinet was established 

through executive order in 2010 and was tasked with implementing the 

National Export Initiative, which seeks to double the dollar value of U.S. 

exports by the end of 2014.

The FAAC report applauded DOT’s efforts to open foreign markets to 

U.S. airlines, but also noted that some of the world’s fastest-growing 

aviation markets—including those in Asia, South America, and the Near 

East—remain restricted to U.S. air carriers. In addition, the FAAC noted 

that in some key markets, U.S. passenger and cargo air carriers not only 

face restrictive aviation agreements, but also must confront a wide range 

of practical market access barriers—including slot restrictions, airspace 

limitations, and local ground-handling rules—that increase their operating 

costs and limit U.S. air carriers’ ability to compete, both domestically and 

globally. In addition, while many different factors can be included in 

DOT’s public interest analysis of antitrust immunity for alliances, including 

wages and working conditions, some FAAC members expressed 

concerns on the impacts of immunized alliances between U.S. and 

foreign carriers on U.S. workers.

DOT officials told us that their actions on this recommendation consisted 

of a three-prong approach: (1) fostering conditions that enable global 

alliances to develop as well as ensuring DOT gives weight to existing 

statutory criteria when reviewing requests for antitrust immunity for 

alliances between U.S. and foreign carriers; (2) continuing efforts to open 

foreign markets to U.S. carriers; and (3) expanding DOT’s role in 

promoting aviation exports. Table 9 provides a summary of the FAAC 

recommendation to promote global competitiveness and DOT’s actions to 

address it, as of June 2013.

 

40The Export Promotion Cabinet consists of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, 

Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Energy, and Transportation; the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget; the United States Trade Representative; the Assistant to the 

President for Economic Policy; the National Security Advisor; the Chair of the Council of 

Economic Advisers; the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; the 

Administrator of the Small Business Administration; the President of the Overseas Private 

Investment Corporation; and the Director of the United States Trade and Development 

Agency. 

DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to 

Address Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 45 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Table 9: FAAC Recommendation on Promoting Global Competitiveness and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of 

June 2013

FAAC recommendation—global competitiveness DOT/FAA actions

Foster conditions that enable global air carrier alliances that 

enhance the viability and global competitiveness of U.S. air 

carriers, airports, and manufacturers, and protect and create U.S. 

aviation industry jobs by reaffirming the general objectives of the 

Department of Transportation’s 1995 Statement of U.S. 

International Air Transportation Policy (the 1995 Statement).a

DOT officials noted that, because the 1995 statement remains 

applicable today, it was not necessary to reaffirm it. DOT officials 

added that they worked to foster conditions that enable global 

alliances by working with foreign regulatory authorities to discuss 

industry trends or specific transactions, such as an application 

for antitrust immunity. DOT officials noted that they meet 

periodically with other regulators to share information on cases 

and cooperate on alliance monitoring efforts. DOT also stated 

that they had established a dialogue with stakeholders to 

facilitate the exchange of information on any impediments to the 

implementation of alliances around the world. 

Ensure that, as the DOT performs its public interest analysis, it 

gives substantial weight to existing statutory criteria that would help 

ensure an economically healthy and globally competitive U.S. air 

carrier industry and prosperous workforce, including:

• Strengthening the competitive position of air carriers to at least 

ensure equality with foreign air carriers, including the 

attainment of the opportunity for air carriers to maintain and 

increase their profitability in foreign air transportation.

• Placing maximum reliance on competitive market forces and 

on actual and potential competition...to provide the needed air 

transportation system [and] encourage efficient and wellmanaged air carriers to earn adequate profits and attract 

capital.

• Promoting, encouraging and developing civil aeronautics and a 

viable, privately owned United States air transport industry.

• Encouraging fair wages and working conditions.b

According to DOT officials, DOT reviewed its process for 

conducting a public interest analysis of alliance applications and 

has conducted outreach to get the perspectives of airlines and 

labor stakeholders during DOT’s review of specific industry 

actions. For example, DOT officials stated they conducted 

outreach to pilot unions, and subsequently and separately, pilot 

unions participated in proceedings concerning antitrust immunity 

(e.g., the pilot union for Delta Air Lines filed comments in support 

of Delta’s alliance with Virgin Australia.) DOT officials stated that 

this outreach helped the department better communicate its 

approach to these reviews. DOT officials stated that they 

continue to focus on the statutory goals when conducting the 

public interest analysis. They also noted that their review of 

alliances is not formulaic and that when issuing an order on a 

specific alliance, DOT explains the public interest analysis it 

conducted during the review.

Build upon and expand the DOT’s Open Skies initiative, focusing 

on: (1) the largest and fastest-growing international markets that 

remain constrained by restrictive bilateral aviation agreements; (2) 

ensuring de facto market access and a level playing field for U.S. 

passenger and cargo air carriers facing impediments to doing 

business abroad; and (3) promoting employment opportunities for 

U.S. air carrier workers.

Since the issuance of the FAAC report, DOT reached new Open 

Skies agreements with additional countries, including those with 

Sierra Leone and Macedonia. These agreements bring the total 

number of Open Skies partners to 110, as of May 6, 2013. DOT 

officials told us they are continuing their efforts to establish Open 

Skies agreements or significant liberalization agreements with 

China, Mexico, Argentina, South Africa, and Russia. They also 

said that DOT may use its regulatory authority to redress unfair 

or discriminatory practices by foreign governments or entities 

against U.S. interests. For example, on March 15, 2013, DOT 

issued a “show cause” order related to Italian airport fees.c DOT 

officials noted that they continually work with foreign 

governments to address unfair or discriminatory practices, but 

issues rarely rise to the level of requiring formal regulatory action 

by DOT.
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 46 GAO-13-657 Aviation

FAAC recommendation—global competitiveness DOT/FAA actions

Leverage the Secretary of Transportation’s appointment to the 

President’s Export Promotion Cabinet, and support an expansion of 

the DOT’s role in promoting aviation exports for U.S. air carriers, 

manufacturers, and airports, and facilitating international tourism.

The Secretary serves on the President’s Export Promotion 

Cabinet, and DOT is also part of a working group for the National 

Export Initiative. This initiative was established in 2010 to 

support trade promotion, is led by the Secretary of Commerce, 

and includes representatives from the United States Trade 

Representative, Department of State, and the U.S. Trade and 

Development Agency. The initiative includes an emphasis on 

addressing aerospace market access and infrastructure issues, 

seeking to establish Open Skies agreements and eliminate 

restrictive aviation practices worldwide. Removal of such 

restrictions could allow U.S. airlines to more fully participate in 

the transport of U.S. exports overseas.

Source: FAAC report and GAO analysis of DOT documents and interviews.

a

See, Statement of United States International Air Transportation Policy, 60 Fed. Reg. 21,841 (May 3, 

1995). The FAAC subcommittee was unable to reach consensus supporting the 1995 Policy 

Statement’s objective of reducing existing limitations on cross-border investments.

b

49 U.S.C. § 40101(a).

c

Specifically, DOT reached the tentative conclusion that Italian airport authorities charge air carriers 

operating flights to and from points outside the European Union a different, higher, set of fees than 

carriers operating flights within the European Union. DOT stated that this imposed an unjustifiable or 

unreasonable restriction on access of U.S. air carriers to the Italy market and violated the U.S.-EU Air 

Transport Agreement. If DOT finalizes the order, it will impose operational restrictions on the Italian 

carrier, Alitalia, forbidding it to engage in air service between Italy and the United States.

DOT officials noted that they are working to ingrain these 

recommendations into their existing efforts and processes. They stated 

that DOT continues to pursue Open Skies agreements with China, 

Mexico, Argentina, South Africa, and Russia, but given the nature of 

negotiating such agreements, there is no timetable for concluding these 

discussions. DOT is also considering a “best practices” template outlining 

how to implement Open Skies provisions in other countries but has not 

set a timeframe for finalizing this template.

Of the nine FAAC competitiveness subcommittee members, two 

members felt that the recommendation was addressed; six members felt 

that the recommendation was not fully addressed, and one did not 

express an opinion. The members who did not feel the recommendation 

was addressed cited the ongoing nature of competitiveness issues and, in 

some cases, simply suggested DOT continue its current efforts. However, 

in other cases, members suggested DOT take additional actions to 

address the recommendation, for example:

• Three subcommittee members stated additional action should be 

taken with respect to DOT’s work with the Departments of State, 

DOT’s and FAA’s Planned 

Actions 

FAAC Members’ 

Assessment of DOT’s and 

FAA’s Progress
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 47 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Homeland Security, and Commerce on the National Export Cabinet. 

Two members stated that the agencies should work to make it easier 

for tourists and business travelers to obtain visas, and another 

member noted the need to ensure U.S. carriers receive the same 

opportunities overseas that foreign carriers receive in the U.S. market.

• Three members stated that DOT should take a more aggressive 

approach when addressing anti-competitive practices by other 

countries and supporting the U.S. aviation industry. One 

subcommittee member stated that DOT needs to refocus on its 

statutory mandate to strengthen the competitive position of air carriers 

to at least ensure equality with foreign air carriers; and that the federal 

government should pursue a national airline policy to follow through 

on this and other FAAC recommendations. Another member noted 

that concerns remain with respect to equal access to airport slots 

during popular travel times while the third member said that DOT 

should push harder to get an agreement in place with China.

In addition, two subcommittee members, including one that felt the 

recommendation was addressed, emphasized the need for DOT to 

consider the labor impacts of Open Skies agreements and the resulting 

alliances between U.S. and foreign carriers.41 Another member noted the 

need to consider the safety impacts. These members noted a lack of 

consensus during the FAAC discussions regarding how DOT should 

address these issues; as a result, these issues are not included in the 

FAAC recommendation but were discussed in the FAAC report as “other 

areas of significant discussion.”

42

 

41These FAAC members noted that during the development of the FAAC report, there 

were concerns regarding the U.S. labor impacts of an agreement between United Airlines 

and Aer Lingus to share profits for a route between Washington, D.C. and Madrid. United 

marketed the flight and Aer Lingus operated it.

42The FAAC recommendation stated that DOT should consider existing statutory criteria, 

which includes encouraging fair wage and working conditions, when conducting its public 

interest analysis. However, the discussion of the specific issues raised by the FAAC 

members we interviewed were included in the “Other Areas of Significant Discussion” 

section of the report, under “Outsourcing” and “Incorporating Core Workers’ Human Rights 

Conventions into International Aviation Trade Agreements.” DOT, The Future of Aviation 

Advisory Committee Final Report (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2011).
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 48 GAO-13-657 Aviation

• Obtaining consensus from many stakeholders, including foreign 

governments. DOT officials and four FAAC subcommittee members 

noted challenges in negotiating Open Skies agreements with other 

countries—a process that can take many years and ultimately 

depends on securing the agreement of another nation. Two 

subcommittee members also noted that addressing competitiveness 

issues involves input from a number of other stakeholders with 

conflicting viewpoints, including airlines, airports, labor, other 

government agencies, and elected officials. As previously noted, DOT 

officials stated that they had established a dialogue with stakeholders 

regarding impediments to the implementation of alliances around the 

world, and conducted outreach to get airlines’ and labor stakeholders’ 

perspectives on DOT’s public interest analysis of alliances.

Slot-Controlled Airports: FAA’s Rules Could be Improved to Enhance 

Competition and Use of Available Capacity. GAO-12-902. Washington, 

D.C.: September 13, 2012.

Airline Industry: Potential Mergers and Acquisitions Driven by Financial 

and Competitive Pressures. GAO-08-845. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 

2008.

U.S. Aerospace Industry: Progress in Implementing Aerospace 

Commission Recommendations, and Remaining Challenges. 

GAO-06-920. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2006.

Transatlantic Aviation: Effects of Easing Restrictions on U.S.-European 

Markets. GAO-04-835. Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2004.

Issues Relating to Foreign Investment and Control of U.S. Airlines. 

GAO-04-34R. Washington, D.C.: October 30, 2003.

International Aviation: DOT’s Efforts to Promote U.S. Air Cargo Carriers’ 

Interests. GAO/RCED-97-13. Washington, D.C.: October 18, 1996.

Challenges in 

Implementing the 

Recommendation

Related Products
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 49 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Aviation and aerospace employers, including government transportation 

agencies, airlines, and manufacturers, are facing a number of workforce 

challenges, such as an aging workforce, a lack of needed skills in the 

current and future workforce, and the need to adapt to rapidly evolving 

technology and compete in a global marketplace. A number of 

organizations, including the FAAC, have noted that addressing these 

challenges will require a focus on science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) education. The challenges faced by aviation and 

aerospace employers reflect a larger national trend, as research has 

shown that the United States lacks a strong pipeline of future workers in 

STEM fields and that U.S. students continue to lag behind students in 

other highly technological nations in mathematics and science 

achievement.

For over three decades, Congress and the executive branch have 

continued to create new STEM education programs, even though, as we 

found in 2005, there has been a general lack of assessment of how well 

STEM programs were working.43 In January 2012, we reported that 

thirteen agencies administered 209 STEM education programs in fiscal 

year 2010 and spent over $3 billion to prepare students and teachers for 

careers in STEM fields.44 We noted that the lack of a government-wide 

strategic plan hampered the effectiveness of the federal effort, and made 

a number of recommendations related to the larger federal effort on 

 

43GAO, Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Programs and Related Trends, GAO-06-114 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 2005).

44The number of programs within agencies ranged from 3 to 46, with the Departments of 

Health and Human Services and Energy and the National Science Foundation 

administering more than half of these programs. GAO, Science, Technology, Engineering, 

and Mathematics Education: Strategic Planning Needed to Better Manage Overlapping 

Programs across Multiple Agencies, GAO-12-108 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 20, 2012)

7. FAAC 

Recommendation—

STEM Education

Issue Overview
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 50 GAO-13-657 Aviation

STEM, which is described in more detail in the next paragraph.45 Last 

year, the Office of Management and Budget established a cross-agency 

priority goal to improve the quality of STEM education at all levels.46 In 

May 2012, we reported that by naming STEM education as a crossagency goal, the administration is taking the first step towards creating a 

government-wide plan to achieve its goal. However, we also stated that a 

number of limitations could hamper progress, such as overlapping STEM 

programs; agencies that did not connect STEM education activities to 

agency goals in their annual performance plans or measure the progress 

of their STEM activities; and a lack of information about the effectiveness 

of STEM programs. We reiterated our prior recommendations.47

In addition, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 called 

for the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s (OSTP) National 

Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to establish a committee to 

inventory, review, and coordinate federal STEM education programs.48

The Committee on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math 

Education (CoSTEM) is comprised of representatives from eleven 

 

45We previously recommended that as the Office of Science and Technology Policy 

(OSTP) leads the government-wide STEM education strategic planning effort, it should (1) 

work with agencies to better align their activities with a government-wide strategy, (2) 

develop a plan for sustained coordination, (3) identify programs for potential consolidation 

or elimination, and (4) assist agencies in determining how to better evaluate their 

programs. OSTP stated that it would address our recommendations in the 5-year federal 

STEM Education Strategic Plan. As part of our ongoing work on duplication, overlap, and 

fragmentation, we report on the status of OSTP’s efforts on these items through our action 

tracker (http://www.gao.gov/duplication/action_tracker). As of March 6, 2013, item 3 is 

addressed, item 1 is partially addressed, and items 2 and 4 are not addressed. 

46The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111–352, § 5, 124 Stat. 3866, 3873 

(Jan. 4, 2011), codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1120, requires that OMB, in coordination with 

agencies and in consultation with Congress, develop long-term goals for a limited number 

of crosscutting policy areas and management improvement areas—referred to as crossagency priority goals—every 4 years. 

47GAO, Managing for Results: GAO’s Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting Priority 

Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act, GAO-12-620R (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 

2012). GAO also discussed STEM education in GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities 

to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance 

Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012). 

48America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-358, 124 Stat. 3982 

(2011).
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 51 GAO-13-657 Aviation

agencies, including DOT.49 In December 2011, CoSTEM published an 

inventory of the federal STEM education portfolio. In May 2013, CoSTEM 

released a 5-year strategic federal STEM education plan. DOT officials 

told us that DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

(RITA) represents DOT on the CoSTEM effort, and participated in the 

development of an inventory of federal STEM programs and the 

development of the Federal STEM education plan. The bulk of DOT’s and 

FAA’s activities that are related to STEM education are conducted 

through FAA’s Aviation and Space Education (STEM-AVSED) outreach 

program. STEM-AVSED’s goals include encouraging students to explore 

aviation and aerospace career opportunities; promoting the skills and 

knowledge critical to aviation safety; and increasing awareness and 

understanding of the agency’s role in aviation and aerospace.50

DOT and FAA officials have taken steps to address the wide-ranging 

actions identified in the recommendation by improving internal 

coordination, collaborating with external stakeholders, and conducting 

STEM outreach to educational institutions and students through a variety 

of programs. Table 10 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation 

on STEM outreach and DOT’s and FAA’s actions to address it, as of June 

2013.

 

49CoSTEM members include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 

Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, Transportation, as well as the 

Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and 

National Science Foundation. 

50STEM-AVSED was established in response to Pub. L. No. 94-353, § 21, 90 Stat. 871 

(1976), which empowered the FAA Administrator to establish a civil aviation information 

distribution program to provide state and local school administrators, college and 

university officials, and officers of civil and other interested organizations with 

informational materials and expertise on civil aviation..

DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to 

Address Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 52 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Table 10: FAAC Recommendation on STEM Outreach and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of June 2013

FAAC recommendation—STEM DOT/FAA actions

Ensure coordination and focus within DOT on workforce 

development of STEM as a centralized and focused top-tier 

initiative of the DOT. 

According to FAA officials, FAA established a STEM Council that 

meets monthly to coordinate STEM activities across FAA’s 

business lines. DOT officials stated that it has an internal group 

that meets 8 to 12 times per year to discuss workforce 

development, including retraining and succession planning, and 

that STEM issues are frequently discussed during these meetings.

Assign the Assistant Secretary for Administration the task of 

developing, overseeing, coordinating, implementing, and 

integrating a strategic workforce development plan that includes 

STEM education programs and activities for the current and future 

workforce. 

DOT has not developed a strategic workforce development plan 

that includes STEM education. DOT officials stated that DOT’s 

next strategic plan, scheduled to be released in 2015, may include 

some STEM components.

Create an advisory council comprised of outside experts, focused 

on aviation and aerospace, who can provide expertise to help 

identify, align, and coordinate efforts on workforce development 

and STEM education within the DOT. 

DOT has not created an advisory council of external aviation and 

aerospace experts because, according to DOT officials, STEM 

education is not part of DOT’s mission, making it difficult to 

establish a STEM council under the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act. DOT officials noted that DOT and FAA partner with outside 

stakeholders on workforce development and STEM issues through 

a number of programs, such as the University Transportation 

Centers Program.a

 

Increase education outreach from pre-kindergarten to institutions 

of higher education. 

FAA officials noted that they continued their outreach to 

educational institutions through the Aviation and Space Education 

(STEM-AVSED) program. FAA updated its STEM-AVSED 

website, which is designed to appeal to an audience unfamiliar 

with aviation, such as students and teachers. FAA officials stated 

they plan to augment the existing STEM-AVSED efforts to target 

middle and high school students with additional programs for 

elementary students. FAA also developed and distributed a 

brochure on aviation engineering careers. FAA worked with the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration to develop an 

educational program called Smart Skies that uses an air traffic 

control simulator to teach algebra. According to FAA, this program 

has been rolled out to hundreds of schools.

FAA worked with DOT to develop the Real World Design 

Challenge, which is a free engineering competition, and FAA and 

the Federal Highway Administration are collaborating to combine 

two youth summer programs: the Aviation Career Education 

(ACE) Academyb and the National Transportation Summer 

Institute.c FAA and its partners developed Ask Polaris, a website 

designed to help graduating high school students learn more 

about the field of aerospace engineering, including the types of 

college degrees available. DOT also established a Youth 

Employee STEM Mentoring Program, through which DOT mentors 

work 2 hours per week assisting students with these subjects. 
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 53 GAO-13-657 Aviation

FAAC recommendation—STEM DOT/FAA actions

Consider improving programs and connections with 2- and 4-year 

educational institutions that give students hands-on experience 

applicable to the aviation and aerospace workplace. 

FAA officials stated they improved lines of communication with the 

Centers of Excellence, which award aerospace research grants to 

colleges. Also, FAA has an MOU to increase the visibility of 

technical careers in aviation and aerospace with the National 

Coalition of Certification Centers (NC3), a network of schools and 

industry leaders that develop aviation certifications. As part of this 

effort, FAA and NC3 developed a brochure on aviation careers for 

college recruiters to share with high school counselors, embarked 

on a national poster campaign—Yes I Can Do That, and 

implemented a job shadowing program called Walk in Your Boots. 

Establish an award for innovation to recognize persons, 

businesses, or organizations that develop unique scientific and 

engineering innovations in aerospace and aviation.

DOT established the Secretary’s Recognizing Aviation and 

Aerospace Innovation in Science and Engineering (RAISE) award 

to recognize innovative scientific and engineering achievements 

that will have a significant impact on the future of aerospace or 

aviation. The award is open to students at the high school, 

undergraduate, and graduate levels. DOT awarded its first RAISE 

award in October 2012.

Work with the Secretary of Labor as an integral part of the 

Interagency Aerospace Revitalization Task Force, originally 

established in 2006, to implement a national strategy focused on 

recruiting, training, and cultivating the aerospace workforce. 

Work with the Department of Education to provide resources that 

would create state-of-the-art STEM elementary and secondary 

educational facilities. 

DOT officials noted that while the Interagency Aerospace 

Revitalization Task Force was disbanded, DOT has held 

semiannual Aviation Industry Workforce-Management 

Conferences with the Departments of Labor and Education. In 

addition, in September 2011, the Secretaries of Transportation, 

Education, and Labor signed a memorandum of understanding to 

collaborate on implementing strategies for using STEM education 

to develop a qualified aerospace workforce. DOT officials stated 

that the agencies developed an informal work plan, and have 

coordinated on efforts to provide information on transportation 

careers for the Department of Labor’s American Job Centers.

In addition, as previously mentioned, RITA represents DOT on a 

federal agency-wide effort to coordinate STEM programs through 

the Committee on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math 

Education.

Source: FAAC report and GAO analysis of DOT and FAA documents and interviews.

a

RITA’s University Transportation Centers program provides grants for universities to operate centers 

that: advance U.S. technology and expertise in transportation through research, education, workforce 

development, and technology transfer; provide a critical transportation knowledge base outside the 

US DOT; and address vital workforce needs for the next generation of transportation leaders.

b

ACE Academies are interactive aviation summer camps geared towards middle and high school 

students who are interested in aviation and aerospace.

c

The National Transportation Summer Institute program is designed to introduce secondary school 

students to all modes of transportation careers and encourage them to pursue transportation-related 

courses of study at the college and university level.

DOT officials stated that the spirit and intent of the recommendation have 

been addressed, but added that work will continue as education is an 

evolving process with new audiences to reach. DOT and FAA officials 

stated they will continue efforts to coordinate programs, partner with 

stakeholders, and leverage resources. FAA officials noted that it is 

DOT’s and FAA’s Planned 

Actions 
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 54 GAO-13-657 Aviation

important that the agency continue to keep a spotlight on STEM 

education. To maintain that focus, officials stated that the agency could 

include FAA’s STEM work into FAA’s Business Plan Goals. FAA officials 

stated they would like to eventually augment the existing STEM-AVSED 

efforts to target middle and high school students with additional programs 

for elementary students but have not established time frames to do so. 

DOT officials noted that they are working to determine how to attract 

students through STEM programs, as well as attracting students more 

interested in technical training.

Five of the seven FAAC labor and workforce subcommittee members 

stated that DOT and FAA had addressed the recommendation, but all of 

the members stated that the DOT’s and FAA’s work on this issue should 

continue. Four of the subcommittee members praised DOT efforts such 

as establishing the RAISE award or the Aviation Industry WorkforceManagement Conferences. Two of the subcommittee members—one that 

thought the recommendation was addressed and one that did not—stated 

that DOT and FAA should conduct outreach outside of Washington, D.C., 

on workforce and STEM issues and made diverse suggestions, including 

involving FAA regional offices, hosting regional workforce summits, 

providing a regional RAISE award, and interacting with students in 

university and high school settings. One of the FAAC members who did 

not think the recommendation was addressed stated that DOT should 

provide more detail on what they are doing, and how they are measuring 

their performance.

• Coordinating with larger federal efforts to avoid duplication and 

leverage resources. We have previously reviewed STEM programs 

across the federal government and raised concerns about the 

patchwork of fragmented and overlapping federal STEM programs, 

noting that poor coordination among the many agencies that oversee 

these programs and the lack of a government-wide strategic plan 

have hampered the effectiveness of the federal effort.51 Six of the 

 

51GAO-12-620R, GAO, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: 

Strategic Planning Needed to Better Manage Overlapping Programs across Multiple 

Agencies, GAO-12-108 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 20, 2012), and GAO, 2012 Annual 

Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve 

Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).

FAAC Members’ 

Assessment of DOT’s and 

FAA’s Progress

Challenges in 

Implementing the 

Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 55 GAO-13-657 Aviation

seven FAAC subcommittee members we interviewed recognized that 

STEM education is a broad policy issue, and efforts on this 

recommendation require collaborating with and maintaining the 

participation of outside groups, such as other agencies, industry, and 

other stakeholders. The administration is also taking steps to address 

these issues through establishing a cross-agency priority goal and 

creating a 5-year strategic plan for STEM education. As previously 

noted, RITA has participated in the government-wide effort to 

coordinate STEM programs.

• Sustaining long-term efforts. DOT and FAA officials and a FAAC 

subcommittee member noted that education is an evolving, ongoing 

effort, which can be difficult to sustain interest and support for over the 

long term. They added that funding and limited resources pose 

challenges to maintaining these efforts, but the agencies work to 

leverage resources through the partnerships previously noted.

• Attracting students to aviation careers. FAA officials stated that 

attracting students to technical careers can be challenging given 

misconceptions about aviation maintenance careers. Five of the 

FAAC subcommittee members also noted the challenges in enticing 

students into the STEM fields or related aviation careers, and three of 

the members stated that a viable and sustainable aviation industry 

would help address this challenge. FAA officials also noted challenges 

in developing web content that appealed to students and educators 

while staying within FAA’s branding guidelines, which are typically 

geared toward FAA’s traditional audience of aviation professionals. 

However, FAA officials stated they were working across departments 

within FAA to address these issues.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: 

Governmentwide Strategy Needed to Better Manage Overlapping 

Programs. GAO-13-529T. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 2013.

Aviation Safety: Additional FAA Efforts Could Enhance Safety Risk 

Management. GAO-12-898. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2012.

Managing for Results: GAO’s Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting 

Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act. GAO-12-620R. 

Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2012.

Related Products
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 56 GAO-13-657 Aviation

2012 Annual Report Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue. 

GAO-12-342SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Strategic 

Planning Needed to Better Manage Overlapping Programs across 

Multiple Agencies. GAO-12-108. Washington, D.C.: January 20, 2012.

Federal Aviation Administration: Agency Is Taking Steps to Plan for and 

Train Its Technician Workforce, but a More Strategic Approach Is 

Warranted. GAO-11-91. Washington, D.C.: October 22, 2010.
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 57 GAO-13-657 Aviation

For decades, FAA and the aviation industry have used data to identify the 

causes of aviation accidents and incidents and take actions to prevent 

their recurrence. Our prior work has shown that FAA is in the midst of a 

shift toward a proactive, data-driven safety oversight approach, commonly 

referred to as a safety management system (SMS) approach.52 Under this 

new approach, FAA plans to use aviation safety data to identify systemwide trends in aviation safety and manage emerging hazards before they 

result in incidents or accidents.

In addition to mandatory reporting systems and inspection programs that 

collect information on safety issues and events, FAA has developed a 

number of voluntary reporting systems that air carrier and industry 

personnel can use to report safety issues and events.53 For example, 

FAA’s Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) allows air carrier 

employees to voluntarily report safety issues and events and provides 

protection from enforcement action by FAA and disciplinary action by 

airline management or others. To improve FAA’s capability for automated 

 

52We have previously reported on FAA’s implementation of SMS. See GAO, Aviation 

Safety: FAA Efforts Have Improved Safety but Challenges Remain in Key Areas, 

GAO-13-442T (Washington, D.C.: Apr 16, 2013); GAO, Aviation Safety: Additional FAA 

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

12, 2012); GAO, Aviation Safety: FAA Is Taking Steps to Improve Data, but Challenges for 

Managing Safety Risks Remain, GAO-12-660T, (Washington, D.C.: Apr 25, 2012); and 

GAO, Aviation Safety: Improved Data Quality and Analysis Capabilities Are Needed as 

FAA Plans a Risk-Based Approach to Safety Oversight, GAO-10-414 (Washington, D.C.: 

May 6, 2010).

53One example of a mandatory system is the Air Traffic Quality Assurance database, 

which contains information recorded by air traffic controller supervisors, support 

specialists, and managers. With respect to inspections, FAA records data from 

maintenance and operations inspections in the Air Transportation Oversight System 

(ATOS). Under the ATOS concept, FAA inspectors use data analysis to focus their 

inspections on areas that pose the greatest risk. ATOS also permits inspectors to shift the 

focus of their inspections in response to changing conditions within air carriers’ operations. 

8. FAAC 

Recommendation—

Legal Protections for 

Safety Data

Issue Overview
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 58 GAO-13-657 Aviation

analysis of multiple databases, FAA has partnered with industry through 

the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) program. 

According to FAA documents, ASIAS leverages data from multiple

sources, including FAA data sets, airline proprietary safety data, publicly 

available data, and manufacturer data, allowing FAA to (1) perform 

integrated queries across multiple databases, (2) search an extensive 

warehouse of safety data, and (3) display pertinent elements in an array 

of useful formats. The ASIAS home page shows that as of February 

2013, 44 airlines were participating in ASIAS, including 13 of the 14 

airlines with at least 1 percent of total domestic scheduled passenger 

service revenue. FAA is also in two rulemaking processes to require 

SMS—which will include the development of systems for reporting, 

tracking, and analyzing safety data—for air carriers and airports.

Our prior work has shown that the success of a SMS program depends 

upon the open sharing of safety information among aviation stakeholders; 

however, FAA officials have recognized that aviation industry concerns 

about data protection and legal liability could hinder the implementation of 

SMS.54 The FAAC stated that the development, analysis, and availability 

of shared safety information could be inhibited by the potential that this 

information may be used for other purposes, such as exposure through 

the media, admissions in criminal or administrative prosecution, or use in 

civil litigation.

Table 11 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation to ensure 

safety data protections and DOT’s and FAA’s actions to address it, as of 

June 2013.

 

54GAO-12-898. 

DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to 

Address Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 59 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Table 11: FAAC Recommendation on Safety Data Protections and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of June 2013

FAAC recommendation—data protection DOT/FAA actions

Seek comprehensive legal protection for participants in voluntary 

and mandated safety management system (SMS) data programs to 

ensure the programs’ continued benefits to safety, pursue essential 

legislative action that is vital to provide ongoing protection of safety 

information-sharing systems in the United States, and work with 

Congress to introduce such legislation at the earliest possible 

opportunity.

Since the FAAC report was issued, Congress passed the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act.a This Act prohibits the public 

disclosure by FAA of data and information submitted voluntarily 

to FAA and developed under the following programs: Aviation 

Safety Action Program; Flight Operational Quality Assurance 

Program; and Line Operations Safety Audit Program, as well as 

reports, data or other information produced or collected for 

purposes of developing and implementing a SMS program, and 

reports based thereon, including reports under the Aviation 

Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) Program.

FAA officials stated they provided technical assistance to 

Congress on this issue. FAA officials also noted that FAA is 

involved in an ICAO task force that is developing standards and 

recommended practices related to safety data including 

guidance for judiciary bodies on the issue of protecting safety 

data during litigation. 

Source: FAAC report and GAO analysis of DOT and FAA documents and interviews.

a

Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 310, 126 Stat. 11.

FAA officials consider this recommendation addressed. More specifically, 

while the FAA Modernization and Reform Act did not prohibit the 

disclosure of data in civil or criminal litigation, or provide protections if 

data are submitted through mandatory programs, FAA officials consider 

the law to address the intent of this recommendation. As previously 

noted, FAA is in the midst of a rulemaking process to require SMS for air 

carriers, and FAA officials acknowledged that there are remaining 

concerns among industry stakeholders regarding the extent to which data 

collected under mandatory SMS programs would be protected.55 FAA 

officials stated they plan to address this issue in the publication of a final 

rule on SMS implementation by air carriers, which is expected to be 

 

55The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, Pub. L. 

No. 111-216, § 215, 124 Stat. 2348, 2366 (2010), required the FAA to require all part 121 

air carriers to implement SMS. In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on implementing this 

requirement, FAA stated that SMS should include systems for safety performance 

monitoring and measuring, including a confidential employee safety reporting system. FAA 

noted that while certain voluntary programs, such as the Aviation Safety Action Program 

(ASAP), would be useful as part of a carrier’s SMS system, it would not mandate the use 

of such programs, as that would result in the data becoming mandatory and thus losing 

existing statutory protections. 75 Fed. Reg. 68224, 68228 (Nov. 5, 2010). FAA has not 

issued a final rule.

DOT’s and FAA’s Planned 

Actions 
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 60 GAO-13-657 Aviation

completed in October 2013. FAA officials also stated they will continue to 

encourage the voluntary reporting of data into ASIAS.

The evolving nature of aviation safety and remaining concerns regarding 

the potential disclosure of data led to varying opinions on the extent to 

which the recommendation was addressed. Two subcommittee members 

said it was addressed, with one citing the provisions protecting safety 

data from disclosure in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, and 

another noting the work is ongoing. Four of the seven FAAC safety 

subcommittee members did not believe that the recommendation was 

addressed, but three of them noted that work was ongoing or that safety 

was an evolving issue. One subcommittee member stated he did not 

have enough information to comment on the status of this 

recommendation. Three subcommittee members expressed concern on 

the potential disclosure of data during criminal and civil litigation while 

another member expressed concern on protecting data that is mandated 

to be submitted—neither of which is addressed by current law but were 

included in the FAAC recommendation. One member noted that FAA 

needs to better communicate to Congress how the lack of protections 

could have serious ramifications on voluntary reporting of safety data. 

Two subcommittee members suggested additional areas of focus beyond 

the recommendation, including collecting data on the amount of time 

pilots spend flying to the city where they begin their work day—an issue 

discussed in the aftermath of the 2009 Colgan accident—and the need for 

international harmonization on the definition of legal protections for safety 

data.

• Addressing remaining data protection concerns. FAA officials as 

well as two FAAC subcommittee members acknowledged industry 

concern with respect to protecting safety data during criminal and civil 

litigation and recognized its potential impact on SMS implementation. 

However, they noted that it will be difficult to determine the extent to 

which this issue could affect SMS and data sharing until it is tested in 

court. Four of the subcommittee members stated that the potential for 

disclosure could also affect operators’ or their employees’ willingness 

to voluntarily report safety issues.

FAAC Members’ 

Assessment of DOT’s and 

FAA’s Progress

Challenges in 

Implementing the 

Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 61 GAO-13-657 Aviation

While protection of airport safety data was not specifically discussed as 

part of the FAAC’s recommendation, we reported in September 2012 that 

these data are subject to state-specific FOIA laws, which could make air 

carriers less willing to share safety information with airports.56 Specifically, 

while air carriers are not directly subject to state FOIA laws because they 

are privately owned, data that airports collect and submit to FAA for 

SMS—such as information on hazards or other safety data—may be 

subject to public disclosure under state FOIA laws. FAA officials and 

experts stated that state FOIA laws could affect the willingness of air 

carriers to share safety data with airports because any data they choose 

to share with airports could then be subject to these laws. We 

recommended that the FAA Administrator consider strategies to address 

airports’ concerns, including asking Congress to provide additional 

protection for SMS data collected by public entities. Officials stated that 

FAA is working to address this recommendation.

Aviation Safety: FAA Efforts Have Improved Safety but Challenges 

Remain in Key Areas. GAO-13-442T. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2013.

Aviation Safety: Additional FAA Efforts Could Enhance Safety Risk 

Management. GAO-12-898. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2012.

Aviation Safety: FAA Is Taking Steps to Improve Data, but Challenges for 

Managing Safety Risks Remain. GAO-12-660T. Washington, D.C.: April

25, 2012. 

Aviation Safety: Improved Data Quality and Analysis Capabilities Are 

Needed as FAA Plans a Risk-Based Approach to Safety Oversight. 

GAO-10-414. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2010.

 

56GAO-12-898. FAA issues airport operating certificates to airports that (1) serve 

unscheduled air carrier aircraft with more than 30 seats; or (2) serve scheduled air carrier 

operations in aircraft with more than 9 seats. 14 C.F.R. § 139.1(a). Most certificated U.S. 

airports are either owned by a state, a subdivision of a state, or a local government body, 

and thus are subject to state laws, including state FOIA laws.

Related Products
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 62 GAO-13-657 Aviation

As previously noted, FAA is in the midst of a shift toward a proactive, 

data-driven safety oversight approach, commonly referred to as a safety 

management system (SMS) approach. Under this new approach, FAA 

plans to use aviation safety data to identify system-wide trends in aviation 

safety and manage emerging hazards before they result in incidents or 

accidents. The FAAC noted that to develop the robust predictive riskdiscovery capabilities needed for SMS, FAA must develop advanced 

analytical tools and methods, as well as modeling and simulation 

capabilities. According to FAA, the Aviation Safety Information Analysis 

and Sharing (ASIAS) program—a joint industry and FAA effort that serves 

as a central exchange of safety information—is a cornerstone of its effort 

to implement SMS. According to FAA documents, ASIAS leverages data 

from multiple sources—including FAA data sets, airline proprietary safety 

data, publicly available data, and manufacturer data—allowing FAA to (1) 

perform integrated queries across multiple databases, (2) search an

extensive warehouse of safety data, and (3) display pertinent elements in 

an array of useful formats. The ASIAS home page shows that as of 

February 2013, 44 airlines were participating in ASIAS. 

According to the FAAC, the initial results of ASIAS analyses have 

demonstrated the value of using safety information to produce a system 

safety baseline. However, the FAAC noted that realization of predictive 

safety risk-discovery requires investment in expanding, accelerating, and 

maturing ASIAS capabilities.

Table 12 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation on 

developing predictive safety risk analysis capabilities and FAA’s actions 

to address it, as of June 2013.

9. FAAC 

Recommendation—

Predictive Analytic 

Capabilities for Safety 

Data and Information

Issue Overview

DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to 

Address Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 63 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Table 12: FAAC Recommendation on Predictive Analytic Capabilities for Safety Data and Information and DOT’s and FAA’s

Actions to Address It, as of June 2013

FAAC recommendation—predictive capabilities DOT/FAA actions

Provide focus, priority, and resources to develop improved tools 

and methods that will result in robust predictive analytic 

capabilities for safety data and information.

Consistent with the FAAC’s recommendation, FAA has pursued 

action to expand and support Aviation Safety Information 

Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS). In 2011, the ASIAS program 

received FAA approval for $15 million per yeara for 5 years (fiscal 

years 2013 through 2017) to collect additional data and further 

develop its analytical capabilities in support of a more proactive 

safety management approach. For example, according to FAA, 

there are efforts under way to add air-traffic-control voice data 

and general aviation data to ASIAS, which currently includes 

airline-collected data, data from the voluntary Flight Operational 

Quality Assurance (FOQA) program, pilot-provided data, weather 

data, air traffic control-generated data, and radar-tracking data. 

FAA is also working with three airlines to demonstrate the 

modeling capabilities of ASIAS if more airline-provided data were 

combined with FAA data sources. According to its current plan, 

by 2017, FAA would like to deploy modeling capabilities that 

cover all phases of flight and to have developed and refined risk 

models that incorporate the risk factors developed through the 

identification and validation of safety issues, accident precursors, 

and other vulnerabilities. 

Source: FAAC report and GAO analysis of DOT and FAA documents and interviews.

a

Though ASIAS received approval for these funds, funds must still be appropriated for ASIAS on an 

annual basis.

By securing the funds for execution, FAA believes that it has fulfilled the 

spirit of the recommendation and is positioned to deliver predictive safety 

risk-discovery capabilities. Officials told us that FAA intends to continue 

executing its 5-year ASIAS Plan.

While six of the FAAC safety subcommittee members who provided an 

opinion stated that FAA’s efforts to address this recommendation would 

be ongoing, members varied in their opinion as to whether the 

recommendation was fully addressed. One subcommittee member stated 

he did not have enough information to comment on the status of this 

recommendation. Two subcommittee members stated it was fully 

addressed because FAA has secured the resources currently needed for 

ASIAS, but noted that the nature of the recommendation meant the work 

and support would need to be ongoing. Four members did not feel the 

DOT’s and FAA’s Planned 

Actions 

FAAC Members’ 

Assessment of DOT’s and 

FAA’s Progress
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 64 GAO-13-657 Aviation

recommendation was fully addressed, and three noted this was due to the 

ongoing nature of the recommendation, but stated that they were satisfied 

with FAA’s actions.57 For example, one subcommittee member said that 

developing predictive safety risk-discovery capabilities requires constantly 

refining and making the capabilities more sophisticated.

• Data protection. FAA officials and FAAC members noted that 

addressing the FAAC’s other safety data-related recommendations—

that is, to expand its collection of voluntary safety data sources and to 

legally protect that information—will affect the development of 

predictive capabilities.58 Two subcommittee members stated FAA 

should highlight the benefits of data-sharing systems, such as 

improved safety outcomes, to encourage more participation in such 

programs. Three FAAC subcommittee members noted the need to 

address legal concerns regarding data protection.

• Data quality. According to FAA, simply collecting the data is not 

enough; once collected, the data need to be of reliable quality and 

share a common lexicon and format across contributors.59 For 

example, FAA’s ASIAS plan explains that since ASIAS pulls data from 

a number of sources, it is important to ensure that a data element 

from one source represents the same issue as a data element from 

another source. One FAAC subcommittee member noted that FAA 

will need to address this issue in order to develop methods to 

automatically mine the data (i.e., use computer programs to identify 

patterns and trends in the data), since having a systematic method to 

analyze the data would further enable FAA’s ability to use ASIAS data 

 

57Another subcommittee member had underlying concerns regarding FAA’s oversight of 

airlines and felt those should be addressed. These concerns were not discussed in the 

FAAC report’s discussion of the recommendation, but were discussed in the “Other Areas 

of Significant Discussion” section of the report, under “Safety And Security Of Contract 

Maintenance Facilities.” DOT, The Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Final Report

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2011). 

58The FAAC report included a recommendation for DOT and FAA to work with 

stakeholders to identify potential new sources of safety data to be included in voluntary 

data-sharing programs. While we did not review DOT’s and FAA’s progress on this 

recommendation, we did review their progress in addressing the FAAC recommendation 

on protecting safety data from disclosure: see the discussion of recommendation 8. 

59GAO has previously commented on and made recommendations about the data quality 

issues. See GAO-13-442T, GAO-13-36, GAO-12-898, GAO-12-660T, and GAO-10-414. 

Challenges in 

Implementing the 

Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 65 GAO-13-657 Aviation

to proactively identify risks. According to its ASIAS Plan, FAA will 

address and monitor these issues regularly as new data sources are 

added. It plans to develop taxonomies to better merge data from 

programs like ASAP, the Air Traffic Safety Action Program, and FOQA 

in 2013 and 2014.

• Resource constraints. Three FAAC subcommittee members raised 

concerns about how budget issues would affect FAA’s efforts to 

implement the recommendation. One subcommittee member noted 

that making substantive progress on this recommendation will not be 

possible until budget issues are addressed. According to FAA 

officials, funding reductions due to sequestration will not have a major 

effect on the program’s development in fiscal year 2013. However, the 

officials noted that these reductions will delay some specific 

improvements, such as ASIAS’s ability to detect instances where 

aircraft situational awareness is lost.

• Analytical capabilities. According to FAA officials, labor agreements 

and other factors can affect the agency’s ability to fully develop the 

analytical capabilities of ASIAS. For example, the ASIAS Executive 

Board must authorize analyses of ASIAS data, and in some cases, 

the members of the board are constrained by labor agreements that 

limit how their airlines’ data can be used.60 FAA officials noted that 

while they provide the airlines with industry benchmarks from ASIAS 

so the airline can see how it compares on certain metrics, it is unclear 

how the airlines are using the data. In addition, FAA officials told us 

that because some of the identifying information is stripped from the 

data, FAA is limited in its analyses that would indicate the relative 

safety performance of a particular airline. For example, if the 

information is left with identifiers, then FAA would be able to pull other 

relevant reports associated with a particular flight, and could merge 

that data to understand all the relevant factors, and then de-identify 

the information. As mentioned in Table 12, FAA stated it is working 

with three airlines to demonstrate the benefits of using this approach.

General Aviation Safety: Additional FAA Efforts Could Help Identify and 

Mitigate Safety Risks. GAO-13-36. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2012.

 

60ASIAS is governed by an Executive Board comprised of representatives from 

government and industry. 

Related Products
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 66 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Aviation Safety: Additional FAA Efforts Could Enhance Safety Risk 

Management. GAO-12-898. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2012.

Aviation Safety: FAA Is Taking Steps to Improve Data, but Challenges for 

Managing Safety Risks Remain. GAO-12-660T. Washington, D.C.: April 

25, 2012.

Aviation Safety: Improved Data Quality and Analysis Capabilities Are 

Needed as FAA Plans a Risk-Based Approach to Safety Oversight. 

GAO-10-414. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2010.
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 67 GAO-13-657 Aviation

The safety of the nation’s flying public depends, in large part, on the 

aviation industry’s compliance with safety regulations and FAA’s 

enforcement of those regulations when violations occur. As part of FAA’s 

oversight of aviation safety, FAA develops rules and regulations through 

the rulemaking process.61 FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB), and we have previously expressed concerns about the efficiency 

and timeliness of FAA’s rulemaking efforts.62 In 2010, we noted that a 

number of issues may contribute to a lengthy rulemaking process at FAA, 

including the need to conduct research, obtain public comment, and 

provide industry time to comply with the rule. In addition, we reported that 

external pressures—such as highly publicized accidents, 

recommendations by NTSB, and congressional mandates—as well as 

internal pressures, such as changes in management’s emphasis, 

continued to add to and shift the agency’s priorities, and that shifting 

priorities can add to delays. The FAAC report raised similar concerns, 

stating that the queue of potential rulemaking projects far exceeds the 

FAA capacity for action in a reasonable time period, and there does not 

appear to be a universally understood methodology for FAA to ensure the 

most effective projects receive the highest priority.

Historically, FAA attempted to gain the industry’s compliance with rules 

and regulations through enforcement tools, including levying fines and 

 

61The basic process by which agencies develop and issue regulations is spelled out in the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 551–570a.) Although there are exceptions, 

rulemaking generally involves the agency publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and 

asking for public comment, then issuing a final rule and responding to the public 

comments received. A need for rulemaking can be identified internally, by one of FAA’s 

offices, or externally, by an outside source such as the Congress or the National 

Transportation Safety Board, which issues mandates or recommendations, respectively, 

calling for rulemaking. 

62GAO, Aviation Rulemaking: Further Reform Is Needed to Address Long-standing 

Problems, GAO-01-821 (Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2001) and Aviation Safety: Improved 

Planning Could Help FAA Address Challenges Related to Winter Weather Operations, 

GAO-10-678 (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2010).

10. FAAC 

Recommendation—

Prioritize Rulemaking 

Issue Overview
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 68 GAO-13-657 Aviation

suspending or revoking operating certificates. However, as previously 

noted, FAA and the U.S. aviation industry are moving toward the adoption 

of safety management systems (SMS)—a data-driven, risk-based safety 

oversight approach. The FAAC report raised concerns that FAA’s 

enforcement policies are not reflective of the shift to SMS, because FAA 

focuses its enforcement on regulatory non-compliance, regardless of risk 

level, rather than prioritizing its efforts to address unacceptable risks.

Table 13 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation to review 

FAA’s rulemaking priorities and FAA’s actions to address it, as of June 

2013.

DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to 

Address Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 69 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Table 13: FAAC Recommendation on Rulemaking Priorities and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address It, as of June 2013

FAAC recommendation—rulemaking DOT/FAA actions

Promptly review the existing regulatory and safety initiative 

calendar to provide parameters and criteria for the FAA to 

prioritize its current and future rulemaking program. This review 

should include industry, or at a minimum seek industry input, and 

the results be made publicly available. In addition, FAA should 

review field safety and enforcement policies, procedures, and 

training to ensure they align with the safety management system 

(SMS) philosophies and supporting policies established by FAA.

To address this recommendation, FAA tasked the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) on March 30, 2011, to 

provide advice and recommendations on how to prioritize 

rulemaking projects. The ARAC, in turn, established the 

Rulemaking Prioritization Working Group (RPWG) to conduct its 

task. The RPWG developed a rulemaking prioritization model to 

collect and analyze information to prioritize rulemaking projects. 

The model includes:

• A 3-part questionnaire that ensures that the problem is 

defined and factual data are gathered so that weighting and 

scoring of the problem and potential solution can take place; 

and

• A tool that uses the results of the questionnaire to weight and 

score the problem and potential solution within the following 

attributes: safety, environment, capacity, access, 

international, cost/impact, benefit, technology, legislative 

mandate, social impacts, and security effects.

From May to October 2012, the RPWG and FAA subject matter 

experts tested the model by applying it to 12 final rules. As a 

result of the testing, the RPWG made improvements to the 

model. The RPWG submitted a final report recommending that 

FAA adopt the model across its lines of business. FAA accepted 

the recommendation report on January 31, 2013, and the Office 

of Rulemaking formed an implementation team, which drafted a 

plan outlining the process for implementing the RPWG’s 

recommendation. FAA officials stated that the implementation 

team developed a tool that will provide a standardized basis for 

evaluating and prioritizing potential projects. The tool will be used 

by each line of business to evaluate potential rulemaking projects 

for the next fiscal year and will serve as the basis in establishing 

FAA’s forecast list of potential rulemaking projects, which will 

replace the existing 4-Year Look Ahead.a

 

With respect to aligning enforcement policies with SMS, FAA 

officials told us that because SMS was addressed by an earlier 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee and FAA was in the early stages 

of determining its SMS policy when the RPWG was tasked, SMS 

was not addressed by the RPWG. In 2012, FAA issued an order

establishing a safety risk management policy for FAA and, 

according to FAA officials, the rulemaking prioritization team has 

included safety risk management questions in its tool.

Source: FAAC report and GAO analysis of DOT and FAA documents and interviews.

a

The 4-Year Look Ahead provided a list of proposed projects that each line of business was 

considering for submittal to the rulemaking council to initiate rulemaking.

Officials from FAA’s Office of Rulemaking stated that this 

recommendation has been addressed through ARAC and added that the 

DOT’s and FAA’s Planned 

Actions 
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 70 GAO-13-657 Aviation

implementation team is evaluating how to integrate the recommended 

model into the current rulemaking process without creating unnecessary 

redundancies. FAA officials stated they requested external feedback on 

the model through the ARAC, at ARAC’s June 20, 2013, meeting. 

According to FAA officials, ARAC members generally support 

implementation activities and FAA is considering the feedback ARAC 

provided on the tool and future ARAC involvement. FAA plans to beta test 

the model in June 2013 and fully implement it in fiscal year 2014. FAA 

officials stated that the current tool is supported by MS Excel, but noted 

that FAA is developing an automated version of all rulemaking tools and

is including the prioritization model in the requirements.

Four of the six FAAC safety subcommittee members felt the 

recommendation was not fully addressed; two members felt it was 

addressed, although one stated that FAA should take additional actions 

as its work on this recommendation continues, and one member did not 

provide an opinion. One of the subcommittee members who stated the 

recommendation was not addressed, as well as one member who stated 

it was, suggested that FAA should be more transparent about its process. 

Another subcommittee member felt that FAA should communicate more 

with the NTSB when prioritizing rulemakings.63 Another subcommittee 

member stated FAA was making progress, but he was unsure where FAA 

was in the process since receiving the recommendations from the ARAC. 

The remaining member had concerns beyond prioritization of rulemaking, 

such as the clarity of FAA rules and the role of external input versus data 

when crafting rules. 

• Resource constraints. FAA officials noted that budget constraints 

could affect their efforts to implement and automate the model. For 

example, automating the model from current Microsoft Word and 

Excel files will require funding, though FAA officials stated that they 

can use an internal system for the initial implementation.

• Addressing competing interests. Two FAAC subcommittee 

members noted that one challenge to implementing a rulemaking 

 

63This subcommittee member was particularly concerned about FAA’s policy regarding 

child restraint systems in aircraft, which was discussed in the FAAC report under 

recommendation 23. 

FAAC Members’ 

Assessment of DOT’s and 

FAA’s Progress

Challenges in 

Implementing the 

Recommendation
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations 

and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address 

Them

Page 71 GAO-13-657 Aviation

prioritization process is appropriately addressing aviation safety 

issues raised by external parties, such as the public, Congress, the 

DOT Inspector General, and GAO, without shifting FAA’s focus from 

continuing to address other top priority issues.

• Culture change. Two other FAAC subcommittee members noted that 

implementing this recommendation would require a culture change at 

FAA, which could be difficult. For example, one stressed the need for 

FAA to be proactive in addressing safety issues, and the other stated 

that FAA will need to develop a holistic approach toward rulemaking 

that allows it to address issues quickly.

Federal Rulemaking: Agencies Could Take Additional Steps to Respond 

to Public Comments. GAO-13-21. Washington, D.C.: December 20, 2012.

Aviation Safety: Additional FAA Efforts Could Enhance Safety Risk 

Management. GAO-12-898. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2012.

Aviation Safety: Improved Planning Could Help FAA Address Challenges 

Related to Winter Weather Operations. GAO-10-678. Washington, D.C.: 

July 29, 2010.

Aviation Safety: Better Management Controls are Needed to Improve 

FAA’s Safety Enforcement and Compliance Efforts. 

GAO-04-646. Washington, D.C.: July 6, 2004.

Aviation Rulemaking: Incomplete Implementation Impaired FAA’s Reform 

Efforts. GAO-01-950T. Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2001.

Aviation Rulemaking: Further Reform Is Needed to Address Longstanding Problems. GAO-01-821. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2001.

Related Products
Appendix I: Listing of the 23 

Recommendations Made by the Future of 

Aviation Advisory Committee, by Area

Page 72 GAO-13-657 Aviation

Environment

1. Exercise strong national leadership to promote and showcase U.S. 

aviation as a first user of sustainable alternative fuels.

2. Support research and development related to airframe and engine 

technologies.

3. Secure operational and infrastructure improvements (NextGen, 

ground taxi delay management programs, and airport energy 

efficiency and emissions reduction program).

4. Establish a harmonized approach for aviation carbon dioxide emission 

reductions.

Financing

5. Support extending the alternative minimum tax exemption for airport 

private activity bonds.

6. Fund accelerated Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen) equipage of aircraft.

7. Deliver the benefits of NextGen.

8. Review eligibility criteria for the Airport Improvement Program and 

Passenger Facility Charge Program.

Competitiveness and viability

9. Promote the global competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry.

10. Commission an independent study of federal aviation taxes and fees.

11. Ensure transparency in ticket pricing, fees, code-share, contracts of 

carriage, and travel statistics.

12. Support intermodalism by establishing a task force, examining the 

Essential Air Service Program, and recommending that legislation 

prioritize intermodal links.

13. Reform the Essential Air Service program.

14. Continue to be involved in efforts to address jet fuel price volatility.

Labor and world-class workforce

15. Ensure coordination and focus on science, technology, engineering, 

and math education programs.

16. Urge the National Mediation Board to implement the Dunlop II 

recommendations.

Appendix I: Listing of the 23 

Recommendations Made by the Future of 

Aviation Advisory Committee, by Area
Appendix I: Listing of the 23 

Recommendations Made by the Future of 

Aviation Advisory Committee, by Area

Page 73 GAO-13-657 Aviation

17. Implement a semi-annual Aviation Industry Workforce-Management 

Conference.

Aviation Safety

18. Seek legal protections for safety data program participants.

19. Support predictive analytic capabilities for safety data and information.

20. Identify new sources of safety data and establish criteria for inclusion 

in voluntary data-sharing programs.

21. Include safety performance standards and training into NextGen 

planning and implementation.

22. Review and reprioritize FAA’s rulemaking initiatives.

23. Address issues related to child safety for air travel.
Appendix II: Future of Aviation Advisory 

Committee Members

Page 74 GAO-13-657 Aviation

The Department of Transportation (DOT) chartered the Future of Aviation 

Advisory Committee (FAAC) on April 16, 2010, to develop a manageable, 

actionable list of recommendations for DOT. The FAAC included 19 

representatives —1 government official (DOT Assistant Secretary for 

Aviation and International Affairs) and 18 non-government 

representatives—from a cross-section of stakeholders, such as air 

carriers, airports, airline labor unions, manufacturers, and representatives 

from the finance community, academia, and passenger interests. The 

FAAC established five subcommittees to develop recommendations in the 

five areas of interest specified in the FAAC charter: environment, 

financing, competitiveness and viability, labor and workforce, and safety. 

A list of the FAAC members, as well as the subcommittees they served 

on, is provided in table 14.

Table 14: Non-Government FAAC Members

FAAC member Groups represented Subcommittees 

Juan J. Alonso, Associate Professor in the Department of Aeronautics & 

Astronautics, Stanford University

Academic - Environment Environment

Safety

Susan Baer, Director, Aviation Department, Port Authority of New York 

and New Jersey

Airports Competitiveness

Safety

David Barger, President and CEO, JetBlue Airways Corporation Airlines Labor

Safety

Bryan Bedford, Chairman, President & CEO, Republic Airways 

Holdings, Inc.

Airlines Environment

Competitiveness

Severin Borenstein, E.T. Grether Professor of Business Administration 

and Public Policy at the Haas School of Business and Co-Director of 

the Energy Institute at Haas, and Director of the University of California 

Energy Institute

Academic - Economics Finance

Competitiveness

Thella Bowens, President & CEO, San Diego County Regional Airport 

Authority

Airports Finance

Labor

John Conley, International Administrative Vice President, Transport 

Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO

Labor Labor

Safety

Cynthia Egnotovich, President for Customer Service, UTC Aerospace 

Systems 

Manufacturers Environment

Labor

Patricia Friend, Retired (former International President, Association of 

Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO)

Labor Competitiveness

Labor 

Robert Lekites, Executive Vice President, Customers, Airbus (former 

President of United Parcel Service Airlines)

Airlines Labor

Safety

Ana McAhron-Schulz, Director of Economic and Financial Analysis, Air 

Line Pilots Association 

Labor Competitiveness

Labor

Appendix II: Future of Aviation Advisory 

Committee Members
Appendix II: Future of Aviation Advisory 

Committee Members

Page 75 GAO-13-657 Aviation

FAAC member Groups represented Subcommittees 

William McGee, Travel and Aviation Consultant for Consumers Union Consumers Competitiveness

Safety

Daniel McKenzie, Analyst, Buckingham Research Group Analyst - Finance Finance

Competitiveness

Jack Pelton, Managing Director for Aviation Alliance LLC (former 

Chairman, President, and CEO, Cessna Aircraft Company)

General Aviation Finance

Competitiveness

Nicole Piasecki, Vice President for Propulsion, Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes

Manufacturers Environment

Safety 

Raul Regalado, Principal, Raul Regalado and Associates (former 

President & CEO, Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority)

Airports Environment

Finance

Glenn Tilton, Vice Chairman at JPMorgan Chase (former Chairman, 

President & CEO of UAL Corporation—United Airlines)

Airlines Finance

Competitiveness 

Christopher J. Williamsa

Chairman, CEO and founder of The Williams Capital Group, L.P. and 

Williams Capital Management, LLC

Finance Finance

Competitiveness

Source: GAO analysis of DOT documents.

a

Mr. Williams was not available for an interview.
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 76 GAO-13-657 Aviation

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

In addition to the contact named above the following individuals made 

important contributions to this report: Heather Krause (Assistant Director); 

Amy Abramowitz; Melissa Bodeau; Anne Dore; Kevin Egan; Crystal 

Huggins; Bert Japikse; Aaron Kaminsky; Bill Keller; Tim Minelli; SaraAnn 

Moessbauer; Susan Offutt; Paul Revesz; Marylynn Sergent; Gretchen 

Snoey; Pamela Vines; and Jessica Wintfeld.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(540254)
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.