Responses to Questions for the Record; September 2008 Hearing on the Next Generation Air Transportation System
Status and Issues Gao ID: GAO-09-130R October 20, 2008This letter responds to Congress' September 26, 2008, request that GAO address questions submitted for the record by Members of the Committee related to the September 11, 2008, hearing entitled The Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues.
GAO-09-130R, Responses to Questions for the Record; September 2008 Hearing on the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-130R
entitled 'Responses to Questions for the Record: September 2008 Hearing
on the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues'
which was released on October 21, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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.
October 20, 2008:
The Honorable Bart Gordon:
Chairman:
Committee on Science and Technology:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Responses to Questions for the Record; September 2008 Hearing
on the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues:
This letter responds to your September 26, 2008, request that we
address questions submitted for the record by Members of the Committee
related to the September 11, 2008, hearing entitled The Next Generation
Air Transportation System: Status and Issues. Our attached responses to
these questions are based on our previous work[Footnote 1] and our
knowledge of the areas addressed by the questions.
We are sending copies of this letter to the Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration, and the Director, Joint Planning and
Development Office. We will make copies available to others on request.
The letter is also available on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions or would like to discuss the responses,
please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.:
Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Enclosure I:
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions for the Record:
"The Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues"
Committee on Science and Technology:
U.S. House of Representatives:
Hearing held on September 11, 2008:
Questions for Dr. Gerald L. Dillingham, Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Gordon:
1. Some observers have commented that the degree of participation by
the partner agencies seems to run on a continuum from a significant
amount of participation to seemingly not very much at all. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) are consistently indicated as the most involved
participants.
a. In your opinion, to what extent are the partner agencies
participating in the vision and work of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen)?
GAO Response:
The partner agencies' participation in the vision and work of NextGen
has varied to date and will continue to evolve over time. Interagency
partnerships mature slowly because it takes time to forge working
relationships and establish accountability. While FAA and NASA have
been the most involved in the planning and coordination of NextGen, the
other agencies are also participating. The Department of Defense, for
example, is transferring to NextGen the technology it has developed for
sharing information across networks, establishing a program office to
coordinate all of its NextGen activities, and collaborating with FAA
and the Department of Commerce to develop and implement NextGen's
weather forecasting capability.
Furthermore, the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), which
was created to plan for and coordinate the NextGen activities of
federal and nonfederal stakeholders, has established some practices
that are important to institutionalizing a collaborative process. For
example, a memorandum of understanding, signed by the Secretary or
another high-ranking official from each partner agency, defines the
partner agencies' roles and responsibilities. In addition, some NextGen
goals and activities have been incorporated in partner agencies' key
planning documents such as FAA's NextGen Implementation Plan, and JPDO
and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have developed a process
for identifying NextGen-related research programs in the partner
agencies' budgets.
b. How could the role of the partner agencies be changed to enhance
their participation or positively affect the development of NextGen?
GAO Response:
We believe that the partner agencies' participation in NextGen could be
enhanced by further incorporating NextGen goals and activities in the
agencies' key planning documents and research agendas. For example, FAA
has refocused one of its key planning documents--the Operational
Evolution Partnership--making it into the NextGen Implementation Plan.
Formerly a plan for enhancing airport capacity, the NextGen
Implementation Plan has been expanded and revamped to become a
comprehensive description of how FAA will implement NextGen. We believe
that similar efforts by the other partner agencies could increase their
participation in NextGen.
2. In your opinion, how successful has JPDO been in developing
conceptual and technical descriptions of what NextGen will consist of?
How about in developing a plan for the coordinated implementation of a
transformed future system?
GAO Response:
JPDO has made progress in developing planning documents that provide
conceptual and technical descriptions of NextGen. However, further
iterations of these documents will be needed as NextGen technologies
are developed. JPDO's authorizing legislation requires the office to
create a research and development (R&D) plan for the transition to
NextGen. This requirement led JPDO to develop initial versions of the
Concept of Operations, Enterprise Architecture, and Integrated Work
Plan (IWP). The Concept of Operations is the fundamental planning
document from which the other two documents flow. Version 2 of the
Concept of Operations, issued in June 2007, describes how the NextGen
system is envisioned to operate in 2025. Version 2 of the Enterprise
Architecture, issued in July 2007, is a technical description of the
NextGen system, akin to blueprints for a building. The Enterprise
Architecture provides a means for coordinating among the partner
agencies and private-sector manufacturers, aligning relevant R&D
activities, and integrating equipment. IWP, the most recent version of
which was issued in September 2008, is JPDO's plan for achieving
NextGen. It describes the integrated framework needed to transition to
NextGen and will continually need to be refined and enhanced to reflect
current priorities, budgets, and programs.
Our work indicated that the previous version of IWP lacked critical
information and was not sufficiently "user friendly" to be used
effectively as a plan for coordinating the partner agencies'
implementation of NextGen. Our review of the most recent version of the
plan indicates that it is more detailed, contains further research
plans, and shows interrelationships among activities that should be
useful for coordinating those activities. This version of IWP is an
automated, searchable, user-friendly database--that we found will have
the capability to track dates and identify programs that are behind
schedule, making it useful, but not sufficient, for oversight.
According to senior JPDO officials, this version identifies the
specific operational improvements and capabilities that NextGen will
incorporate and shows what policies, research, and other activities are
needed to enable those improvements and capabilities; when they are
needed; and what entities are responsible for them. Moreover, this
version includes schedule information that has been updated to reflect
newly available information, coordination with FAA schedules and plans,
and public comments received on the previous version, according to JPDO
and FAA officials. This version also identifies the sequence of
research activities that the partner agencies must complete before
specific NextGen capabilities can be implemented. The plan should serve
as a useful tool in prioritizing and tracking NextGen research.
Furthermore, subsequent versions of IWP are expected to include cost
information that decision makers can use to help understand the
rationale for budget requests, monitor costs, and improve future cost
estimates for acquisitions. This information will be helpful to
decision makers when budget constraints do not allow all system
acquisitions to be fully funded at planned and approved levels and they
must decide which programs to fund and which to cut or delay according
to their priorities.
In addition, coordination is enhanced by JPDO's efforts to work with
OMB to develop a process that allows OMB to identify NextGen-related
research and acquisition projects across the partner agencies and
consider NextGen as a unified, cross-agency program. Under this
process, JPDO and its partner agencies jointly present OMB with
business cases for the partner agencies' NextGen-related efforts, and
these business cases are used as inputs to funding decisions for
NextGen research and acquisitions across the agencies.
3. In the transformed NextGen, I understand that roles and
responsibilities of key players will change dramatically. Pilots will
take on more separation responsibilities and automation will enable air
traffic controllers to manage larger numbers of aircraft while
improving safety.
a. What are the key aspects from human factors research that FAA and
NASA need to get right before we can have confidence that this
delegation of decision-making duties is both feasible and safe?
GAO Response:
Our work indicates that the key aspect from human factors research that
FAA and NASA must address is how changes in the roles and
responsibilities of both air traffic controllers and pilots will affect
the safety and efficiency of the national airspace system. According to
an FAA official, verbal communication is an example of a human factors
area that requires further R&D. Currently, air traffic controllers
primarily rely on verbal communication to direct aircraft. Because
NextGen will rely more on automated communications, controllers will
require training in both understanding and operating in an automated
communications environment. The research to support such training has
not been conducted, according to FAA.
b. Are the needed R&D programs in place and adequately funded to get
that research done?
GAO Response:
While not all of the needed human factors R&D programs are currently in
place, FAA plans to increase its investment in human factors research
from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013. Over that period, FAA's
human factors research would total $180.4 million. In contrast, NASA
started to reduce the size of its human factors research staff in
fiscal year 2005, reassigning some staff to other programs and reducing
the contractor and academic technical support for human factors
research. However, according to NASA, human factors research continues
to be a critical component of its aeronautics research program, with
activity focused at the foundational level. It remains to be seen if
FAA's planned R&D in this area will offset NASA's reductions, since
FAA's research is typically at a more applied level.
4. In describing FAA's Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise
(CLEEN) environmental R&D program, your statement indicates that FAA
and the JPDO recognize the need to "fill any gaps that may exist
between basic research and the transfer to industry for further
development." But you also conclude that "the research might prove more
difficult and take longer than planned."
a. Can you elaborate on why this might be more difficult and time-
consuming than envisioned and how FAA can minimize this problem?
GAO Response:
Filling gaps that may exist between conducting basic research and
transferring technologies and tools to industry may be more difficult
and time consuming than envisioned for several reasons. CLEEN
illustrates this challenge. The House reauthorization bill for FAA is
seeking funding for CLEEN.[Footnote 2] CLEEN would establish a research
consortium of government, industry, and academic participants that
would allow for the maturation of aviation noise technologies via
demonstration projects for further refinement by the aviation industry
and eventual incorporation into new aircraft designs. The CLEEN program
would support the development, maturation, and certification of engine
and airframe technologies for aircraft over the next 10 years to reduce
aviation noise and emissions. While acknowledging that CLEEN would help
bridge the gap between NASA's R&D and manufacturers' eventual
incorporation of technologies into aircraft designs, aeronautics
industry representatives and experts we consulted said that the
program's funding levels may not be sufficient to attain the goals
specified in the proposal. According to these experts, the proposed
funding levels would allow for the further development of one or
possibly two projects. Moreover, in one expert's view, the funding for
these projects may be sufficient only to develop the technology to the
level that achieves an emissions-reduction goal in testing, not to the
level required for the technology to be incorporated into a new engine
design. According to FAA and some experts we consulted, however, the
CLEEN program amounts to a pilot project, and if it results in the
development of emissions-reduction technologies that can be introduced
into aircraft in the near future, it could lead to additional funding
from the government or industry for such efforts.
Filling R&D gaps may also be more difficult and time-consuming than
envisioned because of uncertainties about the ability of aircraft
engine and aircraft manufacturers to incorporate new noise reduction
technologies into new engine and aircraft designs. NASA officials
stressed that when NASA's research ends, it will be up to engine and
aircraft manufacturers to take the next steps to integrate the noise
reduction technologies into engine and aircraft designs, and the
manufacturers' willingness to do so is not guaranteed. An expert we
consulted noted that if manufacturers do take the steps to integrate
noise reduction technologies into new designs, the pace of noise
reduction will also depend on the pace of development for new aircraft
and aircraft engine designs.
Moreover, technical challenges may further complicate efforts to close
the gap between agencies' research and manufacturers' development of
technologies for incorporation into products. In particular, it may be
technically challenging to design aircraft with reduced noise while, at
the same time, achieving significant reductions in greenhouse gases and
other emissions that will be required to address global warming and
improve air quality. Although it is possible to design engines that
produce less noise and fewer greenhouse gas emissions, the reductions
in greenhouse gases could be limited in engines that produce
substantially less noise. Furthermore, engines that produce less noise
typically burn more fuel and are therefore more costly to operate. As a
result, air carriers may not be inclined to buy jets with engines that
reduce noise but may be more expensive to operate.
b. Should NASA be playing a bigger role in this area, as it did in its
previous innovative aircraft engine technology development programs?
GAO Response:
It would be useful for NASA to conduct the type of intermediate R&D and
demonstration projects that NASA previously conducted and that will be
needed for the NextGen program. NASA, however, is now focusing on
longer-term fundamental research on noise and emissions and its current
aeronautics research budget is about half of what it was in the mid-
1990s. Moreover, the budget request for aeronautics R&D for fiscal year
2009 is $447 million, or about 25 percent less than the $594 million
provided in fiscal year 2007. Nonetheless, according to NASA, about
$280 million of the proposed $447 million would contribute to NextGen.
In addition, according to NASA officials, a significant portion of the
funding for subsonic fixed-wing aircraft is directed toward emissions-
related research, and many other research efforts contribute directly
or indirectly to potential emissions-reduction technologies.
5. In your February report to the Subcommittee, you indicated that
noise reduction technologies may be limited by concerns about global
warming as advances in these technologies could make it more difficult
to also achieve reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. Is GAO
saying that reductions in noise and emissions are mutually exclusive or
could high fuel prices spur technological innovations we have yet to
envision?
GAO Response:
I do not think that efforts to achieve reductions in noise and
emissions are mutually exclusive, but finding the right balance between
them does pose a significant challenge for the partner agencies and
private stakeholders. It is technologically challenging to design
aircraft that can reduce one environmental concern without increasing
another. Since the aviation industry must consider economic as well as
environmental concerns, research must consider the trade-offs between
noise reduction, emissions reduction, and fuel economy. Engine
technology has been relatively successful in increasing fuel
efficiency, reducing most types of emissions, and lowering noise, but
has not been able to achieve comparable reductions in nitrogen oxide
(NOx), which is a primary source of local air pollution. NOx has
increased because new engines operate at higher temperatures, producing
more power with less fuel and lower carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide
emissions, but also producing higher NOx levels, especially at takeoff
and landing when engine power settings are at their highest.
6. The JPDO was established to plan and coordinate the R&D for NextGen.
You testified that the three key planning documents have been developed
and that JPDO has been pretty much absorbed into the Air Traffic
Organization (ATO). How long do you think the JPDO ought to continue to
exist and what would it do?
GAO Response:
JPDO was established to plan and coordinate the development of NextGen
and should exist for the duration of those tasks. JPDO has developed
the key planning documents for NextGen, but further iterations of these
documents will be needed as NextGen technologies are developed and
implemented. For example, JPDO officials expect to issue annual
revisions to the IWP. JPDO also has a central role in coordinating and
facilitating the NextGen activities of the partner agencies. For
example, JPDO serves as the principal point of contact with OMB in
coordinating the multi-agency budgets for NextGen, and its working
groups facilitate coordination with industry stakeholders. If JPDO
ceased to exist, another entity would have to assume responsibility for
these planning and coordinating activities.
JPDO's role could evolve to include additional coordination and
oversight activities. For example, JPDO could establish a program
oversight capacity that would enable it to perform such functions as
(1) coordinating the R&D, systems-engineering, and integration
activities of the partner agencies and industry; (2) overseeing multi-
agency projects; (3) overseeing, with FAA, the selection of products or
outcomes of R&D that would be moved to the next stage of a
demonstration project through the Joint Resources Council
(JRC);[Footnote 3] (4) overseeing the fundamental research activities
that support the long-term strategic investments of NextGen by managing
a portfolio of research conducted by NASA, academia, federally funded
R&D centers, and industry; and (5) maintaining a modeling and
simulation capability for testing and evaluating alternative NextGen
concepts that provide input to such oversight.
Questions for the Record Submitted by Rep. Hall:
1. With the upcoming change in Administrations, do you foresee
difficulties maintaining program continuity during the transition? Does
NextGen have enough traction among its partner agencies to maintain
momentum in the months ahead?
GAO Response:
There is a risk that the upcoming change in administration will
contribute to difficulties in maintaining continuity for NextGen. As
FAA begins to implement new systems and transition to NextGen, it is
possible that other demands of a new administration will compete for
the attention of FAA's senior leadership. Moreover, FAA, which
currently has an acting administrator, and its partner agencies face
the loss of today's leaders as the new administration makes its own
appointments. Although FAA has implemented many of the financial,
management, and acquisition improvements in recent years that will be
needed for the transition to NextGen, FAA's new leaders will need to
sustain this commitment to provide a firm foundation for continuing to
implement NextGen.
It remains to be seen whether NextGen has enough traction with JPDO,
FAA, and the other partner agencies to maintain momentum in the coming
months. JPDO, however, has established some practices that are
important to institutionalizing collaboration among the partner
agencies. For example, a memorandum of understanding, signed by the
Secretary or another high-ranking official from each partner agency,
defines the partner agencies' roles and responsibilities. In addition,
some NextGen goals and activities have been incorporated in the
agencies' key planning documents such as FAA's NextGen Implementation
Plan, and JPDO and OMB have developed a process for identifying NextGen-
related research projects in the partner agencies' budgets.
Nonetheless, this is a complex multifaceted, multi-decade project and
the partner agencies' participation in NextGen can be expected to
evolve and vary over time as its requirements change and agencies'
mission priorities change.
2. JPDO is a planning and coordinating body that relies on the
cooperation of its federal partners to provide the expertise and
resources needed to accomplish NextGen. With slightly more than four
years of experience, how would you rate the effectiveness of the JPDO,
especially with regard to engaging and sustaining the cooperation of
the participating federal agencies? What concerns, if any, do you have
about JPDO's effectiveness following the reorganization?
GAO Response:
JPDO has made progress in obtaining the cooperation of participating
federal agencies, but the extent of participation has varied.
Interagency partnerships mature slowly because it takes time to forge
working relationships and establish accountability. While FAA and NASA
have been the most involved in the planning and coordination of
NextGen, the other agencies are also participating. The Department of
Defense, for example, is transferring to NextGen the technology it has
developed for sharing information across networks, establishing an
office to coordinate its NextGen activities, and collaborating with FAA
and the Department of Commerce to develop and implement NextGen's
weather forecasting capability. The Department of Homeland Security is
participating by contributing "in-kind" services in the form of
personnel and research. Furthermore, JPDO has been successful in
helping to establish mechanisms to sustain cooperation among the
participating federal agencies. In June 2008, a memorandum of
understanding was signed by the Secretary or another high-ranking
official from each partner agency, defining each agency's role and
responsibilities. In addition, as part of the annual budget request,
JPDO prepares an Exhibit 300 form for NextGen, which allows JPDO to
present OMB with a joint business case for the partner agencies'
NextGen-related efforts.[Footnote 4] This business case is used as
input to funding decisions for NextGen research and acquisitions across
the agencies.
Since ATO was reorganized in May 2008, JPDO has been housed within the
new NextGen and Operations Planning Office and the JPDO Director
reports through the Senior Vice President for NextGen and Operations
Planning to ATO's Chief Operating Officer. Previously, the JPDO
Director reported directly to both the Chief Operating Officer and the
FAA Administrator. Now that JPDO is no longer a separate, independent
office within FAA and its head no longer reports directly to the FAA
Administrator, its organizational position within FAA has declined.
This reorganization does not address the concerns of some industry
stakeholders that JPDO's reporting status might keep it from
interacting on an equal footing with ATO and the other partner federal
agencies. In 2007, we reported that it was important for JPDO to have
some independence from ATO to counter the perception that it was a
proxy for ATO and, as such, not able to act as an "honest broker"
between ATO and the partner federal agencies. We pointed out that, to
address this issue, the JPDO Director could report directly to the FAA
Administrator.[Footnote 5] Nonetheless, we believe it is too early to
tell whether the reorganization has diminished the effectiveness of
JPDO, especially in terms of its ability to sustain the cooperation of
the partner federal agencies, or if the new governance structure will
be acceptable in practice and address the concerns that have been
raised. Ultimately, the effectiveness of JPDO will have to be measured
by the efforts of the partner agencies to implement policies and
procedures, conduct research, and acquire systems that support NextGen.
3. The Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) program is
fundamental to NextGen. What are the major risks with ADS-B in terms of
capabilities, schedule, cost, and industry acceptance?
GAO Response:
ADS-B is a satellite-based aircraft navigation system that allows
aircraft to broadcast their position to air traffic controllers, other
aircraft, and ground systems. FAA plans to implement ADS-B over the
next 15 to 20 years as a key NextGen system. FAA awarded a contract
worth up to $1.8 billion for acquiring the ground infrastructure for
ADS-B in August 2007 and is developing an ADS-B rulemaking, scheduled
for issuance in 2010. FAA's initial deployment plans focus on areas of
the nation that do not have radar surveillance, such as Alaska and the
Gulf of Mexico, and individual airlines, such as United Parcel Service,
which is installing ADS-B on all of its Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft.
Several risks are associated with implementing ADS-B including the cost
to industry to equip, incomplete specifications for ADS-B capabilities,
and broadcast frequency congestion concerns. Full use of ADS-B depends
not only on government efforts, but also on involves decisions by the
aviation industry about what equipment to purchase and when to purchase
it. With ADS-B, for example, an official of RTCA's[Footnote 6] ADS-B
working group noted that the cost and expected benefits of equipping
aircraft to take full advantage of ADS-B is a key issue for the
aviation industry. The official said that equipping existing aircraft
to communicate with the ground stations may not be cost prohibitive for
regional and large commercial airlines, but further equipping these
aircraft so they can use ADS-B's full capabilities could require cost-
prohibitive modifications. Consequently, the official noted that
carriers plan to install equipment to use ADS-B's full capabilities
only as they order new aircraft. He also said that carriers could have
full-capability ADS-B installed on new aircraft that they are ordering
now, except that specifications do not yet exist. In addition, the
official believed that some air carriers were hesitant to equip with
ADS-B because of concerns that FAA might not follow through with the
deployment of full ADS-B capabilities. We have reported[Footnote 7]
that a demonstration of NextGen capabilities, such as ADS-B, and of
efficiencies resulting from their use would give airlines an incentive
to equip their aircraft with NextGen technologies. They could then
lower their costs by reducing their fuel consumption and decrease the
impact of their operations on the environment. Our research indicates
that by establishing benefits early in a program's development,
demonstrations can increase stakeholders' confidence in an initiative.
A demonstration of ADS-B could provide incentives for the aviation
community to equip aircraft with compatible technology.
In addition, concerns have been raised about broadcast frequency
congestion related to ADS-B. FAA plans to establish two data links for
the system. Commercial aircraft and other aircraft operating at high
altitudes would send their position to ground stations by transmitting
on 1090 MHz while general aviation would use Universal Access
Transceivers operating on 978 MHz. On September 26, 2008, FAA's ADS-B
Aviation Rulemaking Committee called for an urgent study of congestion
on 1090 MHz, indicating the frequency is becoming crowded in some
airspace with high-density air traffic.
Question for the Record Submitted by Rep. Richardson:
1. In your testimony you referenced closing and consolidating systems,
what do you mean?
GAO Response:
To fully realize NextGen's capabilities, FAA will have to reconfigure
its air traffic control (ATC) facilities to make them compatible with
new technologies and procedures. According to a senior ATO official,
the agency plans to report on the cost implications of reconfiguring
its facilities in 2009. However, FAA has no comprehensive plan for
reconfiguring its facilities. Until the cost analysis is completed and
a reconfiguration plan has been developed, the configurations needed
for NextGen cannot be implemented and potential savings that could help
offset the cost of NextGen will not be realized. Some FAA officials
have said that implementing plans for facility maintenance and
construction that are based on the current ATC system and do not
incorporate the configurations needed for NextGen could, without
reconfiguration, significantly increase the cost of NextGen.
Additionally, some of the capacity and efficiency enhancements expected
from the implementation of NextGen maybe curtailed if the system's
infrastructure needs are not fully addressed.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status of Systems
Acquisition and the Transition to the Next Generation Air
Transportation System, GAO-08-1078 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 11, 2008);
Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status of Key Issues
Associated with the Transition to NextGen, GAO-08-1154T (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 11, 2008); Responses to Questions for the Record; Hearing
on JPDO and the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and
Issues, GAO-07-918R (Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2007); Responses to
Questions for the Record; Hearing on the Future of Air Traffic Control
Modernization, GAO-07-928R (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2007); Next
Generation Air Transportation System: Progress and Challenges
Associated with the Transformation of the National Airspace System, GAO-
07-25 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2006).
[2] H.R. 2881, 110TH Cong. §505 (2007).
[3] FAA's Joint Resources Council establishes and manages acquisition
program baselines which define cost, schedule, performance, and benefit
parameters for programs over their full life cycle.
[4] Section 300 of OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and
Execution of the Budget (Nov. 2, 2005), sets forth requirements for
federal agencies for planning, budgeting, acquiring, and managing
information technology capital assets.
[5] GAO, Responses to Questions for the Record; Hearing on the Future
of Air Traffic Control Modernization, GAO-07-928R (Washington, D.C.:
May 30, 2007).
[6] RTCA is a private, not-for-profit corporation that develops
consensus-based performance standards for air traffic control (ATC)
systems. RTCA serves as a federal advisory committee, and its
recommendations are the basis for a number of FAA's policy, program,
and regulatory decisions. RTCA includes an ADS-B working group within
its air traffic management advisory committee. The ADS-B Working Group
includes representatives of air transport, avionics manufacturers,
business aviation, Department of Defense, and general aviation.
[7] GAO-08-1078.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
