This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-729 
entitled 'Aviation Research: Airport Cooperative Research Program 
Addresses Many Needs but Could Enhance Transparency and Clarify Scope 
of Research Role' which was released on July 15, 2010. 

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. 

Report to the Committee on Science and Technology, House of 
Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

July 2010: 

Aviation Research: 

Airport Cooperative Research Program Addresses Many Needs but Could 
Enhance Transparency and Clarify Scope of Research Role: 

GAO-10-729: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-10-729, a report to the Committee on Science and 
Technology, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Airports are a vital part of the nation’s air transportation system 
and face many similar challenges. In 2003, the Airport Cooperative 
Research Program (ACRP) was authorized to conduct applied research to 
help airport operators solve shared challenges that are not addressed 
by other federal research. As requested, this report addresses (1) the 
extent to which ACRP’s processes reflect criteria for conducting a 
high-quality research program and (2) ACRP’s results to date and their 
usefulness for the aviation community. GAO reviewed ACRP documentation 
and compared ACRP processes to criteria previously developed by GAO 
that can be applied to research programs. These criteria identify 
three phases of the applied research process and steps to help produce 
high-quality results. GAO also reviewed ACRP projects and publications 
and interviewed ACRP stakeholders and airport officials. 

What GAO Found: 

In each of the three phases of applied research that GAO has 
identified, ACRP conducts its research with processes that align with 
many of GAO’s criteria for producing high-quality research, but some 
gaps exist. 

* Selecting projects: ACRP has established a governing board, the ACRP 
Oversight Committee (AOC), which is composed of airport executives and 
other key industry stakeholders, and processes to determine the 
research needs of users and to select specific projects for funding. 
However, one organization that participates on the board—the Airport 
Consultants Council—and the consensus approach used to make project 
selection decisions are not included in the program’s documented 
operating procedures. ACRP stakeholders commended the council’s 
participation and the consensus approach, but their omission from 
documentation potentially diminishes program transparency. 

* Implementing projects: ACRP’s processes for establishing a project 
panel to manage research projects, selecting a researcher, and 
overseeing projects are well documented and include quality control 
steps. However, product dissemination efforts may miss some potential 
users, particularly staff at smaller airports and mid-level staff. The 
AOC has initiated a project to improve research dissemination to 
better serve these groups, although the project’s scope and time frame 
is still being determined. 

* Evaluating projects and the program overall: ACRP maintains 
considerable information on ongoing and completed projects that are 
used by program managers and the AOC to review project progress. The 
program, however, does not currently have a systematic process for 
evaluating the impact of individual projects or implementing 
continuous improvements to the program’s overall performance. Two 
initiatives—the dissemination project and a project initiated to 
review ACRP processes—could address current gaps in project and 
program evaluation, though the scope and time frames of these projects 
are still being determined. 

Through 2009, ACRP approved 169 projects, about half of which have 
been completed, and published 66 products on topics such as 
environmental impacts, policy and planning, and administration. 
Airport operators and other ACRP stakeholders consistently told GAO 
that the program provides the industry with useful and unique research 
that individual airports, particularly smaller airports, have neither 
the time nor budget to conduct. However, ACRP’s role in conducting 
security research is unclear. ACRP materials, such as its annual 
solicitation of project ideas, include security as a potential topic 
within the scope of the program. However, the AOC has not recently 
funded security projects, in part because of differing views about 
whether ACRP should do this research. The Federal Aviation 
Administration, as a member of the AOC, indicated that the Department 
of Homeland Security is a better venue for such research. Conversely, 
other AOC members told GAO that ACRP could address some unmet security 
research needs. The AOC has the authority to determine what role, if 
any, is appropriate for ACRP in this area. By not doing so, over time, 
user satisfaction with the program could decline. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Transportation (1) ensure ACRP 
documentation reflects all participants and governance practices and 
(2) clarify ACRP’s role in conducting security research. The 
Department of Transportation generally agreed with the report, 
provided technical comments, and is considering the recommendations. 
The Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Research 
Board did not provide any comments on the draft report. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-729] or key 
components. For more information, contact Susan A. Fleming at (202) 
512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

ACRP Has Many Processes in Place Aimed at Conducting High-Quality 
Research and Is Taking Steps to Help Address Gaps in Dissemination and 
Evaluation, but Program Documentation Does Not Reflect Some Practices: 

ACRP's Products Are Generally Well Regarded, but Its Role in Security 
Research Is Unclear: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Criteria for Assessing Applied Research Processes: 

Appendix III: Additional Comments from Airport Officials: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Comparison of ACRP's Selection Processes to GAO's Criteria 
for a High-Quality Research Program: 

Table 2: Comparison of ACRP's Implementation Processes to GAO's 
Criteria for a High-Quality Research Program: 

Table 3: Comparison of ACRP's Evaluation Processes to GAO's Criteria 
for a High-Quality Research Program: 

Table 4: ACRP Projects Organized by Research Topic (Calendar Years 
2005 through 2009): 

Table 5: ACRP Publications Have Increased in Number and Type from 2007 
through 2009: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Summary of Phases and Steps in Applied Research Process: 

Figure 2: Step 1--Establish a Research Investment Board 1: 

Figure 3: Step 2--Determine the Research Needs of Users 1: 

Figure 4: Step 3--Select Research Projects for Investment: 

Figure 5: Step 4--Implement Research Projects: 

Figure 6: Step 5--Maintain Information on the Research Program: 

Figure 7: Step 6--Perform Postpublication Reviews of Projects and 
Results: 

Figure 8: Step 7--Use Evaluation Information to Improve the Overall 
Performance of the Research Program 1: 

Abbreviations: 

ACC: Airport Consultants Council: 

ACRP: Airport Cooperative Research Program: 

AIP: Airport Improvement Program: 

AOC: ACRP Oversight Committee: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration: 

MOA: Memorandum of Agreement: 

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

NCHRP: National Cooperative Highway Research Program: 

NSSA: National Safe Skies Alliance: 

TCRP: Transit Cooperative Research Program: 

TRB: Transportation Research Board: 

TSA: Transportation Safety Administration: 

Vision 100: Vision 100--A Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 15, 2010: 

The Honorable Bart Gordon:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ralph Hall:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Science and Technology:
House of Representatives: 

Airports play an important role in the nation's extensive air 
transportation network for both passengers and cargo, operating in a 
complex environment with a wide range of challenges. The 3,400 
airports that make up the national integrated airport system and are 
eligible for Airport Improvement Program (AIP)[Footnote 1] grants are 
a diverse group of independent entities--large and small; run by port 
authorities, governments, and airport commissions; located in urban 
and rural areas; and responsible for a mix of commercial and general 
aviation operations--with loose organizational connections among them. 
Despite this diversity, airports face similar challenges. For example, 
many airports have an interest in better runway pavements and many 
must deal with their environmental impacts, such as aircraft noise, 
air pollution, and deicing chemical runoff. Airports, regardless of 
size, are subject to federal, state, and local environmental 
regulations and can face significant challenges in complying with 
them, and airports are seeking cost-effective solutions to 
strengthening the security of their airfields and terminals. 

Federal aviation research plays an important part in helping airports 
make sound decisions to address the challenges they face. The federal 
government spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year on 
aviation research--carried out by numerous federal agencies--that is 
focused on research, development, and technology related to the broad 
national aviation system, including the air traffic control system, 
security, alternative runway materials and designs, safety hazards, 
and airports, among other topics.[Footnote 2] However, this body of 
research and development can overlook some important applied research 
topics that can help airport operators improve the safety, capacity, 
and efficiency of their facilities. Such research can be too expensive 
for one airport to fund by itself, particularly if multiple topics 
need to be addressed. To address this problem, the Airport Cooperative 
Research Program (ACRP) pilot program was authorized in 2003 as part 
of the Vision 100--A Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Vision 
100) to carry out applied research on problems shared by airport 
operators.[Footnote 3] ACRP is sponsored by the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) and managed by the Transportation Research Board 
(TRB), a unit of the National Research Council within the National 
Academy of Sciences, through a joint management agreement that went 
into effect in 2005.[Footnote 4] The program began publishing the 
results of its research in 2007. As you requested, we have reviewed 
the progress ACRP has made in addressing airports' research needs, 
focusing on the following questions: (1) To what extent does ACRP have 
processes in place that reflect established criteria for conducting a 
high-quality research program? (2) What are ACRP's results to date-- 
including research studies, practical applications, and other results-
-and how useful have these results been for the aviation community? 
Additionally, at your request, we have described, in the background of 
the report, the implementation of ACRP relative to the requirements 
outlined in its authorizing legislation. 

To assess ACRP's research processes, we compared ACRP's research 
processes to criteria--developed in previous GAO work--for managing 
information technology investments.[Footnote 5] The criteria, which 
can be applied to research programs with some adaptation, contain 
critical processes for selecting investments, implementing projects, 
and evaluating program performance.[Footnote 6] To determine the 
extent to which ACRP's processes align with these criteria, and to 
identify gaps and potential actions to address those gaps, we analyzed 
ACRP's program documentation and, as needed, we interviewed ACRP 
officials. To describe ACRP's results to date and determine how useful 
those results have been to airports, we reviewed ACRP's published 
reports and other program documentation and interviewed a wide range 
of officials to obtain a diversity of perspectives on the program. 
These interviews included FAA and TRB officials responsible for 
managing the program; selected industry and airport officials involved 
in program oversight and direction; and other airport officials who 
are the intended users of ACRP but who do not have vested interests in 
managing the program. These officials were judgmentally selected to 
provide a range of views, including those of small and large airports, 
various staff levels, and different topical areas of responsibility. 
The results of these interviews should not be generalized to each of 
the groups the officials represent or to all users of ACRP. Finally, 
we interviewed officials from the Science and Technology Directorate 
within the Department of Homeland Security to understand the extent to 
which its research activities address the needs of airports in the 
security area. We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 to 
July 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See 
appendix I for more information on our scope and methodology and 
appendix II for further details on the criteria we used to assess 
ACRP's processes. 

Background: 

In 2003, ACRP was authorized as a pilot program in Vision 100 to 
address problems shared by airport operators that could be solved 
through applied, cooperative research and were not addressed by other 
federal research programs. ACRP has continued to function under short- 
term extensions of FAA's authorizing legislation, and as called for in 
Vision 100, in 2008 the Secretary of Transportation transmitted to 
Congress a report on ACRP that included a recommendation for the 
program to be made permanent.[Footnote 7] ACRP addresses the shared 
research needs of a large and diverse target audience of 3,400 
airports located across the country, including approximately 600 
commercial-service airports and 2,800 smaller general aviation 
airports. Congress has appropriated a total of $59.9 million for ACRP 
for fiscal years 2006 through 2010.[Footnote 8] Beginning in fiscal 
year 2009, Congress increased the program's annual appropriation from 
$10 million to $15 million, and FAA designated the additional funds 
primarily for research related to airport environmental issues. 

ACRP's structure and many of its operating procedures were established 
in 2005 in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), as required in Vision 100, 
between the Department of Transportation, FAA, and the National 
Academy of Sciences, operating through TRB. Under this agreement, TRB 
is responsible for managing ACRP and overseeing the program's daily 
operations. The structure of the program was largely modeled after 
other cooperative research programs managed by TRB, such as the 
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and the Transit 
Cooperative Research Program (TCRP).[Footnote 9] 

Vision 100 stipulates that the Secretary of Transportation appoint an 
independent governing board for ACRP. The MOA designates that the ACRP 
Oversight Committee (AOC) will function as the program's governing 
board and specifies the initial size and composition of the AOC. In 
2005, the Secretary appointed 13 voting members to the board drawn 
from a diverse cross section of the airport industry. The AOC includes 
representatives of a variety of perspectives within the airport 
industry, including airport executives and senior management officials 
from airports of different sizes; senior officials from FAA and the 
National Safe Skies Alliance (NSSA); and industry consultants and 
academics. Additionally, the MOA identifies seven nonvoting ex-officio 
members to serve on the AOC. The nonvoting ex-officio members 
represent four national associations, TRB, and two other federal 
agencies.[Footnote 10] The AOC's responsibilities include (1) 
prioritizing research needs identified through problem statements 
solicited from airport operators and others in the industry, (2) 
selecting research projects to address those needs, and (3) evaluating 
program effectiveness. 

The responsibility for implementing projects selected by the AOC is 
handled by project panels and TRB staff assigned to the program. 
Project panels are appointed by TRB from nominations solicited from 
airports, universities, consultants, and airport associations. Panels 
generally consist of airport practitioners and other individuals with 
expertise in the subject area of the project. Panel responsibilities 
include (1) finalizing the scope of the project; (2) developing 
Requests for Proposals and selecting a researcher, often a consultant, 
to perform the work; (3) providing project oversight while the 
research is performed; and (4) reviewing interim reports and draft 
products. TRB staff assist the project panels in all of these tasks, 
perform many of the day-to-day functions required for managing the 
research projects, and are responsible for the final editing and 
production of ACRP reports. 

Most federal aviation research is done outside of ACRP by a variety of 
federal agencies. FAA conducts research, evaluation, and development 
in a number of areas related to the national air transportation 
system, including the air traffic control system, pavement design and 
runway surface technologies, and other topics related to airports and 
aviation. The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate in NASA 
performs fundamental aeronautical research in areas such as 
propulsion. NSSA, a nonprofit organization jointly funded by FAA and 
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), conducts testing and 
evaluation of airport security technologies. DHS conducts research on 
a wide variety of security topics, including passenger and baggage 
screening at airports, and the Department of Defense conducts research 
on topics relevant to military needs, a few of which have applications 
in civil aviation. TRB staff and FAA representatives work with the AOC 
to help prevent ACRP's research from duplicating any of these other 
efforts. 

ACRP Has Many Processes in Place Aimed at Conducting High-Quality 
Research and Is Taking Steps to Help Address Gaps in Dissemination and 
Evaluation, but Program Documentation Does Not Reflect Some Practices: 

ACRP has implemented many practices and procedures that help to assure 
the production of high-quality applied research, but gaps exist in 
some areas of its research processes. Specifically, ACRP's selection 
processes include steps to identify research needs and evaluate 
potential projects, but the program's documented operating procedures 
do not include one current participant on the AOC or accurately 
reflect the enhanced role of ex-officio members in project selection 
decisions. In addition, ACRP has established well-documented policies 
for managing, overseeing, and reviewing research projects, and TRB 
maintains considerable information about the program's projects to 
assist ACRP decision makers. However, ACRP's dissemination practices 
may not reach all potential users of the program's research, and the 
program does not have systematic processes in place to evaluate its 
overall performance, although the AOC has recently approved two 
special projects to examine how to address these gaps. 

Including Certain Practices and Procedures in Research Processes Can 
Help Applied Research Programs Produce High-Quality Research: 

Applied research programs can help assure, though not guarantee, the 
production of high-quality research by establishing certain procedures 
and adhering to certain practices in their research processes. We 
identified these procedures and practices by adapting criteria that we 
previously developed for managing information technology investments 
to provide guidance for applied research programs.[Footnote 11] We 
applied the adapted criteria to ACRP's research processes (see 
appendix II for additional details about the criteria we applied to 
ACRP). These criteria identify three key phases of the applied 
research process--selection, implementation, and evaluation--that 
encompass seven general steps and a number of specific practices 
needed to conduct applied research. These steps represent the key 
actions that programs should take within each phase of the applied 
research process (such as determining research needs, selecting and 
implementing research projects, monitoring results, and improving 
program performance) to support the production of high-quality 
research. Figure 1 presents these seven steps within the three phases 
of the applied research process. 

Figure 1: Summary of Phases and Steps in Applied Research Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Phase 1: Selection: 
Step 1. Establish a research investment board; 
Step 2. Determine the research needs of users; 
Step 3. Select research projects. 

Phase 2: Implementation: 
Step 4. Implement research projects by: 
a) establishing a project panel to manage the project; 
b) selecting a researcher to conduct the research; 
c) providing oversight; 
d) reviewing draft products; 
e) disseminating final publications to users. 

Phase 3: Evaluation: 
Step 5. Maintain information on the research program; 
Step 6. Perform postpublication reviews of projects and results; 
Step 7. Use evaluation information to improve the overall performance 
of the research program. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Within each of these seven steps there are a wide variety of specific 
practices that collectively contribute to a program's overall ability 
to conduct high-quality research. The extent to which ACRP has 
procedures and practices in place that help to assure high-quality 
research is summarized below for each phase of the applied research 
process. 

Many ACRP Research Selection Processes Include Practices to Assure 
High Quality, but Some Beneficial Program Practices Are Not Reflected 
in Documentation: 

ACRP's processes to establish the AOC, determine research needs, and 
select research projects include many of the practices that help 
assure high-quality work, but the program's documentation does not 
accurately reflect some practices followed during the Selection phase 
(see table 1). 

Table 1: Comparison of ACRP's Selection Processes to GAO's Criteria 
for a High-Quality Research Program: 

Phase 1: Selection: Step 1. Establish a research investment board; 
Key strengths in ACRP's processes: 
* The AOC is composed of individuals from the airport industry who are 
responsible for making project selection decisions; 
Key gaps in ACRP's processes: 
* Program documentation does not include one group that participates 
on the AOC. 

Phase 1: Selection: Step 2. Determine the research needs of users; 
Key strengths in ACRP's processes: 
* Research needs are identified and research topics are organized 
through a systematic process; 
Key gaps in ACRP's processes: 
* None. 

Phase 1: Selection: Step 3. Select research projects for investment; 
Key strengths in ACRP's processes: 
* Potential research projects are evaluated and prioritized following 
documented policies; 
Key gaps in ACRP's processes: 
* Program documentation does not accurately reflect the enhanced role 
of the AOC's ex-officio representatives, who are allowed to 
participate in project selection decisions through a consensus-driven 
decision-making approach; 
* Potential security research projects may not be selected for reasons 
discussed later in the report. 

Source: GAO analysis of FAA and TRB documentation and interviews with 
ACRP stakeholders. 

[End of table] 

As required in Vision 100, the AOC was established to govern ACRP and 
select research projects. The MOA established the initial size, 
composition, and role of the AOC, but the Secretary of Transportation 
is responsible for appointing individual members to the board and is 
authorized by the MOA to adjust the size of the AOC, including the 
number of voting and nonvoting ex-officio members. Most significantly, 
the AOC is responsible for making project selection decisions, and its 
13 voting members include airport executives and other individuals 
connected to the airport industry who collectively contribute a 
variety of perspectives and expertise to the board's operations. As a 
result, several AOC members stated that they consider the board to be 
a proxy for the diverse membership of the airport industry. 

However, the program's documented operating procedures do not reflect 
the involvement of the Airport Consultants Council (ACC) on the AOC, 
which reduces the transparency of the board's operations and could 
potentially jeopardize the group's continued participation. As 
previously discussed, the MOA specifies that certain national 
associations and federal agencies serve as nonvoting ex-officio 
members on the board. In practice, however, ACC, which was not 
identified in the MOA, has also been invited to participate on the 
AOC. Unlike other prominent industry associations that were involved 
during the establishment of ACRP and now serve as ex-officio members 
on the board, ACC was not involved during the program's establishment 
and was not included on the AOC. Instead, after the program was 
established and operating, the AOC, TRB, and FAA decided that the 
program would benefit from ACC's participation due to its role 
representing airport consultants, the entities that perform much of 
ACRP's research. In lieu of formally including ACC as an ex-officio 
member, program officials and FAA have allowed the group to 
participate informally on the AOC, in effect, largely treating ACC as 
an ex-officio member. Several AOC members we spoke with described 
ACC's contributions as beneficial to the board. As a result of ACC not 
being designated as an ex-officio member in the MOA or other program 
documentation, the transparency of the AOC's operations is diminished 
and ACC's continued participation on the AOC is not guaranteed. 
According to a senior FAA official, the FAA Administrator has 
initiated action to formalize ACC's membership on the AOC by sending a 
memorandum to the Secretary of Transportation in April 2010 
recommending the Secretary appoint ACC as a nonvoting ex-officio 
member on the AOC. As of July 7, 2010, FAA reported that this 
nomination was under consideration by the Secretary. FAA officials 
told us that they do not plan to revise the MOA to reflect this 
change, should the Secretary of Transportation approve it, because 
Vision 100 provided the Secretary with broad authority to appoint new 
members to the board, and in their view, no further steps are required 
to document any new members in the MOA. Additionally, FAA officials 
pointed out that because the MOA expressly authorizes the Secretary to 
adjust the size of the AOC, the Secretary may appoint an additional 
nonvoting ex-officio member without amending the MOA. Furthermore, 
officials stated that if the Secretary approves ACC's nomination to 
the board, a signed appointment letter from the Secretary would 
formalize ACC's participation as a nonvoting ex-officio member and 
help to improve the transparency of the board's operations. However, 
without also revising the MOA to reflect this appointment, the 
transparency of the program's documented operating procedures would 
remain diminished because the ACC would be the only ex-officio member 
not expressly identified in the MOA. 

Determining the research needs of users is necessary to select and 
conduct useful research, and ACRP has taken various steps to identify 
and organize topics in need of research. For example, ACRP opens its 
annual solicitation of problem statements to all airport operators and 
other industry stakeholders to help identify specific current research 
needs. The AOC ultimately decides which problem statements should be 
approved for funding, but the process of soliciting problem statements 
helps the AOC remain aware of the current research needs confronting 
airport operators.[Footnote 12] Additionally, in 2008, ACRP convened 
focus groups and workshops with airport industry stakeholders and 
industry groups to help identify and organize research topics and 
critical issue areas viewed as important to the airport industry. The 
results of this effort included, among others, (1) the identification 
of 58 current and emerging topics for potential research that were 
organized into 10 critical issue areas,[Footnote 13] and (2) the 
inclusion of a strategic emphasis area in subsequent problem statement 
solicitations to encourage submissions targeting particular subjects 
of interest identified by the AOC, such as airport maintenance and 
operations for the fiscal year 2011 submissions.[Footnote 14] 

The program's project selection process also follows a systematic 
approach to evaluate and prioritize potential research projects. For 
example, multiple groups of knowledgeable individuals prescreen the 
problem statements by evaluating and providing written feedback on the 
submissions in advance of being reviewed by the AOC. Subsequently, AOC 
members prioritize the problem statements using an online survey, 
based on their view of a project's importance and the input provided 
by the various prescreening groups. The results of this survey are 
used to determine the order of the agenda for considering and 
selecting projects at the AOC's annual summer meeting. Several AOC 
members told us that this project prioritization procedure works 
reasonably well in helping the board select projects to serve the 
research needs of airports, although some AOC members reported that 
reviewing all of the problem statements--ACRP received 219 problem 
statement submissions for fiscal year 2010--is a time-intensive 
process. 

ACRP's documented operating procedures do not reflect the AOC's 
current consensus-driven approach to selecting projects, which several 
AOC members praised. The MOA states that the AOC should reach project 
selection decisions through the affirmative vote of a majority of the 
board's voting members. In practice, the AOC makes decisions on the 
basis of consensus among its members, which essentially gives 
nonvoting ex-officio members (and the ACC) the same role as the formal 
voting members in project selection.[Footnote 15] Several AOC members 
complimented the use of this consensus approach, and the ACRP program 
manager said it would be detrimental to not include the views of ex- 
officio members in the selection process, noting that consensus 
decision making is fundamental to TRB's research process. 
Additionally, one AOC member expressed appreciation for the input 
provided by ex-officio members during project selection discussions, 
and other board members highlighted the effectiveness with which the 
AOC Chair facilitates the board's operations using the consensus 
approach. However, the transparency of ACRP's project selection 
processes is diminished since the program's documentation does not 
reflect the AOC's consensus-based decision-making approach, which 
enhances the role of ex-officio members. 

ACRP's Processes for Implementing Projects Help Produce High-Quality 
Research, but Product Dissemination May Miss Some Potential Users: 

ACRP's policies and procedures for managing, overseeing, and reviewing 
research projects include many of the processes needed to produce high-
quality research, but current product dissemination techniques may 
miss some potential users of ACRP's research in the airport industry 
(see table 2). 

Table 2: Comparison of ACRP's Implementation Processes to GAO's 
Criteria for a High-Quality Research Program: 

Phase 2: Implementation: 

Step 4. Implement research projects by: 
a) establishing a project panel to manage the project; 
b) selecting a researcher to conduct the research; 
c) providing oversight; 
d) reviewing draft products; 
e) disseminating final publications to users; 
Key strengths in ACRP's processes: 
* ACRP follows documented policies and procedures for establishing 
project panels to manage research projects; 
* ACRP follows documented policies and procedures to select and 
provide oversight of researchers conducting ACRP projects; 
* ACRP's quality control process includes reviews of draft products by 
project panels; 
Key gaps in ACRP's processes: 
* ACRP's current product dissemination mechanisms may miss some 
potential users of the program's research. However, ACRP officials 
initiated a special project in July 2009 to improve their 
dissemination processes, increase ACRP's awareness among airport 
practitioners, and improve feedback from users of ACRP products. The 
details of this project are still under development.[A] 

Source: GAO analysis of FAA and TRB documentation and interviews with 
ACRP stakeholders. 

[A] ACRP Project #11-05, Dissemination of ACRP Research Results. 

[End of table] 

ACRP follows well-documented policies for establishing project panels 
to manage research projects, selecting and providing oversight of 
researchers, and reviewing draft products prior to publication. 
Project panels are assembled by TRB and generally consist of six to 
eight members selected from the airport industry, government, 
academia, and elsewhere to provide subject-area expertise and guidance 
to a project. Several AOC members we spoke with stated that TRB did a 
good job putting panels together, but one member expressed a need for 
greater transparency in how TRB forms panels to better assure the AOC 
that all of the needed perspectives are well represented and reflected 
in the final report. Once established, the panels work closely with 
TRB staff in many aspects of project management and oversight. For 
example, project panels are responsible for developing Requests for 
Proposals, selecting contractors to perform the research, and 
reviewing interim reports and draft products prepared by the 
contractor before approving final reports for publication. External 
review of ACRP's products is rare, but occasionally panels have held 
workshops or distributed surveys about an ongoing project to 
participants at industry conferences. As part of the program's quality 
control process, after the project panel approves the final content of 
a report, TRB's editorial staff edits the text and manages final 
publication. One board member we spoke with noted that the program's 
research processes contain practices for ensuring quality that, while 
lengthy at times, are important for the success of the program. 
Overall, several AOC members told us that the program's project 
management and oversight processes function well, and some members 
stated that it would not be feasible or beneficial for the AOC to 
assume a more direct role in project oversight. Likewise, the airport 
operators we spoke with who have also served on ACRP project panels 
generally spoke highly of their experience, and several AOC members 
praised the ability of the panels and TRB staff to effectively oversee 
ACRP's research projects. 

ACRP disseminates its publications through a variety of mechanisms, 
but its current methods may not effectively reach some potential users 
of the program's research. Practices used to disseminate ACRP's 
reports include: 

* providing publications for free download on the TRB Web site; 
[Footnote 16] 

* including notices about new ACRP products in TRB newsletters; 

* enabling people to sign up to receive electronic notification of new 
ACRP publications; 

* automatically notifying recipients of FAA's electronic mailing list 
when ACRP reports are posted on the FAA Web site; 

* distributing reports at industry meetings and conferences; and: 

* working with various airport industry associations to promote ACRP 
publications through the associations' established distribution 
systems. 

Although these dissemination mechanisms target many airport operators 
and other potential users of ACRP's research, several airport 
officials expressed concern that they may not effectively reach some 
segments of the airport industry that could benefit from the program's 
research. Many of the airport officials and AOC members we spoke with 
stated that ACRP's visibility within the industry has increased over 
time, but some expressed concerns that awareness of the program was 
lower among some groups of airport operators than others. In 
particular, some airport officials and AOC members suggested that 
smaller airports and mid-level staff throughout the industry may be 
less familiar with the program's research than large airports or 
senior staff and managers. Various airport officials, AOC members, and 
TRB staff with whom we spoke noted that staff from smaller airports 
and mid-level staff are often less likely to be involved in national 
associations and attend fewer national conferences than staff from 
larger airports and high-level staff and managers. Some senior-level 
officials mentioned that they make an effort to share ACRP reports 
with their staff, but it is not clear how widely this practice is 
replicated by other airport executives and managers in the industry. 
As a result, smaller airports and mid-level airport staff may be less 
likely to be among the direct recipients of ACRP's product 
dissemination efforts. Maintaining an ACRP presence at industry 
conferences was viewed by several airport officials and AOC members as 
an important promotional tool for the program, and one official 
suggested that participating in smaller regional conferences could 
help ACRP connect with more officials from smaller airports. Several 
airport officials also stressed the importance of electronic 
publication of ACRP products, and one official emphasized that an 
easily accessible and well organized online library of ACRP resources 
is important for users, particularly as the program issues more 
reports. 

In recognition of some of these gaps in ACRP's dissemination 
practices, the AOC approved a special project in July 2009 to (1) 
develop and implement a strategic dissemination process and (2) 
increase awareness of ACRP among airport practitioners.[Footnote 17] 
Although the specific details and overall time frame of this project 
are under development, the potential scope of work for this project 
might include an examination of practices, used both within and 
outside the airport industry, for disseminating and implementing 
research findings to determine their applicability to ACRP. Whereas 
most ACRP projects are concluded after a report is published, this 
special project may develop into an ongoing internal effort by the 
program to continually evaluate and revise ACRP's dissemination 
practices as the program advances into the future. Given the early 
stage of this project, it is not yet clear to what extent small 
airport staff or mid-level staff will be targeted, but some ideas 
being considered may serve these groups. For example, TRB staff are 
considering methods for presenting ACRP research results at industry 
conferences that TRB staff are unable to attend. TRB staff told us 
that they expect to present some initial results from these efforts to 
the AOC in July 2010, with additional dissemination initiatives 
anticipated to begin under this project later in 2010. 

TRB Maintains Considerable Information on ACRP's Projects, but the 
Program Is Still in the Early Stages of Evaluating Project Results and 
Assessing Program Performance: 

TRB maintains considerable information about ACRP's completed and 
ongoing research projects to support management decisions, but ACRP is 
in the initial stages of evaluating project results and the program's 
overall performance (see table 3). 

Table 3: Comparison of ACRP's Evaluation Processes to GAO's Criteria 
for a High-Quality Research Program: 

Phase 3: Evaluation: Step 5. Maintain information on the research 
program; 
Key strengths in ACRP's processes: 
* Information about research projects is identified and collected 
following documented procedures; 
* The collected information is easily accessible and understandable to 
the program's decision makers; 
Key gaps in ACRP's processes: 
* None. 

Phase 3: Evaluation: Step 6. Perform postpublication reviews of 
projects and results; 
Key strengths in ACRP's processes: 
* Project panel members are surveyed about their experience at the 
conclusion of a project and program officials have obtained some 
anecdotal information from users of the research. The AOC approved two 
special ACRP projects in July 2009 to explore, among other things, 
options for conducting postpublication reviews and assessing project 
results from the perspective of users[A]; 
Key gaps in ACRP's processes: 
* ACRP does not have a formal process for reviewing the results of its 
research projects and it does not have a systematic process for 
obtaining feedback from users of the research about ACRP products. The 
two special ACRP projects initiated in July 2009 are taking steps to 
help address these gaps, although the specific details of the projects 
have not been finalized. 

Phase 3: Evaluation: Step 7. Use evaluation information to improve the 
overall performance of the research program; 
Key strengths in ACRP's processes: 
* According to TRB officials and preliminary project documentation, 
the two special projects approved by the AOC in July 2009 may include, 
among other things, (1) an evaluation of ACRP's impact and usefulness 
to airport operators and (2) a review of ACRP's processes and 
examination of ways to improve ACRP's performance[A]; 
Key gaps in ACRP's processes: 
* ACRP has not yet developed a process to systematically evaluate the 
program, ascertain how its publications are used by the airport 
industry, or obtain systematic feedback from users on how the program 
can be improved. The two special projects initiated in July 2009 are 
taking steps to help address these gaps, although the specific details 
of the projects have not been finalized. 

Source: GAO analysis of FAA and TRB documentation and interviews with 
ACRP stakeholders. 

[A] These options are being explored as part of ACRP Project #11-05, 
Dissemination of ACRP Research Results and ACRP Project #11-06, 
Evaluating ACRP Processes. 

[End of table] 

TRB maintains an internal database that includes considerable 
information--such as contract costs, staffing, and timeline data-- 
collected on ACRP's completed and ongoing research projects. TRB 
provides summaries of this information to the AOC at its semiannual 
meetings, and shares other information as needed with program 
stakeholders to help them monitor project performance. Additionally, 
TRB prepares quarterly progress reports outlining program activities 
for each project. Several AOC members told us they generally receive 
the right amount of information from TRB staff to fulfill their 
responsibilities on the board, and some members commented that any 
additional information they need about a project is readily available 
upon request. 

However, ACRP does not have policies in place to systematically review 
completed projects, assess project results from the perspective of the 
research users, or to evaluate the overall performance of its research 
portfolio, but the AOC recently approved two special projects that may 
begin to address these gaps. Evaluating program performance and 
reviewing the results of individual projects are necessary to gauge 
user satisfaction, and high-quality research programs should analyze 
the results of these reviews to identify areas for improvement and 
implement changes to the program's processes. Although ACRP has not 
systematically performed these evaluative steps, the program has 
developed a survey for project panel members to solicit information 
about their experiences upon the completion of a project, and board 
members have received some informal anecdotal feedback from airport 
operators about the program. Additionally, in April 2010, ACRP added a 
feature to its Web site to allow airport operators to describe how 
they have used ACRP's publications. To date, this effort has resulted 
in the submission of more than one dozen examples of how ACRP 
publications have been used by members of the airport industry. FAA 
and TRB officials stated that in the early years of the program, too 
few projects had been completed to conduct extensive program 
evaluation, but now they believe that ACRP has grown to the point 
where evaluating the program's results and overall performance would 
be appropriate. Consequently, in July 2009, the AOC approved two 
special projects that, among other goals, are intended to evaluate 
ACRP's processes and improve the program's performance and usefulness 
to airport operators.[Footnote 18] Initial recommendations and ideas 
for the scope of work of these projects include several tasks that 
align with practices for program evaluation in a high-quality research 
program. These initial recommendations and ideas include the following: 

* Conducting an internal program evaluation of key elements of ACRP's 
process. 

* Developing outcome measures and collecting additional program 
information to benchmark ACRP's performance against the performance of 
NCHRP and TCRP. 

* Examining the processes followed by NCHRP and TCRP in several 
important areas, including methods used by these programs to evaluate 
program performance. These programs have already addressed some of the 
same evaluative questions being looked at by the AOC, and ACRP may be 
able to learn from practices adopted by the other cooperative research 
programs to improve its own evaluation processes.[Footnote 19] 

* Assessing the value and usefulness of publications to the research 
user community through readership surveys or other means. 

Initial results from some of these tasks are expected to be presented 
to the AOC in July 2010, including findings from workshops with AOC 
members convened to examine ACRP's processes, and the results from 
comparing ACRP to NCHRP and TCRP for selected performance metrics. 
Although the scope and time frames of these projects are still under 
development, these continued efforts, including solicitation of 
actionable feedback from users of the research about specific projects 
and the program's overall performance, could help address gaps in 
ACRP's current project and program evaluation. 

ACRP's Products Are Generally Well Regarded, but Its Role in Security 
Research Is Unclear: 

ACRP Has Produced a Wide Range of Products That Are Generally Well 
Regarded by Selected Airport Officials and ACRP Stakeholders: 

From January 2006 through December 2009, ACRP approved 169 projects 
for funding, completed approximately half of those projects, and 
published 66 products, covering a wide range of topics.[Footnote 20] 
Once approved, most projects are organized into topical categories, as 
shown in table 4. According to the ACRP program manager, projects are 
assigned to a single category based on the main topic area for 
research, though some projects address multiple topic areas. 

Table 4: ACRP Projects Organized by Research Topic (Calendar Years 
2005 through 2009): 

Research field: Environment; 
Projects: 34. 

Research field: Policy and planning; 
Projects: 28. 

Research field: Administration; 
Projects: 20. 

Research field: Operations; 
Projects: 15. 

Research field: Safety; 
Projects: 14. 

Research field: Design; 
Projects: 7. 

Research field: Human resources; 
Projects: 3. 

Research field: Maintenance; 
Projects: 3. 

Research field: Construction; 
Projects: 2. 

Research field: Security; 
Projects: 1. 

Research field: Other projects[A]; 
Projects: 42. 

Research field: Total projects[B]; 
Projects: 169. 

Source: GAO analysis of TRB data. 

[A] Includes legal research projects and quick response studies to 
address special needs. 

[B] Table shows completed and ongoing projects approved as of December 
31, 2009. 

[End of table] 

Since ACRP began publishing products in 2007, the program has 
increased the diversity of product types and the number of in-depth 
reports published. ACRP products include a variety of different 
publication types, including project reports, such as guides on 
airport strategic planning or environmental performance; synthesis 
reports that summarize already available information; research results 
digests that offer quick summaries on topics; legal research digests 
that summarize case law and other legal research; and Web-only 
documents that typically augment other published products (see table 
5). Project reports tend to take longer to complete than other 
products and result in more detailed, substantive publications. ACRP 
products have targeted the needs of various airports and user groups. 
For example, ACRP has published a guide for managing small airports 
that focuses specifically on the needs of small airports.[Footnote 21] 
Some products benefit only those airports that operate in certain 
conditions, such as ACRP products on aircraft deicing, which target 
airports in geographic regions that operate in winter conditions where 
icing is a concern. Other products--such as the recently completed 
airport strategic planning guide--address issues faced by all 
airports.[Footnote 22] 

Table 5: ACRP Publications Have Increased in Number and Type from 2007 
through 2009: 

Type of publication: Project reports (guides and other in-depth 
studies); 
2007: 1; 
2008: 9; 
2009: 16. 

Type of publication: Synthesis reports (summarize already available 
information); 
2007: 4; 
2008: 8; 
2009: 5. 

Type of publication: Research results digests (offer quick summaries 
of research results); 
2007: 3; 
2008: 0; 
2009: 4. 

Type of publication: Legal research digests (summarize case law, 
airport regulations, and other legal research); 
2007: 0; 
2008: 4; 
2009: 4. 

Type of publication: Web-only documents (supplement other 
publications); 
2007: 0; 
2008: 0; 
2009: 8. 

Type of publication: Total publications; 
2007: 8; 
2008: 21; 
2009: 37. 

Source: GAO analysis of TRB data. 

[End of table] 

This increase in products is due to several factors. First, the 
program received a steadily increasing number of research proposals, 
from 68 for consideration for fiscal year 2007 to 219 for fiscal year 
2010. Second, recent funding increases enabled the program to fund 30 
projects in 2010, up from 23 in 2007. Finally, the AOC has approved 
projects faster than work has been completed. Specifically, while some 
projects can take more than 2 years to complete, the AOC approves most 
projects on an annual basis. Due to all of these factors, officials 
familiar with ACRP expect a large body of work, particularly in-depth 
reports, to be issued in 2010 and 2011 that will greatly increase the 
breadth and depth of ACRP's library of research. 

ACRP has generally produced high-quality and useful products, 
according to all 10 airport officials with whom we spoke. Officials 
generally indicated that ACRP products are consistently high quality, 
provide an appropriate level of detail for a given topic and audience, 
place an issue within its overall context, and explain the methodology 
used to reach its conclusions. For example, one official commented 
that ACRP's two reports on safety management systems clearly explained 
the principles of a safety approach and how it might change 
operations.[Footnote 23] Officials also commended ACRP products for 
the number of different ways they could be used. For example, two 
officials noted that ACRP reports have provided reassurance that the 
practices used at their airport are consistent with industry 
practices. Other ACRP reports have been used to help educate airport 
staff, elected officials, and airport board members about issues 
facing airports. ACRP reports have also helped airports understand the 
implications of new regulations or proposals. For example, multiple 
officials mentioned that the ACRP review of airport rescue and 
firefighting standards was a valuable tool in understanding the cost 
and staffing implications of a proposed regulatory change.[Footnote 
24] Officials offered few specific examples of ACRP reports having a 
quantifiable financial impact on airport practices, but some indicated 
that ACRP products have shaped their approach to issues with financial 
implications. For example, officials at two airports mentioned that an 
ACRP report informed their strategy for managing parking facilities--
an important revenue source for airports.[Footnote 25] One of these 
officials explained that the ACRP report helped him ask detailed, 
probing questions of vendors when considering options for a capital 
project--without first hiring a consultant--and likely saved the 
airport money. See appendix III for additional comments on ACRP 
provided by airport officials. 

Airport officials told us that ACRP provides airports with a unique 
source for research that airports have neither the time nor budget to 
fund individually, noting that the program's research can be 
particularly useful to small airports. One official commented that 
information from industry groups and peers--which airport operators 
typically rely on--may not be as in-depth as an ACRP report. Officials 
also commented that while large and small airports can benefit from 
ACRP's research, small airports might benefit more than larger 
airports because small airports tend to have fewer staff with 
experience in technical subjects. Officials said they expect the 
program to become increasingly useful as more products are released, 
and they commented that many ACRP reports are likely to remain 
relevant and applicable for multiple years, so they could find 
themselves using the reports in the future as issues arise at their 
airports. 

ACRP stakeholders--FAA, industry groups, and AOC members--have also 
generally been pleased with the work ACRP has produced to date. FAA 
officials told us that the program has strongly met the agency's 
expectations, finding the work produced to be well done and useful to 
the agency and the industry. For example, according to FAA officials 
familiar with ACRP, FAA environmental staff will sometimes refer to 
ACRP products when developing advisory circulars or other guidance. 
Most of the industry groups involved with the AOC--namely the 
nonvoting ex-officio members of the board and the ACC--also indicated 
that the program is generally doing a good job meeting the needs of 
the airport industry. One group that regularly holds training seminars 
for its members now uses some ACRP products as part of its course 
materials, and another group that serves state government officials 
that have airport management responsibilities, including small 
airports, has found ACRP to be a helpful resource for its membership. 
The AOC voting members we spoke with also find the program is 
producing work that benefits industry practitioners. For example, one 
board member explained that ACRP's research can be particularly 
helpful to officials at small airports, such as his own, helping them 
keep up with federal requirements and providing new information on 
issues they may not otherwise have the resources to address. Lastly, 
ACRP stakeholders agreed that the program also provides some 
intangible benefits to the airport industry. For example, serving on 
an ACRP project panel can help build the technical expertise and 
professional networks of the participants, and ACRP's graduate student 
award program aids future workforce development by encouraging student 
interest and expertise in airport-related issues. 

ACRP's Role in Conducting Security Research Projects Is Unclear: 

ACRP includes security as within the scope of its designated research 
topics in program materials--such as its annual report, Web site, and 
annual solicitation for research project ideas--but to date, the 
program generally has not conducted security research. Airport 
operators have direct responsibility for day-to-day airport 
operations, including the security of airport perimeters, access 
controls, and workers, as well as implementing Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA) security requirements.[Footnote 26] To the extent 
that airports share research needs in these areas that are not 
adequately addressed by other federal research, ACRP's pursuit of this 
research would be consistent with the broad authority provided to the 
program in Vision 100, the legislation that authorized ACRP. Airport 
and AOC officials we interviewed, including two airport officials 
directly responsible for security, consistently told us that the 
security of airport operations is a shared concern for airports and 
that applied research could be beneficial in addressing this concern. 
For example, those officials told us that research could help airports: 

* coordinate airports' terminal design and layout decisions with new 
baggage and passenger security screening requirements and technologies 
to ensure smooth passenger flows in terminals, and: 

* implement new strategies for securely managing the delivery of 
supplies to concessionaires inside the secure area of the terminal. 

Despite potential shared needs such as these and the legislative 
authority to address unmet security research needs, ACRP has issued 
one product it categorized as related to airport security as of May 
2009.[Footnote 27] 

Though the federal government conducts a large amount of research on 
transportation security, some security research needs for airports may 
not be fully addressed by federal research programs.[Footnote 28] DHS, 
which has regulated airport security since 2003 through TSA, conducts 
research through its Science and Technology Directorate.[Footnote 29] 
The directorate's research activities are intended to support all of 
DHS's wide-ranging responsibilities, including transportation security 
for all modes such as aviation, border security, emergency 
preparedness and disaster recovery, immigration, and counterterrorism. 
In the case of aviation, the directorate's research projects are 
prioritized based on security needs identified by TSA and focus on 
technology development to aid TSA's screening operations at airports. 
For example, the directorate conducts research in explosive detection 
technologies that can be used to screen passengers and baggage at 
airports. To the extent that the research needs of airports do not 
align with TSA's security priorities, these needs would not be 
addressed by the directorate. For example, as also noted earlier in 
this report by an AOC member, a directorate official similarly 
indicated that airports might need research into managing the secure 
flow of supplies to concessionaires inside the secure area. In our 
prior work, we have reported that while TSA has taken some steps to 
coordinate with airport operators in developing and implementing new 
screening technologies, TSA does not have a systematic process to 
coordinate with airports in implementing new screening 
technologies.[Footnote 30] Further, we have previously reported that 
while TSA has taken some steps to develop biometric airport worker 
credentialing and the agency has conducted some outreach to airport 
operators to understand their priorities, it is unclear to what extent 
TSA plans to address these needs.[Footnote 31] Additionally, NSSA, 
which is represented on the AOC, has done some security research at 
the request of the AOC. However, as an organization focused on testing 
security technologies and not on research, it is not equipped to 
conduct security research in all of the areas that airports might 
benefit from, according to NSSA officials. For example, NSSA recently 
declined a project referred by ACRP on the basis that NSSA does not 
have the technical capacity to complete the research. Further, NSSA 
does not generally publish reports for widespread dissemination like 
ACRP. 

Members of the AOC differ in their views about the appropriate role of 
ACRP in conducting security research. In our interviews, 7 of the 11 
AOC participants that discussed the program's role in conducting 
security research expressed a willingness to fund proposed security 
research projects if those projects were meritorious and not addressed 
elsewhere.[Footnote 32] Conversely, four AOC members, including FAA, 
believed that ACRP should not conduct security research, noting that 
DHS or NSSA are more appropriate venues for this research. FAA has 
also raised concerns about ACRP funding security research because FAA 
does not regulate airport security. In its 2008 report to Congress on 
ACRP, FAA stated that, in its view, ACRP should not fund security 
research, a position the agency continues to hold.[Footnote 33] 
However, as noted earlier in this report, project selection decisions 
are the responsibility of and are made by the AOC as a whole, not just 
by FAA or any of the other members of the AOC, based on the authority 
granted to the governing board in Vision 100 and the operating 
procedures delineated in the MOA. Further, with respect to DHS's views 
on this issue, DHS, including TSA and the Science and Technology 
Directorate, have not been involved in ACRP to date. Science and 
Technology Directorate officials did not state an opinion about 
whether ACRP should or should not address security research because 
these officials were not familiar with the program. 

AOC members have been reluctant to pursue security research given 
FAA's position and the large number of nonsecurity research proposals 
available to fund, and also because the lack of coordination with DHS 
makes it difficult for the ACRP to select and execute needed and 
credible security research. During the January 2010 AOC meeting, 
members discussed ACRP's role in addressing security research and many 
members voiced an interest in improving ACRP's handling of security 
issues. Members expressed differing views about whether or not they 
should communicate that ACRP is a venue for security research to 
outside parties interested in submitting security proposals. The TRB 
staff that manages ACRP told us that the program could do more 
security work, at the direction of the AOC, and that TRB has policies 
and procedures to properly handle secure, sensitive information. In 
fact, other TRB cooperative research programs regularly publish 
security-related products. For example, NCHRP has issued reports on 
blast-resistant highway bridges, vulnerability assessment guidelines, 
and other topics. Given the varying views of ACRP program officials 
and other stakeholders about whether and to what extent the program 
should address potentially unmet security research needs, users of 
ACRP's work may expect the program to produce security research that 
is not likely to be forthcoming. The inclusion of security as one of 
the research topics within the scope of the program on its Web site 
and in program materials, such as the annual solicitation of research 
ideas from the airport industry, reinforces this expectation. Over 
time, if expectations remain unmet, user satisfaction with the program 
could decline. 

Conclusions: 

ACRP is regarded by the officials we interviewed as a generally 
valuable resource for addressing the shared challenges faced by 
airport operators, but improving some aspects of its processes could 
further enhance its effectiveness. To the program's credit, ACRP's 
research processes include many of the practices necessary to select 
and implement high-quality applied research. However, some gaps in 
ACRP's research processes hinder the program's ability to fully meet 
the research needs of airports. In particular, the transparency of 
some aspects of the AOC's operations is incomplete because the 
program's documentation does not accurately reflect certain program 
practices. For example, the involvement of ACC on the board is not 
accurately reflected in the MOA or other documentation. Although FAA 
told us it has initiated steps to formalize ACC's membership on the 
board, it does not plan to revise the MOA that governs the program's 
operating procedures to reflect this change. If the Secretary of 
Transportation approves FAA's request to appoint ACC to the board, 
obtaining a signed appointment letter from the Secretary to formalize 
ACC's role as a nonvoting ex-officio member would be a positive step 
toward increasing the program's transparency. However, the 
transparency of the board's operations would still remain diminished 
because the ACC would be the only ex-officio member not expressly 
identified in the MOA. Likewise, the AOC's documented decision-making 
process--which specifies voting procedures--differs from the board's 
practice of selecting projects on the basis of consensus among its 
members, including those designated as nonvoting ex-officio members. 
AOC members and other program stakeholders generally found the 
participation of ACC and the consensus-based decision-making approach 
to be beneficial, but since the program's documentation does not fully 
align with these practices, there is little formal assurance they will 
be sustained in the future. 

Additionally, levels of awareness of ACRP vary throughout the airport 
industry, and ACRP's current research dissemination practices may miss 
some potential beneficiaries of the program's research, according to 
the program stakeholders and airport officials we interviewed. In 
particular, mid-level staff and small airport officials may be less 
familiar with the program and more likely to not be included as direct 
recipients of some of ACRP's current dissemination mechanisms. ACRP is 
in the early stages of developing systematic processes to conduct 
postpublication reviews of its products, assess satisfaction with the 
program among the user community, and evaluate the program's overall 
impact and performance. These are important steps in the applied 
research process that ACRP can improve upon. The AOC's approval of two 
special projects holds promise that it will begin addressing the 
program's dissemination and evaluation gaps. It is an encouraging sign 
that ACRP's processes are on track to more fully reflect practices 
that help to assure the production of high-quality applied research, 
including project and program evaluation. 

To date, ACRP has produced a variety of high-quality and useful 
results for the airport industry, according to the officials we 
interviewed. However, the program needs to clarify its scope to the 
airport industry by explaining what role, if any, it has in addressing 
the security research needs of airports. The program has the 
legislative authority to address security research topics, provided 
that the research needs are shared by airports and not addressed by 
other federal research. Airport security is certainly a concern shared 
by airport operators. Additionally, some security-related research 
topics, such as the use of biometric technology, may be of value to 
airports and are not being fully addressed by other federal research. 
Given the significant amount of aviation security research conducted 
by DHS, ACRP may or may not be an appropriate venue to address unmet 
needs of airports in this area. Although FAA has stated that ACRP 
should not conduct security research, it is the responsibility of the 
AOC as a whole, of which FAA is a part, to determine what role, if 
any, the program has in this area. The AOC has recently discussed the 
program's role in addressing security, but it is not clear what 
actions, if any, it plans to take to resolve the current lack of 
clarity. The present lack of agreement among ACRP stakeholders about 
the program's role in addressing security research-
-and the program's lack of coordination with DHS--has left the 
program, in effect, not addressing security research, but holding out 
the possibility that it could to the airport industry. Clarification 
of the program's role in this area would better communicate to the 
industry what research can be expected from ACRP. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take the following 
two actions: 

(1) To better align key program documentation with ACRP program 
practices as implemented and to increase the transparency and 
stability of the program over time, we recommend the Secretary of 
Transportation take steps to revise the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 
between the Department of Transportation and the National Academy of 
Sciences, and other appropriate documentation, such that: 

* all organizations, including ex-officio members, that are involved 
in ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC) proceedings are included in program 
documentation, and: 

* project selection procedures documented in the MOA are supplemented 
to include, as an option, a consensus-based approach in addition to 
voting procedures, and a more explicitly defined role for ex-officio 
members in project selection. 

(2) To clarify the role of ACRP in conducting security research, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take steps to encourage 
the AOC--in collaboration with other key federal agencies and 
stakeholders--to clearly articulate ACRP's role, if any, in conducting 
security research and, subsequently, to ensure that ACRP's program 
documentation clearly and accurately reflects this role, such that 
airport operators and others can readily understand what to expect of 
the program in this area. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOT, DHS, and TRB for review and 
comment prior to finalizing the report. DOT generally agreed with the 
information in the report and provided technical clarifications, which 
we incorporated as appropriate. DOT officials also said that they are 
considering the recommendations. DHS and TRB did not provide any 
comments on the draft report. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the 
Department of Transportation, the Administrator of the Federal 
Aviation Administration, the Director of Cooperative Research Programs 
at the Transportation Research Board, the Secretary of the Department 
of Homeland Security, and appropriate congressional committees. This 
report is also available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, or 
wish to discuss these matters further, please contact me at (202) 512- 
2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 
appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

Susan A. Fleming: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To assess the Airport Cooperative Research Program's (ACRP) research 
processes, we compared ACRP's research processes to criteria--
developed in previous GAO work--for managing information technology 
investments.[Footnote 34] The criteria, which can be applied to 
research programs with some adaptation, contains critical processes 
for identifying user needs, selecting investments, monitoring results, 
and improving performance over time, among other steps. Similar to 
when an organization undertakes information technology investments, 
the applied research processes of ACRP are conducted by a third party 
for a group of diverse users or beneficiaries, the topics are 
technical in nature, and funding constraints require making decisions 
between competing projects. To adapt the information technology 
framework as criteria for assessing ACRP processes, we (1) simplified 
it to focus on the most critical processes, without the attention to 
details about levels of organizational maturity and capacity that were 
extensively addressed in the original framework, (2) changed the 
terminology to refer to applied research, rather than information 
technology, and (3) added criteria on product dissemination that we 
determined are important to research, but are not in the original 
framework. See appendix II for further information about the adapted 
criteria we used in our study. To determine the extent to which ACRP's 
processes align with these criteria, and to identify gaps and 
potential actions to address those gaps, we conducted a content 
analysis of a variety of program documentation and interviewed 
officials involved with ACRP. 

To describe ACRP's results to date and determine how useful those 
results have been to airports, we reviewed ACRP's published reports 
and other program documentation and interviewed a wide range of 
officials to obtain a diversity of views on the program. These 
interviews included senior-level Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
and Transportation Research Board (TRB) officials responsible for 
managing the program; selected industry and airport officials involved 
in program oversight and direction; and other airport officials who 
are the intended users of ACRP, but who do not have vested interests 
in managing the program. These officials were judgmentally selected to 
provide a range of views, including those of small and large airports, 
various staff levels, and different topical areas of responsibility. 
Officials included top executives and mid-level managers with 
expertise and responsibilities in a range of topical areas such as 
environmental management, security, and finance, among others. Some of 
these officials had also participated on ACRP project panels and, 
therefore, could comment on their experience as a panelist. To 
understand views of ACRP among stakeholders of the program and get an 
overall view of how well the program was meeting their expectations 
and to identify their areas of concern, we interviewed selected 
members of the ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC)--including selected 
voting members of the AOC and all of the industry associations 
participating as ex-officio members on the AOC--and representatives 
from the Airport Consultants Council, TRB, and FAA. Although our 
interviews with airport officials and ACRP stakeholders provide a 
reasonable view on the perspectives and views of these groups, our 
findings based on these interviews should not be generalized to the 
groups overall. Finally, we interviewed officials from the Science and 
Technology Directorate within the Department of Homeland Security to 
understand the extent to which its research activities address the 
needs of airports in the security area. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 to July 2010 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Criteria for Assessing Applied Research Processes: 

To assess ACRP's research processes, we adapted an existing GAO 
framework for managing information technology investments to make it 
applicable to the processes followed by applied research programs to 
produce high-quality research.[Footnote 35] This adapted framework 
served as our criteria for evaluating ACRP's processes, and allowed us 
to identify the elements of ACRP's processes that help the program 
produce high-quality research, as well as identify gaps in ACRP's 
processes that can be addressed to improve the program. Figures 2 
through 8 present the specific practices (categorized as 
"organizational commitments," "prerequisites," and "activities") in 
each step of the applied research process that programs follow to help 
facilitate the production of high-quality applied research. We 
analyzed the extent to which ACRP's processes align with each of the 
practices contained in these figures, and we summarized the results of 
this analysis for key elements of ACRP's processes in the body of this 
report. 

Within each step of the applied research process, "purpose" refers to 
the primary function of the step and states the desired outcome of 
completing the step; "organizational commitments" refer to the 
management actions and practices that ensure necessary processes to 
perform the step are established and will endure; "prerequisites" 
refer to the conditions that must exist within an organization to 
implement the necessary processes successfully; and "activities" refer 
to the key practices necessary to implement the critical processes and 
successfully complete the step. 

Figure 2: Step 1--Establish a Research Investment Board: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Purpose: 
To define and establish a management structure and process for 
selecting, controlling, and evaluating research project investments 

Organizational commitments: 
1. The investment board defines and implements its structure and 
processes and is composed of individuals qualified to make decisions 
on project selection, execution, oversight, and evaluation. 
2. The processes used to guide research investment decisions and 
organization operations are documented, including the role of the 
board, the process for appointing members to the board, and the 
board’s decision-making process. 

Prerequisites: 
1. Adequate resources, including managerial and staff support, 
funding, and tools to analyze operations, are provided to support the 
board’s operations. 
2. Board members understand the procedures and tools used to make 
decisions. Trainings or other guidance on the research process are 
available for board members 

Activities: 
1. The board is responsible for developing and documenting the process 
by which it works and the research investment process. 
2. The board operates within its authority and responsibility. 
3. Management controls are in place to ensure board decisions are 
carried out by staff. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 3: Step 2--Determine the Research Needs of Users: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Purpose: 
To ensure that research projects selected for investment support the 
needs of users and are consistent with the mission of the organization. 

Organizational commitments: 
1. The organization follows documented policies and procedures to 
systematically identify, classify, and organize users’ research needs 
and projects to address those needs. 
2. Policies and procedures should include regularly identifying users’ 
research needs as part of strategic planning, stating research needs 
in terms of desired outcomes, linking similar research needs of 
different users into a single project, and terminating projects or 
proposals that do not target identifiable users. 

Prerequisites: 
1. The organization has a stated mission that includes goals and 
objectives. 
2. Adequate managerial time and attention are spent identifying users’ 
research needs. 
3. The organization has adequate staff support to carry out activities 
to identify research needs. 

Activities: 
1. The organization defines and documents the need for approved 
research projects. 
2. The organization identifies specific users and beneficiaries of 
research projects. 
3. Users are involved in project management throughout the research 
process, including project identification, prioritization, selection, 
execution, and evaluation. 
4. The board periodically evaluates how well research investments 
align with the goals and objectives of the program, including how well 
projects meet users’ needs, and takes corrective action as needed. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 4: Step 3--Select Research Projects for Investment: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Purpose: 
To ensure a well-defined and disciplined process is used to select new 
research projects and reselect ongoing projects. 

Organizational commitments: 
1. The organization follows documented policies and procedures to 
identify, evaluate, prioritize, and select new and ongoing research 
projects. 
2. Policies and procedures should (a) include documented criteria for 
use in project selection to ensure common understanding of the 
selection process, (b) include documentation that defines the roles 
and responsibilities of each group participating in the project 
selection process, (c) document the predefined data required to make 
selection decisions, (d) document that reinvestments in completed or 
ongoing projects are based on their previous success and likely 
contribution to current needs, and (e) integrate project selection 
with available funding. 

Prerequisites: 
1. Adequate resources, including managerial and staff support, 
funding, and tools to organize and analyze proposals, are dedicated to 
identifying and selecting research projects. 
2. Criteria for analyzing, prioritizing, and selecting projects are 
established that allow proposals to be compared with one another based 
on qualitative and quantitative measures such as benefit-cost, project 
longevity, customer needs, risk, and technical difficulty. 
3. A mechanism exists to ensure project selection criteria remain 
appropriate to organizational goals and are revised as the needs of 
users change. 

Activities: 
1. The organization follows its defined project selection process, 
using pre-established selection criteria, to select projects for 
funding. The selection process should align with the budget process.2. 
The organization’s leadership makes the final investment decisions 
based on information and analysis from prior steps in the selection 
process, with less meritorious projects being denied funding. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 5: Step 4--Implement Research Projects: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Purpose: 
To conduct approved research, monitor progress, and produce research 
products that are disseminated to users. 

Organizational commitments: 
1. The organization follows documented policies and procedures for 
management oversight of research projects that specify the 
responsibilities of entities involved in providing oversight and the 
procedures for decision making they are to follow. 
2. The organization establishes threshold criteria for assessing 
project performance (e.g., cost and schedule measures) that trigger 
when remedial action may be needed. 
3. Documented procedures exist to ensure that the board and project 
teams are involved and oversee decisions to change projects to meet 
cost, schedule, or other considerations. 
4. The organization has documented procedures for elevating 
significant issues from project teams to program management and the 
board, and establishes conditions and a process for project 
termination. 

Prerequisites: 
1. Adequate resources, including managerial and staff support, 
funding, and tools, are provided for project oversight. 
2. Project teams maintain plans for project execution that include 
expected cost and schedule milestones and measurable benefit and risk 
expectations. 

Activities: 
1. Selected projects are completed and products are produced. 
2. Verified data on actual performance (including cost and schedule 
performance) are provided to the project team and the board, and are 
used to review the performance of projects against their stated 
expectations. 
3. Appropriate actions are taken to correct or terminate 
underperforming projects in accordance with documented policies and 
procedures. 
4. Expert review of draft products is completed as part of the quality 
control process and changes are made as appropriate. 
5. Products are disseminated to users through appropriate mechanisms. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Step 4 involves implementing research projects by (1) 
establishing a project panel to manage the project, (2) selecting a 
researcher to conduct the research, (3) providing oversight, (4) 
reviewing draft products, and (5) disseminating final publications to 
users. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 6: Step 5--Maintain Information on the Research Program: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Purpose: 
To make available to decision makers information to understand the 
impacts and opportunities created by completed, current, proposed, or 
potential research in certain areas. 

Organizational commitments: 
1. The organization has documented policies or procedures for 
identifying and collecting information about its research projects. 
2. An official is responsible for ensuring project information is 
collected that meets the needs of the research investment process. 

Prerequisites: 
1. Adequate resources, including managerial and staff support, 
funding, and tools, are dedicated to identifying and collecting 
information about research projects. 

Activities: 
1. The organization’s projects are identified and specific information 
is collected about the projects to support decisions. 
2. The collected information is easily accessible and understandable 
to decision makers. 
3. The collected information is used by the board in making future 
investment decisions. 
4. The collected information is used to inform decisions about how to 
increase the effectiveness of the organization’s research portfolio. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 7: Step 6--Perform Postpublication Reviews of Projects and 
Results: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Purpose: 
To compare actual results and usefulness of projects to users with the 
expectations that were set for projects when initially selected and 
develop process improvements. 

Organizational commitments: 
1. The organization has documented policies and procedures for 
conducting postpublication reviews and assessing results of projects 
from the perspective of users. 
2. Policies and procedures should document the types of projects for 
which postpublication reviews are conducted, what information is 
included in the reviews, and how and to whom the conclusions of the 
review are disseminated. 
3. Postpublication reviews should include project expectations and 
results (e.g., user satisfaction and impact), cost and schedule 
deviations, and overall recommendations and lessons learned. 

Prerequisites: 
1. Adequate resources, including managerial and staff support, 
funding, and tools, are provided for conducting postpublication 
reviews. 
2. Individuals conducting postpublication reviews should be familiar 
with the policies and procedures for conducting such reviews. 

Activities: 
1. The board uses specified criteria to determine which projects will 
have postpublication reviews. 
2. Quantitative and qualitative data related to performance 
expectations and actual outcomes, including those experienced by users 
of the publication, are collected, evaluated for reliability, and 
analyzed. 
3. Quantitative and qualitative data related to cost, schedule, and 
timeline objectives are collected, evaluated for reliability, and 
analyzed. 
4. Quantitative and qualitative data related to the contribution of 
the publication to achieving the organization’s mission are collected, 
evaluated for reliability, and analyzed. 
5. Quantitative and qualitative data obtained from surveys and 
interviews of users, project staff, and contractors are collected, 
evaluated for reliability, and analyzed. 
6. Quantitative and qualitative data obtained from interviews with 
officials involved in initial project selection. 
7. The organization develops, documents, and distributes lessons 
learned and recommendations for improving project processes and 
management to better address the needs of users. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 8: Step 7--Use Evaluation Information to Improve the Overall 
Performance of the Research Program: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Purpose: 
To assess and improve the impact and usefulness of the overall 
research portfolio and improve the research investment management 
process. 

Organizational commitments: 
1. The organization has documented policies and procedures for 
evaluating and improving the impact and usefulness of its research 
portfolio. 
2. Policies and procedures should (a) document the responsibilities of 
each party involved in evaluating impact and usefulness, (b) document 
the time frame for conducting assessments and implementing 
improvements, (c) include the measures used to assess the performance 
of the research portfolio, and (d) include a mechanism for reporting, 
and acting on, the results of the evaluation. 

Prerequisites: 
1. Adequate resources are provided for evaluating and improving the 
performance of the research portfolio. 

2. Board members and other staff responsible for evaluating and 
improving portfolio performance are qualified to do so and receive 
training as needed. 

Activities: 
1. Comprehensive performance measurement data are defined and 
collected which show if (a) products are consistently cost-effective, 
(b) projects are managed well and on budget, (c) users are satisfied 
with the products or if other research areas would be more useful, and 
(d) the products meet general industry standards. 
2. The organization analyzes aggregate performance data and trends. 
3. Recommendations for improvements to the investment process and 
research portfolio are developed and implemented as a result of the 
self-evaluation. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Additional Comments from Airport Officials: 

As part of our assessments of ACRP's research processes and ACRP's 
results to date, we conducted interviews with selected airport 
officials--the primary intended beneficiaries of ACRP's work--to learn 
their views on, among other topics, areas in which ACRP might consider 
actions to improve the quality or usefulness of its products. The 
major themes that came out of these interviews are presented in the 
body of this report. Additionally, a number of other comments were 
made by these officials, some of which are summarized below. Their 
inclusion should not be construed as a GAO endorsement or 
recommendation for action, but instead are included because they may 
be of interest to officials involved in ACRP. 

* Some ACRP products are very general in nature. As the program 
produces more work, future products may need to explore some issues 
more in-depth. 

* Over time, some ACRP products will need to be updated as the 
information in the original reports become outdated. Reliance on the 
normal project submission process may not effectively assure updates 
are completed. 

* An executive summary of longer reports may be helpful for some 
users. A summary might help readers understand the major points of a 
report without reading all the details, some of which may not apply to 
all readers. 

* Some airport officials may not understand that ACRP produces quick- 
response projects, in addition to conducting longer term research. As 
a result, some users with research needs may not seek out ACRP's help 
for problems that require a quick response. ACRP may be a more useful 
resource to airports if the diversity of its products were better 
understood. 

* Use of social media may help promote ACRP to some members of the 
airport industry, particularly younger staff, and enhance 
accessibility of ACRP products. 

* Organizing ACRP products into logical categories in an online 
library that takes only a click or two to navigate would make it 
easier to access reports. 

* An interactive, open-architecture Web site that allows users of ACRP 
reports to post comments, questions, and read what other users think 
about reports might enhance the impact of the reports and be a 
mechanism for TRB to get feedback from the industry. 

* ACRP distribution through the TRB newsletter--which includes 
information on research in transportation modes other than aviation-- 
can be unwieldy, even with the ability to customize the TRB newsletter 
to include only topics of interest to the recipient. 

* Airport officials already get lots of surveys and completing these 
surveys can be burdensome. Efforts to streamline and consolidate the 
surveys ACRP conducts during its research might ease this burden. 

* Additional formal guidance and clarification for project panels on 
precisely what final ACRP products are intended to accomplish, and how 
to specify a Request for Proposal to do so, might help panels execute 
their oversight of research more effectively. Panelists are often 
airport officials or other industry members that may not be 
experienced in research methodologies, costs of research, or other 
relevant issues. 

* Nonairport specific professional organizations--such as bar 
associations--may be a channel to reach airport officials within these 
professions. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Susan A. Fleming, (202) 512-2834 or f [Hyperlink, flemings@gao.gov] 
lemings@gao.gov: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Rita Grieco (Assistant 
Director), Lauren Calhoun, Patrick Dudley, Joel Grossman, Delwen 
Jones, Stephen M. Lord, Faye Morrison, Madhav Panwar, Laura Shumway, 
John W. Stambaugh, and Joshua Wiener made key contributions to this 
report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Inclusion in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems 
allows an airport to access AIP funds. 49 U.S.C. §§ 47103, 47105(b)(2). 

[2] These agencies include the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the 
Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and 
others. 

[3] Pub.L. No. 108-176, § 712, 117 Stat. 2490, 2586 (2003), codified 
at 49 U.S.C. § 44511(f). 

[4] The National Research Council's mission is to improve government 
decision making and public policy, increase public education and 
understanding, and promote the acquisition and dissemination of 
knowledge in matters involving science, engineering, technology, and 
health. The Transportation Research Board--which is a division of the 
National Research Council--promotes innovation in transportation 
through research. 

[5] GAO, Executive Guide: Information Technology Investment 
Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-394G] (Washington, 
D.C.: March 2004). 

[6] To adapt the information technology framework as criteria for 
assessing ACRP processes, we (1) simplified it to focus on the most 
critical processes, rather than on organizational maturity which was 
extensively addressed in the original framework; (2) changed the 
terminology to refer to applied research, rather than information 
technology; and (3) added criteria on product dissemination that we 
determined are important to research, but are not in the original 
framework. 

[7] Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Cooperative Research 
Program, 2005-2007: Report of the Secretary of Transportation to the 
United States Congress (Washington, D.C., June 1, 2008). In addition, 
the proposed FAA reauthorization bill would make the program 
permanent. Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010, H.R. 1586, § 
907, 111th Cong. (2009). 

[8] In fiscal year 2005, FAA used $3 million from its Facilities and 
Equipment Account to fund ACRP, as requested by H.R. Rep. No. 108-671 
(2004). Since fiscal year 2006, ACRP appropriations have been drawn 
from FAA's Airport Improvement Program funds. 

[9] TRB has a long history of administering industry-driven 
cooperative research programs focused on different transportation 
sectors, having managed NCHRP since 1962 and TCRP since 1992. TRB also 
began administering the National Cooperative Freight Research Program 
and the Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program in 2006, 
after ACRP was established. A cooperative research program for rail is 
currently being established. 

[10] The four national associations are the Air Transport Association, 
Airports Council International--North America, American Association of 
Airport Executives, and National Association of State Aviation 
Officials. The Administrator of NASA is identified as one of the AOC's 
ex-officio members in the MOA, but to date, NASA has not actively 
participated on the AOC. The Environmental Protection Agency is also 
listed as an ex-officio member and has participated on the AOC. 

[11] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-394G]. 

[12] As part of its project selection responsibilities, the AOC 
decides whether to fund ACRP's synthesis and legal research 
subprograms, but it generally does not approve specific projects to be 
covered in these subprograms. Instead, individual synthesis and legal 
research projects are typically identified and approved by separate 
panels established to oversee each of the subprograms. 

[13] Transportation Research Board, Current and Emerging Issues Facing 
the Airport Industry, ACRP Research Results Digest 5 (Washington, 
D.C., January 2009) presents the 58 topics for potential research, 10 
critical issue areas, and recommendations for identifying targeted 
focus areas in problem statement solicitations. 

[14] Previous emphasis areas have included information technology for 
fiscal year 2009 and future finance and business strategies for fiscal 
year 2010. 

[15] Ex-officio members on the AOC explicitly represent the views of 
their respective organizations. It is not clear what impact, if any, 
their role in decisions reached through consensus has on the board's 
independence, which is a Vision 100 requirement, because no clear 
guidance or legislative history is available to conclusively determine 
the meaning of an independent governing board in the context of ACRP. 

[16] ACRP publications are available at [hyperlink, 
http://www.trb.org/Publications/PubsACRPPublications.aspx]. 

[17] Transportation Research Board, Dissemination of ACRP Research 
Results, ACRP Project #11-05 (ongoing). 

[18] Transportation Research Board, Evaluating ACRP Processes, ACRP 
Project #11-06 (ongoing) and Transportation Research Board, 
Dissemination of ACRP Research Results, ACRP Project #11-05 (ongoing). 

[19] For example, TCRP occasionally surveys its user community to 
learn how its research results have been used and to gauge 
satisfaction with TCRP's products, whereas NCHRP surveys past project 
panel members every few years to discover what they have heard about 
ways in which the projects they worked on have been used by their 
peers. 

[20] Some projects have resulted in more than one product, such as a 
published report and a Web-only supplement. For a current list of 
ACRP's projects, including published reports, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.trb.org/ACRP/ACRPProjects.aspx]. 

[21] James H. Grothaus, Thomas J. Helms, Shaun Germolus, Dave Beaver, 
Kevin Carlson, Tim Callister, Robert Kunkel, and Ann Johnson, ACRP 
Report 16: Guidebook for Managing Small Airports, for the 
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (Washington, 
D.C.: Airport Cooperative Research Program, 2009). 

[22] Ricondo & Associates, Inc., Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., George 
Mason University, and National Service Research, ACRP Report 20: 
Strategic Planning in the Airport Industry, for the Transportation 
Research Board of the National Academies (Washington, D.C.: Airport 
Cooperative Research Program, 2009). 

[23] Duane A. Ludwig, Cheryl R. Andrews, Nienke R. Jester-ten Veen, 
and Charlotte Laqui, ACRP Report 1: Safety Management Systems for 
Airports, Volume 1: Overview, for the Transportation Research Board of 
the National Academies (Washington, D.C.: Airport Cooperative Research 
Program, 2007) and Manuel Ayres Jr., Hamid Shirazi, Samuel Cardoso, 
Jeffrey Brown, Richard Speir, Olga Selezneva, Jim Hall, Tara Puzin, 
Jeff Lafortune, Fernando Caparroz, Robert Ryan, and Edward McCall, 
ACRP Report 1: Safety Management Systems for Airports, Volume 2: 
Guidebook, for the Transportation Research Board of the National 
Academies (Washington, D.C.: Airport Cooperative Research Program, 
2009). 

[24] Richard Golaszewski, Gregson Helledy, Benedict Castellano, and 
Robert E. David, ACRP Web-only Document 7: How Proposed ARFF Standards 
Would Impact Airports, for the Transportation Research Board of the 
National Academies (Washington, D.C.: Airport Cooperative Research 
Program, June 17, 2009). ACRP conducted this project to assess the 
impact on airports of more closely aligning airport rescue and 
firefighting regulations with certain National Fire Protection 
Association standards or International Civil Aviation Organization 
firefighting standards. 

[25] Jacobs Consultancy, Walker Parking Consultants, Mannix Group, and 
DMR Consulting, ACRP Report 24: Guidebook for Evaluating Airport 
Parking Strategies and Supporting Technologies, for the Transportation 
Research Board of the National Academies (Washington, D.C.: Airport 
Cooperative Research Program, 2009). 

[26] Airport operators implement security requirements in accordance 
with their TSA-approved security programs. 

[27] Hollis Stambaugh, Daryl Sensenig, Teresa Copping, Maria 
Argabright, Joseph Ockershausen, and Lisa Spencer, ACRP Report 12: An 
Airport Guide for Regional Emergency Planning for CBRNE Events, for 
the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies 
(Washington, D.C.: Airport Cooperative Research Program, 2009). 

[28] Transportation Research Board, Airport Research Needs: 
Cooperative Solutions, TRB Special Report 272 (Washington, D.C., 
2003). This TRB report recommended the creation of ACRP and identified 
airport security as a topic, among others, in which cooperative 
research could be beneficial for airport operators and complement the 
research conducted by federal agencies, such as DHS, in support of 
their mission. 

[29] The directorate is responsible for conducting basic and applied 
research and advanced development, including developmental testing and 
evaluation. TSA is responsible for conducting operational testing and 
evaluation, operational integration, procurement, and deployment of 
new technologies, including checkpoint screening technologies. GAO, 
Aviation Security: DHS and TSA Have Researched, Developed, and Begun 
Deploying Passenger Checkpoint Screening Technologies, but Continue to 
Face Challenges, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-128] 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2009). 

[30] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-128]. 

[31] GAO, Aviation Security: A National Strategy and Other Actions 
Would Strengthen TSA's Efforts to Secure Commercial Airport Perimeters 
and Access Controls, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-399] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 
2009). 

[32] ACRP received 8 security related project proposals--out of 219 
total--for consideration for fiscal year 2010 funding. A program 
official commented that ACRP does not receive many security proposals, 
but it is unclear whether this is due to a lack of need for security 
research, a lack of program awareness among individuals working in 
airport security, or as hypothesized by this official, because ACRP 
may have developed a reputation for not funding security research. 

[33] Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Cooperative Research 
Program 2005-2007, Report of the Secretary of Transportation to the 
United States Congress (Washington, D.C.: June 2008). This report was 
prepared pursuant to Section 44511 to Title 49, U.S. Code. 

[34] GAO, Executive Guide: Information Technology Investment 
Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-394G] (Washington, 
D.C.: March 2004). 

[35] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-394G]. 

[End of section] 

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 Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

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: