Airports are an important component of the National Airspace System (NAS), as they are the entry and exit points to the NAS for most travelers. Although airports differ greatly in size and in the services they provide, most airports provide parking services, security and access control on their grounds, baggage-handling services, aircraft fueling, navigational support (such as runway lighting), and emergency communications throughout the airport and to ground crews. Some airports also provide such additional services as moving sidewalks and subways to connect terminals and computerized monitoring of runway conditions. To help provide these services, airports often rely on computer systems and other equipment with internal microprocessors. Some of these functions—such as baggage handling, controlling access to secured areas, and runway lighting—can also be performed manually and often are performed manually at small airports. Other key NAS components include U.S. airlines and FAA’s air traffic control system, both of which provide many functions at airports. Airlines often provide their own ticketing and check-in systems, jet bridges (movable walkways to connect an aircraft to an airport’s gates), and X-ray screening devices. FAA provides air traffic surveillance, navigation, and communications for aircraft. Although FAA and the airlines both have personnel, facilities, and equipment at airports, the responsibilities of an airport operator do not extend to them. Additionally, such conveniences as restaurants, automatic teller machines, and gift shops are not usually the responsibility of the airport; they are usually operated by contractors who lease space from the airport. On January 1, 2000, many computers worldwide could malfunction (e.g., produce inaccurate information) or fail simply because the year will change from 1999 to 2000. Such malfunctions or failures could have a costly, widespread impact. The problem comes from how computers and other microprocessors have recorded and computed dates for the past several decades. Typically, they have used two digits to represent the year—such as “98” for 1998—to save electronic storage space and reduce operating costs. In such a format, however, 2000 is indistinguishable from 1900. Nationwide, software and computer experts are concerned that this could cause computers and equipment with internal microprocessors to malfunction in unforeseen ways or to fail completely. To help airports prepare for the year 2000, FAA and the aviation industry have developed of a list of 22 core functions for airports, such as baggage handling, access control, and aircraft fueling. Each core function includes specific, discrete tasks that, when carried out together, meet an essential operational need of an airport, such as communications, access control, or aircraft fueling. Certain core functions having to do with safety and security are regulated by FAA and therefore must be present at airports, such as providing navigational aids and access control. FAA, however, does not prescribe what equipment, if any, airports must use to perform these regulated core functions. Other core functions, including automated baggage handling, aircraft fueling, and ground support, help airports meet other needs or enhance the passengers’ convenience and efficiency. FAA has also recommended that airports either (1) complete the process of ensuring that all their equipment supporting core functions regulated by FAA is Year 2000-compliant or (2) have contingency plans to ensure the continued operation of these functions. To help federal agencies prepare for the year 2000, we have issued Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide, which discusses the scope of the challenges and offers a structured, step-by-step approach to review and assess an organization’s readiness to handle the Year 2000 problem. The guide’s general principles are being widely used by entities outside the federal government, and we believe this approach would also help airports better prepare for the year 2000. However, even if an organization uses a structured approach to prepare for the year 2000, its operations could still face major disruptions. Many organizations will not be able to repair or replace, fully test, and implement all of their essential equipment in time. Furthermore, equipment that an organization considers to be completely repaired, validated, and implemented may encounter unanticipated Year 2000 problems because exhaustive testing of interconnected production systems is not a practical option. Moreover, essential services provided by the public infrastructure (including electricity, water, transportation, and voice and data telecommunications) are also vulnerable to Year 2000-induced equipment failures. To mitigate the risk of equipment failures and their potential impact, organizations must ensure that they have established contingency plans to provide operational continuity and to support their core functions. Airports are making progress in their efforts to prepare for the year 2000, but their efforts vary considerably. Nearly a third of the airports that responded to our questionnaire reported that they will not complete their preparations for the Year 2000 problem by FAA’s recommended date of June 30, 1999, and have no contingency plans in place. Moreover, many airports lack some or all of the chief components of a structured approach to Year 2000 repairs, which is most likely to ensure success. The Office Of Management and Budget (OMB) has set milestones of September 1998, January 1999, and March 1999, respectively, for federal agencies to complete renovating, testing, and implementing their systems. FAA has announced it will complete its preparations by June 30, 1999, and has recommended the same date to airports as the deadline for either (1) completing the process of ensuring that all their equipment supporting the core functions related to safety is Year 2000 ready or (2) implementing contingency plans to ensure the continuation of these functions. Fewer than 15 percent of the responding airports indicated that they intended to meet OMB’s March date for completing preparations. Slightly more than a third (but nearly half of the large airports) expected to meet FAA’s June 1999 recommended date. An additional 32 percent indicated they had not yet determined their completion date. We asked the airports whether they had developed contingency plans for each of the 14 core functions in the event that the Year 2000 date change caused equipment malfunctions. Just over half of the airports reported contingency plans for at least one core function. In general, large airports have contingency plans for more functions than small airports. However, a substantial number of the airports (about a third of the large airports, about a quarter of the medium-sized airports, and half of the small airports) reported they had no contingency plans, did not know of such plans for any of their core functions, or did not respond. Many of the airports (32 percent) indicated that they would not meet FAA’s deadline and also reported that they did not have any contingency plans. These include 9 large airports, 19 medium-sized airports, and 79 small airports (see fig. 1). We asked respondents to our questionnaire about a number of elements considered important to developing a structured approach to managing the Year 2000 problem. These included program oversight; program plans; program-tracking mechanisms; inventories of systems, equipment, and data exchanges; efforts to determine how to fix systems; and the status of renovation efforts, testing and validation plans, and contingency plans. We did not validate the information the airports reported. Most airports reported that their Year 2000 programs were in place, with defined management responsibilities and tracking mechanisms and inventories of potentially affected equipment already complete or in process. However, most airports had not yet determined how to renovate all their equipment. The large airports typically reported following a more structured approach than the small ones. As noted earlier, the large and medium-sized airports are generally more dependent on automation than the small airports. A central program office with the authority to manage and coordinate Year 2000 activities is a key element to a successful program. Because of the interdependencies among an airport’s computers, equipment, applications, and databases, the date change problem requires centrally developed and integrated renovation plans, validation standards and tests, and resource allocations. Nearly all airports reported that a specific person or group had oversight responsibility for Year 2000 preparations. The large airports were more likely than the medium-sized or small airports to have appointed a Year 2000 program manager rather than adding this responsibility to the airport administrator’s other responsibilities. Only 16 airports, all of them small airports, reported having no person or group with specific oversight responsibility in this area (see fig. 2). Other (e.g., city or county department) A Year 2000 program plan should include, among other things, schedules for all tasks and phases of the Year 2000 program, an assessment and a selection of repair options, an assignment of conversion or replacement projects to Year 2000 project teams, a risk assessment of the systems’ and the equipment’s vulnerabilities to the year 2000, and contingency plans. Of the airports we surveyed, only 16 percent reported completing their Year 2000 plans. A third were in the process of completing these plans, and about half (about two-thirds of them small airports) reported not having a written plan at all (see fig. 3). Two-thirds of airports actively track the progress of their Year 2000 activities—though tracking was more common at the large airports than at the small ones. Ninety-four percent of the large airports, 81 percent of the medium-sized airports, and 55 percent of the small airports reported that they had tracking mechanisms. A comprehensive inventory of systems and electronic equipment provides the necessary foundation for Year 2000 program planning and helps to ensure that all the equipment is identified. Nearly all the airports indicated that they had already developed or were in the process of developing an inventory of their systems and electronic equipment (see fig. 4). Some electronic systems that support an airport’s core functions exchange data with other systems not directly under that airport’s control. For example, according to some officials, some information systems exchange personnel information with local government offices, and others exchange information on gate and baggage locations with the airlines’ flight information systems. Airports must address data exchange issues, including notifying outside entities with whom they exchange information about any changes to their computers to address the Year 2000 problem. They must also develop verification processes for incoming external data and develop procedures to handle invalid data for airports’ progress in this area (see fig. 5). Organizations should review their inventory to identify mission-critical systems, determine how to best renovate them (either through repair, replacement, or retirement), schedule renovation activities, and test the new systems. Of 262 airports reporting on whether they had assessed their inventories to identify mission-critical systems, over two-thirds said they had. Of these, fewer than 40 percent of the airports reported that they had determined how they will renovate all of their affected systems. We asked the airports how far they had progressed in renovating the systems associated with each of the 14 core functions. The airports reported that, on average, they had completed more than half of the work on about four core functions and half or less of the work on the remaining functions. The airports reported the least progress in the areas of environmental systems and airport services (e.g., elevators and moving sidewalks) and the most progress in such areas as administration and weather systems (see fig. 6). Testing and validating all repaired systems and equipment are important steps to help ensure that these components perform as expected. Over half of the airports reported that, rather than perform tests themselves, they will rely on the manufacturers’ certifications to document that the majority of their systems and electronic equipment are ready for the year 2000. This was true for about 36 percent of the large airports, about 60 percent of the medium-sized airports, and slightly over half of the small airports. Almost a third of the large and over half of the medium-sized airports reported that they had already received such certification for their equipment. To continue operations, FAA requires that airports meet certain safety and security standards. Airport officials do not expect core functions to be compromised by Year 2000 problems because they can resort to manual backup procedures. However, manual procedures could seriously reduce an airport’s efficiency, thus causing delays that could ripple through the NAS. Given the short time remaining for airports to complete their Year 2000 preparations, it appears likely that some critical equipment will fail or malfunction, the efficiency of some airports will be degraded, and delays resulting from less efficient backup procedures or the closures of some airports for safety and security reasons could reduce the efficiency of the NAS. Under Federal Aviation Regulations, airports are required to provide a number of safety-and security-related functions, such as access control, fuel services, runway lighting and monitoring, and emergency communications. FAA does not specify how these functions are to be provided; an airport may use any method, system, or procedure to provide them. If an airport is unable to provide any of these safety and security functions, FAA requires it to suspend or restrict operations. (For a complete list of FAA’s required safety and security functions, see app. I.) Airport officials reported that their airport’s safety and security functions are unlikely to be affected by year 2000-induced systems malfunctions because their airport could resort to manual backup procedures. For example, if an access control system were to malfunction, FAA officials said an airport would be permitted to post guards to control key access points. Similarly, if runway lighting systems were to malfunction, airport officials reported that they could operate the runway lights manually or restrict landings to daylight hours and divert any aircraft arriving after dark to other airports. Such contingency plans, however, will need to be fully developed and tested to help ensure that safety or security is not degraded. For example, some airport officials indicated that their contingency plans for Year 2000 malfunctions with their baggage-handling and access control equipment involve substituting manual procedures. Such contingency plans could require hiring additional airport personnel and performing background checks. In addition, employees performing unfamiliar tasks to compensate for the malfunction of automated equipment would have to be trained to minimize the possibility of human errors affecting airport safety or security. Some airport officials were concerned about having the human resources they might need to respond to equipment malfunctions. Citing the “tight local labor market,” they expressed concerns about their ability to obtain qualified personnel and adequately train them in time to manually perform procedures to replace any automated equipment that might malfunction. Airport officials we interviewed stated that substituting manual backup procedures for automated equipment could slow down their airport’s operations. For example, according to officials at one large airport, if the computer that controls their runways’ lights malfunctioned, turning the lights on manually would be a time- and labor-intensive process because the manual controls are located on the airfield and are quite far apart. Additionally, because so much of the non-safety-related equipment at large airports facilitates moving people quickly, malfunctions of key systems (including baggage-handling systems, interterminal subways and moving sidewalks, and automated fuel distribution systems)—while not likely to affect safety—could dramatically delay an airport’s operations. Furthermore, delays at one airport could disrupt schedules at connecting airports as well, eventually reducing the efficiency of the entire NAS. To the extent that these delays are confined to small airports, the effect on the NAS may not be severe. However, Year 2000 problems at just a small number of the nation’s largest airports could prove very disruptive. Given the significant number of airports in our survey that reported they did not expect to meet FAA’s recommended June 30, 1999, preparation date and had not completed contingency plans, it is possible that critical equipment at some airports will malfunction and disrupt the performance of some core functions. Should this situation occur, FAA and airport officials agree that they will suspend or restrict operations rather than potentially compromise an airport’s safety or security. However, significant delays at some airports could reduce the efficiency of the entire NAS. Airport managers and other members of the aviation industry identified a number of potential sources of assistance to airports confronting the Year 2000 challenge. First, contractors with appropriate expertise can provide the trained personnel that an airport might lack and might be able to repair equipment faster than that airport’s staff. Second, aviation industry associations have helped to inform airports about Year 2000 issues. Third, legislation recently passed by the Congress can be expected to encourage information sharing. Finally, FAA has helped airports by providing procedures for documenting their Year 2000 readiness. Many airport officials commented that the use of contractors had significantly assisted their progress in completing Year 2000 preparations. Officials at large airports, in particular, acknowledged the importance of contractors. Because most airports routinely contract out certain services and maintenance rather than have their own staff perform that work, they lack the trained personnel in-house to conduct Year 2000 repairs, particularly those that require special expertise, such as testing internal microprocessors and replacing those that are date-dependent. Some aviation consulting firms that specialize in Year 2000 problems have developed databases that provide information on the Year 2000 status of equipment that is used at many airports. Additionally, some airports are working to develop global Year 2000 solutions that could be tested at a single airport, allowing subsequent airports with the same equipment to then install and implement that equipment without repeating the testing procedures. In responding to our survey, about a fifth of the small airports, almost two-fifths of the medium-sized airports, and three-fourths of the large airports indicated that they have either hired or intend to hire contractors. Aviation industry associations have been working to help ensure airports will be prepared to operate through and beyond the year 2000. Officials at some of these associations say that while their organizations do not have the technical expertise to assist airports in actual Year 2000 testing or repairs, they have helped keep their members informed. The Airports Council International—North America (ACI-NA) and the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), both of which represent domestic airport operators, regularly include information on the Year 2000 problem in their newsletters and correspondence with members, discuss Year 2000 issues at workshops and conferences, and have been involved in seminars focused on the year 2000. ACI-NA recently sponsored a workshop to give airport officials a forum for sharing best practices on how to prepare for the year 2000 and plans to hold additional workshops to encourage information sharing. The Air Transport Association of America (ATA), a group representing domestic air carriers, has taken a more active role in its efforts to help ensure airports are prepared to operate through and beyond the year 2000. In addition to such awareness activities as those just mentioned, ATA has contracted with a management consulting firm to inventory equipment at 158 domestic airports. ATA is interested in gathering information on the status of the equipment that could affect air carriers’ ability to operate and in raising awareness among airport officials about the extent to which the Year 2000 problem could affect their operations. Additionally, ATA has provided materials to airports to help them conduct their inventories. Officials from airports, an aviation trade group, and FAA all expressed concerns that a reluctance to share information about equipment and its components was impeding progress toward Year 2000 readiness. They said many parties involved in preparations for the year 2000 feared being held liable for equipment malfunctions if information they provided about the problem—including the status of equipment and its components, or tests and repair procedures involving such equipment—turned out to be inaccurate. In response to these and other similar concerns expressed in many business sectors, in October 1998 the Congress passed legislation to encourage the sharing of Year 2000-readiness information and to address the potential for legal liability associated with the disclosure and the exchange of this information. The law also states that sharing Year 2000 information does not violate antitrust laws. Airport officials we spoke with when this legislation was pending before the Congress said sharing information on manufacturers’ certification and Year 2000 status would eliminate much repetitive testing by airports. Some airport officials, however, were less optimistic about the usefulness of this law. They speculated that such a law might foster carelessness and increase the amount of inaccurate information in circulation, thereby impeding airports’ Year 2000 efforts. In addition, the Congress, at FAA’s request, has authorized Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds to be used in fiscal year 1999 for Year 2000 assessment and related testing. A provision in the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act permits these funds to be used to assess and test all equipment owned by an airport regardless of the equipment’s eligibility under this program. FAA expects that up to $100 million in such funds could be used under this provision. To maintain the continued operation of the NAS, several offices within FAA are collaborating to help ensure airports are adequately prepared for the year 2000. In FAA’s Office of the Administrator, the Year 2000 program staff is focusing primarily on FAA itself, preparing air traffic control equipment and FAA’s internal computer systems for the date change. The Year 2000 program office intends to plan for any disruptions that could occur if the nation’s airports are not prepared for potential delays caused by Year 2000-related equipment malfunctions. Two other offices—Airport Safety and Standards and Civil Aviation Security—are working specifically with airports. FAA’s Office of Airport Safety and Standards, which oversees airports’ federally mandated safety-related operations, has provided airports with a framework for renovating their equipment. Additionally, the Associate Administrator for Airports distributed to the nation’s public airports a list of commonly used airport equipment that may be vulnerable to Year 2000 problems. The list is partly based in part on ATA’s and ACI-NA’s assessments of airports and categorizes the equipment by functional area, such as communications, financial systems, and passenger services (see app. I). The Associate Administrator for Airports has also set criteria for verifying the Year 2000 readiness of airports’ equipment that is used to meet FAA’s safety and security requirements and has established a national team to monitor the airports’ progress in preparing this equipment for the date change. According to this office, team members will monitor the airports’ progress through site visits, telephone calls, and correspondence. For all equipment used to meet FAA’s requirements, airports must demonstrate they have at least one of the following: a manufacturer’s certification that the equipment does not contain any a written description of the testing performed to determine that the equipment is Year 2000 ready, documentation that replacement hardware or software is Year 2000 ready, or a written description of contingency plans for the equipment in question. Last spring, the Office of Airports also formed a Year 2000 Airfield Working Group to help ensure airports will be prepared to operate into the next century. Members of this group include representatives from FAA’s offices of the Administrator, Airport Safety and Standards, and Civil Aviation Security; the Airport Consultants Council; ACI-NA; ATA; AAAE; the National Association of State Aviation Officials; the National Business Aviation Association; and the Regional Airline Association. This working group meets regularly and is focusing on providing airports with such information as manufacturers’ certifications, lessons learned, and testing methods and is considering the possibility of building a database containing data on manufacturers’ certifications. Such a database could reduce the amount of work airports have to do, because instead of contacting each individual manufacturer, airport officials could consult a single source. FAA has also formed an Aviation Industry Year 2000 Steering Committee to (1) serve as the focal point to promote the exchange of information on the status of Year 2000 preparations with industry representatives and (2) identify and facilitate the effective resolution of Year 2000 issues that could affect the safety, the security, and the efficiency of the NAS. Industry members of this steering committee include AAAE, ACI-NA, the Regional Airlines Association, the Aerospace Industries Association, and the General Aviation Manufacturers’ Association. FAA’s Office of Civil Aviation Security, which regulates airports’ federally mandated security-related functions, surveyed the nation’s 81 largest airports to determine the Year 2000 status of their security equipment.According to agency officials, the airports reported no significant problems. Although not all airports reported that their security equipment is currently Year 2000 ready, they said that it would be ready on or before January 1, 2000. Officials at the Office of Civil Aviation Security have also contacted the manufacturers of the security equipment that is frequently used by many airports to inquire about that equipment’s Year 2000 status. An official in this office told us that the manufacturers they contacted reported that most of the equipment in question would not have date-related problems. Facilities and equipment eligible for purchase with AIP funds may be repaired, if needed, with AIP funds. These include safety and security facilities, as well as lighting systems and other airport systems. Funds from passenger facility charges may be used for all AIP-eligible repairs, as well as an expanded range of airport terminal facilities, such as baggage-handling systems. Because the problems confronting airports as they prepare for the year 2000 are complex and airports’ preparations are still in process, it is not clear at this time (1) which airports could suffer equipment malfunctions on and after January 1, 2000, and (2) whether any malfunctions could decrease airports’ efficiency or create escalating delays throughout the NAS. But some airports have reported that they are using an ad hoc approach to prepare their equipment for the year 2000, and some have reported that they will not complete their Year 2000 preparations by FAA’s recommended date of June 30, 1999, and that they currently lack contingency plans. These airports are at higher risk of suffering equipment malfunctions related to the year 2000 date change, which could lead to decreased efficiency of their operations. Because of the interdependence among airline flights and airport facilities, decreased efficiency and delays at one airport could cause delays at other airports and eventually impede the flow of air traffic throughout the nation, especially if those delays occur at airports that serve as hubs. We provided FAA with a draft of this report for review and comment. We met with FAA officials, including the Director of the Year 2000 Program Office in the Office of the Administrator and representatives of the Office of Airport Safety and Standards and the Office of Civil Aviation Security Operations, and received their comments on a draft of this report. They did not dispute the report’s findings, but they pointed out that the status of airports’ preparations for the year 2000 is rapidly evolving and that data collected in the fall of 1998 may, therefore, not fully portray their current situation. FAA also suggested that we more explicitly indicate that not all of the systems supporting the functions included in our survey of airports, such as heating and ventilation and moving sidewalks, are regulated by FAA. We have incorporated this comment and others from FAA as appropriate. We performed our work between July 1998 and December 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I contains details of the scope and methodology or our review. As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will provide copies of the report to the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator, FAA; appropriate congressional committees; and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-2834 if you or your staff have any questions about this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. We surveyed by mail the 413 airports in the United States and territories that FAA considers primary commercial service airports, that is, those with annual enplanements (the number of passengers boarding commercial aircraft) totalling 10,000 or more. As of December 1998 we obtained responses from 334 airports (81 percent), which represents about 96 percent of the passengers served by all 413 airports. The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce unwanted variability in the results. These include differences in how questions are interpreted, errors in entering data, and the types of airports that did not respond. We included steps in both data collection and data analysis to minimize this unwanted variability. We pretested questionnaires with airport officials, reviewed answers during follow-up visits and telephone interviews, double-keyed and verified all data during entry, and validated all analyses with a second analyst. FAA subdivides commercial service airports into four categories on the basis of annual enplanements: large hubs, medium hubs, small hubs, and nonhubs. The numbers of airports in these categories are 29, 42, 70, and 272, respectively (see fig. I.1). To facilitate comparisons among airports responding to our survey, we modified FAA’s categories by assigning airports to one of three classes—large, medium, or small—based on the number of enplanements in 1996. We split FAA’s medium hub category by designating 21 of its airports as large and 21 as medium. Consequently, our large category contains the 50 airports with the greatest number of enplanements in 1996; the medium category contains 91 airports; and the small category contains the same 272 airports as FAA’s nonhub category. Large airports (50) Large hubs (29) Medium-sized airports (91) Medium hubs (42) Small airports (272) Small hubs (70) Nonhubs (272) Although FAA has designated 22 core functions for airports to consider in preparing for the year 2000, to minimize the time respondents would need to fill out our questionnaire, we omitted the functions that are neither required by FAA for certification under part 139 (Airport Operations), part 107 (Airport Security), part 108 (Airport Operator Security) of Federal Aviation Regulations, nor deemed “airfield critical.” As a result, the following functions were not included in our questionnaire: cargo handling, information technology, flight and baggage information display computers and equipment, financial computers and equipment, jet bridge operations and maintenance, noise abatement, and passenger services (see table I.1). In addition, we combined two closely related functions, access control and security and public safety, into one. Although FAA does not deem parking a critical function, we included it as the fourteenth function because airport officials told us that revenues from parking facilities constitute their primary source of revenue. Table I.1: FAA’s List of Airports’ Core Functions to Prepare for the Year 2000 (i.e., FAA’s Y2K Airfield System List) Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Status of Bureau of Prisons’ Year 2000 Efforts (GAO/AIMD-99-23, Jan. 27, 1999). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Readiness Improving, but Much Work Remains to Avoid Major Disruptions (GAO/T-AIMD-99-50, Jan. 20, 1999). Year 2000 Computing Challenge: Readiness Improving, but Critical Risks Remain (GAO/T-AIMD-99-49). Status Information: FAA’s Year 2000 Business Continuity and Contingency Planning Efforts Are Ongoing (GAO/AIMD-99-40R, Dec. 4, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: A Testing Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.21, Nov. 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Readiness of State Automated Systems to Support Federal Welfare Programs (GAO/AIMD-99-28, Nov. 6, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Status of Efforts to Deal With Personnel Issues (GAO/AIMD/GGD-99-14, Oct. 22, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Updated Status of Department of Education’s Information Systems (GAO/T-AIMD-99-8, Oct. 8, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: The District of Columbia Faces Tremendous Challenges in Ensuring Vital Services Are Not Disrupted (GAO/T-AIMD-99-4, Oct. 2, 1998). Medicare Computer Systems: Year 2000 Challenges Put Benefits and Services in Jeopardy (GAO/AIMD-98-284, Sept. 28, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Leadership Needed to Collect and Disseminate Critical Biomedical Equipment Information (GAO/T-AIMD-98-310, Sept. 24, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Compliance Status of Many Biomedical Equipment Items Still Unknown (GAO/AIMD-98-240, Sept. 18, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Significant Risks Remain to Department of Education’s Student Financial Aid Systems (GAO/T-AIMD-98-302, Sept. 17, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Progress Made at Department of Labor, but Key Systems at Risk (GAO/T-AIMD-98-303, Sept. 17, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Depository Institution Regulators Are Making Progress, but Challenges Remain (GAO/T-AIMD-98-305, Sept. 17, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Reserve Is Acting to Ensure Financial Institutions Are Fixing Systems, but Challenges Remain (GAO/AIMD-98-248, Sept. 17, 1998). Responses to Questions on FAA’s Computer Security and Year 2000 Program (GAO/AIMD-98-301R, Sept. 14, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Severity of Problem Calls for Strong Leadership and Effective Partnerships (GAO/T-AIMD-98-278, Sept. 3, 1998 in Palatine, IL). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Effective Partnerships Needed to Reduce Likelihood of Adverse Impact (GAO/T-AIMD-98-277, Sept. 2, 1998 in Indianapolis, IN). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Effective Partnerships Needed to Mitigate Risks (GAO/T-AIMD-98-276, Sept. 1, 1998 in Lakewood, OH). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: State Department Needs to Make Fundamental Improvements to Its Year 2000 Program (GAO/AIMD-98-162, Aug. 28, 1998). Year 2000 Computing: EFT 99 Is Not Expected to Affect Year 2000 Remediation Efforts (GAO/AIMD-98-272R, Aug. 28, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Progress Made in Compliance of VA Systems, but Concerns Remain (GAO/AIMD-98-237, Aug. 21, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Avoiding Major Disruptions Will Require Strong Leadership and Effective Partnerships (GAO/T-AIMD-98-267, Aug. 19, 1998 in New Orleans, LA). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Partnerships Needed to Address Risk of Major Disruptions (GAO/T-AIMD-98-266, Aug. 17, 1998 in Mesquite, TX). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Partnerships Needed to Mitigate Risk of Major Disruptions (GAO/T-AIMD-98-262, Aug. 13, 1998 in New York, NY). FAA Systems: Serious Challenges Remain in Resolving Year 2000 and Computer Security Problems (GAO/T-AIMD-98-251, Aug. 6, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Business Continuity and Contingency Planning (GAO/AIMD-10.1.19, Aug. 1998). Internal Revenue Service: Impact of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act on Year 2000 Efforts (GAO/GGD-98-158R, Aug. 4, 1998). Social Security Administration: Subcommittee Questions Concerning Information Technology Challenges Facing the Commissioner (GAO/AIMD-98-235R, July 10, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Needed on Electronic Data Exchanges (GAO/AIMD-98-124, July 1, 1998). Defense Computers: Year 2000 Computer Problems Put Navy Operations at Risk (GAO/AIMD-98-150, June 30, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Testing and Other Challenges Confronting Federal Agencies (GAO/T-AIMD-98-218, June 22, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Telecommunications Readiness Critical, Yet Overall Status Largely Unknown (GAO/T-AIMD-98-212, June 16, 1998). GAO Views on Year 2000 Testing Metrics (GAO/AIMD-98-217R, June 16, 1998). IRS’ Year 2000 Efforts: Business Continuity Planning Needed for Potential Year 2000 System Failures (GAO/GGD-98-138, June 15, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Must Be Taken Now to Address Slow Pace of Federal Progress (GAO/T-AIMD-98-205, June 10, 1998). Defense Computers: Army Needs to Greatly Strengthen Its Year 2000 Program (GAO/AIMD-98-53, May 29, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: USDA Faces Tremendous Challenges in Ensuring That Vital Public Services Are Not Disrupted (GAO/T-AIMD-98-167, May 14, 1998). Securities Pricing: Actions Needed for Conversion to Decimals (GAO/T-GGD-98-121, May 8, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Continuing Risks of Disruption to Social Security, Medicare, and Treasury Programs (GAO/T-AIMD-98-161, May 7, 1998). IRS’ Year 2000 Efforts: Status and Risks (GAO/T-GGD-98-123, May 7, 1998). Air Traffic Control: FAA Plans to Replace Its Host Computer System Because Future Availability Cannot Be Assured (GAO/AIMD-98-138R, May 1, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Potential for Widespread Disruption Calls for Strong Leadership and Partnerships (GAO/AIMD-98-85, Apr. 30, 1998). Defense Computers: Year 2000 Computer Problems Threaten DOD Operations (GAO/AIMD-98-72, Apr. 30, 1998). Department of the Interior: Year 2000 Computing Crisis Presents Risk of Disruption to Key Operations (GAO/T-AIMD-98-149, Apr. 22, 1998). Tax Administration: IRS’ Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request and Fiscal Year 1998 Filing Season (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-98-114, Mar. 31, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership Needed to Avoid Disruption of Essential Services (GAO/T-AIMD-98-117, Mar. 24, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Regulatory Efforts to Ensure Financial Institution Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-116, Mar. 24, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Office of Thrift Supervision’s Efforts to Ensure Thrift Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-102, Mar. 18, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Effective Public/Private Cooperation Needed to Avoid Major Disruptions (GAO/T-AIMD-98-101, Mar. 18, 1998). Post-Hearing Questions on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Year 2000 (Y2K) Preparedness (AIMD-98-108R, Mar. 18, 1998). SEC Year 2000 Report: Future Reports Could Provide More Detailed Information (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-51, Mar. 6, 1998). Year 2000 Readiness: NRC’s Proposed Approach Regarding Nuclear Powerplants (GAO/AIMD-98-90R, Mar. 6, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Efforts to Ensure Bank Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-73, Feb. 10, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: FAA Must Act Quickly to Prevent Systems Failures (GAO/T-AIMD-98-63, Feb. 4, 1998). FAA Computer Systems: Limited Progress on Year 2000 Issue Increases Risk Dramatically (GAO/AIMD-98-45, Jan. 30, 1998). Defense Computers: Air Force Needs to Strengthen Year 2000 Oversight (GAO/AIMD-98-35, Jan. 16, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Needed to Address Credit Union Systems’ Year 2000 Problem (GAO/AIMD-98-48, Jan. 7, 1998). Veterans Health Administration Facility Systems: Some Progress Made in Ensuring Year 2000 Compliance, but Challenges Remain (GAO/AIMD-98-31R, Nov. 7, 1997). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: National Credit Union Administration’s Efforts to Ensure Credit Union Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-20, Oct. 22, 1997). Social Security Administration: Significant Progress Made in Year 2000 Effort, but Key Risks Remain (GAO/AIMD-98-6, Oct. 22, 1997). Defense Computers: Technical Support Is Key to Naval Supply Year 2000 Success (GAO/AIMD-98-7R, Oct. 21, 1997). Defense Computers: LSSC Needs to Confront Significant Year 2000 Issues (GAO/AIMD-97-149, Sept. 26, 1997). Veterans Affairs Computer Systems: Action Underway Yet Much Work Remains to Resolve Year 2000 Crisis (GAO/T-AIMD-97-174, Sept. 25, 1997). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Success Depends Upon Strong Management and Structured Approach (GAO/T-AIMD-97-173, Sept. 25, 1997). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, Sept. 1997). Defense Computers: SSG Needs to Sustain Year 2000 Progress (GAO/AIMD-97-120R, Aug. 19, 1997). Defense Computers: Improvements to DOD Systems Inventory Needed for Year 2000 Effort (GAO/AIMD-97-112, Aug. 13, 1997). Defense Computers: Issues Confronting DLA in Addressing Year 2000 Problems (GAO/AIMD-97-106, Aug. 12, 1997). Defense Computers: DFAS Faces Challenges in Solving the Year 2000 Problem (GAO/AIMD-97-117, Aug. 11, 1997). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Time Is Running Out for Federal Agencies to Prepare for the New Millennium (GAO/T-AIMD-97-129, July 10, 1997). Veterans Affairs Computer Systems: Uninterrupted Delivery of Benefits Depends on Timely Correction of Year 2000 Problem (GAO/T-AIMD-97-114, June 26, 1997). Veterans Benefits Computer Systems: Risk of VBA’s Year 2000 Efforts (GAO/AIMD-97-79, May 30, 1997). Medicare Transaction System: Success Depends Upon Correcting Critical Managerial and Technical Weaknesses (GAO/AIMD-97-78, May 16, 1997). Medicare Transaction System: Serious Managerial and Technical Weaknesses Threaten Modernization (GAO/T-AIMD-97-91, May 16, 1997). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Risk of Serious Disruption to Essential Government Functions Calls for Agency Action Now (GAO/T-AIMD-97-52, Feb. 27, 1997). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership Today Needed to Prevent Future Disruption of Government Services (GAO/T-AIMD-97-51, Feb. 24, 1997). High-Risk Series: Information Management and Technology (GAO/HR-97-9, Feb. 1, 1997). The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the status of airports' efforts to prepare for the year 2000, focusing on: (1) the status of airports' efforts to help ensure that their computers and electronic equipment will function properly on and after January 1, 2000; (2) how the safety, the security, and the efficiency of the National Airspace System will be affected if airports' year 2000 preparations are not completed in time; and (3) the factors that will affect the progress of airports' preparations for the year 2000. GAO noted that: (1) the nation's airports have been making progress in preparing for the year 2000; (2) however, there is substantial variation in the progress they have achieved and the approaches they have been taking; (3) among the airports responding to GAO's survey, about one-third reported that they would meet the June 30, 1999 date the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommended to complete preparations for addressing the year 2000 date change; another one-third did not report that they would meet this date but had begun contingency planning to help ensure continued operations if equipment malfunctions; and a final one-third did not meet either of these criteria; (4) the final third are mostly small airports, but they include 9 of the nation's 50 largest airports; (5) officials at airports and FAA agreed that adequate safeguards are in place to ensure the safety and the security of the National Airspace System before and after the year 2000 date change; (6) however, airports that do not meet FAA's June 1999 recommended preparation date are at increased risk of experiencing some equipment malfunctions; (7) if manual procedures must be substituted for operations normally controlled by automated equipment, an airport's efficiency--its ability to handle its normal number of scheduled flights per day--would decrease and thus cause flight delays; (8) because of the interdependence among airline flights and airport facilities, delays at one airport could cause delays at other airports and eventually affect the efficiency of the National Airspace System; (9) the severity of these delays would depend to a large extent on the size of the airports and which equipment malfunctions; (10) FAA, airport, and other aviation industry officials cited several factors that have affected the timeliness of year 2000 preparations, including an airport's use of contractors, the assistance provided by aviation industry associations, and the activities undertaken by Congress and by FAA; (11) contractors have helped some airports prepare for the year 2000 by providing them with the trained personnel they lack; and (12) aviation industry associations have helped increase airports' awareness of the implications of the year 2000 through discussions at seminars and workshops and by identifying airport equipment that might be vulnerable to problems caused by the date change.