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. 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. 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. 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.