Aviation: Status of DOT's Actions to Address the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee's Recommendations
Published: 2013-07-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The aviation industry is important to the U.S. economy and is a critical link in the nation's transportation infrastructure. However, the industry has faced challenges, such as an outdated national air-traffic management system and an increasingly competitive global market. In 2010, in response to these and other challenges, DOT established the FAAC to develop a manageable, actionable list of recommendations for DOT. In April 2011, the FAAC released a report outlining 23 recommendations in five areas: environment, financing, competitiveness and viability, labor and workforce, and safety.
GAO was asked to review the status of DOT's efforts to implement the FAAC recommendations. GAO examined 10 of the FAAC's 23 recommendations to determine (1) DOT's progress in addressing the selected recommendations, and any planned future actions; (2) the FAAC members' perspective on the extent to which DOT's actions address these recommendations; and (3) the challenges, if any, that DOT faces in addressing the recommendations. The 10 selected recommendations covered each of the 5 areas and allowed GAO to leverage ongoing or recent GAO work. GAO did not analyze the validity of the FAAC's recommendations, and our work does not take a position on, or represent an endorsement of, the recommendations. GAO reviewed agency documents and literature, and interviewed FAAC members and DOT and FAA officials. DOT provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While the Department of Transportation (DOT) is not required to implement the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) recommendations, DOT and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have taken actions on the 10 FAAC recommendations that GAO reviewed. DOT and FAA officials noted that they continue to work on three recommendations as part of long-term efforts and have ongoing work related to some of the seven recommendations that they believe are addressed.
FAAC members recognized DOT's actions to address the recommendations. However, a majority of the FAAC subcommittee members believe that more work remains to fully address 9 of the 10 recommendations. FAAC members stated that some recommendations may not be fully addressed because they are linked to ongoing efforts that DOT also identified.
DOT, FAA officials, and FAAC members most frequently identified resource constraints and the need to collaborate with multiple stakeholders as implementation challenges and in some cases, noted efforts to address these challenges. DOT officials noted that fully addressing some recommendations may depend on factors outside of DOT's control, such as extending the alternative minimum tax exemption, which would require legislation, and developing sustainable alternative fuels, which is a long-term, multi-agency effort.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Over the past decade, the aviation industry has faced fluctuating oil  prices, an economic recession, and safety concerns following the crash of  a Colgan Air flight in Buffalo, New York, as well as ongoing changes in  the industry related to air-traffic control modernization, increased global  competition, and an aging workforce. On November 12, 2009, the  Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT) convened an  Aviation Summit to gather industry and expert opinion on actions that  would promote future success of the aviation industry. The discussion  centered on five areas: environment, financing, competitiveness and  viability, labor and workforce, and safety. With these areas in mind,  Secretary Ray LaHood chartered the Future of Aviation Advisory  Committee (FAAC) on April 16, 2010, to develop a manageable,  actionable list of recommendations in each of these five areas for DOT.  The FAAC included 19 members—1 government official and 18 non- government representatives—from a cross-section of stakeholders, such  as air carriers, airports, airline labor unions, manufacturers, and  representatives from the finance community, academia, and passenger  interests. On April 11, 2011, the FAAC issued a final report listing 23  recommendations that the FAAC identified as critical to the future of the  U.S. aviation industry.
You asked us to review the status of DOT’s efforts to implement the  FAAC recommendations. We examined 10 of the FAAC’s 23  recommendations to determine (1) DOT’s progress in addressing the  selected recommendations and any further planned actions; (2) the FAAC  members’ perspectives on the extent to which DOT’s actions address  these recommendations; and (3) the challenges, if any, that DOT faces in  addressing the recommendations. The 10 selected recommendations  cover each of the 5 areas reviewed by the FAAC and allowed us to  leverage ongoing or recently completed GAO work. Given that the 10  recommendations are directed toward specific, discrete actions, our  statements regarding DOT’s progress in addressing the  recommendations are specific to each recommendation and cannot be  generalized to assess DOT’s overall progress across all 23 FAAC  recommendations. We did not analyze the validity of the commission’s  recommendations, and our work does not take a position on, or represent  an endorsement of, the recommendations. See table 1 for a list of the  recommendations we reviewed.
To determine DOT’s progress and challenges in addressing the selected  recommendations, we reviewed relevant GAO and DOT Office of  Inspector General reports, agency documents, including plans for  addressing the recommendations, DOT and Federal Aviation  Administration (FAA) documentation of actions taken, and DOT’s website  for tracking progress on the committee’s recommendations. We also  reviewed legislation to determine the extent to which it affected or  addressed the recommendations. In addition, we interviewed DOT and  FAA officials about the steps they have taken to address the  recommendations and any challenges they have faced in implementing  the recommendations. We also interviewed 17 of the 18 FAAC non- government members to obtain their perspectives on the extent to which  DOT’s actions addressed the recommendations from the subcommittees  on which they served, any challenges DOT faces in addressing the  recommendations, and what, if any, additional actions DOT should take to  address the recommendations. Although DOT is not required to  implement any of the FAAC’s recommendations, we solicited the  committee members’ perspective on whether DOT should continue  monitoring and reporting on its progress in addressing the  recommendations. A list of the FAAC members we interviewed is  available in appendix II.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 through July  2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The U.S. aerospace industry contributes to the nation’s economic health  and national security. The industry’s wide-ranging activities—including  aircraft manufacturing and commercial aviation—make it a major  contributor to U.S. economic growth. DOT and the FAA (an administration  of DOT) each play a policy and regulatory role in aviation, with DOT  involved in consumer and economic issues, such as licensing airlines and  reviewing applications for antitrust immunity between airlines, and FAA’s  overseeing the safety of civil aviation. To inform these efforts, various  administrations and Congresses have periodically established  committees or commissions comprised of external stakeholders to  provide recommendations for DOT and FAA, as well as other agencies  involved in aviation, to consider in their implementation of aviation policy.  For example, in 1996, President Clinton established the White House  Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, which provided 57  recommendations in the areas of safety, air traffic control, security, and  accident response. In 2001, Congress established the Commission on the  Future of the United States Aerospace Industry to study issues  associated with the future of this industry in the global economy, and to  recommend potential actions by the federal government to support the  maintenance of a robust aerospace industry in the 21st century.
In contrast to these two efforts, the FAAC was established as a federal  advisory committee, subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act  (FACA). Federal advisory committees exist throughout the executive  branch of the federal government, providing input and advice to agencies  in a variety of ways, such as preparing reports and developing  recommendations. GAO has noted that advisory committees can be  effective tools for agencies to gather input on topics of interest by  informing agency leaders about issues of importance to the agencies’  missions, consolidating input from multiple sources, and providing input at  a relatively low cost. While an advisory group’s input or  recommendations may form the basis for a federal agency’s decisions or  policies, other factors may play a role in determining what action an  agency ultimately takes. Because such groups are by design advisory,  agencies are not required to implement their advice or recommendations.
On April 16, 2010, Secretary Ray LaHood chartered the FAAC for a one- year term and asked the DOT Assistant Secretary for Aviation and  International Affairs to lead the effort. The FAAC was directed to provide  information, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary on ensuring  the competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry and its capability to  address the evolving transportation needs, challenges, and opportunities  of the global economy. The FAAC was comprised of a cross-section of  aviation stakeholders. During its first meeting, the Secretary asked the  FAAC to develop consensus-based recommendations that could be acted  upon immediately or in the near future, with tangible results. He also  stated that the FAAC should remain cognizant of the tools that DOT and  FAA could use to implement the recommendations, such as the federal  rulemaking process, proposing legislation to Congress, and  recommending compliance measures for industry. The FAAC established  subcommittees to develop recommendations in the five areas specified in  the FAAC charter: environment, financing, competitiveness and viability,  labor and workforce, and safety. The subcommittees met multiple times  over the course of 2010, and the full FAAC briefed the Secretary on its 23  recommendations on December 15, 2010, with a final report outlining the  recommendations and their underlying rationale released on April 11,  2011.
The Secretary publicly emphasized that the FAAC recommendations  would not “sit on a shelf,” and DOT established a process to implement  the recommendations. DOT officials stated that the Office of Aviation and  International Affairs has led DOT’s work on addressing the FAAC  recommendations and has provided periodic updates to FAAC members.  Each recommendation was assigned to an “owner”—DOT or FAA staff— some of whom were already conducting work relevant to the  recommendation. DOT officials also noted that some of the  recommendations with multiple subactions have more than one owner.  DOT staff collaborated with recommendation owners to create a “smart  sheet” for addressing each FAAC recommendation. This document  provided information on interim goals, or actions that must occur to reach  the final goal; beneficiaries and allies of the recommendation; and  potential challenges. The owners were not required to update these  documents as time progressed. DOT officials stated that for about a year  after the FAAC report was released, DOT’s Office of Aviation and  International Affairs had regular status meetings with the recommendation  owners to ascertain their progress, and recommendation owners then  reported progress periodically to DOT officials. DOT periodically updates  a website on the status of the FAAC recommendations. During the course  of our review, we noted that some of the recommendations had not been  updated for over one year; however, DOT updated the status of all of the  recommendations on its website in June 2013.
section_title: DOT and FAA Officials Believe That Seven of the Selected Recommendations Are Addressed and That Three Are In Progress
paragraphs: DOT and FAA have taken actions on the 10 FAAC recommendations we  reviewed. DOT and FAA officials noted that 3 of the 10 recommendations  we reviewed—sustainable alternative fuels, global competitiveness, and a  harmonized approach to carbon dioxide emission reductions—continue to  be addressed as part of long-term efforts. For example, DOT officials  noted that addressing the global competitiveness recommendation is tied  to long-term policy efforts with no timetable for conclusion, such as  negotiating agreements with other countries to reduce the barriers for  U.S. carriers interested in serving markets in those countries. While  officials stated that DOT and FAA have addressed the other seven  recommendations, they highlighted ongoing work on issues related to  some of these recommendations. For example, FAA officials noted they  have addressed the recommendation to accelerate investment and  installation of NextGen equipment on aircraft because they are working to  develop a program to provide financial incentives and operational benefits  to operators that install NextGen equipment early. However, the officials  added that they are still working to determine what the program will entail,  including soliciting input from aircraft operators and potential private  partners to determine how to establish an incentive program that  operators want to participate in. They also noted that the appropriations  requirements for a credit program have not yet been met. For additional  details on actions DOT and FAA have taken on the recommendations,  see section 1 of this report.
section_title: FAAC Members Acknowledge DOT’s Actions but Believe That More Work Remains in Responding to the Selected Recommendations
paragraphs: FAAC members acknowledged DOT and FAA efforts to address the 10  recommendations selected for our work; however, a majority of the FAAC  subcommittee members believe more work remains to fully address 9 of  the 10 recommendations. See table 2 for a summary of the  recommendations as well as their status according to DOT and the FAAC  subcommittee members we interviewed.
Similar to DOT and FAA officials, FAAC members stated that some  recommendations may not be fully addressed due to the  recommendation’s being linked to ongoing or long-term efforts. For  example, FAAC members noted that DOT and FAA efforts to address the  sustainable alternative fuels recommendation require collaborating across  many agencies, such as the Department of Energy (DOE), the United  States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA), and a continued, long-term federal focus. In  some cases, FAAC members stated that DOT and FAA should continue  their current efforts to address the recommendations; but some FAAC  members felt that DOT and FAA should take additional actions to address  certain recommendations. For example, five of the six finance FAAC  subcommittee members stated that the recommendation to fund  accelerated NextGen equipage of aircraft was not addressed, and two  suggested that the department take additional steps to collaborate with  industry to design an incentive program and develop a stronger business  case for airlines to invest in equipping early. Conversely, five of the seven  subcommittee members believe that the department’s actions addressed  the recommendation on science, technology, engineering, and  mathematics (STEM) education. For additional details on FAAC  members’ perspectives on the DOT and FAA actions to address the  recommendations, see section 1 of this report.
While DOT is not required to monitor or report on the status of the FAAC  recommendations, 13 of the 17 FAAC members generally agreed that the  department should continue monitoring and reporting on the  recommendations’ status, with some adding that this ensures continued  focus on their implementation. On the other hand, two FAAC members  stated that DOT should continue reporting only on certain  recommendations, such as recommendations that would be implemented  over the long term or recommendations it has not addressed. Another  FAAC member stated that DOT and FAA should ensure that efforts to  address the recommendations become ingrained into the daily work of  agency staff, rather than DOT’s and FAA’s viewing them as a separate  effort. The remaining FAAC member stated that DOT should reassess  whether it makes sense to continue or close out the effort, adding that as  time passes, the recommendations may become irrelevant or unlikely to  be addressed. DOT officials told us that for ongoing recommendations,  they will continue work on these recommendations and are determining  the extent to which it will continue reporting on the status of the  recommendations. However, DOT has not yet established a time frame  for when it might make such a decision.
section_title: Resource Constraints and Stakeholder Collaboration Were Most Frequently Cited as Implementation Challenges for the Selected Recommendations
paragraphs: Resource constraints and the need to collaborate with multiple  stakeholders were cited most frequently by DOT and FAA officials, as  well as by FAAC members, as implementation challenges. Specifically,  DOT and FAA officials or FAAC members identified resource constraints,  such as limited funding for programs or staff, as a challenge in  implementing 6 of the 10 FAAC recommendations that we reviewed.  These 6 include the recommendations pertaining to sustainable fuels,  carbon dioxide emission reductions, reviewing eligibility criteria for the  Airport Improvement and Passenger Facility Charge Programs, STEM  education, predictive safety risk-discovery capability, and prioritizing  rulemaking. Agency officials and committee members also explained how  constrained resources might affect progress in addressing these  recommendations. For example, when discussing the recommendation  that DOT and FAA establish a harmonized approach for aviation carbon  dioxide emission reductions, FAA officials told us that resource  constraints could hamper their ability to conduct necessary research and  participate in international forums designed to foster discussion on  harmonized regulatory approaches. However, DOT and FAA officials also  outlined their methods for operating within these constraints. For  example, while noting that funding and limited resources pose challenges  to maintaining long-term STEM efforts, officials stated that the agencies  work to leverage resources through stakeholder partnerships. In addition,  DOT and FAA officials or FAAC members identified challenges in  collaborating with and gaining the consensus of a number of stakeholders  for four recommendations, those related to sustainable fuels, carbon  dioxide emission reductions, global competitiveness, and STEM  education. These recommendations range in the type of involvement  needed both within and outside DOT and FAA. For example, six of the  seven FAAC labor and workforce subcommittee members we interviewed  recognized DOT’s ongoing efforts on STEM issues require that DOT  maintain the participation of outside groups, such as other agencies,  industry, and other stakeholders.
However, each recommendation also had unique challenges. For  example, with respect to the recommendation that the agencies ensure  that safety data submitted by air carriers and other stakeholders is  protected from public disclosure, FAAC members noted that despite legal  protections provided by recent legislation, industry concerns remain  regarding the disclosure of safety data during legal proceedings. FAA  officials have recognized that such concerns could limit the  implementation of FAA efforts to promote safety management systems,  which depend upon the open sharing of safety information among  aviation stakeholders. In addition, DOT and FAA officials noted that in  some cases they took actions to address the recommendation, but factors  beyond DOT’s control, such as the need for legislative action, affected  DOT’s ability to fully implement the recommendation. For example, while  the agency supported a provision that would have extended the  alternative minimum tax exemption for all private activity bonds, including  airport private-activity bonds—as recommended by the FAAC—this  provision did not become law. Agency officials view this recommendation  as addressed since any further action would require legislative action,  and there is not currently a legislative vehicle for this provision.
Section 1 of this report includes the 10 recommendations in our review,  detailed discussions of DOT and FAA completed or planned actions to  address each of the 10 FAAC recommendations, FAAC members’  assessment of DOT and FAA progress, and challenges to implementing  each recommendation.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided DOT with a draft of this report for their review and comment.  DOT responded by email and provided technical clarifications, which we  incorporated into the report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and interested parties. This  report will also be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
Should you or your staff have questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix III.
section_title: Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address Them
paragraphs: This section presents the 10 FAAC recommendations we reviewed and  includes detail on DOT and FAA actions to address the  recommendations, FAAC members’ assessment of DOT and FAA  progress on the recommendations, and challenges in implementing each  recommendation. Also, we numbered these recommendations for  reporting purposes, but these numbers do not align with the numbers  assigned to these recommendations in the FAAC report.
subsections: section_title: 1. FAAC Recommendation— Sustainable Alternative Fuels
subsections: section_title: Issue Overview
paragraphs: environmental and cost analysis; funding certification and qualification  testing to inform efforts by the standard-setting organization ASTM  International; and enabling government and aviation industry  coordination. FAA officials told us FAA does not have authority or funding  to provide financial incentives for development and deployment of  alternative aviation fuels. However, other federal agencies—such as the  Internal Revenue Service, USDA, and DOE—have administered  programs that provide numerous incentives, including subsidies through  tax credits, to produce feedstocks, and refine and use biofuels. In its  report, the FAAC stated that the aviation industry has unique fuel  requirements and is well-positioned to be a national and international  leader in the use of sustainable renewable alternative fuels.
The FAAC recommended that DOT exercise strong national leadership to  promote and display U.S. aviation as a first user of sustainable alternative  fuels and provide increased support for FAA’s work on alternative fuels.  The FAAC discussed four specific areas in supporting its  recommendation.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address Recommendation
paragraphs: Table 4 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation and  underlying rationale, and DOT’s and FAA’s actions to address it, as of  June 2013.
FAAC recommendation—alternative fuels  Ensure accepted environmental criteria for alternative fuels,  domestically and internationally—The DOT/FAA should develop  and execute a plan, working with government, industry, and other  relevant domestic stakeholders to develop and confirm  environmental criteria, including associated life-cycle analysis  protocols, for aviation alternative fuels. The DOT/FAA should also  work to facilitate international acceptance of these criteria so the  benefits of alternative aviation fuels can be available domestically  and internationally.
DOT/FAA actions   As of May 2013, FAA had six on-going efforts—some of which  are through one of its Centers of Excellence and the John A.  Volpe National Transportation Systems Center—that focus on  environmental impacts, economic impacts, feasibility, and  sustainability of alternative jet fuels, among other things. FAA  also collaborates with other Federal agencies—including DOD,  EPA, and DOE—on domestic efforts to develop life-cycle  analysis protocols. CAAFI stakeholders are currently examining  how CO emissions would differ under different policies and  regulatory assumptions, including those under EPA’s RFS2  program and the European Union’s renewable energy directive.  FAA follows international efforts and shares best practices with  the United Nation’s International Civil Aviation Organization  (ICAO) and other countries. For example, FAA has formal  agreements to cooperate with Australia, Brazil, Germany, and  Spain on issues related to alternative aviation fuels.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Planned Actions
paragraphs: gallons of petroleum jet fuel with alternative jet fuel by 2018 and to  achieve carbon neutral growth by 2020 (baseline year of 2005)—are  several years or more away. Because of the long-term nature of this  effort, officials told us they plan to continue FAA’s research and  collaboration with other agencies, industry groups, and other countries.
section_title: FAAC Members’ Assessment of DOT’s and FAA’s Progress
paragraphs: All five of the FAAC environmental subcommittee members we  interviewed expressed support for FAA’s actions to address this  recommendation, adding that fully addressing this recommendation will  require a long-term, ongoing effort and collaboration with a number of  parties. For example, some subcommittee members identified additional  actions that they think FAA or the federal government should take in  response to this recommendation. Two subcommittee members noted the  need for an increased federal focus on supporting the deployment and  commercial viability of alternative fuels through tax incentives, public- private partnerships, direct support, or other means to encourage industry  to invest its capital. One subcommittee member stated that while DOT or  FAA may not have the statutory authority to provide incentives to  accelerate development and deployment, they should explore their  authority to support additional deployment activities. In our discussions  with FAA officials on this issue, they stated that FAA has not sought direct  authority for these activities because they believe that it is a wiser use of  federal resources to use existing federal support mechanisms that are  funded by USDA and DOE. Another subcommittee member stated that  more overall federal funding is needed for research on conversion  technology and getting through the fuel approval process, and that the  research projects that receive federal funding should be focused  specifically on producing the data needed for fuel approval, rather than  addressing broader issues. In addition, this subcommittee member stated  that FAA should increase its outreach and collaboration with other groups  such as the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group, the Sustainable  Aviation Biofuels for Brazil effort, and the Midwest Aviation Sustainable  Biofuels Initiative. According to FAA officials, the agency is engaged in  the latter two initiatives.
section_title: Challenges in Implementing the Recommendation
paragraphs: Resource constraints. FAA officials and two of the subcommittee  members stated that resources, specifically funding for the programs  and staff time to work on the projects, pose a challenge in addressing  this recommendation. Subcommittee members raised concerns about  budget uncertainty affecting the agencies’ abilities to support long- term efforts in this area.
Scalable, affordable, and sustainable fuel supply. FAA officials  and two subcommittee members also pointed out the challenges  related to scalability—that is, being able to produce sufficient  quantities of alternative aviation fuel at a reasonable price. FAA  officials noted that building a sustainable supply chain would be a  challenge. However, officials said that the production activities by  USDA, DOE, and DOD could help establish the market, and the  programs at DOE, EPA, and USDA should help lower costs and make  commercialization possible. FAA officials added that more time,  continued funding, and political support will help them achieve their  goals.
Uncertainties inherent in new fuels technologies. According to  FAA officials, part of the underlying challenge of developing a  sustainable supply chain is the limited financial investment by private  industry due, in part, to risk associated with uncertainties. Such  uncertainties include the ability of alternative fuels to compete with  petroleum and the effects of possible future regulatory changes, such  as the sustainability of tax credits, grants, or loan guarantees that  support the development and commercialization of alternative jet fuel,  factors which are not under FAA’s authority.
Collaboration with many stakeholders. Three subcommittee  members identified challenges related to the need to collaborate with  many stakeholders on this recommendation. For example, a  subcommittee member also noted the need to collaborate with non- aviation stakeholders, such as agriculture-financing representatives,  while two other members highlighted that work on this  recommendation is a multi-agency process.
We recently began work in this area examining the progress made in  developing alternative jet fuels in the United States, as well as the key  challenges that exist and federal efforts that should be taken to address  those challenges. We plan to report the results of our work in 2014.
section_title: Related Products
paragraphs: Biofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required Increases in  Production and Use. GAO-09-446. Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2009.
Aviation and Climate Change: Aircraft Emissions Expected to Grow, but  Technological and Operational Improvements and Government Policies  Can Help Control Emissions. GAO-09-554. Washington, D.C.: June 8,  2009.
Aviation and the Environment: NextGen and Research and Development  Are Keys to Reducing Emissions and Their Impact on Health and  Climate. GAO-08-706T. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2008.
section_title: 2. FAAC Recommendation— Harmonized Approach to CO2 Reduction
subsections: section_title: Issue Overview
paragraphs: As previously noted, commercial aviation’s contribution to greenhouse  gas emissions is reported to be relatively small, but is forecasted to grow,  with carbon dioxide (CO The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to  minimize the adverse effects of climate change, stated that greenhouse  gases from aviation fuels should be limited or reduced, and that such  efforts should be conducted through ICAO. In 2010, the ICAO Assembly  agreed upon the following goals: achieve a global annual average fuel efficiency improvement rate of 2  percent until 2020 and pursue an aspirational global fuel efficiency  improvement rate of 2 percent per year from 2021 to 2050; and achieve global carbon-neutral growth from 2020 onward. emissions and aircraft emissions  certification procedures. and set another explicit goal to halve CO reductions and DOT’s and FAA’s actions  to address it, as of June 2013.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Planned Actions
paragraphs: FAA officials stated that addressing this recommendation is a long-term  effort and noted their ongoing efforts in this area. For example, FAA  officials noted that continued domestic and international coordination are  required to address this recommendation. FAA officials said implementing  its Reduction Plan will continue to require sustained collaboration with  partner agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space  Administration and the aviation industry. FAA officials said they would  advocate that countries’ reduction plans be updated on a triennial basis  and would plan to update the U.S. Reduction Plan in 2015 and triennially  afterward, if requested by future ICAO agreements. Officials also told us  that they will participate in discussions on market-based measures at the  upcoming ICAO Assembly meeting in September 2013.
section_title: FAAC Members’ Assessment of DOT’s and FAA’s Progress
paragraphs: All five of the FAAC environmental subcommittee members told us that  the recommendation was not fully addressed, noting that work in this area  was ongoing and that FAA should continue their involvement in ICAO’s  ongoing efforts.
section_title: Challenges in Implementing the Recommendation
paragraphs: baseline, but said that they have adopted this goal because it is  consistent with the U.S. government’s commitment made during the  2009 round of U.N. negotiations on climate change (the Copenhagen  Accord) and reflects the position that the United States, Mexico, and  Canada jointly took prior to the ICAO Assembly meeting in 2010.
Resource constraints. FAA officials and a FAAC member told us  that sustained federal financial support will be necessary to achieve  the technical and operational improvements that are expected to  result in emissions reductions consistent with ICAO and FAA goals.  For example, resource constraints at the agency could hamper efforts  to implement NextGen within the expected time frames; conduct  necessary research and development of new technologies, including  sustainable alternative jet fuels; and participate in the work and  discussions at ICAO and other forums.
section_title: Related Products
paragraphs: NextGen Air Transportation System: FAA Has Made Some Progress in  Midterm Implementation, but Ongoing Challenges Limit Expected  Benefits. GAO-13-264. Washington, D.C.: April 8, 2013.
Aviation and Climate Change: Aircraft Emissions Expected to Grow, but  Technological and Operational Improvements and Government Policies  Can Help Control Emissions. GAO-09-554. Washington, D.C.: June 8,  2009.
International Climate Change Programs: Lessons Learned from the  European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol’s  Clean Development Mechanism. GAO-09-151. Washington, D.C.:  November 18, 2008.
Aviation and the Environment: NextGen and Research and Development  Are Keys to Reducing Emissions and Their Impact on Health and  Climate. GAO-08-706T. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2008.
Aviation and the Environment: Strategic Framework Needed to Address  Challenges Posed by Aircraft Emissions. GAO-03-252. Washington, D.C.:  February 28, 2003.
section_title: 3. FAAC Recommendation— Support Extending the Alternative Minimum Tax Exemption
subsections: section_title: Issue Overview
paragraphs: Municipal bond proceeds are a significant funding source for airports’  capital development. Municipal bonds for airports are generally classified  as private activity bonds, since the bond proceeds are used for private  business purposes. The private activity bonds for airports are tax-exempt  (also known as “qualified” private activity bonds). However, qualified  private activity bonds are subject to restrictions that do not apply to  governmental bonds. Among these restrictions, the interest income from  qualified private activity bonds is included in income when calculating the  alternative minimum tax (AMT), whereas the interest on governmental  bonds is not. A bondholder whose total income reached the level  subject to the AMT would have to pay tax on the interest earned from  airport qualified private activity bonds.
AMT in 2009 and 2010, and allowed for the refinancing of some private  activity bonds into non-AMT debt.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address Recommendation
paragraphs: Table 6 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation to support  extending the AMT exemption and DOT’s and FAA’s actions to address it,  as of June 2013.
FAA officials told us that any further action on extending the AMT  exemption to private activity bonds would require legislative action, and  there is not currently a legislative vehicle for this provision. As a result,  DOT does not plan to take any additional actions and considers the  recommendation to be closed.
section_title: FAAC Members’ Assessment of DOT’s and FAA’s Progress
paragraphs: subcommittee member did not think that an AMT exemption should be  included in legislation without a cost-benefit analysis.
section_title: Challenges in Implementing the Recommendation
paragraphs: Mixed perspectives on the appropriateness of the AMT  exemption. FAA may face challenges encouraging congressional  action on this recommendation due to mixed perspectives on the  appropriateness of tax-exemptions for bond financing. Our prior work  has shown the importance of determining the economic efficiency of  applying preferential tax treatment to selected investments. High- level analyses of the AMT exemption have shown it leads to a loss of  federal revenue, but data specific to airports is limited. However,  FAA and industry stakeholders counter that exempting airport private  activity bonds has led to significant savings. FAA conducted an  analysis of the financial impact of the AMT exemption in the American  Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and stated that the  exemption resulted in significant savings for airports, increased capital  investment, and increased employment. Our tax expenditure guide  provides useful resources for evaluating the efficiency of applying  preferential tax treatment to selected investments, and could assist  Congress as it considers these provisions.
Legislative change. As previously noted, any further action on  extending the AMT exemption to private activity bonds will require  legislative action. One FAAC subcommittee member noted that airport  stakeholders may face challenges in lobbying for such an exemption  given their limited financial resources and lack of natural alliances with  other industries that previously received an exemption from the AMT.
section_title: Related Products
paragraphs: Tax Expenditures: Background and Evaluation Criteria and Questions.  GAO-13-167SP. Washington, D.C.: November 29, 2012.
Tax Policy: Tax-Exempt Status of Certain Bonds Merits Reconsideration,  and Apparent Noncompliance with Issuance Cost Limitations Should Be  Addressed. GAO-08-364. Washington, D.C.: February 15, 2008.
Airport Finance: Observations on Planned Airport Development Costs  and Funding Levels and the Administration’s Proposed Changes in the  Airport Improvement Program. GAO-07-885. Washington, D.C.: June 29,  2007.
section_title: 4. FAAC Recommendation— Funding Accelerated NextGen Equipage of Aircraft
subsections: section_title: Issue Overview
paragraphs: FAA is transforming the nation’s ground-based air-traffic control system to  an air-traffic management system using satellite-based navigation and  other technology. This transformation is referred to as NextGen. NextGen  is intended to enhance airspace safety, reduce delays, save fuel, and  reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other adverse environmental  impacts.
While some operational improvements can be made with existing aircraft  equipment, realizing more significant benefits of NextGen necessitates  additional investment by airlines in new technologies to establish a critical  mass of properly equipped aircraft. However, GAO and others have  noted that a variety of disincentives may deter operators from investing  early in NextGen equipment. For example, we have reported that aircraft  operators may be hesitant to make investments in equipment if they do  not have confidence that FAA will deliver the systems, procedures, and  capabilities to realize the benefits from their investments. In addition, the  FAAC report identified challenges for FAA to overcome in encouraging  operators to equip early, including: (1) prior instances in which operators  equipped aircraft but received little or no benefit because the FAA did not  implement quickly enough the necessary procedures or approvals to  enable operators to derive benefits from the equipment; and (2) the  business case may be weak for individual operators to purchase and  install equipment early, with costs far exceeding expected direct benefits  to users.
The FAAC noted that accelerated deployment of NextGen could lead to  capacity, efficiency, environmental, and safety benefits. It also  emphasized the need to overcome challenges in encouraging operators  to equip early by providing some form of public financing to incentivize  equipage. One FAAC finance subcommittee member formally dissented  to this recommendation and questioned the need for public financing of  airline equipment, citing a lack of evidence that the benefits gained from  equipment investments would not be sufficient to encourage industry  adoption without government subsidies.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address Recommendation
paragraphs: Table 7 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation to accelerate  investment and installation of NextGen equipment on aircraft and FAA’s  actions to address it, as of June 2013.
Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations  and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address  Them Section 1: Selected FAAC Recommendations  and DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address  Them prioritization criteria at a national level, joint investment priorities, and location and timing of capability  implementation.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Planned Actions
paragraphs: FAA officials stated FAA has addressed this recommendation, with the  help of the authority granted in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act.  Officials noted that they are still working to determine what the program  will entail, including soliciting input from aircraft operators and potential  private partners to determine how to establish an incentive program that  operators want to participate in. In addition, the appropriations  requirements for a loan guarantee program has not yet been met. FAA  officials also noted that they are considering how to administer the loan  guarantee program and FAA may need to issue a contract for an external  group to fulfill this role; however, FAA currently does not have funding to  do so.
section_title: FAAC Members’ Assessment of DOT’s and FAA’s Progress
paragraphs: officials noted that while they have been focused on possibly establishing  a loan guarantee program given the mandate to maximize private  investment and a lack of funding for a different type of program, they have  solicited input from industry on ideas for other incentive programs that  would maximize private investment and have not received any specific  suggestions.
section_title: Challenges in Implementing the Recommendation
paragraphs: operators to equip, with two subcommittee members noting that  sequestration has introduced an additional level of uncertainty into  NextGen implementation time frames. In April 2013, we noted that  stakeholders, including RTCA and the NextGen Advisory Committee,  have stressed the need for additional information to understand the  potential direct costs, benefits, and return on investments that might  be realized from technological and equipage investments. While  FAA’s NextGen plans include some examples of benefits, RTCA  reported in 2011 that available FAA plans do not include sufficient  information for airlines making investment decisions such as forecast  benefits by either location or usage, or the proportion of the local fleet  that is currently equipped. We noted that without greater certainty  on when and where NextGen improvements are planned, airlines and  others are unlikely to invest in the equipment, staffing, and training  needed to help achieve the full benefits of NextGen implementation.  We recommended FAA assure that NextGen planning documents  provide stakeholders information on how and when operational  improvements are expected to achieve NextGen goals and targets.  In June 2013, DOT concurred with our recommendation and stated  that it has efforts underway to better integrate various NextGen plans  to provide more of this type of information.
section_title: Related Products
paragraphs: NextGen Air Transportation System: FAA Has Made Some Progress in  Midterm Implementation, but Ongoing Challenges Limit Expected  Benefits. GAO-13-264. Washington, D.C.: April 8, 2013.
Next Generation Air Transportation System: FAA Faces Implementation  Challenges. GAO-12-1011T. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2012.
Next Generation Air Transportation System: FAA Has Made Some  Progress in Implementation, but Delays Threaten to Impact Costs and  Benefits. GAO-12-141T. Washington, D.C.: October 5, 2011.
Next Generation Air Transportation System: Challenges with Partner  Agency and FAA Coordination Continue, and Efforts to Integrate Near-,  Mid-, and Long-term Activities Are Ongoing. GAO-10-649T. Washington,  D.C.: April 21, 2010.
Next Generation Air Transportation System: FAA Faces Challenges in  Responding to Task Force Recommendations. GAO-10-188T.  Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2009.
Next Generation Air Transportation System: Progress and Challenges  Associated with the Transformation of the National Airspace System.  GAO-07-25. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2006.
section_title: 5. FAAC Recommendation— Review Criteria for the Airport Improvement Program and Passenger Facility Charge Program Related to NextGen
subsections: section_title: Issue Overview
paragraphs: up to $4.50 for every boarded passenger at commercial airports.  Airports can use this funding for FAA-approved projects related to  enhancing airport safety, capacity, security, noise compatibility, and for  enhancing competition among airlines. Project eligibility is almost  identical between AIP and the PFC program except that airports may use  PFC funding for repaying bonds and for airline waiting areas and gates  that generally are not eligible for AIP grants because they are considered  revenue producing for airlines.
In its report, the FAAC noted interest among the aviation community in  broadening AIP and PFC eligibility criteria to support aviation  infrastructure projects, including those related to NextGen—FAA’s  initiative to transform the nation’s ground-based air-traffic control system  to an air-traffic management system using satellite-based navigation and  other advanced technology. However, the FAAC noted that current  regulations do not generally allow AIP or PFC funds to be used for  NextGen-related projects.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address Recommendation
paragraphs: Table 8 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation to assess AIP  and PFC eligibility criteria for NextGen projects and FAA’s actions to  address it, as of June 2013.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Planned Actions
paragraphs: Although FAA officials told us they consider this recommendation  addressed, they said that they continue to track other potential NextGen- related projects that could be recommended for funding through AIP and  PFC. As noted in table 8, DOT’s June 2013 update on the status of this  recommendation stated that for the next FAA authorization, FAA is  considering recommending a pilot program to permit states to fund  installation of ADS-B ground stations to provide airborne surveillance  coverage.
section_title: FAAC Members’ Assessment of DOT’s and FAA’s Progress
paragraphs: Four of the six FAAC finance subcommittee members felt that the  recommendation was not fully addressed. Of the two remaining  subcommittee members, one did not feel that he had enough information  about DOT’s actions on the recommendation to determine whether it was  fully addressed, while the other said that the recommendation with  respect to AIP was addressed, but it was unclear what action DOT had  taken with respect to the PFC program. Two of the subcommittee  members, including one that did not provide an opinion on the status of  the recommendation, stated that FAA’s approach to the recommendation  was very narrow and that the FAAC envisioned a broader review to  determine how to expand the scope of the AIP and PFC programs. One  of these subcommittee members stated FAA should have had additional  meetings with airport representatives after the FAAC completed its work  to explore options for rewriting the AIP and PFC program. Another  subcommittee member stated that discussions related to AIP and PFC  should reflect the context of the FAAC’s recommendation to commission  an independent study of federal aviation taxes and fees, which we did not  examine as part of this report. Two subcommittee members noted the  need to address funding issues, which are discussed in the challenges  section.
section_title: Challenges in Implementing this Recommendation
paragraphs: permit states to fund installation of ADS-B ground stations—a key  NextGen technology—which could potentially expand the use of PFC  funds.
Limited funding. FAA officials and two subcommittee members  stated that airports are struggling to address their immediate needs  with the existing AIP and PFC funds, making it difficult to expand use  of these funds to include NextGen projects. Appropriations for AIP  have been flat—roughly $3.5 billion for fiscal years 2005 through  2011—and are reduced under current authorized levels to be $3.35  billion from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2015. In addition, a  recent statute allowed DOT to transfer funds from AIP to avoid air  traffic controllers’ furloughs and reduce the impacts of other  reductions. With respect to PFC, two subcommittee members noted  that the PFC has not been increased. (The PFC has remained capped  at $4.50 since 2000.) As we have noted, airports have long sought  to increase the PFC cap, arguing that the fee cap has not been  adjusted for inflation, while airlines counter that raising the PFC  inhibits demand for air travel. One subcommittee member stated  that expanding AIP and PFC eligibility to include additional costs  would require a significant study to determine the most appropriate  use of the funds.
section_title: Related Products
paragraphs: Transportation: Alternative Methods for Collecting Airport Passenger  Facility Charges. GAO-13-262R. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2013.
Airport Noise Grants: FAA Needs to Better Ensure Project Eligibility and  Improve Strategic Goal and Performance Measures. GAO-12-890.  Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2012.
Airport Improvement Program. GAO-07-885. Washington, D.C.: June 29,  2007.
section_title: 6. FAAC Recommendation— Promote Global Competitiveness
subsections: section_title: Issue Overview
paragraphs: Ongoing growth in the demand for international air travel presents  opportunities for expansion for U.S. carriers. However, we previously  found that U.S. carriers’ ability to establish new routes can be limited by  the policies of foreign governments. Preferential treatment of national  airlines restricts U.S. carriers’ access to possibly large international  markets. Other impediments to entry to foreign markets include barriers,  such as slot restrictions, that limit the potential for service by U.S.  carriers.
DOT has taken steps to address restrictive market access policies. In  1992, DOT launched an initiative to enter into new “Open Skies”  agreements with foreign countries. Open Skies agreements remove the  vast majority of restrictions on how airlines of the two signatory countries  may operate between and beyond their respective territories. For  example, these agreements remove prohibitions on the routes that  airlines of the signatory countries can fly or the number of airlines that can  fly them. Open Skies agreements also provide underlying traffic rights  and provisions for cooperative marketing arrangements that allow airlines  from different countries to form alliances with one another. Operating in  an alliance allows an airline to greatly expand its service network, without  having to increase the number of routes it flies using its own aircraft. U.S. and foreign air carriers wishing to enter into an alliance may also request  that DOT grant them immunity from the U.S. antitrust laws. Antitrust  immunity allows these airlines to coordinate their fares, services, and  capacity as if they were a single carrier in these markets, subject to  certain conditions. As part of its antitrust immunity review, DOT  determines the effects of the immunized alliance on competition and  whether the alliance serves the public interest. However, there is not  universal agreement that alliances best serve the traveling public.
DOT issued a 1995 Statement of U.S. International Air Transportation  Policy recognizing the importance of international air service and the  need to enable U.S. carriers to serve foreign markets. The policy provides  a broad umbrella under which actions such as bilateral negotiations and  antitrust immunity alliance reviews are taken and emphasized a number  of objectives, including, but not limited to: providing carriers with unrestricted opportunities to develop services  and systems to meet market demand; eliminating market distortions internationally, such as government  subsidies and unequal access to infrastructure; and, encouraging the development of a cost-effective and productive air- transportation industry through addressing infrastructure needs,  privatizing airlines, and reducing barriers to the creation of global  aviation systems, such as limitations on cross-border investment,  wherever possible.
The Secretary of Transportation also serves as a member of the  President’s Export Promotion Cabinet. This cabinet was established  through executive order in 2010 and was tasked with implementing the  National Export Initiative, which seeks to double the dollar value of U.S.  exports by the end of 2014.
The FAAC report applauded DOT’s efforts to open foreign markets to  U.S. airlines, but also noted that some of the world’s fastest-growing  aviation markets—including those in Asia, South America, and the Near  East—remain restricted to U.S. air carriers. In addition, the FAAC noted  that in some key markets, U.S. passenger and cargo air carriers not only  face restrictive aviation agreements, but also must confront a wide range  of practical market access barriers—including slot restrictions, airspace  limitations, and local ground-handling rules—that increase their operating  costs and limit U.S. air carriers’ ability to compete, both domestically and  globally. In addition, while many different factors can be included in  DOT’s public interest analysis of antitrust immunity for alliances, including  wages and working conditions, some FAAC members expressed  concerns on the impacts of immunized alliances between U.S. and  foreign carriers on U.S. workers.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address Recommendation
paragraphs: DOT officials told us that their actions on this recommendation consisted  of a three-prong approach: (1) fostering conditions that enable global  alliances to develop as well as ensuring DOT gives weight to existing  statutory criteria when reviewing requests for antitrust immunity for  alliances between U.S. and foreign carriers; (2) continuing efforts to open  foreign markets to U.S. carriers; and (3) expanding DOT’s role in  promoting aviation exports. Table 9 provides a summary of the FAAC  recommendation to promote global competitiveness and DOT’s actions to  address it, as of June 2013.
FAAC recommendation—global competitiveness  Leverage the Secretary of Transportation’s appointment to the  President’s Export Promotion Cabinet, and support an expansion of  the DOT’s role in promoting aviation exports for U.S. air carriers,  manufacturers, and airports, and facilitating international tourism.
DOT/FAA actions  The Secretary serves on the President’s Export Promotion  Cabinet, and DOT is also part of a working group for the National  Export Initiative. This initiative was established in 2010 to  support trade promotion, is led by the Secretary of Commerce,  and includes representatives from the United States Trade  Representative, Department of State, and the U.S. Trade and  Development Agency. The initiative includes an emphasis on  addressing aerospace market access and infrastructure issues,  seeking to establish Open Skies agreements and eliminate  restrictive aviation practices worldwide. Removal of such  restrictions could allow U.S. airlines to more fully participate in  the transport of U.S. exports overseas.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Planned Actions
paragraphs: DOT officials noted that they are working to ingrain these  recommendations into their existing efforts and processes. They stated  that DOT continues to pursue Open Skies agreements with China,  Mexico, Argentina, South Africa, and Russia, but given the nature of  negotiating such agreements, there is no timetable for concluding these  discussions. DOT is also considering a “best practices” template outlining  how to implement Open Skies provisions in other countries but has not  set a timeframe for finalizing this template.
section_title: FAAC Members’ Assessment of DOT’s and FAA’s Progress
paragraphs: Homeland Security, and Commerce on the National Export Cabinet.  Two members stated that the agencies should work to make it easier  for tourists and business travelers to obtain visas, and another  member noted the need to ensure U.S. carriers receive the same  opportunities overseas that foreign carriers receive in the U.S. market.
Three members stated that DOT should take a more aggressive  approach when addressing anti-competitive practices by other  countries and supporting the U.S. aviation industry. One  subcommittee member stated that DOT needs to refocus on its  statutory mandate to strengthen the competitive position of air carriers  to at least ensure equality with foreign air carriers; and that the federal  government should pursue a national airline policy to follow through  on this and other FAAC recommendations. Another member noted  that concerns remain with respect to equal access to airport slots  during popular travel times while the third member said that DOT  should push harder to get an agreement in place with China.
In addition, two subcommittee members, including one that felt the  recommendation was addressed, emphasized the need for DOT to  consider the labor impacts of Open Skies agreements and the resulting  alliances between U.S. and foreign carriers. Another member noted the  need to consider the safety impacts. These members noted a lack of  consensus during the FAAC discussions regarding how DOT should  address these issues; as a result, these issues are not included in the  FAAC recommendation but were discussed in the FAAC report as “other  areas of significant discussion.”
section_title: Challenges in Implementing the Recommendation
paragraphs: Obtaining consensus from many stakeholders, including foreign  governments. DOT officials and four FAAC subcommittee members  noted challenges in negotiating Open Skies agreements with other  countries—a process that can take many years and ultimately  depends on securing the agreement of another nation. Two  subcommittee members also noted that addressing competitiveness  issues involves input from a number of other stakeholders with  conflicting viewpoints, including airlines, airports, labor, other  government agencies, and elected officials. As previously noted, DOT  officials stated that they had established a dialogue with stakeholders  regarding impediments to the implementation of alliances around the  world, and conducted outreach to get airlines’ and labor stakeholders’  perspectives on DOT’s public interest analysis of alliances.
section_title: Related Products
paragraphs: Slot-Controlled Airports: FAA’s Rules Could be Improved to Enhance  Competition and Use of Available Capacity. GAO-12-902. Washington,  D.C.: September 13, 2012.
Airline Industry: Potential Mergers and Acquisitions Driven by Financial  and Competitive Pressures. GAO-08-845. Washington, D.C.: July 31,  2008.
U.S. Aerospace Industry: Progress in Implementing Aerospace  Commission Recommendations, and Remaining Challenges.   GAO-06-920. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2006.
Transatlantic Aviation: Effects of Easing Restrictions on U.S.-European  Markets. GAO-04-835. Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2004.
Issues Relating to Foreign Investment and Control of U.S. Airlines.  GAO-04-34R. Washington, D.C.: October 30, 2003.
International Aviation: DOT’s Efforts to Promote U.S. Air Cargo Carriers’  Interests. GAO/RCED-97-13. Washington, D.C.: October 18, 1996.
section_title: 7. FAAC Recommendation— STEM Education
subsections: section_title: Issue Overview
paragraphs: Aviation and aerospace employers, including government transportation  agencies, airlines, and manufacturers, are facing a number of workforce  challenges, such as an aging workforce, a lack of needed skills in the  current and future workforce, and the need to adapt to rapidly evolving  technology and compete in a global marketplace. A number of  organizations, including the FAAC, have noted that addressing these  challenges will require a focus on science, technology, engineering, and  mathematics (STEM) education. The challenges faced by aviation and  aerospace employers reflect a larger national trend, as research has  shown that the United States lacks a strong pipeline of future workers in  STEM fields and that U.S. students continue to lag behind students in  other highly technological nations in mathematics and science  achievement.
STEM, which is described in more detail in the next paragraph. Last  year, the Office of Management and Budget established a cross-agency  priority goal to improve the quality of STEM education at all levels. In  May 2012, we reported that by naming STEM education as a cross- agency goal, the administration is taking the first step towards creating a  government-wide plan to achieve its goal. However, we also stated that a  number of limitations could hamper progress, such as overlapping STEM  programs; agencies that did not connect STEM education activities to  agency goals in their annual performance plans or measure the progress  of their STEM activities; and a lack of information about the effectiveness  of STEM programs. We reiterated our prior recommendations. agencies, including DOT. In December 2011, CoSTEM published an  inventory of the federal STEM education portfolio. In May 2013, CoSTEM  released a 5-year strategic federal STEM education plan. DOT officials  told us that DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration  (RITA) represents DOT on the CoSTEM effort, and participated in the  development of an inventory of federal STEM programs and the  development of the Federal STEM education plan. The bulk of DOT’s and  FAA’s activities that are related to STEM education are conducted  through FAA’s Aviation and Space Education (STEM-AVSED) outreach  program. STEM-AVSED’s goals include encouraging students to explore  aviation and aerospace career opportunities; promoting the skills and  knowledge critical to aviation safety; and increasing awareness and  understanding of the agency’s role in aviation and aerospace.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address Recommendation
paragraphs: DOT and FAA officials have taken steps to address the wide-ranging  actions identified in the recommendation by improving internal  coordination, collaborating with external stakeholders, and conducting  STEM outreach to educational institutions and students through a variety  of programs. Table 10 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation  on STEM outreach and DOT’s and FAA’s actions to address it, as of June  2013.
FAAC recommendation—STEM  Consider improving programs and connections with 2- and 4-year  educational institutions that give students hands-on experience  applicable to the aviation and aerospace workplace.
DOT/FAA actions  FAA officials stated they improved lines of communication with the  Centers of Excellence, which award aerospace research grants to  colleges. Also, FAA has an MOU to increase the visibility of  technical careers in aviation and aerospace with the National  Coalition of Certification Centers (NC3), a network of schools and  industry leaders that develop aviation certifications. As part of this  effort, FAA and NC3 developed a brochure on aviation careers for  college recruiters to share with high school counselors, embarked  on a national poster campaign—Yes I Can Do That, and  implemented a job shadowing program called Walk in Your Boots.
Establish an award for innovation to recognize persons,  businesses, or organizations that develop unique scientific and  engineering innovations in aerospace and aviation.
DOT established the Secretary’s Recognizing Aviation and  Aerospace Innovation in Science and Engineering (RAISE) award  to recognize innovative scientific and engineering achievements  that will have a significant impact on the future of aerospace or  aviation. The award is open to students at the high school,  undergraduate, and graduate levels. DOT awarded its first RAISE  award in October 2012.
Work with the Secretary of Labor as an integral part of the  Interagency Aerospace Revitalization Task Force, originally  established in 2006, to implement a national strategy focused on  recruiting, training, and cultivating the aerospace workforce.  Work with the Department of Education to provide resources that  would create state-of-the-art STEM elementary and secondary  educational facilities.
DOT officials noted that while the Interagency Aerospace  Revitalization Task Force was disbanded, DOT has held  semiannual Aviation Industry Workforce-Management  Conferences with the Departments of Labor and Education. In  addition, in September 2011, the Secretaries of Transportation,  Education, and Labor signed a memorandum of understanding to  collaborate on implementing strategies for using STEM education  to develop a qualified aerospace workforce. DOT officials stated  that the agencies developed an informal work plan, and have  coordinated on efforts to provide information on transportation  careers for the Department of Labor’s American Job Centers.  In addition, as previously mentioned, RITA represents DOT on a  federal agency-wide effort to coordinate STEM programs through  the Committee on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math  Education.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Planned Actions
paragraphs: important that the agency continue to keep a spotlight on STEM  education. To maintain that focus, officials stated that the agency could  include FAA’s STEM work into FAA’s Business Plan Goals. FAA officials  stated they would like to eventually augment the existing STEM-AVSED  efforts to target middle and high school students with additional programs  for elementary students but have not established time frames to do so.  DOT officials noted that they are working to determine how to attract  students through STEM programs, as well as attracting students more  interested in technical training.
section_title: FAAC Members’ Assessment of DOT’s and FAA’s Progress
paragraphs: Five of the seven FAAC labor and workforce subcommittee members  stated that DOT and FAA had addressed the recommendation, but all of  the members stated that the DOT’s and FAA’s work on this issue should  continue. Four of the subcommittee members praised DOT efforts such  as establishing the RAISE award or the Aviation Industry Workforce- Management Conferences. Two of the subcommittee members—one that  thought the recommendation was addressed and one that did not—stated  that DOT and FAA should conduct outreach outside of Washington, D.C.,  on workforce and STEM issues and made diverse suggestions, including  involving FAA regional offices, hosting regional workforce summits,  providing a regional RAISE award, and interacting with students in  university and high school settings. One of the FAAC members who did  not think the recommendation was addressed stated that DOT should  provide more detail on what they are doing, and how they are measuring  their performance.
section_title: Challenges in Implementing the Recommendation
paragraphs: seven FAAC subcommittee members we interviewed recognized that  STEM education is a broad policy issue, and efforts on this  recommendation require collaborating with and maintaining the  participation of outside groups, such as other agencies, industry, and  other stakeholders. The administration is also taking steps to address  these issues through establishing a cross-agency priority goal and  creating a 5-year strategic plan for STEM education. As previously  noted, RITA has participated in the government-wide effort to  coordinate STEM programs.
Sustaining long-term efforts. DOT and FAA officials and a FAAC  subcommittee member noted that education is an evolving, ongoing  effort, which can be difficult to sustain interest and support for over the  long term. They added that funding and limited resources pose  challenges to maintaining these efforts, but the agencies work to  leverage resources through the partnerships previously noted.
Attracting students to aviation careers. FAA officials stated that  attracting students to technical careers can be challenging given  misconceptions about aviation maintenance careers. Five of the  FAAC subcommittee members also noted the challenges in enticing  students into the STEM fields or related aviation careers, and three of  the members stated that a viable and sustainable aviation industry  would help address this challenge. FAA officials also noted challenges  in developing web content that appealed to students and educators  while staying within FAA’s branding guidelines, which are typically  geared toward FAA’s traditional audience of aviation professionals.  However, FAA officials stated they were working across departments  within FAA to address these issues.
section_title: Related Products
paragraphs: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education:  Governmentwide Strategy Needed to Better Manage Overlapping  Programs. GAO-13-529T. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 2013.
Aviation Safety: Additional FAA Efforts Could Enhance Safety Risk  Management. GAO-12-898. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2012.
Managing for Results: GAO’s Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting  Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act. GAO-12-620R.  Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2012.
2012 Annual Report Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and  Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue.   GAO-12-342SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Strategic  Planning Needed to Better Manage Overlapping Programs across  Multiple Agencies. GAO-12-108. Washington, D.C.: January 20, 2012.
Federal Aviation Administration: Agency Is Taking Steps to Plan for and  Train Its Technician Workforce, but a More Strategic Approach Is  Warranted. GAO-11-91. Washington, D.C.: October 22, 2010.
section_title: 8. FAAC Recommendation— Legal Protections for Safety Data
subsections: section_title: Issue Overview
paragraphs: For decades, FAA and the aviation industry have used data to identify the  causes of aviation accidents and incidents and take actions to prevent  their recurrence. Our prior work has shown that FAA is in the midst of a  shift toward a proactive, data-driven safety oversight approach, commonly  referred to as a safety management system (SMS) approach. Under this  new approach, FAA plans to use aviation safety data to identify system- wide trends in aviation safety and manage emerging hazards before they  result in incidents or accidents. analysis of multiple databases, FAA has partnered with industry through  the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) program.  According to FAA documents, ASIAS leverages data from multiple  sources, including FAA data sets, airline proprietary safety data, publicly  available data, and manufacturer data, allowing FAA to (1) perform  integrated queries across multiple databases, (2) search an extensive  warehouse of safety data, and (3) display pertinent elements in an array  of useful formats. The ASIAS home page shows that as of February  2013, 44 airlines were participating in ASIAS, including 13 of the 14  airlines with at least 1 percent of total domestic scheduled passenger  service revenue. FAA is also in two rulemaking processes to require  SMS—which will include the development of systems for reporting,  tracking, and analyzing safety data—for air carriers and airports.
Our prior work has shown that the success of a SMS program depends  upon the open sharing of safety information among aviation stakeholders;  however, FAA officials have recognized that aviation industry concerns  about data protection and legal liability could hinder the implementation of  SMS. The FAAC stated that the development, analysis, and availability  of shared safety information could be inhibited by the potential that this  information may be used for other purposes, such as exposure through  the media, admissions in criminal or administrative prosecution, or use in  civil litigation.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address Recommendation
paragraphs: Table 11 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation to ensure  safety data protections and DOT’s and FAA’s actions to address it, as of  June 2013.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Planned Actions
paragraphs: completed in October 2013. FAA officials also stated they will continue to  encourage the voluntary reporting of data into ASIAS.
section_title: FAAC Members’ Assessment of DOT’s and FAA’s Progress
paragraphs: The evolving nature of aviation safety and remaining concerns regarding  the potential disclosure of data led to varying opinions on the extent to  which the recommendation was addressed. Two subcommittee members  said it was addressed, with one citing the provisions protecting safety  data from disclosure in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, and  another noting the work is ongoing. Four of the seven FAAC safety  subcommittee members did not believe that the recommendation was  addressed, but three of them noted that work was ongoing or that safety  was an evolving issue. One subcommittee member stated he did not  have enough information to comment on the status of this  recommendation. Three subcommittee members expressed concern on  the potential disclosure of data during criminal and civil litigation while  another member expressed concern on protecting data that is mandated  to be submitted—neither of which is addressed by current law but were  included in the FAAC recommendation. One member noted that FAA  needs to better communicate to Congress how the lack of protections  could have serious ramifications on voluntary reporting of safety data.  Two subcommittee members suggested additional areas of focus beyond  the recommendation, including collecting data on the amount of time  pilots spend flying to the city where they begin their work day—an issue  discussed in the aftermath of the 2009 Colgan accident—and the need for  international harmonization on the definition of legal protections for safety  data.
section_title: Challenges in Implementing the Recommendation
paragraphs: Addressing remaining data protection concerns. FAA officials as  well as two FAAC subcommittee members acknowledged industry  concern with respect to protecting safety data during criminal and civil  litigation and recognized its potential impact on SMS implementation.  However, they noted that it will be difficult to determine the extent to  which this issue could affect SMS and data sharing until it is tested in  court. Four of the subcommittee members stated that the potential for  disclosure could also affect operators’ or their employees’ willingness  to voluntarily report safety issues.
While protection of airport safety data was not specifically discussed as  part of the FAAC’s recommendation, we reported in September 2012 that  these data are subject to state-specific FOIA laws, which could make air  carriers less willing to share safety information with airports. Specifically,  while air carriers are not directly subject to state FOIA laws because they  are privately owned, data that airports collect and submit to FAA for  SMS—such as information on hazards or other safety data—may be  subject to public disclosure under state FOIA laws. FAA officials and  experts stated that state FOIA laws could affect the willingness of air  carriers to share safety data with airports because any data they choose  to share with airports could then be subject to these laws. We  recommended that the FAA Administrator consider strategies to address  airports’ concerns, including asking Congress to provide additional  protection for SMS data collected by public entities. Officials stated that  FAA is working to address this recommendation.
section_title: Related Products
paragraphs: Aviation Safety: FAA Efforts Have Improved Safety but Challenges  Remain in Key Areas. GAO-13-442T. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2013.
Aviation Safety: Additional FAA Efforts Could Enhance Safety Risk  Management. GAO-12-898. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2012.
Aviation Safety: FAA Is Taking Steps to Improve Data, but Challenges for  Managing Safety Risks Remain. GAO-12-660T. Washington, D.C.: April  25, 2012.
Aviation Safety: Improved Data Quality and Analysis Capabilities Are  Needed as FAA Plans a Risk-Based Approach to Safety Oversight.  GAO-10-414. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2010.
section_title: 9. FAAC Recommendation— Predictive Analytic Capabilities for Safety Data and Information
subsections: section_title: Issue Overview
paragraphs: As previously noted, FAA is in the midst of a shift toward a proactive,  data-driven safety oversight approach, commonly referred to as a safety  management system (SMS) approach. Under this new approach, FAA  plans to use aviation safety data to identify system-wide trends in aviation  safety and manage emerging hazards before they result in incidents or  accidents. The FAAC noted that to develop the robust predictive risk- discovery capabilities needed for SMS, FAA must develop advanced  analytical tools and methods, as well as modeling and simulation  capabilities. According to FAA, the Aviation Safety Information Analysis  and Sharing (ASIAS) program—a joint industry and FAA effort that serves  as a central exchange of safety information—is a cornerstone of its effort  to implement SMS. According to FAA documents, ASIAS leverages data  from multiple sources—including FAA data sets, airline proprietary safety  data, publicly available data, and manufacturer data—allowing FAA to (1)  perform integrated queries across multiple databases, (2) search an  extensive warehouse of safety data, and (3) display pertinent elements in  an array of useful formats. The ASIAS home page shows that as of  February 2013, 44 airlines were participating in ASIAS.
According to the FAAC, the initial results of ASIAS analyses have  demonstrated the value of using safety information to produce a system  safety baseline. However, the FAAC noted that realization of predictive  safety risk-discovery requires investment in expanding, accelerating, and  maturing ASIAS capabilities.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address Recommendation
paragraphs: Table 12 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation on  developing predictive safety risk analysis capabilities and FAA’s actions  to address it, as of June 2013.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Planned Actions
paragraphs: By securing the funds for execution, FAA believes that it has fulfilled the  spirit of the recommendation and is positioned to deliver predictive safety  risk-discovery capabilities. Officials told us that FAA intends to continue  executing its 5-year ASIAS Plan.
section_title: FAAC Members’ Assessment of DOT’s and FAA’s Progress
paragraphs: recommendation was fully addressed, and three noted this was due to the  ongoing nature of the recommendation, but stated that they were satisfied  with FAA’s actions. For example, one subcommittee member said that  developing predictive safety risk-discovery capabilities requires constantly  refining and making the capabilities more sophisticated.
section_title: Challenges in Implementing the Recommendation
paragraphs: to proactively identify risks. According to its ASIAS Plan, FAA will  address and monitor these issues regularly as new data sources are  added. It plans to develop taxonomies to better merge data from  programs like ASAP, the Air Traffic Safety Action Program, and FOQA  in 2013 and 2014.
Resource constraints. Three FAAC subcommittee members raised  concerns about how budget issues would affect FAA’s efforts to  implement the recommendation. One subcommittee member noted  that making substantive progress on this recommendation will not be  possible until budget issues are addressed. According to FAA  officials, funding reductions due to sequestration will not have a major  effect on the program’s development in fiscal year 2013. However, the  officials noted that these reductions will delay some specific  improvements, such as ASIAS’s ability to detect instances where  aircraft situational awareness is lost.
Analytical capabilities. According to FAA officials, labor agreements  and other factors can affect the agency’s ability to fully develop the  analytical capabilities of ASIAS. For example, the ASIAS Executive  Board must authorize analyses of ASIAS data, and in some cases,  the members of the board are constrained by labor agreements that  limit how their airlines’ data can be used. FAA officials noted that  while they provide the airlines with industry benchmarks from ASIAS  so the airline can see how it compares on certain metrics, it is unclear  how the airlines are using the data. In addition, FAA officials told us  that because some of the identifying information is stripped from the  data, FAA is limited in its analyses that would indicate the relative  safety performance of a particular airline. For example, if the  information is left with identifiers, then FAA would be able to pull other  relevant reports associated with a particular flight, and could merge  that data to understand all the relevant factors, and then de-identify  the information. As mentioned in Table 12, FAA stated it is working  with three airlines to demonstrate the benefits of using this approach.
section_title: Related Products
paragraphs: General Aviation Safety: Additional FAA Efforts Could Help Identify and  Mitigate Safety Risks. GAO-13-36. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2012.
Aviation Safety: Additional FAA Efforts Could Enhance Safety Risk  Management. GAO-12-898. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2012.
Aviation Safety: FAA Is Taking Steps to Improve Data, but Challenges for  Managing Safety Risks Remain. GAO-12-660T. Washington, D.C.: April  25, 2012.
Aviation Safety: Improved Data Quality and Analysis Capabilities Are  Needed as FAA Plans a Risk-Based Approach to Safety Oversight.  GAO-10-414. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2010.
section_title: 10. FAAC Recommendation— Prioritize Rulemaking
subsections: section_title: Issue Overview
paragraphs: The safety of the nation’s flying public depends, in large part, on the  aviation industry’s compliance with safety regulations and FAA’s  enforcement of those regulations when violations occur. As part of FAA’s  oversight of aviation safety, FAA develops rules and regulations through  the rulemaking process. FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board  (NTSB), and we have previously expressed concerns about the efficiency  and timeliness of FAA’s rulemaking efforts. In 2010, we noted that a  number of issues may contribute to a lengthy rulemaking process at FAA,  including the need to conduct research, obtain public comment, and  provide industry time to comply with the rule. In addition, we reported that  external pressures—such as highly publicized accidents,  recommendations by NTSB, and congressional mandates—as well as  internal pressures, such as changes in management’s emphasis,  continued to add to and shift the agency’s priorities, and that shifting  priorities can add to delays. The FAAC report raised similar concerns,  stating that the queue of potential rulemaking projects far exceeds the  FAA capacity for action in a reasonable time period, and there does not  appear to be a universally understood methodology for FAA to ensure the  most effective projects receive the highest priority. suspending or revoking operating certificates. However, as previously  noted, FAA and the U.S. aviation industry are moving toward the adoption  of safety management systems (SMS)—a data-driven, risk-based safety  oversight approach. The FAAC report raised concerns that FAA’s  enforcement policies are not reflective of the shift to SMS, because FAA  focuses its enforcement on regulatory non-compliance, regardless of risk  level, rather than prioritizing its efforts to address unacceptable risks.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Address Recommendation
paragraphs: Table 13 provides a summary of the FAAC recommendation to review  FAA’s rulemaking priorities and FAA’s actions to address it, as of June  2013.
section_title: DOT’s and FAA’s Planned Actions
paragraphs: implementation team is evaluating how to integrate the recommended  model into the current rulemaking process without creating unnecessary  redundancies. FAA officials stated they requested external feedback on  the model through the ARAC, at ARAC’s June 20, 2013, meeting.  According to FAA officials, ARAC members generally support  implementation activities and FAA is considering the feedback ARAC  provided on the tool and future ARAC involvement. FAA plans to beta test  the model in June 2013 and fully implement it in fiscal year 2014. FAA  officials stated that the current tool is supported by MS Excel, but noted  that FAA is developing an automated version of all rulemaking tools and  is including the prioritization model in the requirements.
section_title: FAAC Members’ Assessment of DOT’s and FAA’s Progress
paragraphs: Four of the six FAAC safety subcommittee members felt the  recommendation was not fully addressed; two members felt it was  addressed, although one stated that FAA should take additional actions  as its work on this recommendation continues, and one member did not  provide an opinion. One of the subcommittee members who stated the  recommendation was not addressed, as well as one member who stated  it was, suggested that FAA should be more transparent about its process.  Another subcommittee member felt that FAA should communicate more  with the NTSB when prioritizing rulemakings. Another subcommittee  member stated FAA was making progress, but he was unsure where FAA  was in the process since receiving the recommendations from the ARAC.  The remaining member had concerns beyond prioritization of rulemaking,  such as the clarity of FAA rules and the role of external input versus data  when crafting rules.
section_title: Challenges in Implementing the Recommendation
paragraphs: prioritization process is appropriately addressing aviation safety  issues raised by external parties, such as the public, Congress, the  DOT Inspector General, and GAO, without shifting FAA’s focus from  continuing to address other top priority issues.
Culture change. Two other FAAC subcommittee members noted that  implementing this recommendation would require a culture change at  FAA, which could be difficult. For example, one stressed the need for  FAA to be proactive in addressing safety issues, and the other stated  that FAA will need to develop a holistic approach toward rulemaking  that allows it to address issues quickly.
section_title: Related Products
paragraphs: Federal Rulemaking: Agencies Could Take Additional Steps to Respond  to Public Comments. GAO-13-21. Washington, D.C.: December 20, 2012.
Aviation Safety: Additional FAA Efforts Could Enhance Safety Risk  Management. GAO-12-898. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2012.
Aviation Safety: Improved Planning Could Help FAA Address Challenges  Related to Winter Weather Operations. GAO-10-678. Washington, D.C.:  July 29, 2010.
Aviation Safety: Better Management Controls are Needed to Improve  FAA’s Safety Enforcement and Compliance Efforts.   GAO-04-646. Washington, D.C.: July 6, 2004.
Aviation Rulemaking: Incomplete Implementation Impaired FAA’s Reform  Efforts. GAO-01-950T. Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2001.
Aviation Rulemaking: Further Reform Is Needed to Address Long- standing Problems. GAO-01-821. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2001.
section_title: Appendix I: Listing of the 23 Recommendations Made by the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee, by Area
paragraphs: 1.  Exercise strong national leadership to promote and showcase U.S.  aviation as a first user of sustainable alternative fuels.  2.  Support research and development related to airframe and engine  technologies.  3.  Secure operational and infrastructure improvements (NextGen,  ground taxi delay management programs, and airport energy  efficiency and emissions reduction program).  4.  Establish a harmonized approach for aviation carbon dioxide emission  reductions.  5.  Support extending the alternative minimum tax exemption for airport  private activity bonds.  6.  Fund accelerated Next Generation Air Transportation System  (NextGen) equipage of aircraft.  7.  Deliver the benefits of NextGen.  8.  Review eligibility criteria for the Airport Improvement Program and  Passenger Facility Charge Program.  9.  Promote the global competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry.  10. Commission an independent study of federal aviation taxes and fees.  11. Ensure transparency in ticket pricing, fees, code-share, contracts of  carriage, and travel statistics.  12. Support intermodalism by establishing a task force, examining the  Essential Air Service Program, and recommending that legislation  prioritize intermodal links.  13. Reform the Essential Air Service program.  14. Continue to be involved in efforts to address jet fuel price volatility.  15. Ensure coordination and focus on science, technology, engineering,  and math education programs.  16. Urge the National Mediation Board to implement the Dunlop II  recommendations.  17. Implement a semi-annual Aviation Industry Workforce-Management  Conference.  18. Seek legal protections for safety data program participants.  19. Support predictive analytic capabilities for safety data and information.  20. Identify new sources of safety data and establish criteria for inclusion  in voluntary data-sharing programs.  21. Include safety performance standards and training into NextGen  planning and implementation.  22. Review and reprioritize FAA’s rulemaking initiatives.  23. Address issues related to child safety for air travel.
section_title: Appendix II: Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Members
paragraphs: The Department of Transportation (DOT) chartered the Future of Aviation  Advisory Committee (FAAC) on April 16, 2010, to develop a manageable,  actionable list of recommendations for DOT. The FAAC included 19  representatives —1 government official (DOT Assistant Secretary for  Aviation and International Affairs) and 18 non-government  representatives—from a cross-section of stakeholders, such as air  carriers, airports, airline labor unions, manufacturers, and representatives  from the finance community, academia, and passenger interests. The  FAAC established five subcommittees to develop recommendations in the  five areas of interest specified in the FAAC charter: environment,  financing, competitiveness and viability, labor and workforce, and safety.  A list of the FAAC members, as well as the subcommittees they served  on, is provided in table 14.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above the following individuals made  important contributions to this report: Heather Krause (Assistant Director);  Amy Abramowitz; Melissa Bodeau; Anne Dore; Kevin Egan; Crystal  Huggins; Bert Japikse; Aaron Kaminsky; Bill Keller; Tim Minelli; SaraAnn  Moessbauer; Susan Offutt; Paul Revesz; Marylynn Sergent; Gretchen  Snoey; Pamela Vines; and Jessica Wintfeld.