### United States Government Ac countabilit y Office 

# GAO Report to the Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives


# U.S. AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

Progress in Implementing Aerospace Commission Recommendations, and Remaining Challenges September 2006

GAO-06-920

### What GAO Found

**United States Government Accountability Office** 

### Why GAO Did This Study 

# H ighlights **Accountability Integrity Reliability Septe**  **m ber 200**  **6** 

# U.S. AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
**Progress in Implementing Aerospace Commission Recommendations, and**  **Remai n**  **ing Challenges** Highlights of GA O-06 -920 , a repo rt to the Ranking De mocratic Member, Subcommittee o n Aviation, Com m ittee on Tran sportation a nd Infra s tru c tu re, House of Repre s entati v es

The U.S. aero space indus tr y’s wid e

ran g i n g ac ti vi ti es—i n c l udi n g

comm er ci al a v i a ti on, n a ti o n al security, an d space explor ation—

ma ke it critica l to the ec onomic he al th a nd s t r a t e gi c s t r e n g t h o f o u r

na ti on. H o w e ve r, th e i n d u s t ry f

a ces ch al l e n ges , su ch as a na ti on al ai r tra ffi c m a n a g e m e nt sys t em th at , in its pr esent fo r m , canno t h a ndle
exp e ct ed i n cr eas e s i n d e m a nd; an agi n g a e ros p a c e wo rkf o r c e ; an d an i n cr easi n gl y c o mp eti t i v e gl obal mark et. In res pons e to th es e and oth e r ch al l e n ges , Co ngr e ss establish e d th e Com m ission on the Futu re of the United States Ae rospac e Indust r y in 200 1 t o

r e c o mme n d po te n t ia l act i on s by t h e fe de ra l g o v e r n me nt a n d o t h e r s to s upp ort a r obus t aer osp a ce industr y in th e 21s t centur y. In 2002, th e Co mmission m a de

recomm en dations to addr ess th es e ch al l e n ges

. This repor t di scuss e s ( 1 ) th e ex tent to whi c h f e d e ral ag en ci es h a v e add r ess e d sel e c t ed Co mmi ssi on

recomm en dations and (2) the ch al l e n ges t h at re mai n i n

a d dr e ssing t h e rec o mme nda t i on s. Based o n the opinions of fo rmer Commissioners and GAO r e sear ch
, G A O se l e ct ed rec o mmendat i ons dealing with the nation al airspace system, space policy, governmentwide manageme n t st ruc t ure , inte rnationa l i ssu e s , the ae rospace work f or ce, an d r e sear ch an d develo p m e nt. This r e po rt is bas e d

on r e vi ews of ag en c y d o c u men t s, literatur e, an d inter v iews with

a e rospac e expe rt s a n d of f i c i a l s f r om re l e va nt fe de ra l ag encie s

. Federa l a gen cie s ha ve t a ken act ions that address s e lect ed Comm ission

recomm enda tions to vary i ng degr ees , f r om establishing new offices, programs, an d policies to changing exis ting programs or policies; however, the actions t h e ag enc i es have t a ken a r e stil l in the earl y st ag es of implem entati on. For instance, the cr eation of the Joint Planning and Deve lopment Office (JPD O) addresse s the recom m e ndation to establish an interag e ncy office to plan a new, hi ghl y automated air traffi c m a nagem ent syste m ; howev er, JPDO f a c e s chall e n ges in l e v e ra ging r e sourc e s and maintainin g t h e commitment of nonfed er al stakeholders. Additio n ally, the National A e ronautics and Space Ad m i nistration (NASA) cre a ted a directorate t o implem ent the Presid ent’s new sp ace exploration policy, which addresses the Commission’s sp ace exploration recommendation. Aerospac e e xperts told us that they b e li ev e this m ay ne gat iv ely affect other space exploration programs that have signifi cant b e nefits. Chan ges to existing programs include NASA’s rest ructuring of its aeronautics research program and FAA’s attempts to increase the U.S. pr esen ce in international aviation partnerships. Federal agencies have taken few, if an y, a c tions to address othe r Commis s io n’s recom m e ndations, suc h as creat ing a governm ent-wide man a g e m ent structure for aerosp a c e

.

Chall e nge s r e ma in for federal a gen cies in further addressing the Commission’s recommen dations, including deal ing with difficu lt budgetary trade-offs an d collaborati n g on actions involving m u ltip le a gen c i es. For exampl e, fed e ral a genc i es may hav e to giv e priority to some prog rams that address Commission reco mmendations at the expense of other programs because of budget limitations . In addition, with multip le agencies involved in the U.S. aero s pace industry, a lack of coordination among them, aerospace companies, and universities could re su lt in duplicat ion and inefficient

resource leveraging. GAO provided a d r aft of this report to t h e relevant federal agen cies. The Department of Defense had no comments; the other ag enci es gen eral ly concurred with the re port, but p r ovided clarifications and technical comments, which GAO in co rporated as appropriate.

**Propose d**  **Car g**  **o La unc**  **h Vehicl e wit**  **h L**  **unar La**  **nder Is a n**  **Exa m**  **ple o f**  **Aeros p**  **ac e Research**  **and D evelo**  **p me**  **nt**

S o u rce s : NA S A; John Fr assa nitio a nd A ss oci a te s

. www.gao.g o v/ cgi

- bin/getrpt? GA O-06-920

.

To view t he full product, including the scope and methodolog y, click on the link above. For mo re informa t ion, conta c t Gerald L. Dillingham at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov

.

# Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 Background 5 Federal Age n cies Have Addressed Commission Recommendations to Varying D egrees throu g h Different Types of Act i ons 10 Federal Age n cies Fac e Challeng es in Addressing the Commission’s R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s 2 9 Concluding Observations 33 Agency Comments 34



### Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 36



### Appendi x II Aeros p ace Res ear ch and Dev e lopment Funding Trends 39
Aerospace R&D Includes a Wide Ran ge of Activiti es 39 Federal Sup port of R&D Remains Critical to the Aerospace I n d u s t r y 4 0 Objectives o f Federal Fu nding for Ae rospace R&D Differ by Agency and Mission 41



### Appendix III Federal Actions Th at Addr ess Selected Aeros p ace Commission Recommendations 48



### Ap pendi x IV Joi n t Planni ng and Development Of fice 71

Role of the J o int Plannin g and Devel opment Office in the Nat i onal Airspace Sy stem Modernization 71 JPDO Organization Structure and Par t ner Agencie s 72 JPDO’s Inte grated Plan 74 JPDO Efforts to Leverag e Partner Ag ency Resour ces 74 JPDO Is Inv o lving Nonf ederal Stak e holders 75



### Appendi x V Com m ent s from the Department of Labor 76

Page i GA O

- 0 6

- 9 2 0 A e rospace Co mm issio n

### Appendi x VI Comment s from th e Nati onal Aero nautics and Space Administration 77



### Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 79



### Tables

Table 1: Su mmary of Aerospace Co mmission Recommendations 9 Table 2: Grants Awarded by Labor fo r Aerospace Workforce P r o j e c t s 1 9 Table 3: Reshaped Strate gy of NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 24 Table 4: Experts Providing Input dur ing Our Revi ew 37 Table 5: JPDO’s Strategies and Responsible Agen cies 74



### Figures
Figure 1: F e deral Fundi ng for Industrial R&D in the Aerospace I n d u s t r y 7 Figure 2: Ke y Federal En tities for Selected Re co mmendations 11 Figure 3: Ex tent to Whic h Select ed R ecommendations Have Been A d d r e s s e d 1 2 Figure 4: JP DO’s Seven Partner Age n cies 14 Figure 5: Pr oposed Cargo Launch V e hicle with L unar Lander Is an Example of Aerospace R&D 17 Figure 6: Pr ojected Tren ds in Major Aerospace-Related Missions within NASA, Fiscal Ye ars 2005– 20 11 31 Figure 7: Defense Budget for Science and Techno logy for Air and Space Pl atfo rms, Fiscal Years 2001 -2 005 42 Figure 8: De fense Budge t Authority for Basic and Applied Research, a nd for Devel opment, Fiscal Ye ars 19 99–2 007 43 Figure 9: Actual and Pro j ected Fundi ng Trends in Major AerospaceRelated Missions within NASA, Fiscal Years 200 5 –201 1 44 Figure 10: NASA’s Budget Authority for Basic an d Applied Research, a nd for Devel opment, Fiscal Ye ars 19 99–2 007 45 Figure 11: FAA Outlays for R&D, Including R&D for Facilities and Equipment, Fiscal Years 1999 –20 07 47 Figure 12: Global Positioning System Display Scre en Used in Capstone Program 51

Page ii G A O

- 0 6

- 9 2 0 A e rospace Co mm issio nFigure 13: In formation Regarding th e Moon and Mars 56 Figure 14: P r oposed Advanced Orbit a l Transfer Propulsion T e c h n o l o g y 5 7 Figure 15: ASTS Membership 59 Figure 16: Engineers at NASA Langley Research Center 68 Figure 17: Computational Fluid Dyna mic Image of the Hyper- X Vehicle 6 9 Figure 18: NASA Glen Research Cen t er’s Research on Aircra ft N o i s e 7 0 Figure 19: JPDO Organization Chart 73

Abbreviations

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast ASTS Aeronautics, Science, an d Technolo g y Subcommittee ATO Air Traffic Organization DOT Department of Transportation FAA Federal Aviation Administration ICAO International Civil Aviati on Organization IPT integrated p r oduct team JPDO Joint Planning and Development Office NASA National Aeronautics an d Space Administration NGATS next gen erat ion air transportation system OSTP Office Scien ce and T ech nology Poli c y R&D research an d develo p ment RNP required nav i gation perf ormance SESAR Single Euro pean Air Tra ffic Manage ment Research Programme SMART Science and Mathematic s Access to Retain Talent STEM science, t e chnology, engineering an d mathematics

T his is a work of the U.S. government a nd is not subject to copyrig h t prote c tion in the United States. It may be repro duce d and dist r ibute d in its en tirety without fu rther permissi on fro m G A O

. Howe ver, becaus e this work may c ontai n copyri gh ted imag es or other materi al, permissi on fro m the copyrig h t holder may b e necess a ry if you wish to reprod uce this material se par ately.

P a g e i ii G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onUnit ed Stat e s Governm e nt Acco unta b ility Off i ce Wash ingto n , DC 205 48

September 1 3 , 20 06

The Honorable Jerry F. Costello Ranking Democratic Member Subcommittee on Avi a ti on Committee on Transportation and In frastructure House of Representative s The Honorable Jerry F. Costello Ranking Democratic Member Subcommittee on Avi a ti on Committee on Transportation and In frastructure House of Representative s

Dear Mr. Co stello:

The U.S. aer ospace indu stry is critical to the eco nomic healt h and strate gic strength of the nation. T h e industry’ s wide-ranging acti v ities

— including aircraft manufacturing a nd commercial avi ation

— make it a major contributor to U.S. econ o mic growth. The Aerospace Industri e s Association estimates that the indus t r y employs approximately 625,000 people with sales of approximately $170 billio n i n 2005. This economic benefit is in part due to t h e United St ates’ glob al l eadership in the developmen t of a robust commercial aviation in d u stry, the in dustry’s employment of a highl y s k illed and tr ained workforce, and the manufacture of civil and defense a e rospace prod ucts. These f actors have allowed the U.S. aerospace industry t o produce si gnificant im provements in science, t echnology, and national security in and beyond t h e aerospace field. For example, the global posit ioning system uses satellites, ground control net w orks, and user equipment to provi d e navi gatio nal information for land, sea
, and airbor ne navi gatio n; surveying and mappin g ; farming; telecommunications; and a wide var iety of other applications. The U.S. aer ospace indu stry is critical to the eco nomic healt h and strate gic strength of the nation. T h e industry’ s wide-ranging acti v ities

— including aircraft manufacturing a nd commercial avi ation

— make it a major contributor to U.S. econ o mic growth. The Aerospace Industri e s Association estimates that the indus t r y employs approximately 625,000 people with sales of approximately $170 billio n i n 2005. This economic benefit is in part due to t h e United St ates’ glob al l eadership in the developmen t of a robust commercial aviation in d u stry, the in dustry’s employment of a highl y s k illed and tr ained workforce, and the manufacture of civil and defense a e rospace prod ucts. These f actors have allowed the U.S. aerospace industry t o produce si gnificant im provements in science, t echnology, and national security in and beyond t h e aerospace field. For example, the global posit ioning system uses satellites, ground control net w orks, and user equipment to provi d e navi gatio nal information for land, sea
, and airbor ne navi gatio n; surveying and mappin g ; farming; telecommunications; and a wide var iety of other applications.

However, the aerospace industry faces a host of challen ges, such as a national air t r affic manag e ment system that, in its present form, lacks the capacit y to handle e xpe cted incre a ses in air traff i c; an aging aerospace industry wo rkforce; and an increasingly competit ive glob al market that may threate n the U.S. in dustry’s tr aditional lead e r ship in aerospace manufacturing. Accordin g to the F e d e ral Aviatio n Administration (FAA), the demand for both passenger and cargo air service will cont inue to grow for the foreseeable future, and th ese increases will place a greater strain on the curre nt national a i rspace syst em—increasing airspace congestion and delays, and resulting in negati ve economic effects. Additionally, th e government has reported that an estimated 26 pe rcent of aer ospace workers will be eligible t o retire by 2008, and there are con c erns about the availability of sufficientl y trained workers to fill these positions. Furthermore, the indust r y has reported havin g d i fficulty not only retainin g However, the aerospace industry faces a host of challen ges, such as a national air t r affic manag e ment system that, in its present form, lacks the capacit y to handle e xpe cted incre a ses in air traff i c; an aging aerospace industry wo rkforce; and an increasingly competit ive glob al market that may threate n the U.S. in dustry’s tr aditional lead e r ship in aerospace manufacturing. Accordin g to the F e d e ral Aviatio n Administration (FAA), the demand for both passenger and cargo air service will cont inue to grow for the foreseeable future, and th ese increases will place a greater strain on the curre nt national a i rspace syst em—increasing airspace congestion and delays, and resulting in negati ve economic effects. Additionally, th e government has reported that an estimated 26 pe rcent of aer ospace workers will be eligible t o retire by 2008, and there are con c erns about the availability of sufficientl y trained workers to fill these positions. Furthermore, the indust r y has reported havin g d i fficulty not only retainin g

P a g e 1 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onits existing workforce, but also attracting youn g people int o the field. Finally, in creased glob al competition from both foreign companies and governments will place even more p r essure on the industry. For example, the European Union pub lished two reports—ST AR-21 1 and V i sion 2020 2

— that establish European aerospace p o licy obj ecti ves, includin g the use of government resources to pursue glob al lead ership by Europe an aerospac e companies.

In response to these and other chall e nges, Congr e ss established the Commission on the Futu re of the Uni t ed States A e rospace In dustry (the Commission) in 2001 to study the issues associate d with the future of this industry in the global economy, and to recommend potential actions by the federal government to support the maintenan ce of a robust aerospace industry in the 21st cent ury. 3 In 20 02, the Commission made recommendations to ad dress these challen ges. 4 Some of the recommend ations proposed by the C o mmission included tran sforming the national air t r ansportation system, creating a U.S. space ex plo r ation imperative, creating a government-wi de management structure to support
aerospace, e s tablishing a level p l ayin g field for th e United Sta t es in global markets, promoting the g r owth of the U.S. aerospace workforce, and increasing g o vernment investment in aer ospace research an d develo p ment (R&D ).

You asked u s to determine the status of federal actions that address the Commission ’s recommendations. Accordingly, thi s report focuses on the following qu estions: (1) To what extent hav e fed e ral ag encie s addressed selected Co mmission re commendations? (2 ) What chall e nge s remain in addressing these recommendations?

To address these two questions, we obtained a n d analyzed i n formation from a variety of source s. We review ed the rel e v a nt empirica l literature t o understand the circumstances under which the Commission was formed

1 Euro pean Unio n, S t ra tegi c Aerosp a ce Revi e w for th e 2 1 s t Centu r y (S TA R-2 1 ) ( B ru ssels, Belgium: July 2 002).

2 Euro pean Unio n, Eu r o pe an Ae r o n a u t ics : A V i s i on for 2020 (Brussels, Be lgium: Jan. 2001).

3 Section 1092 of Pub. L. No. 106 -398, Floyd D. Spence National Defense A u thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.

4 Commis s i on on the F u t ure of t h e U n ited States Aeros pace I n dus try, Fi na l Rep o rt (Arlington, Va.: Nov

. 2002 ).

P a g e 2 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onand to devel op the cont ext and persp ective of the issues facing the aerospace in dustry. We i n terviewed f i ve of twelve former Commission members and the former Commission’s executi v e director to obtain their opinions on which of the specific recommendations are the most important. Since each of the former Co mmissione rs is an expert in specific aerospace is sues the Commission examined, we selected th e s e former Commissioners to ensure cov e rage o f all Commission recommendations. Using their opinions an d our research, we selected recommendations th at address transforming the national ai r transportation system, creating a U.S. space e xploration i m perative, c r eating a go vernment-wide management structure to support a nati onal aerospace policy, establishi ng a lev e l pla y i n g field for t h e United St ates in glob a l markets, promoting the growth of the U.S. aeros pace work force, and in creasing go ver nment investment in aerospace R&D. To determine the e x tent to which federal agenci es ad dressed the selected re c o mmendations and the c h alleng es that remain, we interviewed officials from FAA; the Departments of Defense (Defense), Labor (Labor), and Transportation (DOT); the National Aeronautics and Space A d ministratio n (NASA); the White Ho use Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); private aerospace co mpanies; and industry associations. In addition, w e anal yzed agency budget documents, strategic plans, briefings on federal agency action s , and our p a st work describing c h alleng es that age ncies f ace in imple m enting the selected recommendations. With the assistance of the Nat i onal Acad e m y of Sciences, we identified experts in th e fields of n a tional air tr ansportation systems, U.S. space expl oration, gov e rnment aerospace man agement structure, U.S. aerospac e workforce and educati o n, and a e rospace R&D. We then int e rviewed these experts to obtain thei r views about the extent to which fed e ral actions have addressed the sele cted Commission recommend ations, and about the ch allen ges that l i e ahead. Th ese experts are listed in appendix I. We did not analyze the validity of th e Commission ’s recommendations, and our work does not take a position on, or represent an endo rsement of, the recommendations. We conduct e d our work from August 2005 through S e ptember 20 06 in a ccord ance with generall y ac cepted gove rnment auditing standar d s. Additional information on our scope and metho dology appears in appen d ix I.

Federal agencies have t a ken actions that addres s selected C o mmission recommendations to var ying de grees , from establishing new offices, programs, and policies t o changi ng existing programs or policies; however, th e actions the agen cies have ta k e n are still in the early stages o f implementation. For example, the Commission’s recommendation to establish a f e deral inter d epartmental group to pl an a new, hi ghly 

# Results in Brief

P a g e 3 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onautomated a i r traffic management sy st em was addressed by the creation of the Joint Planning a n d Development Office (JPDO), whic h consists of seven fed e ra l agen cies, i n cluding FA A, NASA, and Defense. H o wever, JPDO faces challen ges i n levera g ing partner agen cy resources and maintaining commitment from nonfeder al stakeh olders as it moves forward in planning the new air traffic managem ent system. In addition, the Presiden t issued a ne w space exp l oration poli cy and NAS A created a directorate t o implement the policy, r ealignin g some programs and funds to do so. Both the new p o licy and th e directorat e address the broad Commission recommendation to cre a t e a spac e i m perative. Other new efforts include a jobs training init iati ve and education programs that address the broad Commission rec o mmendation to promote the growth of the U.S. aer ospace workforce. Labo r and the De partment of Education have provi d ed grant fun d ing for thes e efforts, ho wever, there are questio n s about the im pact of the grants. Changes to existing programs include NASA’s restructuring of i t s aeronauti c s research program, wh ich addresses the specific Commi ssion recommendation to incre a se the federal focu s on long-ter m aerospace research; F AA’s revisions to its rule making and airport environmental r eview proced ures, which address the specific Co mmission re commendations to streamline the re gulatory and airport revie w processes; and FAA’s attempts to increase the U.S. presence in i n ternational aviation par t nerships, which addresses the specific Commi ssion re commendation to commit to internati onal partnerships. Federal agencies have take n few, if any, actions to address other Commission recommendations such as reforming exports control policies and establishing a national ae rospace poli cy.

A number of challen ges r e main for fede ral ag enci es in further addressing the Commission’s recommendations, including d ealing with difficult budgetary tr ade-offs and collaboratin g on acti ons involving multiple agenci es. Fe deral ag enci es may not g i ve priority t o programs that address Commission recommendations becau se of budget limitations. Such budgetary tr ade-offs are all the more likely if impl ementing a recommend ation requir es launching or expandin g large, expensive programs. NASA has already reali g ne d some programs that address the Commission ’s recommendations—such as the recommendation to create a U.S. space i m perative—and, in so do ing, has had to make some difficult budgetary p r ioritization decisions. Si nce multiple federal a g e n cies are involved in t h e U.S. aero s pace indust r y, a lack of coordinatio n among federal a gen cies, aerosp ace companies, and univ e rsities could result in duplicating efforts and not levera g in g resources efficiently

. F o r example, our prior wo rk has shown that c oord i nation of federal science, technology, engineering, and mathem atics education programs has been

P a g e 4 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onlimited, and that better coordination be tween fed e ral ag encie s could help the ag encies to better en courage stu d ents to pursue careers i n science, technology, engineering, and mathemat ics. We p r ovided a dr aft of this report to the Departments of Defens e, Labor, and Transportation, NASA, and the Offi ce of Sci e nce Technolo g y Policy f o r their review and comment. The Department of Defen s e had no co mments, an d the other agenci es ge nerally con c urred with the report, b u t provided clarification s and techni cal comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

The impact of the aeros pace ind u stry on the U.S. economy is significant, with the industry estima ting $170 bill ion in sales and approxi mately 625, 000 p e o p le employe d in 20 05. 5 The importance of this industry to the U.S. economy will continue to grow in the future. According t o FAA, the U.S. commercial aircraft fleet is esti mated to grow from 7,836 in 20 05 to 10,6 77 in 20 17. Both pas s enger cap a c ity and car go operation s are expect ed to continue t o grow, with passenger capacity in 2007 increasing by 4.6 perc ent and then in c r easing by a n avera ge of 4.2 p e rcent per year unti l 2017. FAA estimates that over 1 billi on passengers will use U.S. airports by 2015 . Domestic cargo re v e nue-ton miles are proje c ted to in cre a se at an averag e ann u al rate of 3. 2 percent un til 201 7, ex c eeding 23 bil lion. Furthermore, the U.S. a e rospace in dustry consistently shows a foreign trade surplus—reaching $31 billio n i n 2004. Aero space expor ts constituted 6.9 percent of the total value of U.S.- e xported merchandise in 2004.

The federal government is involved i n many aspe cts of aerospace, suc h a s civil a v iatio n transportation manage ment, nation al security, s p ace exploration, and related R&D. FAA, NASA, and Defense are major federal agenci es sig n ificantly in volved in ae rospace acti v ities. 6 

# Background

Role of Government and Industry i n Aerospace Is Significant

• FAA is resp onsible for maintaining a sa fe and ef ficient natio n al airspace system by managin g the nation’s air t r affic contro l system, which comprises a vast network of rada rs; automated d a ta processi ng, navigati on, and communications equi p me nt; and f acilities. As manager of the air traffi c control system, FAA pr ovides servi ces such as controlling

5 Aeros pace I n d u s t ries As s o ciation, Ae r o s

pac e : F a c t s an d F i gu r e s 2005-20 0 6 (Arlington
, Va.: 2005).

6 Other fe deral a gencies involved in t h e ae ros p ace indus try to s o me extent ar e the Departments of Commerce
, H o meland Sec urit y , and State.

P a g e 5 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi ontakeoffs and landings an d managing the flow of traffic between airports. In addition, FA A serves as the national aviation regulatory auth ority and implements and enforce s safety regu la tions that i n clude certifications of aircraft, airc raft operatio n s, and avi at ion pilots an d mechanics

.

• NASA is responsible for the nation’s ci vil space and aeronauti c s efforts. In this role, NASA conducts human expl oration of space, conduct s R&D in aeronautics and space technologies, and condu ct s R&D to advance and communicate scientific k nowledge. N A SA’s programs encompass a broad range of c o mplex and t echnic a l acti v ities—from investigatin g the composition and resources of Mars t o providing satellite and aircraft observation s of Earth for scientific p u rposes and weather forecasting.

• Defense is responsible for national s ecurity and purchases a variety of
aerospace p r oducts from the private s ector such as aircraft, satellites, missiles, spa ce laun ch systems, a nd supporting products. Defense also manages a b r oad array o f space a c tiv i ties, includi ng the d evel opment of space laun ch vehicl e s and satellites used for co mmunication; navi gatio n; intelligence, surveillance, and reconn aissance; and weather monitoring.

The private sector provides aer ospace products and services . For example, U. S. companies manufactur e aerospace products t h at include commercial and military aircraft, satellit es, and ai r traffic infrastructure systems. Co mmercial airlines provid e domestic a nd internati onal avi atio n passenger se rvice. Softw are and elec tronics companies prod uce a v ionics and other el ectronic syst ems that are used in all t y pes of aero s pace products. To provide these products and services , companies rely on a highly skilled workforce of approxi mately 625,000 employees, including manufacturing techni cia n s, aerospac e engin eers, and scientist s

.

R&D enables the advan cement of aer ospace tech nologies, an d funding fo r it will continue to be necessary if the industry is to maintain it s global competitive n ess and meet future needs. Traditionally, the federal government has provided significant funding for aerospace R &D (see fig. 1). However, federal R&D investmen ts in some areas of aerospace, l i k e aeronautics, are in de cli n e. For exa m ple, NASA estimates that its 200 6 direct aeronautics R&D budget will d ecline by approximately 43 percent from 2002, t h e time of p ublication of the Commission report. Conversely, R&D fundin g is increasi n g in space e xploration areas as well as defenserelated are a s such as bal listic mi ssile defense an d defense-rel a ted 

## Governm ent Fundi ng of Aerospace R&D Is Significant, but T r ends in Funding Differ am ong Agencies

P a g e 6 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onaeronautics. 7 Additional i n formation on federal government R&D fundin g trends appears in appen d ix II.

**Figure 1: Federal Fundi ng f**  **o r Industri**  **al R&D in the Aerospace Industry**

Despite the economic i m portance of the aerosp ace industry, many challen ges f ace both gov e rnment and private indu stry in maintaining the industry’s health. First, t h e current approach to managing ai r transportation is becoming increasin gly ineffi cie n t and opera tionally obsolete. The government will be faced with transforming t h e U.S. air traffic management system to acco mmodate expected in cre a ses in demand while ensuring t h e continu e d safety and security of t h e flying public. Se co nd, giv e n th e terrorist attacks of Sep t ember 11, 2 001, th e U.S. government has had to r eevalu a te w h ether existi ng arms export-control policies support national security an d foreign pol icy go als. Fi nally, th e U.S.

**0 2**  **4 6**  **8 10**  **12**

**2003 2002**  **2001 2000**  **1999**

S o u rce: N a tion a l S cience Fo u nd a tion. **Con s**  **tant fi s**  **cal year 2005 dollar s**  **in billion s** 



## Aerospace Industry Facing Multiple Challenges

7 T h e Depa rtmen t of Homeland Security als o f u nds a va riety of R&D activities, including some related t o aviation securi ty. These acti vities are overse en by the Depa rtment of Homeland Sec urity’s Scienc e and Technolog y Directorate. This directorat e requested approximately $1 billion for fi scal year 2007, but t h ese funds are primarily f or homeland security-capabilities R&D.

P a g e 7 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onaerospace w o rkforce is a g ing and a si gnificant p e rcentag e of t h e aerospace w o rkforce will be eli g ible to retire by 2008. Theref ore, the industry mu st attract, train, and ret a in new work ers with the engineering, science, and technical capabilities it needs. But recent trends show declines in t h e future su pply of such workers. For example, t h e Commission highlighted that the number of docto rate degrees awarded annually in engineering h a d declin ed by 15 p e rcen t from the mid 1990s.

To confront these chall e nges, the U. S. Congress established t h e Commission and ga ve it a broad man d ate to stud y the he alth of the aerospace in dustry and recommend actions that the U.S. gov e rnment should take to ensure th e industry’s future healt h . Congress directed the Commission to take an i n tegrated, l o ng-term vie w of the enti re aerospac e industry from the perspective of government, industry, labor, and academia. T h erefore, its 12 member s came from manufacturing firms, industry groups, aerospace c onsultan c ies, financi a l institutions, and labor groups with expertise in space and aeronautics i n both civil and defense areas. In 2002, the Commission issue d its final report on the major challen ges f acing th e U. S. aerospa ce industry an d recommended actions to address these chall e nges . The Commission’s recommendations covered a wide variety of aerospace issues and included bot h broad government policy reco mmendations and specifi c actions for individual f e deral agenci es. 8 For example, o n e recommendation cal l e d for the U n ited States to pioneer n e w frontiers in aerospace while anoth e r recommendation specifically called for F AA to reform its certification proces s. Table 1 provides a s u mmary of some of the major issue areas identif i ed by th e Commission report, as well as some challenges an d nine broad recommend ations made by the Commission to a ddress the issues. 

## Aerospace Commission Made Recommendations to Address Challenges

8 Federal agenci es were not req u ired t o imple m ent any of the Commission’s recommendati ons.

P a g e 8 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi on**T a**  **b l**  **e 1: Su mmary o**  **f Ae**  **ro s**  **p ace Co**  **mmis s**  **io n**  **Reco mmen**  **d a**  **tio n**  **s**

**Area ad**  **d ress**  **ed Samp**  **le o f**  **ch allen**  **g es id**  **en tified**  **b y**  **th e Commissio**  **n Su**  **mmar y**  **o f**  **bro a**  **d reco**  **mm en**  **d a**  **tio n**  **made by the Commission** Aerosp ace visi on U.S. leaders h i p in the gl ob al aeros pace i n d u stry is in jeo p a rdy, in part bec aus e the U.S. aero s pace sector l a cks capital investme n t, inn ovatio n, and ca pacity for growt h ; and forei gn competitors ar e incre asin gly i m pleme n tin g p olici e s to gai n glob al mark et share i n comme rcial avi a tion. T he Unite d States shoul d pio n eer ne w frontiers in a e r o spac e techn o l ogy, commerce, an d expl oratio n.

Nation al a i r transportation system America’s a i r transp o rtation sy stem faces seri ous cha lle nges ; the commercia l air transport s ystem is beco m ing u npre dict able beca u se the cu rrent air traffic system is appr oachi ng gr idl oc k, regul atory proc esses hav e fail ed to keep pac e with rap idly evolvi ng tech n olog ies, an d en vironme n tal lim its on nois e an d emissio n s restrict airport runw ay deve lopm en t. T r ansformatio n of the U.S. air transportati on system shoul d be a nati o n al p r iority.

U.S. space pol i cy T he natio n faces limitat io ns to space pr ogre s s, such as the signific ant exp ense to get to orbit, a hostil e and h igh ly limit ed enviro n me nt once in or bit, an d lack of a strong pu blic advoc acy for moving ahe ad. T he Unite d States shoul d crea t e a space imperativ e, throug h gover nm ent and pr ivate sector partners hips, to enh anc e natio nal security, stimul ate the eco n o m y, explore th e univers e , and ope n up sp ace for new commercia l op portun i ties.

Nation al sec u ri ty T oday’s mil i tar y capab iliti e s a r e robust, but a t significa n t risk. T hey rely on p l a tforms and an industri al bas e —measure d in both hum an ca pital a nd phys i cal fa ciliti e s—that are ag ing a nd increas in gly in ade quate. T he Unite d States shoul d ad o p t a policy that invig orates a n d sustains the a e rosp ace industri al b a se and i n clu des re moving barriers to int er natio nal sa les of defense prod ucts, removing b a rriers to defense procurem ent of commercial pr oducts an d services, an d transferrin g defe n se techno logy to t he civil sect or. Government-wide

mana geme n t structure T he hea lth an d future of the aerosp a ce in dus try will dep en d on the federa l gov ernment b ein g able to effici ent ly and effective l y serve as le ade r, customer an d oper ator, facilitator, and investor. T he federa l go vernment sh ou ld estab lish a natio nal a e ros pace p olicy a n d promote

aeros pace by c r eatin g a gover nment-wi de

mana geme n t structure.
O pen an d fair glob al markets F o reign gover n m ents or coal iti ons of countri e s are distortin g the aeros pace market throug h polici e s, regu l a tions, or subsid ies that provid e forei g n competitors wi th a competitiv e adva n tage. F ederal r egu lat ions a nd po lici e s shou ld be reformed to en able th e move ment of prod ucts and c apital across in ternatio nal bord e rs on a fu lly competitiv e basis a nd to establis h a lev el play in g field for U.S. industry i n the glob al mark etpl ace.
A new bus ines s model for the aerosp a c e sector T he aeros pace industry has b een ch aracteri zed as a lo wgrowth sector, chronic ally h a m pered by hig h cyclical ity, low margins, reve n ue insta bil ity, and in ade qu ate returns on investme n t, amplifie d by the u n certai nty in the gover nment bud getin g an d acquis itio n pro c ess. A new bus ines s model, with i n creas ed an d sustain ed gov e r nment inv estment and the ado ption of p oli cies that stimul ate the flow of capital i n to the industry, sho u l d be des ign ed to promote a h ealthy a nd gro w ing U.S.

aeros pace i n d u stry. U.S. aerospac e workforce T here is a maj o r workforce cr isis in the a e ro space i ndustry. O v er 600,00 0 scientific a nd technic al a e ros pace j obs hav e bee n lost since 1998, an d the s e losses, cou pled w i th pe ndi ng retirements, re prese n t a loss of skill, experi e n ce, and intell ectua l cap i tal to the ind us try. T he natio n sho uld imme diat el y reverse the decli ne i n , and promote the gr owth of, a scientifica lly a n d techno log ical ly traine d U.S.

aeros pace w o r k force.

P a g e 9 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi on**Area ad**  **d ress**  **ed Samp**  **le o f**  **ch allen**  **g es id**  **en tified**  **b y**  **th e Commissio**  **n Su**  **mmar y**  **o f**  **bro a**  **d reco**  **mm en**  **d a**  **tio n**  **made by the Commission** U.S. aerospac e R&D T he lack of sufficient a nd sust aine d pu blic fu ndin g for resea r ch and ass o ciate d infrastructure for researc h , de velopm ent, testing, and ev aluati on l i mits t he nati on’s a bil ity to address critical nati o n a l challe ng es an d to enab le br e a kthrou gh

aeros pace ca p abil ities. T he federa l go vernment sh ou ld sign ifica n tly increas e its inv estment in bas i c aerosp a ce research, w hic h enh ances U. S. nationa l security; ena bl es breakthr oug h capa bil ities; and fosters an efficient, secur e , and safe

aeros pace tran sportatio n system.

Sour ce: C o m m i ssi on r epor t.

Additionally, since the p ublication of the Commission report, other studies by such orga nizations as the National Academy of Scienc es an d the National Institute of Aerospace also provided inf o rmation on the importance of the aeros pace ind u stry, alon g with challen ges and recommendations for ad dressing the issues. 9

The federal government has addressed a number of the Commission’s recommendations; however, the extent to which it has done s o varies significantly across the i ndividual re commendations. Figure 2 identifies the key f e de ral entities t h at hav e tak e n steps to a ddress the recommend ations or, because of thei r missions, were identified by th e Commission as the entiti es that would be responsible for addr essing the recommendations. 

# Federal Agencies Have Addressed Commission Recom m endations to V

a

rying Degrees through Different T

y

pes of Actions

9 National Res e a r ch C ouncil of t h e Natio n al Ac ademy of Scien ces , Dec adal Su r v e y of Civil Aerona uti c s: F o und a t i o n for th e Futu r e (Wa s hington, D

. C. : 2006) an d the National Institute of Ae rospace, Re s p on din g to the Call: Aviation P l a

n for Amer ic a n L e ade rs hip (Was hingto n, D

. C. : Ap r. 2005)

.

P a g e 10 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi on**F i**  **g u**  **re 2: Key F e**  **d eral En**  **tities fo r Selecte**  **d Reco**  **mmen d**  **atio n**  **s**

Tr a n s form the U. S

. a ir tr a n s port a tion s y s tem as a n a tion a l priority **Recommendation**

Cre a te a s p a ce imper a tive

E s t ab li s h a n a tion a l a ero s p a ce policy a nd promote a ero s p a ce

En ab le the movement of prod u ct s a nd inve s tment a cro ss intern a tion a l b order s on a f u lly competitive bas i s
Rever s e the decline in, a nd promote the growth of the U. S

. a ero s p a ce workforce

En ab le b re a kthro u gh a ero s p a ce c a p ab ilitie s thro u gh foc us ed feder a l R&D effort s

S o u rce: GAO a n a ly s i s

. Commerce, Defen s e, DOT, FAA, Homel a nd S ec u rity, JPDO, NA S A, O S TP

Defen s e, NA S A

Congre ss , Office of M a n a gement a nd B u dget, O S TP, White Ho us e

Defen s e, DOT, Ed u c a tion, L ab or, NA S A

Defen s e, FAA, NA S A **Key federal entitie s** 

Commerce, Congre ss , DOT, FAA, S t a te

Former Co mmissioners and exp e rts with whom we spoke generally agreed that the fed e ral government’s efforts to transform the nation al airspace system was the most significant action that addr esses a Com m ission recommendation—in pa rticular, the establishment of JPDO as an interagen cy office. Thes e former Commissioners and exp e rts also cited t h e President’s Vision for Space Explor ation, 10 which addresses the Commission’s recommendation that t h e United St ates create a space imperative t o explore an d exploit sp ace to ensure national a nd planetary security, eco nomic benef i t, and scien t if ic discovery. In additi on, federal agenci es ha ve started a ddressing the workforce issue through a new jobs training initi a tive. Ac cording to our r e search 11 and the opinions of former Commissioners and aero s pace indust r y officials, t h e federal government has not taken any signifi cant action t o address the recommendations to change the current export control pol icy. In additi on, there has been no action tak e n by the f e der a l gov e rnment to establi s h a national aerospace policy. 12 While many of th ese federal actions address the Commission’s

10 NASA, Th e Vi si on for S p a ce Ex p l ora t i o n (Washington, D

. C.: Feb. 2004).

11 GAO, Defense Tra d e : Arms E x

p o rt Control S y s tem i n th e Post-9 /1 1 Envi ronment , GAO-05-234 (W as hington, D

. C. : Feb. 16 , 2005).

12 While separate space and aer o n autic p o licies have bee n deve loped, o r are in the process of being developed, there is no si ngle national aerospace policy.

P a g e 11 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onrecommendations, some agen cy offic i als indicate d that some federal actions pred ate the Commission report and ther efore do not represent a direct response to the C o mmission’s recommendations. Figur e 3 summarizes the extent to which feder a l ag encies have t a ken a c tions— such as publ ishing new policies or es tablishing new offices—that address some of the Commission ’s recommendations. Whi l e this information summarizes federal a c tio n s, it does n o t evalu a te how well these actions have b een i m plemented. See appen d ix III for ad ditional federal actions that address selected aer ospace Commission rec o mmendations.

**Figur e**  **3 : Exten**  **t to**  **W h**  **ich Selected Re**  **co mmen**  **d a**  **tio n**  **s Have B**  **een Ad**  **d ress**  **ed**

**Tran s**  **form the U. S**  **. air tran s**  **portation s**  **y s**  **tem a s**  **a national priority**  **Recommendation**

E s t ab li s h a feder a l inter-dep a rtment a l gro u p to pl a n a new, highly au tom a ted a ir tr a ffic m a n a gement s y s tem
S tre a mline reg u l a tory proce ss e s
S tre a mline a irport a nd r u nw a y development proce ss e s
**Create a s**  **pace imperative**

Sus t a in commitment to s cience mi ss ion s in s p a ce

**E s**  **tabli s**  **h a national aero s**  **pace policy and promote**

**aero s**  **pace Enable the movement of product**  **s and inve**  **s tment** 

**acro ss**  **international border s**  **on a fully competitive ba s**  **i s** 
Commit to intern a tion a l p a rtner s hip s
Reform U. S . export control policie s
**Rever s**  **e the decline in, and promote the g**  **rowth of the U.**  **S . aero**  **s pace workforce** 

E s t ab li s h progr a m s th a t su pport tr a ining of a ero s p a ce worker s M a ke inve s tment s in m a th, s cience, a nd technology ed u c a tion of Americ a n s
**Enable breakthrou g**  **h aero s**  **pace capabilitie s**  **throu g**  **h focu**  **s ed federal R&D effort**  **s**

E s t ab li s h n a tion a l demon s tr a tion go a l s

Incre as e feder a l inve s tment in a ero s p a ce re s e a rch

S o u rce: GAO a n a ly s i s

. **No action or a contrary**  **action ha s**  **been taken Internal or**  **external di**  **s cu**  **ss ion**  **ha s**  **s tarted**  **Plan s**  **or policie**  **s are bein**  **g implemented**  **Plan s**  **or policie s**  **have been implemented and**  **performance ha s**  **been evaluated Plan**  **s or**  **policie s**  **have been developed**  **and publi s**  **hed**

( s p a ce) ( s p a ce)
( a eron au tic s ) ( a eron au tic s ) a

a Refers to the JP DO dem onst ratio n goals identified in its next g eneration air tran sportation system integrated plan.

P a g e 12 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onCongress and federal ag encies ha ve established new offices, programs, and polici e s that address a number of the Commission’s recommendations in the are a s of transforming the U.S. air transportation system, creating a U.S. space i m perative, a nd promoting the U.S. ae rospace workforce. However, the actions the agen cies have ta k e n are still in the early stages o f implementation.

In 2003, Con g ress passed the Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Vision 100), 13 which creat ed JPDO within FAA to plan work related to the creation of the n e xt gen erati on air transportation system (NGATS). The Commission identified the current air t r affic management system as severely limited in its abil ity to ac commodate America’s growing need for mobility, and that the design, development, and implementation of a next ge nera tion air traffic manageme n t system will be an ex ceedin gly co mplex chall e nge. Th e C o mmission called for a federal inter

- departmental group—working collaboratively w i th industry, labor, and ot her stakehol ders—to be fo rmed to plan this new system, and former Commissioners and experts a g ree that th e creation of JPDO addresses this recomme ndation. JP DO consists of seven par t ner agen cie s : the Departments of Commerce (Commerce) and Homeland Security; Defense; DOT; FAA; NASA; and OSTP. (See fig. 4.) Additionall y, JPDO has responsibility to consult with the public; to coordi nate federal goals, priorities, and research a c tivities wi th those of aviation and aeronautical firms; and to ensure the participatio n of nonfederal stakehol ders from th e private sect or, including commercial and ge neral aviation
, la bor, aviation R&D entities, and manuf acturers. To date, JPDO has been fun d ed by FAA and NASA. 14 

## New Federal Programs and Policies Have Addressed Some Commission Recommendations

Creation of JPDO Addresses Recommendation to Transform the U.S. Air Transportation System, but Funding Concerns Remain

13 Pub.L. No. 108- 176 (Dec . 12 , 2 003).

14 FAA’s fiscal year 2007 budget request for R& D includes a b out $18 million f or JPDO, whic h is supplemente d by matching f unds f rom NAS A . NA SA has c o mmitted to co ntinuing t h is match in t h e f u ture, according to a JPDO o fficial. JPDO uses thes e funds to conduct planning a n d studies. Vision 10 0 authorized $5 0 million annua lly for 7 years f or JPDO.

P a g e 13 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi on**F i**  **g u**  **re 4: JPDO ’s Seven**  **Par t**  **n er Ag**  **en cies** 

S o u rce: GAO.

Vision 100 di rected JPDO to devel op an integrat e d plan for NGATS and to include in th e plan, among other thi n gs, a descri ption of the demand and required per f ormance ch aracteristics of the futur e system, as well as a high-lev e l, multi-agen cy r o admap and concept of operations for the future system. 15 NGATS is need ed to av oid con gestion and costly del ays, provide adequat e se curity and e n vironmental safeguards, and ac commodate a projected tri p ling of dem a nd for air traffic service s by 202 5. T h is is a significant challenge given that thes e new capabilities must be deployed seamlessly while the cu rrent system continues t o operate. ( S ee app

. IV f o r more information on JP DO.)

We found th at JPDO has made progress in organizing itself an d incorporating federal an d nonfederal stakeholder s ; it has also set forth a vision for NGATS and strategies for attaining th a t vision. 16 Furthermore, JPDO has engaged in pra c tices to fa ci litate the f e d e ral interag e n cy

15 As directed by Vision 100, the FAA Administ rator provide d t h is integrated p l an to Congres s in De cember 2004

. J P DO, I n tegra t e d Na ti ona l Pla n for th e Nex t Genera ti on Ai r Transportatio n System (Dec. 2004). In Marc h 2006, J P DO is s u ed a pr ogres s repo rt o n t h e integrated plan, which provide s information on JPDO’s organization and activities, such as staffing integrated product tea ms th at are discussed in appe ndix IV.

16 GAO, Nex t Genera ti on Ai r T r

a nsp orta ti on S y s tem: Pr eli m i n a r y Ana l y s i s of th e Joi n t Pla nni ng a n d Develop m ent O ffi ce’ s P l a nni n g , Prog r e ss, a n d Ch a llenges
, GAO-06-574T (Was hingto n, D

. C. : Mar

. 29 , 20 06); GAO, Ai r Tra ffi c Cont rol : S t a t us of th e Curr ent Mod erni za ti on Progra m a n d Pla nni ng fo r t h e Nex t Gene r a ti on S y s tem, GAO-06-738T (Was hingto n, D

. C. : May 4
, 2006 ) ; GAO, Ai r Tra ffi c Control M o d erni za ti on: S t a t us of th e Curr ent Progr a m a n d Pla nni ng for th e Nex t Gene ra ti on Ai r Tra n s p o rta t i o n S y s tem, GAO-06-653T (Washington, D

. C.: June 21 , 200 6); GAO, Nex t Genera ti on Ai r T

r

a n s p or tation Sys te m: Pr e l imin ar y An aly s is of Pr ogre ss an d Challe n g e s As s o c iate d wi th th e Tra ns forma tion of t h e National Airspace System
, GAO-06-915T (Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2 006).

P a g e 14 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi oncollaboratio n that is cen tral to its mission. The partner agen c i es have agreed to a vision state m ent and ei ght strategie s that broadl y address the goals and ob jectives for NGATS. JPDO has also begun le verag ing the resources of its partner a gencies. To l everag e hu man resources, JPDO has staffed its organization with partner- a gency employees, althou gh many of them work for JPDO on a part-time basis. To further levera g e resources, JPDO conducted an i n ter agency program review of its partner agenci es’ R&D progra ms to identify the work that could su pport NGAT S , as well as identify are a s for more effective inter agenc y coll a boration.

However, as it moves forward in pla nning the n e w air traffic management system, JPDO faces a ch allenge in co ntinuing to l everag e part ner agen cies ’ resources because JPDO is fundamenta lly a planning and coordinating body that l a cks authority over the k ey human an d financial resources needed to continue developing pl an s and system requirements for NGATS. Despite earl y successes in levera g in g its partner agenci es’ res ources and expertise fo r NGATS initiatives, JPDO may have difficulty co ntinuing to d o so because i t s partner ag encies ha ve a variet y of missions and priorities in addition to NGATS. As a result, some experts questioned the ability of partner agen cies to fully support the re search needs of NGATS at plann e d levels. For example, the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request for NASA did not seek signi f icant fundi ng increases for aeronau t ics research to support NGATS. 17 JPDO’s ability to l everage tech nical assistance and funding resources from its partner agen cies will be further tested in 2008, when JPDO is planning t echnology d e monstratio n projects related to NGATS. In addition, JPDO may have difficulty le v e raging its p a rtner agenci es’ res ources and e xpertise bec a use it does not yet ha ve formal, long-term agreements with the agenci es on their roles and res ponsibilities in creating NGATS. According to JPDO officials, they are working to establish memorandums of understanding signed by the h eads of the partner agen cies that will broadly defi ne the p a rtner agen cies’ roles and responsibilities at a hi gh level. JPDO i s also devel oping more specific memorandums of understanding with i ndividual partner agen cies that lay out expect at ions for support on NGATS components, such as information

17 NASA’s fiscal y e ar 2006 budg e t provides $174 million for the Airspace Systems prog ram, which, acc ordi ng to NAS A , is aligned with N G ATS-related a i rspace researc h nee d s. The P r es ident’s pr o pos ed budget f or fis cal year 2 0 07 s how s futu re fu nding for t h is prog ram decreasing by more t h an 50 percent t hrough fi scal year 2011. NA SA officials noted that research in the Aviation Safety Program an d S ubs onic F i xed Wing p roject al s o s upp ort NGATS-related research in a d di tion to contri buting t o broa der national nee d s in military and civil aviation.

P a g e 15 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onsharing through network-centric ope rations. Additionally, JP DO faces the challen ge of convincin g nonfederal s t akeholders that the go vernment is fully committed to NGATS because , i n the past, t h e gov e rnment has discontinued work on new technolo g ies for the national airs pace system, including on e technolo g y in which a nonfederal s t akeholder h a d alread y invested.

The Preside n t’s issuance of a nation a l space ex pl oration poli cy in Janu ary 2004, which calls for the human expl oration of th e Moon and Mars, and NASA’s formation of a new missi on directorate for space ex ploration programs, address the Commission’s recommendation to create a U.S. space imperative. Ac cording to the Commission, the United States is in danger of lo sing its glob al lead ership in space e xploration, i n large p a rt because it l a cks strong public advocacy for the n a tion’s space program, whereas foreign cou n tries are ag gre ssi vely pursuing space e xploration a s a significant st rategic and economic as set. Experts believe that the President’s space explor ation polic y a nd NASA’s new directorate address the Commission’s conce r n. To achie ve the p o licy ’ s objectiv e, NASA formed the Exploration Systems Mi ssion Directorate to cons olidate separate ex ploration-related capabil i ties within one organiz ational unit 18 and thereby enhance their cooperati on. The new directorate conducted a study 19 to devise a plan fo r supporting the techn o l o gies and inf r astructure needed to meet the n e w space explo r ation policy

. Released in November 2005 , the stu d y recommended that N A SA focus on the ne ar-te r m activities needed to c o mplete the Internationa l Space Stati on and then focus on the longer-term activities n e eded to impl ement its moon mission s. The centerpie ce of the long er-term activiti e s is a program to accel e r ate the developmen t of a new Crew Explor ation Vehicle and Crew Launch Vehicle, t o replace the s huttle. The e xploration d i rectorate re structured its programs and, as of fiscal year 2007, t h e three pro g rams under the exploration directorate will be the Constellation Systems pro g ram, 20 the 

### Issuance of a New Space Exploration Policy and Creation of a New NASA Office Addressed the Recommendation to Create a U.S. Space Imperative, but May Negatively Affect Other NASA Programs

18 F ormer prog ra ms of the Biolo g ical and P h ys ical Res earch E n terpris e me rged w i th Exploration Sy stems on Aug u st 1, 2004

.

19 NASA, NA SA’s Explor ation Sy s t e m s Ar c hite c tu r e Stu dy (Wa s hington, D

. C.: Nov. 2005).

20 The Constellation Systems program will develop, dem onstrat e, and deploy t h e collection of systems that will enable sustained human e xploration of t h e Moon and M a rs. These include the Cre w Explorati on V e hicle for th e trans port an d s upp ort of huma n crew s traveling to l o w Earth or bit a nd beyon d
, as w e ll as launch vehicles for tra n s port of t h e Crew Expl oration V e hicle a nd cargo t o low E a rth orbit, an d any gr oun d or in-s pace s upp or t infras tructure f or c o mmunicat i ons and o p erat ions

.

P a g e 16 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onExploration Systems Research and T echnology p r ogram, 21 and the Human Systems Research and T echnology p r ogram. 22 NASA officials stated that research an d technolo g y projects h ave b een ali g ned to sup port the new space explo r ation policy

.

**Figur e**  **5 :**  **Pr op**  **os e**  **d Ca**  **r go L**  **a unc**  **h Ve hic**  **l e**  **with Lu**  **na r**  **La nde**  **r Is**  **a n**  **Ex a**  **m ple**  **of Aero**  **sp a**  **ce R &D** 

S o u rce s : NA S A; John Fr assa nitio a nd A ss oci a te s

.

Aerospace e xperts reported that the y believ e NASA’s focus on implementing the space exploration policy’s go al of returning to the Moon and sending human missions to Mars negativ ely af fects other space exploration projects that have sign ifi cant scientif ic benefits. For example, in the fiscal year 2007 b u d get requ est, NASA announced cuts and delays in a number of projects in a r eas such as space crew health resea r ch, electri c propulsion systems, and weather-monitoring systems. While experts and industry officials gen eral ly thought th at NASA’s space explor ation policy addresses the Commission recommendati on, they were concerned about the negative impact of this new policy on other pr ograms. For example,

21 T h e Explo r atio n Sys tems Res earch a n d T echn o logy p rogram ’ s primary f o cus is s o lar system explora tion. This prog ram will include ar eas such as explorat ory R & D of new highleverage technologies and the developme n t of nuclear technologi es for pow er and
pro puls i on.

22 T h e Huma n Sy s t ems Res earch an d T e ch nolo gy pr ogram f o c u s e s on e n s uri ng the health
, safety, and security of h u man s thro ugh t h e c ourse of solar-system explorati on.

P a g e 17 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onone expert n o ted that NASA’s cancell a tion of rese arch project s that are not directly supporting the space ex ploration programs has already negatively af fected research efforts at universities throughout the nation. With the los s of funding in certain areas, this exp e rt noted, many gradu a t e students hav e lost their g r ants and co uld potential ly lea ve the aerospace field. Their departure could have a l ong-term impact on th e nation’s futu re ability to d e velop new technologies. I n addition, a recent repo rt by the National Ac ademy of Sc iences that r eviewed NASA’s plans for science programs over the next 5 years, con c l uded that N A SA does not have th e necessary re sources to carry out the ta sks of completing the I n ternational Space St atio n, returning humans to the Moon, sustaining cap abilities in aeronautic al research, a nd maintaining space an d Earth scie nce programs. 23

Labor addre ssed the Commission’s wo rkforce recommendation to rever se the declin e and support the training o f the aerosp ace workforce by including th e aerospace industry in the President ’ s High Growth Job Training Init iative. 24 The i n itiative fo cuses on 14 h i gh-growth industries. 25 Given estimates that 26 percent of t h e aerospace industry workforce will be eligibl e f o r retirement by 2008, th e Commission was concerned about a loss of intellectual capit al. While the Commi ssio n was unable to agree on any immediate solution, it maintaine d that U.S. p o licy must reaffirm the goal of stabi lizing and in creasing the number of jobs in the in dustry. The training initi a tive is a nat i onal grant p r ogram, started in 20 03, t h at attempts to tailor local workforce investment activities to r e flect the workforce needs of loc a l employer s. According to Labor off i cials, the ae rospace industry was selected in large part b ecause of its significant i m pact on the economy overall, as well as its impact on the gro w th of other industries. A primary focus of the init iative is to a ddress the aerospace in dustry’s agin g workforce—with the subsequent loss of institutional knowled ge, experience, and techni cal talent—b y attractin g young peopl e into the fi eld and building their skills. The grants are provided to projects designed to 

### The President’s High Growth Job Training Initiative Addresses Recommendation on Promoting the Aerospace Workforce, but Questions Remain about Its Imp act

23 National Acade m y of Sciences
, An Asse ssme n t of Ba la nce i n NAS A ’

s S c i enc e Prog r a m s (Was hingto n, D

. C.: 2006).

24 T h e high grow t h initiatives pr ovide fede r al f unding to local w orkfo r ce trai ning p rograms in 14 hig h -grow th business sectors that have been identified a s potentially adding a substantial numbers of new j obs
, or have e m erging technologi es that require new skill sets for w o rkers

.

25 The targeted industries are: advanced ma nufa cturing, aerospace, aut o motiv e , biotechn o logy, constructio n , e n ergy, financial services, geos patial technolo g y, health care , homeland s ecu rity, h o s p itality, info rmatio n te chnology
, retail, an d t r ans p o r t a

tion.

P a g e 18 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onaddress the industry’s aerospace workforce need s while also helping workers find employment with g ood wages and career oppo rtunities. For example, a n u mber of projects are geared toward expanding t h e number of youth inte rested in aer ospace and provide trai ning for aer ospace employment. As of June 2006 , Labor had provide d eight gr ant s , totaling over $10 million, for aer osp ace proj ects. (See table 2.)

**T a**  **b l**  **e 2: G ran**  **ts Aw ard**  **ed b**  **y L**  **a b**  **o r**  **fo r Aero**  **sp ace W**  **o rkfo**  **rce Pro j**  **ects**

**Re c**  **i pie**  **n t**  **P u**  **r pos**  **e Da**  **te a**  **w ar**  **de d**  **Amount**
Commun i ty Le arnin g Ce nter, Inc., Texas T o train aeros p a ce work ers for new hi gh-tec hnol ogy manufactur ing process e s June 2 001 $4,02 8,00 0 a

Brevard C o mmunity Col l e ge, F lorida T o provid e han ds-on l earn ing opp ortuniti e s for students to devel op tech ni cal aer ospac e skills an d impr ove aw aren ess of the skills req uir ed for aeros pa ce careers Decemb er 20 0 4 99,00 0

Edmon d s Com m unity Col leg e , W a shingt on T o devel op an adva n ced a e ro space tech nici an curricu lum, career la dd ers, and dista nce l earni ng a ppro a c hes assoc iate d with the Boe i n g 787 su pply c hain Decemb er 20 0 4 1,475,0 0 0

F lorida S pace Researc h Institute, F lorida T o provid e two aerosp a ce me ntors for 25 tea c hers in sev en F lorida co unti e s to improve h ands- on kno w l edg e and

aware ness of the skills re quir ed for aeros pa ce careers i n F lorida Decemb er 20 0 4 356,0 00

Housto n-G alve s ton Area Co u n cil for the G ulf Coast W o rkforce Board, T e xas T o reduce fore i gn visa w o rker dep end ency i n several hig h techno logy, hi g h skill aer osp a c e job occ upati ons on the T e x a s G ulf Coast Decemb er 20 0 4 1,000,0 0 0

Enterpris e -O za rk Community Coll ege, Al aba ma b T o devel op skil led avi a tio n technici ans i n Ala bama’s aviati o n industry corri d o r O c tober 200 5 1,637,0 0 0

Aerosp ace De velopm ent Corpor atio n T o establis h an aerosp a ce wo rkforce infrastructure that identifi e s an d d e velo ps strateg i c solutio ns to state-leve l chall en ges in t he five key aer ospac e states of Alabam a, Califor nia, Co l o rad o , F lorida, and T e xas July 20 05 1,899,0 0 0

Sour ce: GAO an al ysi s of L abor i n for m ati o n.

a The Commu nity Learning Cent er, Inc. recei v ed tw o grant s, which we combined.

b This g r ant wa s a w arded u n der th e Community-B a s ed Job T r aining grant program, w h ich is a competitive g r ant program that increase s th e cap a ci ty of com m unity colleges to t r ain workers in ke y industrie s su ch a s the ae ro space indust r y.

While the ini t iative addresses the Commission’s recommendation to promote the growth of the aerospace workforce, the exp e rts with whom we spoke qu estioned whether this program will have a signifi cant impact. One expert stated that, b ecause th e a e rospace in dustry rapidly chan ges, these types of job traini ng programs are replacing skills that may run the risk of beco ming quickl y outdated

. Another exp e rt said that, even with these types of governme n t training p r ograms, the business cycle is the major influence on th e status of the aerospace w o rkforce. As with any

P a g e 19 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onother major industry, if there is not a strong demand for aero s pace products, co mpanies will be hard pr essed to provide enou gh j obs to maintain a strong workforce. In com m enting on a draft of thi s report, Labor offici als noted th at this initiat i ve is design ed to model innovativ e solutions and to lever ag e larger fed e ral investment programs and partnerships with industry, educatio n providers, and other stakeholders. Therefore, L a bor official s believe th at this initiative will be ab le to respon d to the aeros pace ind u stry’s chan ging competency and skill r equirements. However, the initiative h a s not been evaluat e d, s o its impact is unknown.

Congress and federal agencies have addressed the Commission’s recommend ation to invest in science, technolo g y, engin eerin g, and mathematics (STEM) education by e s tablishing a number of programs designed to i n crease stud ents’ intere st in STEM careers. The Commission believes th at STEM education at al l l evels, from kindergarte n through graduate school, needs government action and i n vestment to ensure that the aerospace industry has access to a scientifically and tech nologicall y trained workforce. In 2 0 05, we repor ted 26 that 1 3 f e deral ci vili an ag encies 27 spent about $2.8 bil lion i n fiscal ye ar 2004 for 207 education programs designed to i n crease the number of st udents and graduates, or to improve the educatio nal programs in STEM fields. 28 Since 2 004, a number of new STEM education programs have bee n created. F o r example, the national Scienc e and Mathematics Access to Re tain Talent (SMART ) grant program was created in 200 6 to en courage stu d ents to enr o ll in STEM fields. This program provides up to $ 4 ,00 0 for ea c h of 2 a cade m ic years for students in their third or fourth academic year of an undergraduate pro g ram at a 4- year de gree- granting inst itution, who have mainta ined a cumulative grade point avera g e of 3. 0 or a bove and meet the eli g ibi lity require m ents of the federal go ve rnment’s need-based Pel l Grant program. 29 The Department of 

### Federal Agencies Have Established New Educ ation Programs, but Concer ns Remain About Programs’ Effectiveness

26 GAO, Hi gh er Ed uca ti on: Fed e r a l S c i enc e, Te ch nology , Engi nee ri ng, a n d Ma th ema t i cs Progra m s a n d Rela ted Tr end s , GA O-06-114 (Washington, D

. C.: Oct. 12, 200 5).

27 The 13 fede r al agencies are the Depa rtme nts of Agricultu re, Education
, E n e r gy, Homeland Sec urity, a n d the Interior ; C o mmerce; DOT; the Environme n tal Protection Agency; t h e He alth Res ources and Services A d minis t ration; t h e In dian Health Se rvice; NASA; the Nati onal Institutes of Health; a nd t h e Natio n al Sci e nce F o u ndatio n

.

28 ST EM fields co ver deg r ees in many dis c ip lines (including a e ros pace, aero n autical, a nd

as tronautical e n gineering) an d occ upatio n s ( i ncluding ae ros pace, electrical , an d electronics eng i neers )

.

29 T h e F e deral P e ll Grant P r ogra m pr omotes ac ces s to pos ts econda ry ed ucation by providing nee d -bas ed gra n ts to low -income s t udents

.

P a g e 20 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onEducation expects to pr ovide $790 million in SMART grant s to over 500, 000 stud ents in acad emic year 2 0 06–2 007 . In addition, un der the Deficit Redu ction Act of 2005 , Congr e ss established an Ac ade m ic Competitiveness Council, chaired b y the Secret ary of Educati on, to identify, evaluate, co ordinate, an d improve federal STEM programs. 30 This council is composed of officials from federal agencies with responsibilities for managing existing federal programs that pro m ote STEM education. As mandated, t h e council p l ans to ident i fy all fed e ral programs with a STEM focus, identi fy the target populations, determine the effecti v eness of these programs, identify areas of overlap o r duplicatio n, and reco mmend way s to efficientl y integrate an d coordinate the programs. Congress directed th e council to report its findings and reco mmendations by early 2007. Final l y, in 2006, the President an nounced th e Am erican Competitiven ess Initiative, which, over the next 10 years, would commit $50 billion to increase funding for research and $86 billio n f o r R&D tax incentives to encourage innovation i n science an d technolo g y, and to support math and science education. While it doe s not specifically ref e r to aerospace, t h e initiativ e calls for inv e sting in ke y federal a g e n cy programs with objectives that include encouraging up to 30,000 ma th and scien ce professionals to become adj unct high school teach ers, creating a research bas e to improve instructional methods and materials for teaching math and science, and evaluati ng t h e impact of government

- wide investments in ma th and science edu cation. 31

Although the federal government has sp ent billions of dollars on education programs in STEM fields, concerns re main about t h e effecti v eness of the federal investment. For example, th e reduction i n NASA’s education budget will result in the elimination of long-standing programs designed to reach edu c a t ion communities, both f o rmal (e.g., students, tea c hers, education administrators, and institut ions) and informal (e.g., museums, planetariums, and community organi z ations). Experts told us that, although the federal government is directing sign ificant amou nts of funds to education a l programs, the goals an d potential o u tcomes for the programs are unclear an d decentrali z ed, thereby raising ques tions about whether the funding is providing the most effective results. For example,

30 P ub. L. N o

. 109-171 (2006).

31 The American Competitiveness Initiative iden tified the National Sc ience F oun dation , the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, an d Comme rce’s National Ins t itu te of Standa rds and Technolog y as the fe deral agencies that w ill have investments in their c ore research activities doubled ove r the ne x t 10 years.

P a g e 21 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onwe have rep o rted 32 that fe wer STEM e ducation pr ograms are targeted to elementary and secondary school teachers and s t udents than to other targeted groups—such as graduate p r ogram students—even t hough a number of experts stated that STEM programs fo r these teachers and students can have th e gr eatest ben e fi ts. The expe rts we interviewed believe that the focus should start at the primary school level to have a better chan c e of influen c ing students to seek care e rs in the ae rospace industry.



## Changes to Existing Programs Have Addressed Some Commission Recommendations Agencies’ eff o rts to revise strategies and procedu r es and to restructure existing org a nizations have addressed some Commission recommendations in the areas of aeronautics R&D, streamlin ing FAA procedures, and increasi n g U.S. pr esence in inter n ational a v i a tion; however, ex perts and in dustry officials have emphasized tha t these changes can negati vely a ffect other p r ograms or be limited b y external factors.

NASA addressed the Commission’s r ecommendations to focu s on basic research by restructuring the Aerona utics Research Mission Directorate t o give greater priority to fundamental research. 33 However, the C o mmission also recommended specific technol ogy demonstration goals
, and the agenc y is moving away f

r om demons tration projects that showcase such goals. The C o mmission reported that U.S. industry might fall behind foreign competitors in pioneering n e w aerospace technology if U.S. R&D investments continued to downplay b a sic research and were not focused on specific, breakthrough technolo g y goal s. To address this challenge, the Commission recommended that the United States pursue long-term basic research an d specific technology demonstration goals. NASA’s restructured Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate includ es three research programs—Fun damental Ae ronautics, Aviation Saf e t y , and Airspace Sy stems—that replace pre v i ous programs in Vehicle Systems, Aviation Saf e ty and Secu rity, and Airspace Syste m s, respectively. 34 (See 

### NASA’s Aer onautics Program Focuses on Basic Research as Recommended by the Commissio n , but Has Not Adopted Recommended Technology Demonstration Goals

32 GAO-06-114

.

33 NASA us es the term “fu ndame ntal” to refer to res e arch that i n cludes co ntin ued lo ng-term,

s c ientific s t udy in co re a r eas s u ch as phy sics, chemistry, mat e rials, experim e ntal techniques, a n d com putational techniques t o ena b le new c a pabilities and technologies for individual and multiple disciplines.

34 In ad dition, NA SA’s aer onautic s directorate pl ans to pres e rve key ae ro nautic s tes t facilitie s, such as wind tunnel s

.

P a g e 22 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi ontable 3.) Wit h in the three research pr ograms, the most significant chan ge occurred within what is now the Fundamental Aeronautics program, which focuses on fundamental aero n autics research rather t h an on developmen t projects. Airspace Syst ems’ name remains unchanged, but it will now focus on NGAT S and JPDO’s research needs. Accor d ing to NASA, these programs give priority to fundament al research that is applicable to a broad rang e of air v e hi cles, wherea s in the recent past NASA emphasized bringing specific project s to higher t echnologi cal maturity, often focusing on these nar r owly defined demonstr ation projects and not on developin g technology t h at would be transferab l e to other types of systems or projects. 35 NASA also has taken several actions to better solicit input from academia an d industry, with the goal of facilitati n g the transf er of R&D to industry as a whole. 36 For example, NASA told us that as of Au gust 2006 , at least 110 uni versities had submitted proposals in response to research

announcem ents that it i ssued in January 2006. I n addition, t h e Commission recommend ed technol o gy demonstration goals, such as redu cing aviatio n transit time by 50 p e rcen t and en gine emissions a nd noise by 90 percent, but NASA does not plan to adopt these goals or alternative n a rrowly defined tech nology d e monstration goal s, beca use its leaders h ip belie ves that pursuing them can l ead to scient ifically unj u s tified research projects. For example, while the d e sign for a v e hicle could showcase one particula r goal, such as reducing emission s, this design cou l d perform poorly in another area , such as red u cing en gine noise. NASA leadership believ e s that to overc o me these ty pes of c onfli cting design requirements, NASA must use a more integrated approa ch, grounded in fundamental resear ch that cuts acr oss its core disciplines such as aerod ynamics, ac oustics, and combustion.

35 Technology ma turity is attaine d when a tec hn ology can be sh own to wor k in an operatio n al env i ronment

.

36 The Commission re port stated the Commission’s be lief that t h e U

. S

. aer o spa c e industry must take a leadership role in transitioning g o vernment and university rese arch int o products and s e rvices. In revi ewing a draft of th is report , N A SA offici als stated that their

res t ructure d ae rona utics prog r a m is directly a ligned w i th the Commis s i on’s intent.

P a g e 23 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi on**Ta ble**  **3 : Resh**  **ap ed**  **Strateg y**  **o f**  **NASA’s Aero n**  **a u**  **t ics Res**  **ear ch**  **Missio n**  **Directo rate** 

**Previo u**  **s p**  **r o**  **g ram**  **New p**  **r o**  **g ram**  **New p**  **r o**  **g ram’s fo**  **cu s**  **Majo r ch**  **an g**  **es b e**  **tw een**  **p revio**  **u s** 
**a nd ne**  **w pr**  **og r**  **a m**  **s**
Vehicl e Syste m s F undam ental Aeronautics Cond uct lon g-term research i n the core compete n cies of aeron autics

— such as prop ulsi on, aer othermo dynam ics, and materials—th a t are app lica ble to a broad ra ng e of subso nic (both fixed- an d rotar y -wing), supers onic, an d hypers onic a i r vehicles. Program n o lo nger focus e s o n the devel opm ent o f narrowly d e fin ed techno logy d e m onstratio n pr ojects and d i rects attentio n to more fundam ental re search ar eas.

Aviatio n Safety and Security Aviatio n Safety Provide th e ca pabi lities and t e chn olo gies n e ede d to increas e avi a tion safety giv en the revo luti onary chan ges exp e c t ed in air ve hicl e s of the future

. W o rk is “vehicl e -centric” an d focuse d on the safety needs of NG AT S. Aviatio n securit y is dropp ed from the research portfo lio. If it continu ed this work, NASA be lieves it wo ul d dupl icate effort s now un der w a y by the Dep a rtmen t of Homelan d Security. Airspace Syste m s Airspace Syste m s Devel op future conce p ts, capa biliti e s, and techno log ies th at enab le maj o r increases i n a i r traffic effectiveness, flexib ility, and efficie n cy, as articulat ed for NG AT S by JPDO

. R e sh ap ed p r og ra m i n t eg ra tes formerly ind ep end ent pro g ra ms and is directly al ign ed with supp ortin g NG AT S and JPDO

.

Sour ce: GAO an al ysi s of N A S A d a ta.

NASA’s restructuring of t h e Aerona ut ics Research Mission Directorate matches the Commission ’s recommendation to em phasize basic research, but reduced funding of d e monstratio n projects might leave technologies too underdeveloped for easy adoptio n by industry. While NA SA’s reshaped strategy foc u ses more on basic rese arch, as rec o mmended by the Commission , NASA has less funding for demonstration projects and partnership projects with industry a nd acad emia. Experts commented that these demonstration projects are an important mechanism for technology transfer and in focusing on fundamental research, NASA will not be abl e to develop new technologi e s to the same le vel of maturity as in t h e past. NASA noted that it will continue to conduct flight test demonstrations with other federal agencies, such as Defense. Our prior work has found that technol ogies that have demonstrated a hi gh l evel of matu rity are more likely to me et cost, sche dule, and pe rformance requirements during product development. Si milarly, our pr ior work a nd several experts with whom we spoke indicated that, as a re sult, industry would be less likely to further develop these new technologies for commercial and government use and, therefore, for example, implementation of NGATS could be delayed. While experts agreed that th e budget decline will negatively affect aeronautics R&D, they disagreed abo u t the importance of ado p ting the Commission’s specific d e monstration go als. One expert state d that the Commission ’s recommended demonstrati on goals are best int e rpreted as ideals for the future, whereas anothe r expert endorsed pursuing them. Still another exp e rt stated th at focusing on basic res earch instea d of

P a g e 24 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi ondemonstration projects makes sense in the fa ce of the direct orate’s declining bu dget, since d e monstratio n projects ar e expensiv e (see app. II for further information on R&D funding). Finall y, a recent st udy by th e National Ac ademy of Sc iences notes that decli n i n g budgets f o r aeronauti c research po se a chall e n ge to ci vil a e r onautics research, but r ecommendsthat research should focus on strategic objectives, themes, and highpriority research and t e chnical ch a llenges, regard l ess of funding levels. 37

A variety of FAA actions have addres sed the Commission’s recommendations to rev i se rule-makin g procedu r es and streamline airport and runway developmen t processes. These reco mmendations reflect the Commission’s concerns t h at length y r u le-making procedures have d e lay e d the issuance of new rules and that d e lays in airp ort environmental revie w s for new runways have h i ndered effo rts to enhan ce airport c a p acity. FAA actions incl ude condu ct ing monthly br iefings for senior policymakers on significant r u les, creatin g compensat i on incenti v e s for senior executi ves that are tied to the timely completion of rules, and developi ng a performance standard t h at requires 80 perc ent o f all initiate d rules to be cleared b y t h e FAA Administrator within 90 d ays of their origi n ally scheduled completion date. Further m or e, DOT’s Chief of Staff and Deput y Secretary co nduct quarterly meetings with the FAA Administrator to review the status of each proposed rule . In additi on, to help expedite the process for airport deve lopment projects and re duce the av e r age of 1 0 years it take s to plan an d build a n e w runway, FAA is taking steps to streamline airport environmental revi ews. 38 For ex ample, FAA issued an order in April 200 6 to ex pedite revi e w s of airport projects that includes t h e ability to pri o ritize the review of cer t a in airport projects; promote public review and c o mment; ma nage time li nes during t h e review; a nd expedit e coordinatio n between t hose federal
, state, and l o cal a genci e s involved in airport environmental reviews in or der to reduce undue del a ys during the review process. In additi on, to re duc e dela ys in e n vironmental review work caused by insuffic i ent staff, F AA is reallocating FAA staff resource s and increasi n g the use o f consultant s. 

### FAA’s Modi fications of Regulations and Procedures Address Re commendations; however, External Factors Might Li mit Further Streamlinin g

While some FAA actions have addres sed the Commission’s recommendations to rev i se rule-m aking procedu r es and streamline

37 National Res e a r ch C ouncil of t h e Natio n al Ac ademy of Scien c es , Dec adal Su r v e y of Civil Aerona uti c s: F o und a t i o n for th e Futu r e (Wa s hington, D

. C. : 2006).

38 GAO, Aviat ion In fr

as tru c t ur e: Challe n g e s Relate d to Bu ildin g Ru nw ays an d Ac tion s to Ad d ress Th em, GAO-03-164 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 200 3).

P a g e 25 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onenvironmental airport re views, we have reported that factors such as legal and policy requirements and local politics might limit FAA’s ability to further streamline these procedures

. In a 20 03 an alysis of 32 r unway projects, we noted signif icant ch alle nges to redu cing runway project delays, in clu d ing the diffi culty of rea c h ing consen sus among stakeholders on the ne ed for runways; complying with numerous overlap p ing federal
, state, and lo cal en vironmental laws; mitigating t h e impact of aircraft noise on the surrounding com m unity; and challen ges f aced durin g the runway design and construction phase. 39 Former commissioners and experts supported our prior research. For ex ample, one aerospace ex pert said that legal re quire m ents that apply to the r u le-making process, such as the requirement for periods of public co mment, create unavoid a b le dela ys. Another expert said that FAA is limit ed in its abil ity to reduce the time it takes to issue rules beca use rules are designed to ensure the safe operation of aircraft and public safet y considerat ions have to take priority over reducing the time it takes to i ssue the rule. Some experts also said that FAA is limited in its ability to fur t her streamline new airport runway reviews. For example, o n e expert no ted that una voidable del ays often occur when local publi c and politic al opposition to runway development leads to cou r t proceedin gs.

FAA and JPDO have made efforts to address the Commission’s recommendation to incr ease the U.S

. commitme n t to the de v e lopment of global aviati on standards and the est a blishment of internatio nal partnerships for global ai r traffi c management systems. The Commission found that s o me foreign countries have establish e d domestic standards that provide a competitiv e adv a ntag e for those co untries’ nati onal companies, and althou g h other gov e r nments have acti vely so ught global leadership i n internatio nal standard -setting bodi es, such as t h e International Civil Aviati on Organization (ICAO), 40 the United States has not devoted enough reso urces and is, th erefore, l o sing its position as the de facto standard setter. FAA has s upported several efforts to increase t h e U.S. commitment to, and involvemen t in, the d e v e lopment of global aviation sta ndards by in creasing its presence at ICAO. ICAO allocates positions within its organization to n a tional citiz e ns from all its member organization s and curren t ly has allo cated 31 positions to the United States. 

### A gencies are Making Efforts to Address the Commission’s Recommendation to In crease U.S. Presence in Intern ational Aviation

39 GAO-03-164

.

40 ICAO is a U n ited Nations agency that sets in t e rnational s tan dards on civil aviation for 188 member states. The o r ganization a ddresses f undame ntal issues ranging fro m air navigatio n and ca pacity to emerging e n vi r onmental c onc erns s u ch as en gine nois e a nd emis s i ons

.

P a g e 26 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onTo ensure th at qualifi e d U.S. candidates apply for these positions, FAA has supported a number of activities, incl uding outreach efforts, in centive pay programs, and a fellowship program. For example, FAA has conducted outreach eff o rts at the staff leve l to i n crease awa r eness of international opportunities at ICAO. Senior FAA officials have given speeches and presentation s at major ag ency fun c tio n s, such as the Hispanic Coalition and the Prof essional Women’s Air Traffic Control Organization. In 20 03, FAA established the FAA / ICAO Fellowship Program, which sends FAA employees t o work at ICAO for up to 12 months. Since the FAA/ICAO Fellowship Program sta r ted, six FAA employee s have serve d as fellows and one of t h ese fellows was subsequently hired by ICAO as a full-time employee fo r a 2-ye ar po sition. JPDO has also worked to dev e l op international partnerships—including pa rtnerships with Chin a, East Asia, and Europe—to promote the glo b al harmonization of air traf fic management systems. 41 The goal is to harmonize equipment an d operations globally and advocat e for the adoptio n of U.S.-preferred transformation concepts, technologies, procedures, and standar d s. For example, JPDO officials have noted th e need to work toward harmonization with the Single Euro pean Air Tra ffic Manage ment Research Program (SESAR), a major initiative to moder n ize the airspace system of the European Union. In July 2006, FAA announced that it had signed a memorandu m of understanding with the European Union that identifies specif i c areas of cooperation. 42

While FAA has made effo rts to increase the U.S. p r esence at I CAO and develop partnerships, the majority of U.S. positions at ICAO are still unfilled, and in some areas, coopera t i on does not appear to be fully develop ed. FAA faces difficulty in fil ling the allo cated positi ons for reasons beyond its control. For example, while F AA can recr uit applicants, it does not make the final hiring deci sion. Despite FAA’s efforts to fill the positions allocated to th e United St a t es at ICAO, as of December 200 5, only 13 of the 31 allocated positions were filled. While FAA and JPDO are planning co operative ac tivities, our re search has identified s everal areas where coordination does not appear to be fully d e veloped. For example, we have rep o rted that th e SESAR and NGATS initiatives, des p ite their

41 JPDO has a global harm onization integ rated product team, le d by managers from the Air Traffic Organization’s O p erations Planning S e rvices Interna tional and FAA’ s Office of International A v iation.

42 T h e areas of co operatio n inclu d e reg u lati ons , s tandards
, and proce dures ; co ordinatio n with international orga n izations ; R&D; and ci vil and military air traffic mana gement issues.

P a g e 27 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onsimilarities, do not have coordinatio n activiti e s such as pe er reviews of relevant res earch, c oop eration on s a fety an alysi s (such as through the pooling of accident d a ta), or validati on of techno logies. 43 It is possible that greater coop eration and exchan ge be tween NGATS and SES AR might develop onc e plannin g h a s progressed to the de v e lopment an d validatio n stage.

Some limited federal init iatives, prim arily designed to streamline export licensing pr ocedures, ad dress aspects of the Commission’s recommendation to refo rm regulations and polici e s to enable the movement of goods acro ss borders o n a fully co mpetitive basis. According to the Commission, the current approach to U.S. export control is counterproductive to nat i onal securit y interests and the vit a lit y of the U.S. aerospace in dustry. The Commission recommended streamlining U.S. export licen sing systems and reform ing export co ntrol policy. Commerce regulates exports of dual-use items— that is, items with military and civilian uses —and the Department of State regul a tes arms exports. 44 There are many aerospace products, such as commercial aircraft fr ames and components, which are designed for both civili an and military uses and are therefor e licensed as dual-use it ems, while other aerospace products, such as precision-guided air-to-surf ace missiles, are designed for military use and would be licensed by State. S t ate has implemented, th rough regulation a nd guidan ce, initiatives p r imarily designed to stre amline and expedite th e processing of export lic ense applications. For example, in January 20 0 4 , State offic i ally implemented a W e b

- based licen se applicatio n submission and review s y stem that a llows compa n ies to elect ronically submit export authorization reques ts and supporting documen tation for review. In F e bruary 2005, we repor ted that, alth ough State i n itially received fe w applicatio ns through this system, officials not ed great er use of the syste m after 1 ye ar as well as reduced median processing times for electronicall y submitted export licen se applicatio ns. 45 

### Limited Streamlining o f U.S. Export Control Licensing Procedures Address the Commissio n ’ s Recommendation; however, the Export Control Policy Has Not Fundamentally Changed

Although St ate has implemented init ia tives to streamline the arms export control licen sing process, overall, the export cont rol policy has not undergone f undamental changes sin ce the Commission pub lished its

43 GAO-06-738T

.

44 Commerce lice n s e s dual-us e items unde r E x ecutive Or der 13 222 (66 F e d

. Re g. 44025)
, a n d State licenses arms exports under t h e Arms E xport Control A ct (P.L. 90-62 9 ).

45 GAO, Defense Tra d e : Arms E x

p o rt Control S y s tem i n th e Post-9 /1 1 Envi ronment , GAO-05-234 (Washington D.C

. : Feb. 16, 2005).

P a g e 28 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onreport. In 2005, we repor ted 46 that, alth ough the sys t em itself remains basically un change d, ne w trends have emerged i n the proces sing of arms export cases

. 47 Median processing times 48 for all arms export cases declined bet w een fiscal year 1 999 an d fiscal ye ar 2002 , but be gan increasing i n fiscal ye ar 2003 ; this up ward trend continued int o the first 7 months of fiscal year 20 04. Furt her m ore, Commerce has not made fundamental changes to t h e dual-use export control system. 49 A ttempts have b een m a de to c h ang e the le gislat ion governin g the U.S. ex port control system since the Commissio n published its report, but none have resulted in n e w export control legislation. 50

Federal agencies will face a number of chall e nges in continui ng to addres s the Commission’s recommendations. Thes e chall e nges includ e confrontin g difficult bud getary trad e- offs and coo r dinating act ions between multiple agenci es an d industry. Specifical ly, o u r work, federal officials
, and industry experts indicated that budget constraints will require agenci es to prioritize so me programs that a ddre ss certain recommendations at the expense of o t her programs. Furthermore, according to exp e rts, a lack of coordinatio n between f e deral agencies , private i ndustry, and universities could imped e the effi cie n t advan ce ment of the aerospace in dustry. 

# Federal Agencies Face Challenges in Addressing the Commission’ s Recom m endations

46 GAO-05-234

.

47 Cas e s include a pplications for the pe rmanent expo rt of arms , the tem pora ry expo rt an d import of arms
, and agreement s betw een U

. S

. indus try a n d fo reign entities t o p rovide technical assist ance or manufa cturing ca pabili ty, as well as re quests for ame ndments t o exis ting licens e s and ju ris d iction determinati ons

.

48 The median processing time is the point at w h ich 50 perce n t of t h e cas es to ok m ore time and 50 pe rcent took less time. We are rep orti n g the median proces s i ng time becaus e average ( or me an) processing times can be si gnificantly affected by a small number of cases that had much longer re view ti mes than the majority of cases.

49 GAO
, Ex p o rt Controls : I m

p r

ovements to Co mmerce’ s Dua l -Use S y s tem N eed ed to Ensur e Prote ct i o n of U.S

. I

n te rest s i n th e Po st-9 /1 1 Envi ronment , G A O-06-638 (Was hingto n, D

. C. : J une 26, 20 06).

50 See H

. R. 4572, 109th Congress and H

. R. 4200, 109th Congress.

P a g e 29 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onBudget cons traints, in all likelihood, will challenge agencies’ efforts to address the Commission’s recommendations, and require that some programs th at address certain reco mmendations be given priority over other programs that address other recommendations. 51 Such b udgetary trade-offs are all the more likely if implementing a recommendation requires lau n ching or ex panding l a rg e, expensive programs, such as the mission to Mars. Given the long-ter m fiscal chal lenges fa cin g the United States and o t her current spending pri o rities that a r e unrelated to aerospace, it is unlikely t h at signif icant new sources of fundi ng will be availab l e for these progr a ms, and ov erall depart mental budgets may not expand. Con s equently, a gency offici als are likel y to face t oug h decisions prioritizing programs within their ju risdictions, and some programs that address recommendations will likely be scaled back, delayed, or cancell e d. F o r example, the NASA Administrator testified in February 20 06 that NASA cannot afford to fully fun d all its programs. As a result, NASA’s proposed fiscal year 2007 budget show s lower fu nding levels for a variety of areas suc h as aeronau t ics res earch and spac e shuttle opera tions. 

## Agencies Face Challenges in Setti ng Funding Priorities for Efforts That Address Recommendations

Within NASA, some programmatic realignment has already occurred in the course of implementing programs th at address the Commission’s recommend ations, and, as a result, NASA has made some difficult budgetary p r ioritization decisions. F o r example, as discussed earlier, whe n NASA formed the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate t o pursue the President’s space poli cy, NASA aligned resources to complete the Internationa l Space Stati on and a ccel erate the d e velopment o f new space vehicles to r e place the s p ace shuttle. In congressional testimony, the NASA Ad mi nistrator sta t ed that this reallocation of resources requires NASA to delay severa l NASA space science proje c ts, and bud get plans for upcoming y ears reflect an increasin g priority for space ex plo r ation (see fig. 6). 52 Former commissioners and experts told us that, altho u gh NASA’s space explo r ation activi t ies are larg ely in lin e with the Commission’s recommend ation to create a space i m perative, t h e resultant pull-back of NASA funds from other activities— like aeronauti c s research, which is projected to decrease al most 30 per cent from $906 million in 2005 to $647 million (in 2005 doll a rs) in 2011, or support for basic scientific

51 F or ad ditional i n formation o n federal b udget cons traints s e e GAO
, 21s t Ce ntu r y Ch a llenges : Re ex a m i n i n g th e Ba se of th e Fe d era l Gover n ment , G A O-05-325SP (Washington, D

. C.: Feb. 2005).

52 Statement of M i chael Griffin, Administrat or, NASA, bef ore t h e Committee on Science, House of Rep r e s entatives, February 16, 2006.

P a g e 30 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onresearch in aerospace at universiti es—was having neg a tive ef fects. Likewise, the recent stu d y of civ il ae ronautics research by th e National Academy of Scienc es notes that th e continued decline of aero n autics research funding will challenge NASA ’s ability to conduct basi c research needed for t h e future. 53

**F i**  **g u**  **re 6: Pro j**  **ected T**  **ren d**  **s in**  **Majo r Aero**  **sp ace-Rel**  **a ted**  **Missio n**  **s w**  **i thin**  **NASA, F**  **i scal Years**  **2 005**  **–20 11** 

S o u rce: GAO a n a ly s i s of NA S A’ s fi s c a l ye a r 2007 Pre s identi a l B u dget Re qu e s t. **Con s**  **tant fi s**  **cal year 2005 dollar s**  **in million s** 

**0 1,000**  **2,000 3,000**  **4,000 5,000**  **6,000 7,000**  **8,000 9,000** 

Aeron au tic s re s e a rch S cience Explor a tion s y s tem s S p a ce oper a tion s **2011 2010**  **2009 2008**  **2007 2006**  **2005**

**Fi s**  **cal year**

Note: Thi s figure exclude s NASA’s budget for cr oss-agen cy suppo rt program s, su ch as edu cation program s, an d th e Inspe c to r Ge ne ral’s Offi ce. Spa c e operation s incl udes fun d ing for the spa c e shuttle and In ternational Space S t ation. Explorat io n system s in cludes the b udget s fo r developing new spa c e vehicles such a s the C r ew Launch Ve hicle a nd Crew E x plorat ion Vehicle. Scie nce include s funding for ea rth-sun, solar syste m , and unive rse pr ogram s. Ae ron autics re search i s the tot a l budget for the Aeronauti cs Research Mission Dire ctorat e.

53 National Res e a r ch C ouncil of t h e Natio n al Ac ademy of Scien c es , Dec adal Su r v e y of Civil Aerona uti c s: F o und a t i o n for th e Futu r e (Wa s hington, D

. C. : 2006).

P a g e 31 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onFAA and JPDO also face difficult bu dget prioritization questi ons that are likely to challenge their ability to address the Commi ssion’s recommendation to esta blish a new automated a i r traffic management system. For example, JPDO faces ch allenges in p r oviding Co ngress with realistic cost estimates for the en tire NGATS effort. While JPDO is responsible for the planning of NGA TS, the implementation of NGATS will fall in large part to FAA. We reported 54 that FAA faces ch allen ges in institutionalizing recent i m provements in its management and acquisition processes, as well as in obtaining th e expertise a nd resources needed to implement NGATS. We noted that tr ansforming the national airspace system whil e the current system continues to operate will be an enormously complex un dertaking, m a de more ch allengin g by a difficult budgetary environment. Going forward, efforts by both FAA and JPDO to control costs and leverage resources will become ever more critical. Success depends on the ability of FA A and JPDO to define their roles and form a colla borative en v i ronment for pl anning an d implementing the n e xt generation s y stem.



## Agencies Face Challenges in Coordi nating Efforts to A

v oid Duplication and Inefficiency According t o experts an d our work, better coord i nation among federal agenci es, pri vate industr y, and un iversities could help ad vance the aerospace in dustry by reducing dupli cative efforts and leveraging resources more efficient l y. Such coo r di nation is particularly important for STEM funding and JPDO, both of which invol ve multiple agencies. As previously discussed and as we re ported in 2005, 13 federal civilian agenci es rep o rted fundin g 207 edu cat i on programs in fiscal year 2004 to expand and improve STEM training. 55 Additionall y, experts stated that, since these STEM programs are ope rated by the government and are designed to meet the needs of the federal government, industry, and research facilities, it is important that these key groups coordinate to develop an o verall strate gy. However , as we reported, there h a s been limited coordination bet w een these programs. According to our prior report and experts with whom we spoke, the current lack of coordinatio n is hindering improvements to STEM education.

54 GAO-06-915T

.

55 GAO, Hi gh er Ed uca ti on: Fed e r a l S c i enc e, Te ch nology , Engi nee ri ng, a n d Ma th ema t i cs Progra m s a n d Rela ted Tr end s , GAO-06-114 (Washington D.C.: Oct. 12, 200 5 ). Am ong the agencies involved in t h ese programs are NASA and FAA, which support deg r ees in
aerospace a n d aerona utical en gineering.

P a g e 32 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onJPDO also faces the cha llenge of co ordinating with its partner agenci es in creating NG ATS. According to our re search, ag en cies must have a clear and compell i ng rationale for working together to overcome significant differences i n their missions, cultur es, and establ ished ways of doing business. JPDO’s integrated plan, among other th ings, provid es a framework f o r institutionalizing coll aboration among multip le federal agenci es. JPDO is fundamentally a p l anning and coordinating body; therefore, it will be chall e nged to co ordinate with its partner agen cies, in part, beca use those ag en cies hav e di f f ering missions and priorities. In addition, ou r work has shown that collaborating agenci es should work together to define and agree on their respective r o les and res ponsibilities, including how the collaborative effor t will be led. 56 In JPDO’s case, there is no formalized, long-term agreement o n the partne r agenci es’ roles and responsibilities in creati n g NGATS. According t o JPDO officials, a memorandu m of understanding that would define partner agencies’ relationships was being develop ed, b u t has not b een complet e d. It is particularly important for JPDO and FAA’s Air Traffic Organiz ation to define their respective r o les and res ponsibilities, since both organizations are involv ed in planning the nationa l airspace system’s modernization and in coordinat i ng the chall e nging trans i tion from the current air traffic control system to NGAT S

.

Sustaining t h e nation’s l ong-term commitment to science an d technology—including aerospace s c ienc e and t echnology—presents great opportunities to improve the qual ity of life, the p e rformance of the
economy, an d the relatio n ship of government to its citizens. Advances in aerospace t e chnology in the United S t ates have hi storically been fueled by combined p ublic and pri vate sector R&D, which have ensured the United States a glob al lead ership position in the aerospace industry. However, a growing fiscal imbalance will require the nation to decide what level of federal spen ding it want s—including funding of aerospace R &D. Additionally, as other go vernments, such as the E u ropean Uni on, increase the use of g o vernment resources to pursue glob al lead ership in the aerospace in dustry, the United Stat e s ’ preeminent position is being challen ged. 

# Concluding Observations

56 GAO, Nex t Genera ti on Ai r T r

a nsp orta ti on S y s tem: Pr eli m i n a r y Ana l y s i s of th e Joi n t Pla nni ng a n d Develop m ent O ffi ce’ s P l a nni n g , Prog r e ss, a n d Ch a llenges
, GAO-06-574T (Was hingto n D

. C.: Mar. 29, 200 6 ).

P a g e 33 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onWhile Congr e ss did not e s tablish any requirements to implement the Commission’s recommendations, Cong ress and several fed e ral agen cies have t a ken s i gnificant ac tions that be gin to addre ss many of them. If Congress and federal agencies want to continue t o address the Commission ’s recommendations, it will require leadership from all levels of governme n t and the p r ivate sector . The establi s hment of JPDO and the President’s space explor ation polic y are two major actions ta ken by th e federal government, both of which w ill require the federal government to maintain long-term funding commitmen ts. Our prior work has shown that one way to accomplish this is for fede ral ag encie s to continu e to form collaborativ e environme n ts for planni ng and impl ementing lar ge crosscutting prog rams such as NGATS. For example, JPDO has already move d to leverage other federal agen cy res our ces by co nducting a review of its partner agen cies’ R&D programs to identify ongoi ng work that could support NGATS. Our prior work has also shown that the go vernment’s use of public-pri vate p a rtnerships can help to focus li mited resources in programs th at could pro v ide the greatest benefit

— both for the government and the priv ate sector—and spread t h e risk acro ss multiple stakeholder s . The Commission emphasized the goal of d evel oping stronger public-privat e partnerships, and some of the most significant actions that address the Commission’s recomme ndations brought cross-government efforts together with industry to make advances with positive results.

We provided a draft of th is report to Defense, DOT, Labor, NASA, and OSTP for their review and comment. Labor and NASA provided written comments (see apps. V and VI). DOT and OSTP provided technical clarification s , which we incorporate d into this report as appropriate. Defense had no comments on the draft report. 

# Agency Comments

In response to the report ’ s descripti on of comments by exper t s concernin g the Presiden t’s High Growth Job Training Initiative, Labor em phasized that this initiative is designed to dem onstrate innovative model solutions to these chall e nges, which may be lev e raged and re plicated b y t h e larger publicly fun d ed workforce inv e stment system. The ag ency th erefore believes th at this approach will devel op the abilit y to respond to the industry’s changing competency and skill requirements. We revised the report to reflect Labor’s viewpoint, b u t point out that since th e initiative has not been evalu a ted, i t s impact is unknown.

NASA generally a g reed with the report’s content s , but provided several clarifying co mments. For example, N A SA identified addition a l actions it has taken th at are ali g ned with Commission rec o mmendations, such as

P a g e 34 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onproviding research grant s to universiti es and NASA explained that it will continue to conduct flight test demons trations with other fed e ral agencies, such as Defe nse. We revi sed the repo rt to include NASA’s other actions. I n addition, NASA noted th at its aeronaut ics research budget is not projected to decline b y 50 p e rcent from fiscal year 2 006 to fiscal year 2 011, as state d in our report draft. We a g r ee that 5 0 p e rcent was a n incorrect c a lculation and further agree with t h e budget n u mbers stated in NASA’s letter. However, to evalu a te bu dget trends o ver a numb e r of years i n real terms, we present budget numbers in the report in infl ation-adjust ed dollars. Therefore, when converted into 2005 dollars, th e proposed aeronautics research bu dget will decrease by n early 30 per c ent from $906 million in 2005 to $647 million (in 2005 doll a rs) in 2011. We corrected an d clarified the report language.

As agreed with your offi ce, unl ess you publicly announce th e contents o f this report earlier, we plan no further distributio n until 15 d a ys after the report date. At that time, we will send copies of t h is report to interested congressional committees, the Secretaries of Defense, Labor, and Transportation; the Administrators o f FAA and NASA; and th e Director of OSTP. We will also make copies av ail a ble to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov

.
If you have any qu estions about this report, pleas e contact me at (202) 512- 2834 or dilli nghamg@gao.gov . Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public A ffairs may be found on t h e last page of this report. Key contri butors to this report are listed in app e ndix VII.

Sincerely yo urs,

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

P a g e 35 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onAppendix I: Obj e ctives, S c ope , and Methodology 

# Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In considering the reco mmendations made by th e Commission on the Future of th e United States Aerospace Industry (the Commission), this report addresses the following research question s: (1) To what extent h a ve federal a gen cies addressed select ed Commission recommendations? (2) What ch allenges rem a in in addre ssing these recommendations?

The 20 02 re port by the Commi ssion contains ni ne broad recommendations, each of which cal l for multiple actions by the federal government. 1 We select ed six of these recommendations for review. To assist us in our selection, we intervie wed five of t h e twelve fo rmer Commission ers—including the Commission’s former Chair—and the Commission’s former executive dire ctor, to obta i n their view s on the relative imp o rtance and potential impact of the recommendations. Since each of th e f o rmer Commissioners is an expert i n specific a e r ospace issues the Commission examined, we selected th e s e former Commissioners to ensure cov e rage o f all Commission recommendations. The six reco mmendations call for: (1) transforming the nati on al air transportation system, (2) creating a U.S. space e xploration i m perative, (3) creating a government-wide management structure to su pport a national a e rospace polic y, (4) establi s hing a le vel playing fiel d for the United States in global markets, (5) promoting the growth of the U.S.
aerospace w o rkforce, an d (6) increas ing gov e rnment investme n t in
aerospace r e search and developmen t (R&D). We selected th e s e recommendations accor d ing to the d egree to whi c h they wer e viewed as important by former Commission me mbers and by us, and called for measurable agenc y a c tio n s.

To address our two research questio n s, we obtained and anal yzed information from a variety of sources, including agency budget documents, reports, policies, legislat ion, regulati ons, strategic plans, briefings, an d our own reports. We i n terviewed officials from the Federal Aviation Ad ministration (FAA); the De partments of Defense (Defense), Labor (Labo r), and Transportation (DOT); the Office of Sci e nce and Technology Policy (OSTP); and the National Aeronautics an d Space Administration (NASA). We also visit e d NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center and Ames Resea r ch Center. I n addition, we interviewed official s from the Aerospace Indu stries Association, Boein g , and North r up Grumman to obtain their views on ag ency actions and ch allen ges. Finally
,

1 Commis s i on on the F u t ure of t h e U n ited States Aeros pace I n dus try, Fi na l Rep o rt (Arlington, Va.: Nov

. 2002 ).

P a g e 36 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onAppendix I: Obj e ctives, S c ope , and Methodology

with the assistance of th e National A cademy of S c iences, we identified 15 exp e rts in the fields of air transportation, spa ce, a e rospac e policy and government structure, ae rospace workfo rce and e ducation, an d aerospace R&D. We interviewed th ese experts t o obtain thei r views on the extent to which the fe deral action s have ad dre ssed the sele cted Commission recommendations, and on the ch all e nges that li e ahe a d. (Ta b le 4 id entifi es the list of participating experts.)

**Ta ble**  **4 :**  **Ex pe**  **r t**  **s Pr**  **ov iding I**  **nput dur**  **in g O**  **u r**  **Re v**  **i e**  **w**

**Exp ert**  **Area o f**  **exp e**  **r t**  **i se**  Dwight Abbott, General Manager (retired) , S ystems Engineering D i vision, The Aerosp ace Cor porati on • Space

Bill Bal lha us, Preside nt and C hief Execut iv e O fficer, T he Aerospac e Corp o r ation • Space

Jack F earnsi d e s , Senior Strategic Co nsu l tan t to the Preside nt, Lockhee d- Martin Air T r affic Managem ent Com pany • Air transportati on

• Aerosp ace po li cy and gov ern m ent structure
Mike F r eeman, Vice Presid ent and Progr am Mana ger, Nort hrop G r umma n • Air transportati on
Rich G olasz e w ski, Executive Vice Presi dent, G R A Incorpor ated • Air transportati on

• Aerospace R& D

Bernar d G r ossman, Vice Pres ident for Educ a t ion an d O u treach, T he Natio nal Institute of Aerospac e • Aerosp ace wor k force and e d u c ation

Holl is Harris, P r eside nt and C hief Executiv e O fficer (retired), W o rld Airway s • Air transportati on
Preston He nne , Senior Vice P r eside nt for Programs, Eng i n eerin g, and T e st, G ulfstream • Aerospace R& D

John LaGraff, Professor, Department of Mechanic al and Aeros pac e Engineering, Syracuse U niv ersity • Aerosp ace wor k force and e d u c ation

John McMaste rs, T e chnical F ello w, T he Boe ing Com p a n y • Aerosp ace wor k force and e d u c ation

G eorge Mu ell n e r, Vice Presid ent and G e ner al Man ager of Air F o rce Systems for Integrated D e fense Systems, T he Boein g C o mpa n y • Space

Bob Rav e ra, C onsult ant, RJR Aviation, LL C • Air transportati on

• Aerosp ace po li cy and gov ern m ent structure Dorothy R obyn

, Senior Co nsu l tant, T he Brattle G r oup • Aerosp ace po li cy and gov ern m ent structure

Anna lisa W e i g el, Professor, Aeron aut ics an d Astronautics, Massachus etts Institute of T e chnol ogy • Aerosp ace po li cy and gov ern m ent structure

• Aerospace R& D

Dave W i sler, M ana ger of Univ ersity Program s and Aero T e c hnol ogy L abs, G E Aircraft Engin e s • Aerosp ace wor k force and e d u c ation

Sour ce: GAO

.

P a g e 37 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onAppendix I: Obj e ctives, S c ope , and Methodology

We did not analyze the validity of th e Commissio n ’s recommendations, and our work does not t a ke a p o sition on, or represent an en d o rsement of, the recommendations, o r the actions that addres s them. We conducted ou r work from August 200 5 t h rough Sept ember 2006 i n accordan c e with generall y ac cepted gove rnment auditing standar d s.

P a g e 38 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onAppendix Developme II: Ae rospace Rese arch a n d

n t F unding Trend s

Page 3 9 GA O- 06- 9 20 

# Appendix II: Aerospace Research and Development Funding T r ends

Aerospace R&D includes a wide rang e of acti v itie s, from basic scientific research to t h e develop m ent of new technologi e s in increasi n gly diverse fields of study. Feder a l dollars continue to be a s i gnificant co ntributor to U.S. aerospa ce R&D, but in recent ye ars, the fede ral role has declined relative to i n dustry funding. The thre e major federal agen cies that support aerospace R &D— Defense, NASA, and FAA—have different priorities and missions that are reflect e d in thei r respective R&D portfolios. Defense’s R&D budget is greater th an any other agen cy—with a large majority of its R&D funds supporting d evelopment projects—and its R&D budgets for air and space R&D has increased in rec e nt ye ars. NASA’s current prioritization of space exploration h a s driven R &D funding priorities, and under current plans NASA will provide more funding for development activities th an for basic and applied r e search. Lik e wise, NAS A ’s projected funding for aeronautics research an d science is in slight decl ine. FAA, with the smallest R&D budget of the three agenci es, fo cuses funding on the developmen t of the next generation a i r transportation system (NGATS), but its R&D funding has also declined.

Aerospace R&D includes a wide rang e of acti v itie s such as ba sic research, applied rese arch, and d e velopment. Basic research works to expand fundamental knowledge i n areas su ch as physics, chemistry, and mathematics without specific applic ations in mind; however , it may include acti vities with broad applications. Applied research aims to gain knowledge applicable to solving specific and id en tified needs, building on the gen eral work of the basic sc ienc es. Applied aerospace r e search includes acti v ities to develop better p r opulsion and power technology, advanced sp acecraft t e chnology, an d crew and personnel protection technology. Developmen t projects us e the knowl e dge and un derstanding develop ed b y researcher s to build ne w, or improve existing, systems. Ne w military weapons systems, a replacement for the space shuttl e, and n e w commercial aircraft are all examples of major development p r ojects. 

# Aeros p ace R &D Includes a W i de Range of Acti vities

Increasingly
, R&D in areas not traditionally assoc i ated with a e rospace, such as computer software, has appl i cability to the sector. At t h e same time, long-established ar eas for aero s p ace resear ch may brin g benefits to other econo mic sectors. For example, advan ces i n software might benefi t new flight control systems and have applicatio n s to banking, or new ceramic materials develo p ed for airpl a nes might be used in aut o mobiles. Researchers do not always know beforehand where the resul t s of their work will fin d useful applications. This uncertaint y is particul arly characteristi c of basic re search that, by definition , is not motivated b y

A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix II: Ae rospace Rese arch a n d Developme n t F unding Trend s

possible applications. Co nsequently, i t is difficult t o estimate the range of R&D activities that have an impact o n the aerosp ace industry.

The federal government’ s support of R&D has been critical to maintaining the nation’s global le ade r ship in the aerospace in dustry. For example, government- supported research en able d the d e velopment of jet engin e technologi e s that help ed U.S. co mmercial and mil i tary aircraft manufacturers achieve gl obal prominence. Ac cor d ing to indu stry statistics, aerospace co mpanies are funding an i n creasing p o rtion of industrial R&D than they did in the past. 1 In fisca l year 2 003 , t h e most recent year f o r which data are a vailab l e, federal fu nds supported 48 percent o f industry R&D in the ae rospace ind u stry, whereas in 1999 th e federal shar e was 63 per cent. Nev e rt heless, the f e deral role r e mains significant. 

# Federal Support of R&D Remains Critical to the A e ros p ace Industry

Industrial R&D tends to focus on technology d e velopment that is specific to individual company pr oducts. As a result, company fundin g is significantly lower for basic and a p p lied researc h than for d evelopment. According t o aerospace industry st atistics, federal dollars fund the majority of the basic a n d applied rese arch performed by the aerospace industry, whereas most development is funded by companies themselves. In dollar ter m s, development expen d itures, by b o th companies and the federal go ve rnment, are much higher than resear ch expen d it ures. Nonetheless, federal fun d s provide t h e dominant share of ap plied resear ch support, in particular. Aerospace ind u stry experts told us that, if industry is to benefit from federally funded b a sic and appli e d research, new technologi e s must be developed to a relativel y high level t o be easily applied to pr oduct devel opment. Likewise, our prior work ha s found that technologi e s with a high level of mat u rity are more likely to b e applied successfully to product d evelopment projects. An individual company is unlikely to i n vest its own money in basic and ap plied resear ch that offer s uncertain payoffs and might benefit competitors.

1 F or the p urp os e of t h is rep ort, w e define indu s t ry-funded R& D to exclu d e R &D fu nde d by the gove rnment (and fede rally funded R&D c e nters) a nd aca d emia.

Page 4 0 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix II: Ae rospace Rese arch a n d Developme n t F unding Trend s

R&D fundin g levels differ by agency and mission. The primary federal agenci es en gaged in a e rospace R&D are Defense
, NASA, and, to a lesser extent, FAA. Defense accounts for the majority of aerospace R&D funding.

Like Defens e’s budget i n general, Def e nse’s overa ll R&D budget has increased in recent years and is th e l a rgest federal supporter of R&D. 2 Its current modernization ef fort is driving increases i n R&D expenditures for developin g major weapons systems, in cluding aviation, missile, and space systems. In 2005, with a budget of $8.1 billion, th e ballistic missile defense program wa s the largest R&D progra m in Defense—nearly more than twice the bu dget of the Joint Strike F i ghter, the s econd largest program. The Aerona utics and Sp ace Report o f the Preside n t estimates Defense’s budget for s p ace activiti e s in fiscal y ear 20 06 at $ 22.7 bil lion

— over $7 billion m o re than NASA’s. Within Defense’s R&D budget are funds for science and technology activities. T h ese fund R &D that is typically n o t associated with specific weapons systems and potentially can benefit a wide range of military a nd civilian applications. 3 Since 2 001
, Defense’s science and technology budget has i n creased for both air and space activities (se e fig. 7). 

# Objectives of Federal Funding for Aeros p ace R &D Differ by A g ency and Mission

Department of Defense

2 F or the p urp os es of this re po r t , Defe ns e’s Re s e arch, Develo pment, T e s t ing and Evaluatio n budget is referred to as Defens e ’s R&D budget

.

3 Defense’s R&D bu dget is divid e d into seve n c ategories in the Defense budge t : basic

res earch, appli e d res earc h
, ad vanced tec hnol ogy develo pme n t, demons trati on a n d validation, e n gineering a n d ma nufacturi ng de velopment, ma nagement support, and operational systems developm ent. The first th ree categories are referred to as science and technology

.

Page 4 1 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix II: Ae rospace Rese arch a n d Developme n t F unding Trend s

**Figure 7: Defense Budget for Science and Technology f**  **o r Air and Space Platform**  **s, F**  **i scal Years**  **2 001-**  **200 5** 

S o u rce: GAO a n a ly s i s of Defen s e d a t a

. **Con s**  **tant fi s**  **cal year 2005 dollar s**  **in million s** 

**Fi s**  **cal year 0**  **100 200**  **300 400**  **500 600**  **700 800**  **900 1,000** 

S p a ce pl a tform s Air pl a tform s **2005 2004**  **2003 2002**  **2001**

Note: Fiscal year 2005 is the late st y ear for w h ich t hese dat a are a v ailable.

Like industry-funded R&D, defense R &D tends to focus on advanced stages of de velopment rather on tha n basic or a pplied resea r ch. As a result, Defense’s outlays for basic an d applied re search ac co unt for less than 10 percent, or $6.3 billion, of its total outlays for R&D in fiscal year 2005 . Conve r sely, $63 bil lion went to developmen t activities. For example, $8.2 bil lion of the Missile Defense A gency’s $8. 8 billion R&D budget for fiscal year 2 005 went to developmen t activities, n o t to basic o r applied research. Nevertheless, Defense rema ins a signifi cant supporter of basic and appli e d research, with Defense s upport climbing between fiscal years 2001 and 20 06. (See fig. 8.) However, current pla n s call for a decline i n fiscal year 2 007.

Page 4 2 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix II: Ae rospace Rese arch a n d Developme n t F unding Trend s

**Figur e**  **8 : Defense Budget Authority for B**  **asic and Appli e**  **d Research, and for Develo**  **p m**  **en t, F**  **i scal Years**  **199 9–2**  **00 7** 

S o u rce: GAO a n a ly s i s of Defen s e bu dget doc u ment s

. **Con s**  **tant fi s**  **cal year 2005 dollar s**  **in million s** 

**0 10,000**  **20,000 30,000**  **40,000 50,000**  **60,000 70,000** 

DOD development DOD bas ic a nd a pplied re s e a rch **2007 2006**  **2005 2004**  **2003 2002**  **2001 2000**  **1999**

**Fi s**  **cal year**

Note: Defen s e fu nding data are n o t spe c ific to ae rosp a c e a c tivities. Fiscal ye a r 2007 data com e from the Pre s ident’s p r oposed budget ; 2006 data a r e e s timated outlays.

Page 4 3 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix II: Ae rospace Rese arch a n d Developme n t F unding Trend s

NASA’s R&D includes a broad range of complex and techni cal acti v ities

— from space exploration to scientific obs ervation s of the sola r system to the developmen t of new avi ation techno logies, inclu d ing those n eeded for NGATS. According to th e President’s proposed fiscal year 2007 budget an d NASA’s current plans, sp ace explorat ion activiti e s, including R&D, will continue to be the lar gest part of NASA’s budget in the future. This trend will be driven by the d e velopment of a replacement vehicl e fo r the space shuttle, manned lunar ex ploration, an d robotic an d manned Mars exploration mission s. In contrast, funding for aer onautics research and some space and earth science research within NASA will decline until fiscal year 2 011 (see fi g. 9). 

## National Aeronauti c s and Space Administrati on

**F i**  **g u**  **re 9: Actual an d**  **Pro j**  **ected F**  **u n**  **d i**  **ng T**  **r en**  **d s**  **in Majo**  **r Aero sp**  **a ce-R**  **e lated**  **Missio n**  **s w**  **i thin**  **NASA, F i**  **sc al Years 2**  **0 0**  **5 –20**  **11**

S o u rce: GAO a n a ly s i s of the Pre s ident ’s fi s c a l ye a r 2007 bu dget re qu e s t for NA S A. **Con s**  **tant fi s**  **cal year 2005 dollar s**  **in million s** 

**0 1,000**  **2,000 3,000**  **4,000 5,000**  **6,000 7,000**  **8,000 9,000** 

Aeron au tic s re s e a rch S cience Explor a tion s y s tem s S p a ce oper a tion s **2011 2010**  **2009 2008**  **2007 2006**  **2005**

**Fi s**  **cal year**

Notes: Sp ace op erations in cludes the spa c e shuttl e, International S pace Station, a n d flight support

. Exploration syste m s include s the budgets for de vel oping new space vehicle s , such a s the C r ew Launch Ve hicle a nd Crew E x plorat ion Vehicle. Sc ie nce include s ea rt h-sun

, solar syst e m, and universe progra m s. Aero nautics resea r ch is the t o tal budget for th e Aeronautics Re search Mission Directo r ate.
Fiscal year 2005 and fisc al yea r 2 006 are a c tual fu nding amounts.

Page 4 4 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix II: Ae rospace Rese arch a n d Developme n t F unding Trend s

Like NASA’s budget o ver all, the agen cy’s R&D funding is relatively stabl e , but current space explo r ation plans call for a shi ft toward more developmen t and less research. Con s equently, N A SA’s funding for basic and appli e d research has been d eclini n g while its funding for developmen t has increase d (see fig. 1 0 )

.

**Figure 10: NASA’s Budget Authority for**  **Basic and Applied Research, and for Develo**  **p m**  **en t, F**  **i scal Years**  **199 9–2**  **00 7** 

S o u rce: GAO a n a ly s i s of bu dget doc u ment s

. **Con s**  **tant fi s**  **cal year 2005 dollar s**  **in million s** 

**0 1,000**  **2,000 3,000**  **4,000 5,000**  **6,000 7,000** 

NA S A development NA S A bas ic a nd a pplied re s e a rch **2007 2006**  **2005 2004**  **2003 2002**  **2001 2000**  **1999**

**Fi s**  **cal year**



## Federal A v iati on Administration The major focus of FAA’s R&D is the realization of NGATS. The new system requires work in multiple areas, and sev e r al R&D programs are currently un der way. However, FAA’s R&D budg et has gen erally declined since the pu blication of t h e Commissi on’s report in 2002, because some programs have be en com p leted and n e w NGATS projects hav e not take n their place (see fig. 1 1 ). 4 For example, R&D on Automatic Dependent

4 FAA’s R&D budget increased in fiscal year 20 02 partly because of new post- September 11, 2001, aviation security fu nding . This security r e search is now funde d th roug h Homelan d Security.

Page 4 5 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix II: Ae rospace Rese arch a n d Developme n t F unding Trend s

Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) 5 was completed i n 2006, and no additional funding was sought for this program for fiscal year 2007. In addition, FAA’s R&D budget includes pr ojects that a r e not relate d to NGATS, such as aviation saf e ty projects p e rtaining to weather and aircraft agin g . FAA classifies a l a rge proportion of its R&D as part of facilities and equipment activities. 6 This R&D includes a progr a m to reduce runway in cursions, the Capstone program 7 in Alaska, and several airs pace programs, to name a few. Compa r ed with Defense’s and N A SA’s R&D activities, F AA’s are small.

5 ADS-B is a surv eillance technology that t r ans m it s an aircraft ’s identity, posi t ion, vel o city, and inte nt t o ot her airc raft and to air tr affic c o ntrol systems on the ground, t h ereby enabling pilots and c ontrollers to have a com m on picture of airspace and traffic.

6 FAA’s budget includes funds f or ‘Facilities an d Equipme n t’ a c tivities . These activities aim to impr ove a n d mode rniz e the equipment ce nt ra l to t h e national airspace sy stem. Some of its facilit ies and equipme nt ac tivities involve R&D.

7 Caps tone is an F AA prog ram i n tende d to imp rov e aviation s y s tem s afety in Alas ka thro ugh the introduction of new navigation technolog ies.

Page 4 6 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix II: Ae rospace Rese arch a n d Developme n t F unding Trend s

**Figure 11: FA A Outlays for**  **R&D, Including R&D for Facilities and E**  **q uipment, Fiscal**  **Year s 199**  **9– 2**  **007**

S o u rce: GAO a n a ly s i s of FAA d a t a

. **Con s**  **tant fi s**  **cal year 2005 dollar s** 

**0 50,000**  **100,000 150,000**  **200,000 250,000**  **300,000**

F a cilitie s a nd e qu ipment (re s e a rch a nd development) Re s e a rch, engineering, a nd development **2007 2006**  **2005 2004**  **2003 2002**  **2001 2000**  **1999**

**Fi s**  **cal year**

Note: Fa c ilities and equipment da ta inc l ude outlays for t he airpo r t improvement pro g ram and s p a c e
c o mmerc ializ ation R&D.

Page 4 7 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations 

# Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address Selected Aerospace Commission Recommendations

This append ix provides additional d e tails on sel ected Commission recommend ations and f e deral agency actions that address them. Included below are d e scriptions of the Commission’s main recommendations and subrecommendations th at we select ed for review, as noted i n appendix I

. Also provided are descri ptions of ke y federal age ncy a c tions, with time frames, that address both the main recommendations and th e subrecommendations of the Commission report.

Recommendation : The Commission recommends the transformation of the U.S. air t r ansportation system as a national priority. The transformation requires t h e:

• rapid deploy ment of a ne w, highly au tomated air traffic management system, beyond FAA’s Operational E v olution Plan, robust enough to efficiently
, safely, and se curely a cco mmodate an evolvin g v a riety and growing number of aerospace vehi cles , and civil and military operations ;

• accel erated introduction of new aero s pace systems by shifting from product to p r ocess certification, and providing implementatio n support; and

• streamlined new airport and runway developmen t.

Subrecommendation : The federal government should devel op a fed e ral interdepart m ental group to work collaborativel y with industry, labor, and other stakeh olders, to plan a new, hi ghly automa ted air traffi c management system.

Federal Action :

• In Decembe r 2003 l egisl ation, Congr e ss directed DOT to create the Joint Planning a n d Development Office (JPDO) as an office within the FAA. Th e purpose of JPDO is to plan for the tr ansition to NGATS and to coordinat e aviation and aeronautics research pr ograms across federal ag encies. By January 20 0 4 , JPDO was established in FAA. Agencies partici p ating in JPDO include the Depart ments of Co mmerce (Co mmerce) and Homeland Security (Homeland Security), DOT, FAA, NASA, Defense, an d OSTP. The legislation al so called for JPDO to consult with the public and ensure the participatio n of experts from the private sector.

• In Decembe r 2004, JPDO delivered to Congress the Integrat e d National Plan, which established a vision for t h e national air transportation system and a frame w ork within JPDO for accomplishing that vision. The plan also

Page 4 8 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

established multi-agency integrat ed pr oduct teams responsible for each of eight strategies—airport infrastructure, security, a n agile air traffic system, shared situational aware n ess, safety management, environme n t, weather, and glob al h a rmonization. In additio n , a JPDO Senior Policy Committee made up of executiv e -le vel indivi du als from all partner agen cies was established t o provide hi gh-leve l guid ance, resolv e major policy issues, and identify resource needs.

• Resources provided to J P DO by FAA and NASA:

FAA

• FAA provided $18 millio n in fiscal year 2006 to su pport JPDO and will provide a si milar amount of funds in fiscal year 2007.

• FAA leads four of JPDO’s integrated product teams and provides approximately 90 employees to s uppo rt JPDO and the product teams.

• In the President’s 2007 budget s ubmission, DOT requested $80 million for Automat e d Dependent Surveillance Broadcas t (ADS-B), which is a surveillance technology t h at transmit s an aircraft’s identity, position, velocity, and intent to ot her aircra ft and to air tr affic control systems on the groun d, thereby e n abling pilot s and contro llers to have a common picture of airspace and traff i c. DOT also requested $24 million for the System Wide Information Network, which would support the transition to network-centric operati ons by provi d ing the infr astructure and associat ed polici e s a nd standards to enable i n formation sharing among all au thorized users, such as the airlines, other gover nment agenci es, an d the military.

NASA

• NASA provided $18 million in fiscal year 2006 to s upport JPDO and will provide a si milar amount of funds in fiscal year 2007.

• NASA’s fiscal year 2006 NGATS c ontributions total $174 milli on (for Airspace Sy stems research). NASA requests for future NGATS air traffic management research funding are:

• Fiscal year 2 007: $120 million

• Fiscal year 2 008: $124 million

• Fiscal year 2 009: $105 million

• Fiscal year 2010: $91 million

Page 4 9 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

• NASA’s Aviation Safety P r ogram and Subsonic Fi xed Wing pr oject also contribute t o NGATS re search. This program and this project also provide ben e fits to other federal agencies and pr ivate industr y beyond specific NGATS research needs.

Subrecommendation : The federal government should devel op initial implementation efforts that should f o cus on changing those federal policies and procedures, such as navi gation and surveillance systems, that will provide early and significant operational benefits with little or no added “out- o f-pocket” i n vestments.

Federal Action :

• In 200 2, FA A committe d to dev e lop and implement a pla n fo r performance-based navi gation, whic h uses two concepts—“Area Navigation,” commonly known as RN AV, and required navi gation performance (RNP) operations. RNAV allows operators of properly equipped air c raft to use onboard navi gation capabilities to fly desired flight paths without requiring direct flight over ground-based navigation aids. RNP adds to RNAV by takin g advanta ge o f the aircraft ’s avionics navigati on performance-monitoring and alerting capabilit y. B y potentiall y allowing users to fly shorter rout es, RNAV and RNP hold promise to reduce flight times and fuel consumption; this would, in turn , save syste m users time and money. I n addition, RNP could potentially in crease the capacit y of t h e air traffic control system to handl e air traffic by reducin g the required distance (i.e ., separation ) between ai rcraft equip ped with advanced navigation capabilities.

• FAA published a pl an in 2003 (updat e d in July 2006) that lays out milestones for RNAV and RNP impl ementation over three pl anning horizons: near-term (2006–20 10), mid- term (2011– 2015), and f a r-term (2016– 202 5). For example, a n ear-ter m milestone is to develo p 25 RNP approaches per year o v e r the next 5 years.

• In June 2005, FAA published criteria for use in designing publ ic RNP instrument approach pro cedures and, as of August 2006 , FAA runs RNP procedures in Washingto n , D.C. (Reagan National Airport); San Francisco, California; P o rtland, Oregon; Palm S p rings, California; and J uneau, and six smaller city airports, in Alaska. F AA has also pu blished standard RNP procedures for Hailey (S un Valley), I d aho; Newark, New Jersey; Chica g o (Midway), Illinois; Long Beach, Calif ornia; Tucso n , Arizona; and Gary, Indiana, and expects to be using the new published RNP procedures at these six ad ditional airp orts later this year, as more aircraft operators become app r oved for RNP approac h es.

Page 5 0 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

• FAA has installed and tes t ed ADS-B technology o n a limited b a sis in aircraft sinc e 20 00 in a d e monstration program in Alaska call e d Capstone, which is a program intended to improve avi atio n system safety in Alask a through the introduction of new navi gation techn o logies. In addition, FAA has been ru nning ADS-B procedures in the Gulf of Mexico, and at airport s in Louisville, Kentucky, and Memphis, Tennessee.

• In Septembe r 2005, FAA executiv e s reviewed inf o rmation on investment and alternati ves for the A D S-B program and approved the t ech nology for a more thorou gh anal ysis for possible future deployment on a n a tional basis

. In the first half of 2006, FAA will analyze specifi c costs and benefits for implementing the techno logy and submit a final p r oposal for FAA executiv e -le vel revi ew in June 200 6. With a positi ve investment decision, the first AD S-B impleme n tation segment envisions the potential deployment of approximately 400 ground-based transmitters a nd the implementation of terminal, en route, and broad c ast ADS-B services from fiscal years 2007 –20 12.

**F i**  **g u**  **re 12: G l**  **ob al Po**  **sitio n**  **i ng**  **System Dis p**  **lay Screen U**  **sed in**  **Cap s**  **ton e**  **Pro g**  **ram**

Sub-recommendation : FAA should support and motivate eff o rts for the installation of system-critical airbor ne equipme nt by providi n g either full S o u rce: G a rmin, Ltd.

Page 5 1 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

or partial federal fundin g , or by auct ioning investment credits, for such equipment.

Federal Action :

• In 199 9, the Capstone program recei ved initial fu nding. This f i rst phase focused on providing advanced navi gat ion capability and equipment for aircraft oper a ting air taxi services in s outhwest Alaska. By 2004, FAA had installed 11 ground-based navigati on transmitters and equipped 208 aircraft with Capstone avionics capabilit ies, such as ADS-B. The Capstone program includes full fu nding for op erator equip age.

• In 2003, Cap s tone phase II expanded th e program to air taxi aircraft in southeast Alaska and included similar navigation capabiliti e s and full funding for operator equipage. As of J une 2006, the FAA has a total of 366 aircraft in th e Capstone program.

• A September 2004 pl an f o r phase III of Capstone calls for exp a nding Capstone throughout Alaska. The pl an proposed $25 million per year through fiscal ye ar 200 7 for reimbur sements to pilots who paid for Capstone equipment and installation. A final deci sion on Capstone phase III is expect ed by the end of summer 2006.

Sub-recommendation : The federal government should streamline the regulatory p r ocess to enable timely developmen t of regulati ons needed t o address new technologi e s.

Federal Action :

• FAA uses se veral approa ches to strea m line the re gulatory pro cess for new technologi e s:

• FAA sometimes uses a “special cond ition” to app r ove new technology under an exi s ting rule. F o r example, FAA issued a new standard on the existing typ e of certific a t e for a g e ne ral aviation aircraft to al low a parachute to be deplo yed as a last res o rt in an emergency . Th e parachute re covery syste m is intended to prevent serious passenger injuries by p a rachuting t h e aircraft t o the ground

.

• FAA sometimes uses existing regulat i ons without a special co ndition and publish e s new methods of compliance for th e new techn o logy. Th e methods are neither man d atory nor regulatory bu t describe acceptable means for showing compliance with regulations. For example, in December 2 005, FAA pu blished an a d visory circ ular on the a cceptabl e

Page 5 2 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

means for showing compliance for t h e use of “sy n thetic visio n ” develop ed b y the military.

• FAA has also develo p ed new proced ures that ap ply to all rul e making, including rul e s for new technologi e s. Highlights i n clude the f o llowing:

• In 2003, FA A supplemented its weekly management review of ongoing rule making with a standing meeting of senior policy makers to review significant r u les in order to expedit e their review. It also gav e a higher priority to nonsignifican t rules that h a d gone through the publ ic comment stage.

• In 200 4, to li nk rule-making performance with pay
, FAA create d shared executiv e co mpensation incentiv e s for senior executives th at are tied to timely completion of rules.

• In 2005, FA A adopted a performance standard t h at requires 80 percent of all initiat e d rules to be issued within 90 days of their originally scheduled is suance dat e

.

Subrecommendation : FAA should focus on certifying a manufacturing organization ’ s internal d e sign, simulation, testin g, and qualit y assurance processes to ensure that organization s ’ products comply with all applicabl e r egulations, and are deli vered in a co ndition for safe operatio n

.

Federal Action :

• In October 2 005, FAA issued a fin a l rule for a ne w Organization Designation Authorization. This program expands the number of organization a l designees and should ultimately reduce the nu mber of individual d e signees. FA A’s designee programs authorize about 13,400 private individuals and about 180 or ganizations nationwide, k nown as “designees,” to act as rep r esentatives of the agency to condu ct many safety certification activiti e s, such as administering flig ht tests to pilots, inspecting r e pair work by maintena nce facilities, conducting medical examination s of pilots, and approvin g designs for aircraft part s. The program allows FAA to expand and standardize the approval functions of organizational designees and also expand eligi b ilit y for organiz ational designees. F AA issued a final order f o r the rule i n 200 6.

• In addition, Congress has mandated that FAA develop an d i m plement a certified des i gn organization program. Under this program, certain designees th at design an d produce ai rcraft parts and equi p ment would no longer be d e signees; rath er, they wou l d conduct t h eir approval functions

Page 5 3 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

under a new l y creat ed F AA certificat e. FAA expects to provid e a report to Congress, by the manda ted Decemb e r 200 7 dea d line, for the developmen t and oversight of a system to certify design organizations.

Subrecommendation : FAA and other agen cies should ado p t regulatio n s or procedures that would expedite n e w runway and airport development.

Federal Action :

• FAA is reallocating staff resources and increasin g the use of consultants to assist it with the coordin a tion and ad ministration of environmental impact
statements.

• To increase coordinatio n and reduc e dela ys, FAA has create d a process for establishing multidisciplinary e n vironmental review teams for new reviews at large hub airp orts.

• In April 2006 , FAA completed a re vise d order for streamlining airport developmen t projects that includes t h e ability to give priority review to certain proj ects; promotes public re v i ew and comment; manages timeline s during the r eview; and e xpedites co ordination b e tween those federal, state, and lo cal a genci es involved in e n vironmental reviews in order to reduce undu e delays during the review process.

• To increase coordinatio n and assign account abil ity for new runway construction tasks, FAA is using detai l ed plans cal l ed Runway Template Action Plans to provide a standard set of tasks that must be considered when develo p ing new runways (FAA develop ed t h e tool in A u gust 200 1).

Recommendation : The Commission recommends that the Un ited States create a space imperative. Defense, NASA, and industry must partner in innovative aerospace technologies, esp ecially in areas of pro pulsion and power. These innovations will enhance national s ecurity, provide major spin-offs to the economy, accelerate t h e explorati on of the near and distant universe with both human an d robotic missions, and open up new opportunities for public space travel and commercial space endeavors in the twenty-fi r st century.

Subrecommendation : Explore an d exploit sp ace to ensure national a nd planetary security, econ omic benefit
, and scienti f ic discover y.

Page 5 4 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

Federal Action :

• In January 2 004, Exe c uti ve Order 133 26 establish e d the Presi d ent’s Commission on Implementation of U n ited States Space Explo r ation Policy. This commission was chartered to provid e recommendations to th e President on implementing the vision outlined in t h e President ’ s policy statement entitled “A Renewed Spirit of Discovery,” and the P r esident’s budget sub m ission for fiscal ye ar 20 05. The commission published its report in June 2004.

• In 200 4, NASA formed the Explorati on Systems Mission Directorate to implement the President ’ s vision. Th roughout 2005, the directorate restructured its organization by redu cing he adqu arters staff, designating program and project off i ces at NASA centers, a nd realignin g acti v ities t o other missio n directorat es.

• Defense pub lished its space scie nce and techno l o gy strategy in 200 4. This strategy, which provides guidanc e fo r Defense space scie nce and technology activities, is derived jo int l y from the Defense Sci e nce and Technology Strategy and the National Security Sp ace Strat egy. The strategy add r esses space science and technology developmen t, outlines strategy implementation, describes the process by which spac e scienc e and techno l o gy progres s is assessed
, and identifies the mean s by which these goals can be achi e ved.

• In August 20 05, Defense and NASA signed an agre e ment on ho w they could coordi nate their ef forts to implement NASA’s space tra n sportation strategy. Th e agre e ment focused on the use and developmen t of national launch systems.

• In November 2005, to as sist in imple m enting the President’s space exploration policy, NAS A published its Exploration Systems Architecture Study. The p u rpose of the study was to

• assess the top-level crew expl oration vehicle requ irements,

• define the to p-level re qui r ements and configurati ons for crew and cargo laun ch systems to support the lunar and Mars exploration programs,

• develop a re ference expl oration arch itecture con cept to supp ort sustained human and robotic luna r ex ploration op erations, an d

• identify key technologi e s required to enable and s i gnificantl y enhance these refere nce expl oration systems, and reprioritize near-ter m and farterm technology investments.

Page 5 5 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

• On the basis of analysis and reco mmendations, N A SA realign e d research and techno l o gy projects

. As a result, some programs were curtailed, modified, deferred, or ad ded.

• NASA and DOD established the Partnership Council to provide a forum for senior Defense and ci vil space le ade r s to meet on a regul a r basis to discuss cross-cutting issues relevant to the nation al space co mmunity. The purpose of the Partnership Council i s to facilitat e communication between the organizations and to identify areas for collabo ration and cooperation.

**Figur e**  **1 3**  **: In fo**  **rmatio n**  **Reg ard**  **in g**  **th e Moo**  **n an**  **d Mars**

Subrecommendation : The federal government should support the developmen t of commercial spac e o p erations, such as space tourism.

Federal Action : **Mar s**  **Fact s**  **:** Aver a ge di s t a nce from the Su n: 141,6 33 ,260 mile s Su rf a ce a re a : 8 9,500,000 squa re mile s Length of d a y: 24.62 ho u r s Length of ye a r: 6 8 6.9 3 E a rth d a y s (1.9 E a rth ye a r s )
Minim u m/m a xim u m
su rf a ce temper a t u re: -125° to 2 3 ° F **Moon Fact s**  **:** Aver a ge Di s t a nce from E a rth: 2 38

, 8 55 mile s Su rf a ce Are a : 14,645,750 squa re mile s Length of D a y: 27. 3 E a rth d a y s Length of Ye a r: 27. 3 E a rth d a y s (Or b it Period = Rot a tion Period)
Minim u m/M a xim u m Su rf a ce Temper a t u re:

- 38 7° to 25 3 ° F

S o u rce: NA S A.

• FAA’s Office of Commercial Spa ce T r ansportation regulates t h e U.S. commercial space transp ortation ind u stry by lice n sing commercial spac e launches an d nonfederal spaceports. Commercial space op erations have historically l a unched co mmercial or government payloads (generally satellites) into orbit from Air Force launch sites. The industry is changing with the dev e lopment of commercial vehicles th at enable human space flight from nonfederal sp aceports. FAA is develop ing regulatio n s for launch vehicles and spaceports. The proposed regulations, based on common safety standard s developed jointly by F AA and the Air Force,

Page 5 6 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

have th e go a l of promoting consiste n t , streamlined safety revi ews of launch and reentry operations at all l a unch sites.

• The Comme rcial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 pro h ibits FAA from regulating crew an d passenger safety befor e 20 12 in or der to encourage growth in the emer ging space tourism industry.

**Figur e**  **1 4**  **: Pr**  **opos e**  **d Adv**  **a n**  **c e**  **d Or**  **bita l Tr**  **a n**  **s f**  **e r**  **Pr opuls**  **i on Te**  **c h**  **n o**  **lo gy** 

Recommendation : The Commission recommends that the fe deral government establish a n a tional a e ro space polic y and promote aerospac e by creatin g a gov e rnment-wide managem ent structure. This would include a White Hou s e policy co ordinating council, an aerospace management office in th e Office of Management a nd Budget, a nd a joint c o mmittee in Congress. The Commission further recommends the use of an annual
aerospace s ector budget to establish presidential aerospace in itiatives, ensure coordinated fund ing for such initiatives, and replace vertical S o u rce: NA S A.

Page 5 7 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

decision making with horizontally determined decisions in both authorizations and appr opriations.

Subrecommendation : Develop a p r ocess to bring the a ppropriate departments and ag enci e s together to reach a con s ensus on a national
aerospace p o licy.

Federal Action :

• In January 2004, th e Pres ident annou nced the Vision for Space Exploration, which serve s as the nati on’s space e xploration p o licy. This policy directs NASA to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a space exploratio n program.

• In Decembe r 2004, the a d ministration approved t h e U.S. Spa c e Transportation Policy. This policy’s goal was to ensure the capability to access and u s e space. It s e ts out implementation guidelines a nd actions f o r federal dep a rtments and agenci es, in cluding NAS A , Defense, and DOT.

• In September 2005, the N a tional Sci e nce and Technology Cou n cil established t h e Aeronaut ics, Scien ce, and Techno logy Sub co mmittee (ASTS). (See fig. 15.) Th e objecti ve o f ASTS is to develop a na tional aeronautics R&D policy. This policy i s expected t o establish a set of specific U.S. aeronautics research ob j ectives; d e fi ne the a ppropriate role of the federal governmen t in aeronaut ics R&D; define the roles and responsibilities of the various depart ments and agencies in aeronautics R&D; address the researc h , deve lopment, test, an d evalu a tion infrastructure; and address the c oordination of aeronautics research across the fe deral gov e rnment.

• In April 2006 , ASTS conv ened three stakeholder meetings to discuss aeronautics R&D priorities, the a ppr opriate role of the federal government, near- and f a

r-term resea r ch objectiv es and a pl a n to achieve them, and the roles and res ponsibilities of the multiple federal agenci es inv o lved in aer onautics research. Repre s entatives from government, industry, the avi ati on us er community, and acad emia participated.

• ASTS is co-chaired by O S TP and NASA, and incl udes the Department of Energy, Co mmerce, Defense, Homeland Sec u rity, DOT, FAA, JPDO, the National Sci e nce Foun d a tion, the C ouncil of Economic Advisors, the Domestic Policy Council, the U.S. Trade Represen tative, U.S. Internationa l Trade Commission, the Office of the Vice Presid ent, the National Security Counci l , and the Office of Management and Budget.

Page 5 8 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

ASTS is working on renewing its charter, which will expire on December 3 1 , 20 06. Th e renewed ch arter would expire on March 31, 2009

.

• In Decembe r 2005, Cong ress directed OSTP to c o mmission an independ e n t review of th e nation’s lo ng-term stra tegic n eeds f o r aeronauti c s test facilities. Congress also required OST P to conduct a study to determine (1) if any NASA R&D progra ms are unnecessarily du plicating aspects of programs of other federa l agen cies; a nd (2) if any such programs are neglecti n g a n y topics of national inte rest that are related to N A SA’s mission.

**F i**  **g u**  **re 15: AST S**  **Memb ersh**  **ip**

NA S A **co-chair** Office of S cience

a nd Technology Policy **co-chair**

Co u ncil of Economic Advi s or s

Dep a rtment of Commerce

Dep a rtment of Defen s e Dep a rtment of Energy

Dep a rtment of Homel a nd S ec u rity

Dep a rtment of Tr a n s port a tion

Dome s tic Policy Co u ncil Feder a l Avi a tion Admini s tr a tion

Joint Pl a nning a nd Development Office

N a tion a l S cience Fo u nd a tion Office of M a n a gement

a nd B u dget

S o u rce s : Corel Dr a w; GAO. Vice Pre s ident ’s Office N a tion a l S ec u rity Co u ncil

Intern a tion a l Tr a de Commi ss ion

U S Tr a de Repre s ent a tive

Subrecommendation : Establish an office of a e rospace de velopment i n each f e deral department and agency, and have a f u ll-time senior executive lead the offi ce and r e port directly to the office of the secretar y, or the agenc y he ad

.

Federal Action :

Page 5 9 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

• No action taken.

Subrecommendation : Congress sh ould establish a Congres s ional Joint Committee on Aerospace that would have th e ob ligation to l e gislatively coordinate t h e multifaceted jurisdiction issues.

Federal Action :

• No action taken.

Subrecommendation : Establish an Aerospace Policy Coor dinating Council to d evelop and i m plement an integrated means of formulating a national a e rospace polic y.

Federal Action :

• As of January 20 06, no single nation a l aerospace policy ex isted. There are two policy e fforts in place to address space and a e ronautics i ssues separately.

• The National Security C ouncil has d r a fted space policies that address the major space sectors such as position, navigati on, a nd timing; c o mmercial remote sensing; and space transportation.

• OSTP and NASA are co- c hairing the Aeronautics Subcommittee of the National Sci e nce and Technology Council to coor dinate U.S. aeronautics research an d develo p ment acti v ities

.

Subrecommendation : Have the Office of Mana gement and Budget assume a new and proactive role as coordinator of federal agencies’
aerospace-s ector plans, programs, and budgets.

Federal Action :

• No action taken.

Recommendation : The Commission recommends that U.S. and multilateral regulations and polici e s be reformed to enabl e th e movement of products and capit al across international bord e rs on a full y competitive basis, establishing a level playing fiel d for U.S. industry in the global marketplace . This includ es substantia lly overhau ling U.S. exp o rt control regulations. The Commission also rec o mmends that the U.S. g o vernment neutralize fo reign-gov e rnment market interventio n in areas su ch as

Page 6 0 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

subsidies, tax policy, ex port financi n g, and stan dards—either through strengthening multilateral disciplines or providing similar sup port for U.S. industry as necessary.

Subrecommendation : The U.S. go vernment should reform the nation’s arms transfe r policy and regulatory p r ocess.

Federal Action :

• In February 2002, Congr e ss had two bills before i t —H.R. 2581 and S. 149—that pr oposed a new legal basis for controls over export s of dual-use goods and s e rvices. Neit her bill was passed.

• H.R. 4572 w a s introduced on December 16, 2005. This bill, which sought to extend the Export Admin i stration Act, among oth e r items, wo uld have revised this act, espe cial ly in the are a s of penalti e s, enforce m ent, and U.S. policy towards multilateral export co ntrol regimes. No action has been taken on thi s bill as of September 2006.

Subrecommendation : The U.S. go vernment should overhaul current export-control restrictions on the sal e or transfer of technolo gy to foreign customers by implementing a fund amental shift—from the existing transaction- based licens i ng system to process lic ensing.

Federal Action :

• In 200 1, the Department of State (State) and Defense established an “expedited” process for reviewing lic ense applications in support of Operation Enduring Freedom a nd Operation Iraqi Freedom.

• In 2000, Stat e announ ced the Defens e Trade S e curity Initiati ve, which was characterize d as the first major post-Cold War ad justment to the arms export control system and an effort t o facilitat e defense trade with allies. As part of this effort, State establis hed special pr ocesses for the exped i ted review of license applications determ ined to be i n support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Defense Capabiliti e s Initiative. In addition, State de velo p ed the D-Tr ade system, which came on line in Ja nuary 20 04. This is a Web-based license applicati on submission and revi ew system th at allows comp anies to electronically su bmit export authorization requests and supporting documen tation for review.

Subrecommendation : The U.S. go vernment should ensure commitment to global p a rtnerships in air transportation systems and space activities b y

Page 6 1 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

supporting the recruitment of FAA employees for the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

Federal Action :

• FAA established a W e b site to increas e employees ’ awareness of ICAO positions.

• FAA tracks ICAO vacancies and solicits qualified candidat e s to fill the U.S

. positions.

• In 2003, FA A established the FAA/ICAO fellowship program, which sends FAA employees to work at ICAO for up to 12 mo nths.

• Senior FAA officials giv e speeches an d presentati ons at FAA organization s such as the Hispanic Coalition and t h e Professional Women’ s Air Traffic Control Org a nization.

Subrecommendation : The U.S. go vernment should ensure commitment to global p a rtnerships in air transportation systems and space activities b y working for continued li beralization of the air transport mark et.

Federal Action :

• As of July 20 06, the Unite d States had 76 “open sk ies” agreeme n ts with foreign governments. “Open skies” ag reements are bilateral a g reements between two nations th at reduce or e liminate op erating restrictions on th e airlines of ei ther nation.

Recommendation : The Commission recommends that the nation immediately reverse the decline i n , a nd promote the growth of, a scientifically and technol ogicall y trai ned U.S. aerospace workforce. In addition, the nation must address the failure of th e math, science, an d technology education of American s. The breakdo wn of America’s intellectu a l and industrial cap acity i s a threat to national security and its capabilit y to continue as a world lead er. Congress and the administration must therefore do the fol l owing:

• Create an in teragenc y ta sk force that develops a national stra tegy on th e aerospace w o rkforce to attract publi c attention t o the importance of, and opportunities within, the aerospace i ndustry.

Page 6 2 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

• Establish lifelong learni ng and indi vi dualized instruction as k ey el ements of education a l reform.

• Make long-t erm investments in education and training with a major emphasis in math and science so that the aerospace industry has access to a scientific al ly and te chn o logicall y trained workforce.

Subrecommendation : Establish an interagen c y task force on workforce issues in the aerospace i ndustry.

Federal Action :

• In 200 4, Lab o r established an int e ra gency taskfo rce that inc l uded the Department of Educatio n, Commerc e, Defense, DOT, NASA, OSTP, the National Sci e nce Foun d a tion, and th e Office of Management and Budget

.

• Labor hosted the Aerospace Workfor ce Forum in June 200 4. T h is forum included stakeholders representing i ndustry, edu cation, and government agenci es with the objecti ve of involvi n g the publi c in developi ng solutions that address the decl ine in the U.S. t echnic a l workforce. The forum develop ed multiple recommendations to address the overall workforce issues. These recommendations focu sed on the a g ing workforce and th e loss of technical tal e nt.

• In 2005, the House passed H.R. 758, a bill that will require fed e ral agen cies to establish an interag e n cy a e rospac e revitalizati on task forc e to dev e lop a national stra tegy for a e rospace workforce recruit m ent, training, and cultivation. The bill proposes that the task force meet at least twice a year and produce an annu al r e port no later than 1 year after the d a t e of the act’s ena c tment, and ann u ally there a f t er for 4 ye a r s. As of September 2006, no acti on has been taken on thi s bill in the Senate.

Subrecommendation : Develop a n a tional strat egy to attract public attention to the importance of, a nd opportunities within, the aerospace industry.

Federal Action :

• In collabora t ion with the private sect or , educatio nal institutions, and local employment agen cies, L a bor issued a 20 05 repor t on workforce ch alleng e s facing th e ae rospace ind u stry and po ssible solutions to these challen ges.

Page 6 3 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

• The President’s High Growth Job Traini ng Initiat i ve targets 14 industries, including ae rospace, tha t have b een i d entified as important to the U.S. workforce.

• H.R. 758, d e scribed prev iously in this appendix, would also require fed e ral agenci es to develop a na tional strate gy for aeros pace workforce developmen t.

Subrecommendation : Develop wo rkforce skills needed b y the industry and promote registered apprentices hi p programs for technical and skilled occupations

.

Federal Action :

• Since 1991, FAA has sponsored the Aviation and Space Edu c ation Outreach Program, which teach es students between kind erg a rten and th e 12th grad e about aerospace tec hnol ogy and career opportunities.

• Since 2001, under the Pr esident’s High Growth Jo b Training I n itiative, Labor has issued eight a e rospace in dus try demonstration grants, totalin g over $10 million. These grants funded demonstration projects t o help train and improve the U.S. a e rospace workforce.

• In Decembe r 2003, Cong ress enacted Vision 100 —Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Vision 100), 1 which includ ed language to promote the
aerospace w o rkforce an d to fund a s c holarship p r ogram for careers in
aerospace-r e lated fi elds.

• In the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, Congress directed NA SA to develop a hu man capital strategy to e n sure that NASA has a workforce of the appropri a te size and with the appropriate skills to carry out its programs. NASA has assigned a t eam of representatives from each of its centers and directorate l o cations to coordinate and identify t h e skills availab l e at t h ese locatio ns. The results of this process are sc heduled for completion by the e nd o f fiscal ye ar 2006

.

• In February 2006, Labor announced a series of gr ant awards under the Workforce Innovation in Regional Ec onomic Development Initiative. Over three years, this initiative will prov ide $195 million to th irteen regions to

1 P ub.L

. No . 108- 176 (Dec . 12 , 2 0 03).

Page 6 4 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

address the skill challenges of one or more industries, includi ng aerospace, which has been identifi ed as critical for economic growth.

• In April 2006, the Subco mmittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness of the S e nate Committee on Co mmerce, Science, and Transportation held a he aring to ex a m ine approaches for fostering innovation i n math and science.

Subrecommendation : Make tax cr edits avail a b l e to employ ers who invest in the skills and training progr a ms needed by the indus try.

Federal Action :

• No specific t a x credit is availa b l e to the aerospace industry.

• In 2006, the President proposed making an R&D tax credit p e rmanent to encourage p r ivate-sector investment in technolo g y. For fiscal year 2007, the administration budgeted $4. 6 billi on for the R&D incentives.

Subrecommendation : Make long-t erm investments in education and training with a major e m phasis in math and science, so th at the aerospa ce industry has access to a scientifi cally and technol ogicall y trai ned workforce.

Federal Action :

• In 200 2, NASA unified al l of its educ ational programs (previously managed by individu al mission offices and fiel d centers) u nder one organization an d vision.

• NASA’s five programs target element a ry and seco ndary education, higher education, NASA exhibits and community-based events, and t h e Minority University Research and Education P r ogram. Funding for NASA’s education programs has decreased fr om $217 million in fiscal year 2005 to about $153 million in the fiscal year 2007 budget

. This budget decrease, fo r example, will result in NASA deferri ng the implementation of the Science and Techn o l o gy Scho lar s hip Program.

• In 200 5, Con g ress directe d NASA to review its ed ucational pr ograms. This review will be conducted by the Nat i onal Resear ch Council of the National Academy of Sciences an d will evalua te NASA’s precollege sci e nce, technology, and mathematics educati on programs.

Page 6 5 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

• Congress established Def e nse’s sc holarship program (“SMAR T ”) for students in science and math under the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2 005

. These schol arships and fellowships are awarded to applicant s who are pursuing a de gree in, or cl osely relate d to, scienc e , mathematics, or enginee r ing.

• In 2006, the President an nounced th e Am erican Competitiven ess Initiative to encourage innovatio n in science and technolo gy, and to su pport math and scienc e education. I n the fiscal y ear 20 07 bud get, the administration has committ ed $5.9 billion for R&D, education, and entrepreneurship. Over the next 10 years, t h e administration plans t o commit $50 billion to increase funding for research and $86 billion for R&D tax incentives.

• In 2006, the President proposed a plan to train an additional 70,000 high school math and scien c e teach ers with the object i ve of in creasing advanc e d-pl acement co urses in math and scien c e. In additio n , up to 3 0 ,0 00 math and science profess i onals will be recruited t o teach i n cl assrooms nationwide.

Recommendation : The Commission recommends that the fe deral government significantly increase its investment in basic aero s pace research, which enh a nc es U.S. nati o n al security; enables breakthrough capabiliti e s; and fosters an effici ent, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system. The U.S. aero s pace indust r y should take a leading role in applying research to product developmen t.

Subrecommendation : Increase an d provide st able fundin g in order to achiev e nati onal techn o l o gy go als, es peciall y in lo ng-term research in areas such as propulsion and power
, emissions a nd noise, an d human factors; as well as associ ated researc h , deve lopment, testing, and equipment i n frastructure.

Federal Actions :

• FAA’s R&D funding decli n ed from $349 million in fiscal year 2001 to $279 million in fiscal year 2005 (in consta nt fiscal year 2005 d o llar s ). FAA plans indicated th at these fun d s support the R&D needs of NGAT S

.

• Defense’s R&D funding has increased overall sin ce the p ubli cation of th e Commission report. The majority of the department’s R&D fu nding go es to developmen t activities, b u t Defense’s science and technology budgets for air and spac e research h ave in crease d between fi scal years 2 0 01 to 2 005 from $613 million and $220 million to $907 million and $462 mi llion, respectively (in fiscal yea r 2005 d o llar s ).

Page 6 6 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

• NASA’s overall R&D budget has de creas ed slightl y , shifting fr om $10.6 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $10.2 b i l lion in fiscal year 2005 (in constant fiscal year 2005 doll a rs). Looking for w ar d, NASA’s budget is expected to vary betwee n missions. Space activi t ies are expe cted to in cre a se overall, though some programs will decline, whereas aeronautics research is expecte d to decline. For example, NASA’s fiscal year 2 007 b u d get requ est for the Exploration Systems Mi ssion Directorate increased by $1.3 billion over 2006 levels to nearl y $3.1 billio n (a 76 percent increase), but the Aeronautics Research Mission Direct orate reques t is about $724 million for 2007—d o wn 18 percent from the fiscal year 2006 bud get i n noninflation-adj u sted dollars.

• NASA’s resh aped aeronautics research strategy will focus on f our programs, including on e that targets air traffic management r e search for NGATS.

• In June 200 6
, the Nation al Academy of Scienc es i ssued a study on NASA’s long-term strategy for aeronautics research and t echnology d evelopment. It identifies f our high-priority strategi c objecti ves for civil a e ronautics research an d, among its recommendati ons, sugg ests that NASA establish a stable aeron autics resear ch plan
, balance in-house research with involvement from acade m ia and ind u stry, and e n sure techn o logies are develop ed t o a level of maturity that is appropriate for that t echnology.

Page 6 7 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

**F i**  **g u**  **re 16: Eng i**  **n eers at NA**  **SA L a**  **n g**  **l ey Rese**  **arch Cen**  **t er** 

Subrecommendation : Adopt natio n al technol o gy demonstration goals f o r 2010 on air t r ansportation and spac e.

Federal Action : S o u rce: NA S A.

• JPDO identified technol o gy go als in it s NGATS pla n . These go als are not consistent with the go als outlined in t h e Commission’s report. For example, th e NGATS plan calls for a 30 p e rcent reduction in transit time for domestic aviation tra vel, whereas the Commission calls fo r a 50 percent red u ction in tra vel time bet w een any tw o points on earth, as wel l as between any two poi nts in space. In genera l , t h e Commission’s goals a r e more specific and a ggres sive than the NGATS goals.

• In 2006, NASA’s Aeronautics Res earch Mission Directorate announced plans for R&D. These plans do not in clude demo nstration goals. In addition, NASA cancell e d funding in fiscal year 2004 for the Hyper-X

Page 6 8 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

hypersonic vehicle program, which dem onstrated air-breathi ng flight of mach 9.6 in 2004

.

**F i**  **g u**  **re 17: Comp u**  **t atio**  **n a**  **l Flu**  **i d Dyn**  **a mic Imag**  **e o f**  **th e Hyp**  **er-X Veh i**  **cle**

Subrecommendation : Find new a nd faster ways to transfer research a nd technology develop ed i n federal l a b o ratories, an d in academia, to applications in the privat e sector, by establishing partnerships between government, industry, an d acad emia.

Federal Action : S o u rce: NA S A.

• NASA’s rese arch strateg y includes a new approach for establ ishing partnerships with universities and th e private se c t or. Some key milestones in this approach inclu d e the following:

• In January 2006, NASA i ssued three requests for information that will be used to s o licit information on key areas of int e rest for private industry and determine o pportunities for collabor ation with NASA’s planning an d research efforts.

• In May 2006, NASA released re search announcements to solicit proposals for foundation al research i n areas where NASA needs to enhance its core cap abil ities. The an nouncement s were influenced b y the response to the requ ests for info rmation, solicited in Janu ary 2006, and were op en to all stakeholders.

Page 6 9 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix III: F e deral Ac tions That Address Selected Aerospace Co mm ission Recommendations

• NASA’s realigned aeronautics re search mission pl ans to focus on foundational research an d will develo p new techn o logies to a l o wer—and therefore les s readily ado p ted—maturity lev e l tha n in the past

.

• In 200 4, NASA’s Centennial Challen ges Program initiated co mpetitions, with prizes under $250,000, for ad van ces in a var iety of techn i cal areas such as astronaut glov es, high st rength-to-weight materials, and telerobotic construction. The 2005 NASA Authorization Act pr ovided NASA with the legislati v e authority t o conduct competitions with prizes up to $1,0 00, 00 0.

**Figur e**  **1 8**  **: NASA G l**  **en Rese**  **arch Cen**  **t er’**  **s Rese ar**  **ch o**  **n Aircraft No**  **ise**

S o u rce: NA S A.

Page 7 0 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nA Offic

ppendix IV: J o int P l an ni ng a n d De velop m e n t

e

Page 7 1 GA O- 06- 9 20 

# Appendix IV : Joint Planning and Development Office

FAA, with re search assistance from NASA, has had the primary responsibility for planning and implem enting nati onal airspace system modernization since the s e efforts began more than 20 years ago. Rec e ntl y , FAA placed the modernization program under a new Air Traffic Organization (ATO), headed by a C h ief Operati n g Officer. T h e JPDO Director reports to the FAA Admini st rator and to ATO’s Chief Operating Officer. 1 JPDO’s scope is broader than traditional air traffic control modernization in that it i s “airport curb-to-airport curb,” enco mpassing such issues as security screen ing an d environmental conc erns. Additionally, JPDO’s approach will r equire unprecedented consensus and cooperation among many stakeholde rs—federal and nonfed eral—about
necessary sy stem capabil ities, equipment, procedu r es, and reg u lations. 

# Role of the Joint Planning and Development Office in the National Airspace System Modernization

1 AT O is F AA’s b u s i nes s unit th at is res pons ibl e for ope rating, maintaining, a nd m oder n iz ing the nation’s current air traffic control system.

A e rospace C o mm issio nA ppendix IV: J o int P l an ni ng a n d De velop m e n t Offic e

JPDO was mandated b y t h e Vision 10 0 and is com p rised of seven partner agenci es: Co mmerce, Homeland Sec u rity , DOT, Defense, FAA, NASA, and OSTP. Each of these agencies has expe rtise and t echnology t h at will play a part in creat ing NGATS and responsibilities for coordinating their activities. Fi gure 19 l i sts JPDO’s orga nization and how its partner agen cies fit into that organization. JPDO has staffed its organization with partneragenc y empl oyees, many of whom work for JPDO on a part-t ime basis. The JPDO board, which provides co ordination b e tween part ner agen cies and JPDO, is composed of key ex ecut i ves of the p a rtner agen c i es who can facilitate bringing agency resour ces to bear on N G ATS devel opment. Additionally , Vision 100 created th e Next Genera tion Air Transportation Senior Polic y Committee, composed of partner a gency senior executi ves, to provide o n going poli c y review and identify res ource needs from the partner agen cies. 

# JPDO Organization Structure and P a rtner Agencies

Page 7 2 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nA ppendix IV: J o int P l an ni ng a n d De velop m e n t Offic e

**Figur e**  **1 9**  **: J**  **P DO Or**  **ga niza**  **ti on Cha**  **r t** 

**S enior Policy Committee** 

FAA Admini s tr a tor Exec u tive Committee,

Re s e a rch, Engineering, a nd

Development

Advi s iory Committee

NGAT S In s tit u te Policy

● S t u die s

● IPT Expert

P a rticip a tion

● Agile ATM S y s tem (NA S A)

● Airport

Infr as tr u ct u re (FAA)

● Avi a tion

S ec u rity (DH S )

● Environment a l

Protection (FAA) ● Glo ba l H a rmoniz a tion (FAA)

● S h a red S it ua tion a l

Aw a rene ss (DoD)

● We a ther (DOC)

● Sa fety

M a n a gement (FAA) ● Enterpri s e Engineering a nd Integr a tion

● Portfolio

M a n a gement

● Enterpri s e

Architect u re

● Ev a l ua tion a nd

An a ly s i s Chief Engineer NGAT S In s tit u te Exec u tive Director P a rtner s hip M a n a gement B us ine ss M a n a gement

Inter a gency IPT Le a d s Technic a l Divi s ion Le a d s JPDO Bo a rd NGAT S In s tit u te M a n a gement Co u ncil JPDO Director Dep u ty Director

S o u rce: JPDO. Air Tr a ffic Org a niz a tion Dep a rtment of Tr a n s port a tion (ch a ir) Dep a rtment of Homel a nd S ec u rity (DH S ) Dep a rtment of Defen s e (DOD) Dep a rtment of Commerce (DOC)

The White Ho us e Office of S cience a nd Technology Policy NA S A Feder a l Avi a tion Admini s tr a tion (FAA)

**Ma s**  **ter Inte g**  **rated Product Team (IPT)**

Page 7 3 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nA ppendix IV: J o int P l an ni ng a n d De velop m e n t Offic e

In Decembe r 2004, JPDO and its pa rtner agenci es develop e d and submitted to Congress its integrated plan that br oadly ad dre sses the goal s and objectives for NGAT S . This plan provided a vision statement that elaborates o n the broadl y stated com m on outcome set forth b y the Vision 100 l egislati on—an air transportation system that meets potential air traffic demand by 2 025. I n addition, t h e plan prov ides eight st rategies that formed the basis for JP DO’s eight integrated pr oduct teams, and variou s partner agen cies hav e ta ken the l ead on specific strategies. (See tabl e 5.) In March 2006, JPDO published its firs t report to Congress on the progres s made in carr y ing out th e integrated pl an.

**Ta ble**  **5 :**  **J P**  **DO’s Str**  **a t**  **e g**  **ie s**  **and Re s**  **pons ib**  **le Age**  **n c**  **i e**  **s**

**Strateg y**  **L ead**  **ag en**  **c y** 
Devel op a i rport infrastructure to meet future d e man d F AA

Establis h an ef fective security syst em withou t limiting mob ili ty or civil li berties H o me la nd Se cu ri ty

Cond uct resea rch to enab le a n agil e air traffi c system that quickly respo nds to shi fts in demand NASA

Establis h shar ed situati ona l a w ar en ess—wh ere all users sh are the same informati on Defens e

Establis h a co mprehe nsiv e a nd pro a ctive a ppro a ch to safety F AA

Devel op e n viro nmenta l protec t ion that all ows sustaine d avia tion growth FAA

Devel op a syst emwid e cap abi lity to reduce w eather im pacts Commerce

Harmon ize e q u ipag e an d op er ations g lob ally F AA

Sour ce: GAO pr ese n ta ti on o f JPD O dat a.

Vision 100 r equires JPDO to coordinate NGATS-related progr a ms across the partner agenci es. To address this requirement, JPDO conducted an initial intera gency revie w of its partner agen cies ’ R&D programs during July 2005 to identify work that could support NGATS. Through this process, JPDO identified early oppo rtunities that could be p u rsued during fiscal year 2007 to coord i nate and mi nimize the duplication of research programs across the partner agen cies and produce tangibl e results for NGATS. In addition, JPDO is currently working with the Office of Management and Budget to devel op a sy stematic means of reviewing the partner agen cies’ budget requests, so that the NGATS-related funding in each re quest can e a sily b e identified

. Such a proc ess would help the Offic e of Management and Bud get consider NGATS as a unified fed e ral investment, rather then as disparat e line items distributed ac ross several agenci es’ bu dget requ ests. 

# JPDO’ s Integrated Plan

JPDO E fforts to Leverage Partner Agency Resources

Page 7 4 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nA ppendix IV: J o int P l an ni ng a n d De velop m e n t Offic e

The chall e nge of leverag ing resources will likely intensify beginning in 2008 , when JPDO expects a significa n t increase i n the workload of its integrated p r oduct teams. JPDO anticipates need ing more resources for the teams to, among oth e r things, pl an demonstrations of pot ential technologi e s to illustrate some of the early ben e fit s that could be achi eved from the transformation to NGATS.

JPDO has structured itself in a way t h at involves federal and nonfederal stakeholder s throughout its organization. Vision 100 directed JPDO to involve nonf ederal stakeholders as it fulfills its mission. Nonfederal stakeholder s may participate through the NGATS Institute. T h rough this institute, JPDO obtained the particip ation of ov er 180 stak eho l ders from over 70 organizations for the int egrat ed product t eams. The NGATS Institute Management C ouncil, com posed of top officials an d representatives from the aviation co mmunity, oversees the p o licy and recommendations of the institute an d provides a means for advancin g consensus positions on critical NGATS issues. 

# JPDO Is Involvi ng Nonfederal Stakeholders

As with its federal partn e r agen cies, JPDO has no direct auth ority over th e human, tech nical, or financial resources of its no nfederal stakeholders. T o date, nonf ed eral stakeho l ders spend approximately 10–25 p e rcent of their time, per week, on the in tegrated pro j ect teams; members of the NGATS Institute Management C ouncil atten d approximately one meeting per month. The challen ge fo r JPDO is to ma intain the interest and enthusiasm of nonfeder al stakehold e rs, who will have to juggle their ow n multiple priorities and resource d e mands in order to maintain this level of participatio n when some tangibl e be nefits may not be realize d for several
years.

Page 7 5 GA O- 06- 9 20 A e rospace C o mm issio nAppendix V: Co mme n ts from th e Departme nt o f Labor 

# Appendix V : Comments from the Department of Labor

P a g e 76 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onA ppendix VI: C o mme nts from the Nation al A e ronauti c s a n d Space A d mi ni stration 

# Appendix VI: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

P a g e 77 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onA ppendix VI: C o mme nts from the Nation al A e ronauti c s a n d Space A d mi ni stration

P a g e 78 G A O- 06 -9 20 A e rospac e Com m i ssi onAppendix VII: A G A O Contac t a n d Staff

c kno w l edg m e n ts

Page 7 9 GA O- 06- 9 20 

# Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph. D . (202) 512- 2834 or dilli nghamg@gao.gov

In addition t o the abo ve individual, T e resa Spisak
, Assistant Director; Brad Dubbs; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; David H ooper; Heat her Krause; Elizabeth Marchak; Edmond Meno che; Sar a Ann Moessbauer; Faye Morrison; Josh Ormond; Tim Schindler; Richard Sco tt; John W. S t ambaugh; L a rry Thomas; and Dale Yu ge made key contributio ns to this report.

A e rospace C o mm issio n 

# GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

(540107)

# GAO’ s Mission The Govern m ent Accountability Offi ce, the audit
, evalu a tion and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the perfor mance and
account abili ty of the fed e ral government for the American people. GAO examines the use of pub lic funds; eval uates fed e ral programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and ot her assistance to hel p Congress make informed oversight, policy, and f unding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good go vernment is reflected in it s core values of
account abili ty, integrity, and reliabilit y.

The fastest a nd easiest way to obta i n copies of GAO documents at no cos t is through GAO’s Web site ( ww w.gao.gov ). Each weekday, G A O posts newly releas ed reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e- mail you a li st of newly posted products every af ternoon, go to ww w.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates

. ”

The first copy of ea ch pri n ted report i s free. Additional copi es are $2 each

. A check or money order should be made out to the Superint endent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA a nd Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single addre ss are discounted 25 per cent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C. 2054 8
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 51 2-25 37 Fax: (202) 51 2-60 61

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/ f raudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov Automated answering system: ( 800) 424- 545 4 or (202) 51 2-74 70

Gloria Jarmon, Managin g Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4 400 U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce, 441 G Str eet NW, Roo m 7125 Washington, D.C. 2054 8

Paul Anderson, Managin g Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 51 2-48 00 U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce, 441 G Str eet NW, Roo m 7149 Washington, D.C. 2054 8 

# Obtaini n g C opi es of GAO R e ports and Te s t i m o n y

Order by Mail or Phone



# To R e p o r t F r a u d
, W a ste, and Abus e in Federal Programs
Congressional Relations

Public Affairs

**PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER**