National Transportation Safety Board: Issues Related to the 2010 Reauthorization
Released: 2010-01-27T00:00:00

Letter

NTSB Has Made Progress in All Management Areas, but Further Actions Are Needed to Fully Implement Some Recommendations

Overall, NTSB has fully implemented or made significant progress in following leading management practices in all eight areas that our recommendations addressed in 2006 and 2008—communication, strategic planning, IT, knowledge management, organizational structure, human capital management, training, and financial management. We made 15 management recommendations in these areas based on leading agency management practices that we identified through our governmentwide work. Although NTSB is a relatively small agency, such practices remain relevant. Figure 1 summarizes NTSB’s progress in implementing our management recommendations.

NTSB had fully implemented three of our management recommendations as of our report in April 2008—our recommendations to (1) facilitate communication from staff to management, (2) align organizational structure to implement a strategic plan, and (3) correct an Antideficiency Act violation related to purchasing accidental death and dismemberment insurance for employees on official travel. In addition, NTSB has made further progress on eight of our management recommendations since 2008. First, it fully implemented our recommendations on communication by reporting to Congress on the status of our recommendations by including the actions it has taken to address them in its Annual Report to Congress. In addition, it has fully implemented our recommendation on strategic planning by linking all five mission areas in its goals and objectives and seeking external stakeholder comments. NTSB has also taken steps to implement all three of our IT-related recommendations: NTSB has fully implemented an IT strategic plan that addresses our comments. Moreover, in compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA), NTSB has undergone annual independent audits, hiring outside contractors to perform security testing and evaluation of its computer systems.

We performed limited testing to verify that NTSB has implemented our recommendation to install encryption software. Agency officials confirmed, however, that while encryption software is operational on 410 of the agency’s approximately 420 laptop computers, the remaining laptops do not have encryption software installed because they do not include sensitive information and are not removed from the headquarters building.

NTSB has made significant progress in limiting local administrator privileges while allowing for employees to add software and print from offsite locations as necessary.

NTSB has also drafted a strategic training plan that, when finalized, would address GAO guidance on federal strategic training and development efforts and establish the core competencies needed for investigators and other staff. In addition, two modal offices have developed core curricula that relate specifically to their investigators.

In addition, NTSB obligated $1.3 million in September 2009 to the National Business Center—an arm of the Department of the Interior that provides for-fee payroll services to federal agencies—to develop a full cost accounting system for NTSB based on a statement of work. NTSB officials said that the first phase of the cost accounting system will be implemented late in fiscal year 2010. When the system is completed to permit recording of the time and costs of investigations and other activities, including training, this action will fully implement our recommendation.

The remaining four management recommendations have not yet been fully implemented. However, NTSB has initiated actions that could lead to their full implementation. For example, NTSB has continued to improve its knowledge management by developing a plan to capture, create, share, and revise knowledge, and the agency is deploying Microsoft SharePoint® to facilitate the sharing of useful information within NTSB.

In April 2008, we reported that NTSB had made significant progress in implementing our human capital planning recommendation by issuing a human capital plan that incorporated several strategies on enhancing the recruitment process. However, we also said the plan was limited in some areas of diversity management. As we have previously reported, diversity management is a key aspect of strategic human capital management. Developing a workforce that includes and takes advantage of the nation’s diversity is a significant part of an agency’s transformation of its organization to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The most recent version of NTSB’s human capital plan establishes goals for recruiting, developing, and retaining a diverse workforce, and NTSB provided diversity training to 32 of its senior managers and office directors in May 2009. Table 1 compares the diversity of NTSB’s fiscal year 2008 workforce with that of the federal government and the civilian labor force.

As the table shows, the percentages of NTSB’s fiscal year 2008 workforce that were women and minorities were lower than those of the federal government. Under the Office of Personnel Management’s regulations implementing the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program, agencies are required to determine where representation levels for covered groups are lower than for the civilian labor force and take steps to address those differences.

Additionally, as of fiscal year 2008, 9 percent of NSTB’s managers and supervisors were minorities and 24 percent were women (see fig. 2). Furthermore, according to NTSB, none of its current 15-member career Senior Executive Service (SES) personnel were members of a minority group, and only 2 of them were women. As we have previously reported, diversity in the SES corps, which generally represents the most experienced segment of the federal workforce, can strengthen an organization by bringing a wider variety of perspectives and approaches to policy development and decision making.

NTSB has undertaken several initiatives to create a stronger, more diverse pool of candidates for external positions. These initiatives include the establishment of a Management Candidate Program that has attracted a diverse pool of minority and female candidates at the GS 13/14 level. NTSB’s Executive Development Program focuses on identifying candidates for current and future SES positions at the agency. Despite these efforts, NTSB has not been able to appreciably change the diversity profile of its senior management.

NTSB’s current workforce demographics may present the agency with an opportunity to increase the diversity of its workforce and management. According to NTSB, in 3 years, more than 50 percent of its current supervisors and managers will be eligible to retire, as will over 25 percent of its general workforce. Furthermore, 53 percent of its investigators and 71 percent of those filling critical leadership positions are at least 50 years old. Although actual retirement rates may be lower than retirement eligibility rates, especially in the present economic environment, consideration of retirement eligibility is important to workforce planning.

NTSB Has Made Its Selection of Accident Investigations More Efficient, but Reporting Can Be Improved

We previously made four recommendations to NTSB to improve the efficiency of its activities related to investigating accidents, such as identifying criteria for selecting which accidents to investigate and tracking the status of its recommendations, and increasing its use of safety studies (see fig. 3).

NTSB is required by statute to investigate all civil aviation accidents and selected accidents in other modes—highway, marine, railroad, pipeline, and hazardous materials. Since our April 2008 report, NTSB has fully implemented our recommendation to develop transparent policies containing risk-based criteria for selecting which accidents to investigate. The recently completed highway policy assigns priority to accidents based on the number of fatalities, whether the accident conditions are on NTSB’s “Watch List,” or whether the accidents might have significant safety issues, among other factors (see fig. 4). For marine accidents, NTSB has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Coast Guard that includes criteria for selecting which accidents to investigate. In addition, NTSB has now developed an internal policy on selecting marine accidents for investigation. This policy enhances the MOU by providing criteria to assess whether to launch an investigation when the Coast Guard, not NTSB, would have the lead. In April 2008, we reported that NTSB had also developed a transparent, risk-based policy explaining which aviation, rail, pipeline, and hazardous materials accidents to investigate.

The remaining three recommendations have not yet been fully implemented. However, NTSB has initiated actions that could lead to closure of two of the recommendations. NTSB’s deployment of an agencywide electronic information system based on Microsoft SharePoint will allow NTSB to streamline and increase its use of technology in closing out recommendations and in developing reports. When fully implemented, this system should serve to close these two recommendations.

NTSB has also made significant progress in implementing our recommendation to increase its use of safety studies, which are multiyear efforts that result in recommendations. They are intended to improve transportation safety by effecting changes to policies, programs, and activities of agencies that regulate transportation safety. While we, the Department of Transportation, and nongovernmental groups, like universities, also conduct research designed to improve transportation safety, NTSB is mandated to carry out special studies and investigations about transportation safety, including studies about how to avoid personal injury. Although NTSB has not completed any safety studies since we made our recommendation in 2006, it has three studies in progress, one of which is in final draft, and it has established a goal of developing two safety study proposals and submitting them to its board for approval each year. NTSB officials told us that because the agency has a small number of staff, it has difficulty producing large studies in addition to processing many other reports and data inquiries. NTSB officials told us they would like to broaden the term “safety studies” to include not only the current studies of multiple accidents, but also the research done for the other, smaller safety-related reports and data inquiries. Such a term, they said, would better characterize the scope of their efforts to report safety information to the public. NTSB also developed new guidelines to address its completion of safety studies.

NTSB Has Increased Use of the Training Center

We made two recommendations for NTSB to increase its own and other agencies’ use of the Training Center and to decrease the center’s overall operating deficit (see fig. 5). The agency increased use of the center’s classroom space from 10 percent in fiscal year 2006 to 80 percent in fiscal year 2009. According to NTSB, it has sublease agreements with agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to rent approximately three- quarters of the classroom space located on the first and second floors. The warehouse portion of the Training Center houses reconstructed wreckage from TWA Flight 800, damaged aircraft, and other wreckage. The Training Center provides core training for NTSB investigators and trains others from the transportation community to improve their practice of accident investigation. Furthermore, NTSB has hired a Management Support Specialist whose job duties include maximizing the Training Center’s use and marketing its use to other agencies or organizations. The agency’s actions to increase the center’s use also helped increase Training Center revenues from about $635,000 in fiscal year 2005 to about $1,771,000 in fiscal year 2009. By reducing the center’s leasing expenses—for example, by subleasing classrooms and office space at the center to other agencies—NTSB reduced the Training Center’s annual deficit from about $3.9 million to about $1.9 million over the same time period.

NTSB has made significant progress in achieving the intent of our recommendation to maximize the delivery of its core investigator curriculum at the Training Center by increasing the number of NTSB- related courses taught at the Training Center (fig. 6). For example in 2008, 49 of the 68 courses offered at the Training Center were solely for NTSB employees.

NTSB has fully implemented our recommendation to increase use of the Training Center. NTSB subleased all available office space at its Training Center to the Federal Air Marshal Service (a DHS agency) at an annual fee of $479,000. NTSB also increased use of the Training Center’s classroom space and thereby increased the revenues it receives from course fees and rents for classroom and conference space. From fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2009, NTSB increased other agencies’ and its own use of classroom space from 10 to 80 percent, and increased revenues by over $1.1 million. For example, according to NTSB, it has a sublease agreement with DHS to rent approximately one-third of the classroom space. NTSB considered moving certain staff from headquarters to the Training Center, but halted these considerations after subleasing all of the Training Center’s available office space. NTSB decreased personnel expenses related to the Training Center from about $980,000 in fiscal year 2005 to $507,000 in fiscal year 2009 by reducing the center’s full-time-equivalent positions from 8.5 to 3.0 over the same period. As a result of these efforts, from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2009, Training Center revenues increased by 179 percent while the center’s overall deficit decreased by 51 percent. (Table 2 shows direct expenses and revenues for the Training Center in fiscal years 2004 through 2009.) However, the salaries and other personnel-related expenses associated with NTSB investigators and managers teaching at the Training Center, which would be appropriate to include in the Training Center’s costs, are not included. NTSB officials told us that they believe the investigators and managers teaching at the Training Center would be teaching at another location even if the Training Center did not exist. Once NTSB has fully implemented its cost accounting system, it should be able to track and report these expenses.

Requested Changes in NTSB’s Authority Would Provide Statutory Authority to Investigate Incidents and Reduce Required Accident Investigations

As part of the reauthorization process, NTSB has proposed both substantive and technical changes to its existing authorizing legislation. Among the substantive changes sought by NTSB are the statutory authority to investigate incidents in addition to its current authority to investigate accidents in all transportation modes and to reduce its current requirements for investigating rail and maritime accidents. Figure 7 illustrates the five transportation modes for which NTSB has investigative authority. The proposed technical changes would serve various purposes, including clarifying particular provisions contained in NTSB’s current authorizing legislation.

The proposed substantive change that would allow NTSB to investigate incidents would affect all modes by providing explicit authority to investigate not only accidents, as currently prescribed, but also “incidents not involving destruction or damage, but affecting transportation safety, as the Board may prescribe or Congress may direct.” This addition does not set forth specific criteria for selecting incidents to investigate, thereby increasing the agency’s discretion. According to NTSB, this change would codify the agency’s current practice in all modes. For example, NTSB investigated and reported the facts of the Northwest Airlines overflight of Minneapolis, Minnesota, on October 21, 2009, even though it did not meet the statutory definition of an accident.

Other proposed substantive changes would reduce NTSB’s current requirements for investigating maritime and rail accidents. Specifically, one change would eliminate the current requirement for NTSB or the Coast Guard to investigate all accidents involving public vessels or any other vessel and would provide discretion to determine whether and which of these accidents to investigate. Similarly, another proposed change would limit NTSB’s responsibility for investigating rail accidents by establishing more stringent criteria for triggering the requirement to investigate. However, the proposed criteria do not include definitions of certain terminology and would thus effectively give NTSB the discretion to decide which rail accidents to investigate.

Giving NTSB expanded investigatory discretion with the explicit authority to investigate incidents without specific criteria, while simultaneously limiting requirements for rail and maritime investigations, would allow the agency to use its professional judgment to determine which investigations would have the greatest potential to improve safety and make the most effective use of its resources. At the same time, however, it is important that NTSB be transparent in providing information about investigation criteria in order to assure Congress and the public that the agency’s resources are being used to address priorities in accordance with its mission. Striking the right balance between discretionary and criteria based investigations will be important to ensure that NTSB’s resources can be used for the work with the greatest potential to enhance transportation safety.

Other proposed substantive changes are intended to more clearly define NTSB’s and the U.S. Coast Guard’s respective roles and responsibilities for maritime accident investigations, which are currently governed by a December 2008 MOU with the Coast Guard and jointly issued regulations. These changes could affect a number of existing agreements and the current governing framework, as well as the agencies involved.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at this time.

Contacts and Acknowledgments

For further information on this testimony, please contact Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. at (202) 512-2834 or by e-mail at dillinghamg@gao.gov or Gregory C. Wilshusen at (202) 512-6244 or wilshuseng@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Keith Cunningham, Assistant Director; Lauren Calhoun; Peter Del Toro; George Depaoli; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; Fred Evans; Steven Lozano; Mary Marshall; Charles Vrable; Jack Warner; and Sarah Wood.

Appendix I: Related GAO Products

National Transportation Safety Board: Reauthorization Provides an Opportunity to Focus on Implementing Leading Management Practices and Addressing Human Capital and Training Center Issues. GAO-10-183T. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2009.

National Transportation Safety Board—Application of Section 1072 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (41 U.S.C. 254) to Real Property Leases. B-316860. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2009.

National Transportation Safety Board: Progress Made in Management Practices, Investigation Priorities, Training Center Use, and Information Security, but These Areas Continue to Need Improvement. GAO-08-652T. Washington, D.C.: April 23, 2008.

National Transportation Safety Board—Insurance for Employees Traveling on Official Business. B-309715. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2007.

National Transportation Safety Board: Observations on the Draft Business Plan for NTSB’s Training Center. GAO-07-866R. Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2007.

National Transportation Safety Board: Progress Made, Yet Management Practices, Investigation Priorities, and Training Center Use Should Be Improved. GAO-07-118. Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2006.

National Transportation Safety Board: Preliminary Observations on the Value of Comprehensive Planning, and Greater Use of Leading Practices and the Training Academy. GAO-06-801T. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2006.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.