Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating System—Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

19 3.1 Background A key task of ACRP Project 02-28 was to conduct an extensive stakeholder outreach effort to solicit initial input (Phase I) and then more targeted input (Phase II) from airport industry representatives and interested parties. Phase I stakeholder outreach process sought input on: • Challenges airports face in evaluating, adopting, implementing, tracking, and reporting sus- tainability practices, and the features of a Decision Tool that could help airports evaluate and select sustainability practices. • Interest in and desired features of an airport sustainability rating system and perspectives on an associated voluntary certification program. Phase II stakeholder outreach sought input on: • The Prototype Rating System developed by the research team. • The feasibility/viability of certification and verification of a sustainability rating effort for airports. In contrast to the Phase I stakeholder outreach, which focused on obtaining opinions from a wide range of airport stakeholders, Phase II stakeholder outreach focused on obtaining targeted feedback on the Prototype Rating System from stakeholders who would be implementing and using the rating system. Phase I stakeholder outreach involved surveying of over 400 individuals and over 100 airports broadly representing the airport industry. The Phase I outreach was conducted through a vari- ety of outreach instruments. Phase II stakeholder outreach used in-depth interviews, facilitated group webinars, and a large-group presentation/discussion to obtain targeted feedback from approximately 130 industry representatives. 3.2 Research Approach The goal of both phases of stakeholder outreach was to solicit opinions from a range of airport industry representatives through a variety of outreach instruments (see Figure 3-1). Opinions were obtained from airport management and staff; from airport tenants, vendors, and users; from airlines, airport industry group representatives, consultants, and academics; and from other interested parties. The findings from this broad-reaching outreach process, combined with the project team’s expertise, informed the development of the Prototype Rating System and Decision Tool. C H A P T E R 3 Phase I and Phase II Stakeholder Outreach

20 Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating System—Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options Stakeholder Participants in Outreach Effort The number of airport industry representatives participating in this research varied depend- ing on the outreach phase. Phase I Outreach Participants Phase I stakeholder outreach sought participation from a large number of representatives and reached a total of 195 airport industry representatives, including participants who work for airports, consulting firms, government agencies, and other types of employers (Figure 3-2). Just over half of the representatives (103 individuals) identified their employer as an airport or airport system. One-quarter of the representatives (50 individuals) contacted were employed by consulting firms. Twenty-five of the representatives contacted were employed by government agencies, and the remaining representatives (17 individuals) identified their employer as an Source: VHB, 2014 Phase I Outreach On-Line Survey In-Depth One-on-One Telephone Interviews On-Line Focus Group Focus Group at ACI–NA Annual Conference Focus Group at Airports Going Green Conference Phase II Outreach In Depth Interviews Facilitated Group Webinars Workshop at ACI–NA Annual Conference Figure 3-1. Phase I and Phase II stakeholder outreach instruments. Source: VHB, 2012 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 On-Line Survey In-Depth Phone Interviews On-Line Focus Group ACI–NA Annual Conference Airports Going Green Conference Other (top of column) Government Consulting Firm Airport (base of column) Figure 3-2. Number and representation of Phase I outreach participants.

Phase I and Phase II Stakeholder Outreach 21 industry group, an airport tenant, vendor, or university. Some individuals declined to identify their employer or chose to remain anonymous. More than 100 airports are represented by the individuals who participated in the Phase I stakeholder outreach effort. The respondents primarily represent larger passenger airports (those with 200 or more full-time equivalent employees), although they also include representa- tives of general aviation and other types of airports, and small- to medium-sized airports as well. The geographic location of the airports is broad and includes all of the FAA regions. Phase II Outreach Participants Phase II stakeholder outreach was more targeted in the selection of individuals to ensure meaningful input on the draft Prototype Rating System and its format, structure, and use. Phase II outreach also was designed to involve a range of stakeholder organizations and roles (Figure 3-3). • In-Depth Interviews. The research team conducted 12 in-depth interviews, including four panel members, with the remainder of participants from the broader airport community. Key individuals were identified whose insights were expected to be valuable to the study and who represented a broad range of viewpoints and airports of different sizes. • Facilitated Group Webinars. The research team conducted 11 live facilitated webinars, with three to six participants per session, capturing the input of 52 stakeholders. The major advantage of a live web-discussion format over a face-to-face focus group was that the research team was able to recruit participants from all over the country to participate in the discussion. The live web discussions also allowed the moderator to interact directly with the participants, clarifying questions where necessary or probing for more in-depth responses. • Large-Group Workshop. The large-group discussion was held at an ACI–NA annual conference. The session was hosted at a joint session of ACI–NA’s Environmental and Technical Committees; members of other committees were also invited to attend. The workshop was attended by over 65 individuals, including several FAA and airport industry organization representatives. Over 20 different U.S. and Canadian airports were represented by the individuals who participated in the workshop. 3.3 Findings and Applications The following sections provide the key findings of the stakeholder outreach effort and outline how this stakeholder input shaped the recommended approach to the Prototype Rating System and Decision Tool. Prototype Rating System Input Phase I stakeholder outreach solicited input by focusing on industry perspectives on: • Interest in and format of a Prototype Rating System to gauge airport sustainability performance. • The viability of industry-wide adoption of an airport sustainability rating system and voluntary certification program. • Structure and design of such a rating system, and how it would best meet their needs. Phase II stakeholder outreach informed the Prototype Rating System by soliciting input on: • The proposed Prototype Rating System developed by the research team. • The feasibility/viability of certification and verification of a sustainability rating effort for airports.

22 Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating System—Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options Large Airports •Director of Planning and Environmental •Assistant Director of Capital Programs and Environmental Management •Technical Advisor on Capital Projects •Aviation Department (specializing in developing sustainability programs) •Assistant Director of Planning and Environmental •Environmental Specialist •Environmental Affairs Medium Airports •Airport Director •Assistant Director of Aviation •AssistantManager for Environmental Compliance •Environmental Director •Sustainability Program Coordinator •Environmental Coordinator •Environmental Compliance •Environmental Scientist Small/General Aviation Airports •Director of Aviation •Director of Operations •Director of Strategy Management •Executive Director •Facilities Management Director •Deputy Airport Director •Environmental Compliance •AssistantManager •Executive Director Concessionaires, Vendors, Airlines •Commercial Airline Representatives •Dedicated Cargo Representative •Janitorial Services and Support to Airports and Airlines Consultants •Geotechnical/Engineering •Airport Planning •Environmental •Engineering •Architectural and Interior FAA •Airport Environmental Planner •Environmental Specialist •Environmental Protection Specialist •Airport Planner Airport Industry Group •Environmental Affairs Regulatory Manager •Environmental Committee and Small Airports Committee Representatives •Environmental Committee Member Figure 3-3. Range of organizations and roles of Phase II stakeholders.

Phase I and Phase II Stakeholder Outreach 23 Phase I Stakeholder Outreach The opinions of airport representatives track very closely with the opinions of other airport industry stakeholders throughout the variety of stakeholder outreach instruments. This was especially evident in the on-line survey. Major findings from the on-line survey revealed that airports: • Believe that an airport-specific sustainability rating system is valid. • Consider having a standardized method for measuring airport sustainability performance important or very important. • Are split with regard to interest in having sustainability performance of the airport formally verified and certified. • Favor having sustainability performance verified and certified (either self-verified or third- party verified). • Agree or strongly agree that an airport-specific rating system could draw on experience from other industry sectors. • Are split with regard to whether an airport sustainability rating system should focus on indi- vidual airport buildings, projects, or entire airports. • Think that airport sustainability performance improvements should be measured against internal goals. • Think that systems that best address airport sustainability efforts could be developed from scratch or could be adapted from an existing system. Other key findings were gleaned from the in-depth interviews, which specifically asked airport representatives detailed questions about the rating system. These findings include the following: • Almost all airport representatives believe that a rating system should not apply equally to airports of different sizes, geographies, and functions. • Most airport representatives believe that the number of passengers and role of the airport are the best indicators of airport size and complexity. Most believe that the number of operations and geographic location are good indicators as well. • The vast majority of airport representatives believe that existing ratings systems or elements of these systems should be incorporated into a rating system for airports. • Airport representatives recommend that the ratings system should acknowledge improvement over time, and that it should give credit for already-completed sustainability actions. • Most airport representatives prefer a rating system that scores or ranks an airport’s performance, as opposed to a binary pass/fail system. • Airport representatives are more likely to prefer that improvement in sustainability performance be measured internally rather than against an industry standard. Respondents representing airports who participated in the outreach effort appear to support an airport sustainability rating and verification system, with the caveat that such a system be designed to support the efforts of a diverse industry of unique airports in a meaningful way while enhancing their image with the public. Phase II Stakeholder Input Overall, the Phase II stakeholder outreach found tentative support for the rating system concept among airport industry representatives. Larger airports with established sustainability programs or initiatives would be less likely to use the system. These larger airports thought it would be an additional burden to track and use the system. Medium and smaller airports voiced more interest in using the rating system; however, use would primarily serve as guidance for developing and

24 Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating System—Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options implementing a sustainability program rather than rating airport sustainability performance. Airport representatives did indicate interest in having the option to compare to other similar airports; motivations expressed for doing so were primarily to learn from and benchmark against other airports rather than to make competitive comparisons. Many stakeholders were supportive of the concepts included in the Prototype Rating System and provided suggestions for further streamlining and modifying the rating system to better meet their specific needs. Many stakeholders raised questions about the intent and final structure and format of the rating system, which would determine their likely future use of the tool. Potential costs are a key barrier to use. This section summarizes major findings emerging from this research. (See Appendix B for additional information on the findings for each component of the rating system.) Design Specifications The following design specifications for the Prototype Rating System were developed as a result of stakeholder input from Phase I. Five design specifications were identified: 1. Incorporate elements of existing rating systems to the extent possible. 2. Include a points-based scoring and rating framework. 3. Adhere to the EONS sustainability framework. 4. Recognize airport-wide sustainability performance (as opposed to individual focus on airport projects). 5. Emphasize flexibility to accommodate all airport types. Stakeholder Input. Some stakeholders found the five design specifications confusing at first. Stakeholders suggested the Prototype Rating System could be enhanced by clarifying and simplifying terminology, explaining the use of the EONS framework, streamlining the activity categories, and expanding the sustainability activities. Customization and flexibility was a concern expressed throughout. Some stakeholders wanted to see more information upfront about how the rating system could be customized to meet the unique needs of different airports, as the sustainability challenges facing a small airport in a wet, tropical climate, for example, are likely to be different from those facing a very large airport in a Northeast urban area or an airport in an area with a high average annual snowfall. Activity Categories and Sustainability Activities The activity categories and sustainability activities provide the substance of the Prototype Rating System. The categories group the specific sustainability actions and metrics included in the rating system. The draft Prototype Rating System included 13 activity categories and 47 sustainability activities as shown in Figure 3-4. Stakeholder Input. Stakeholders overall thought that the 13 activity categories and 47 sustain- ability activities formed a solid basis for an airport sustainability rating system, but the specific categories and activities could be further refined. To simplify the system, some suggested that the activity categories should be streamlined or condensed to a smaller, broader number of topics. At the same time, stakeholders thought that the number of sustainability activities should be expanded within each category to provide more specificity to airport-related functions. Many stakeholders thought there was an overemphasis on environmental considerations and believed the rating system should place more emphasis on the cost benefits and return on investment (ROI) of sustainability activities. The ACRP Project 02-28 panel also suggested that the Prototype Rating System categories be consistent with the SAGA categories for sustainability practices, which are being revised as part of ACRP Project 02-30.

Phase I and Phase II Stakeholder Outreach 25 Performance Metrics and Actions The Prototype Rating System evaluates sustainability performance using both performance metrics and performance actions. Figure 3-5 presents examples of each evaluation type, both of which promote flexibility by allowing airports of all types, sizes, and locations to choose how best to improve sustainability. The Prototype Rating System is flexible in that it also uses performance actions to evaluate sustainability for activities that do not lend themselves to a single overarching performance metric. As the sustainability field advances, performance metrics may become available for a wider set of sustainability activities. Activity Category Sustainability Activity Cl im at e Ch an ge Co m m un it y En ga ge m en t D es ig n & Co ns tr uc ti on Ec on om ic Be ne �i ts En er gy M gm t. Activity Category Sustainability Activity La nd sc ap e & Gr ou nd s Le ad er sh ip in Su st ai na bi lit y H um an En vi ro nm en ts H um an R es ou rc es Activity Category Sustainability Activity Su st ai na bl e Pr oc ur em en t Tr an sp or ta ti on W as te M gm t. W at er M gm t. TB D TB D Figure 3-4. Preliminary activity categories and sustainability activities. Figure 3-5. Sustainability activity evaluation types.

26 Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating System—Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options Stakeholder Input. Stakeholders support the use of both metrics and actions, although they give particular weight to performance metrics, which they value as offering an objective, outcomes-based measurement of how successful an airport has been toward achieving a goal. Some stakeholders suggested that the metrics outlined in the GRI’s AOSS should be further considered. EONS Framework Within the EONS framework, aviation sustainability is considered “a business strategy that promotes the core benefits of Economic performance, Operational efficiency, Natural resource conservation, and Social responsibility.” It is an expansion of the triple bottom line concept (people, planet, and profit) that incorporates operational considerations at airports. The Prototype Rating System recognizes the holistic nature of EONS and employs EONS icons to indicate whether a sustainability activity contributes to one or many aspects of the EONS framework. Stakeholder Input. Airport industry representatives were of the opinion that the EONS framework formed a familiar basis for organizing the rating system. The visual aspects of the EONS Framework and its acknowledgment of the holistic impact of sustainability initiatives were appealing to stakeholders. Some stakeholders suggested that weighting the individual sustainability activities according to their greatest contribution to the EONS framework would be beneficial. For example, if a sustainability activity provided benefits for water conservation, it would be weighted more heavily to the natural resources conservation aspect of EONS. Others suggested that visuals should be more symbolic, connecting more directly to the ideas being presented, rather than to the EONS acronym. For example, a green dollar sign might connect to “economic performance” more intuitively than the “E” in EONS. Infrastructure, Operations, or Management (IOM) Classification Many activities from across an airport can support each sustainability activity. Demonstrating that all airport activities contribute to improving sustainability helps to make sustainability part of an airport’s culture. To highlight the airport-wide nature of sustainability, the Prototype Rating System classified all performance actions and recommendations as being associated with airport Infrastructure, Operations, or Management (IOM). Under this classification scheme: • Infrastructure includes all of the assets within the scope of the prototype, such as terminals, runways, control towers, parking lots, hangars, vehicles, utilities, and so forth. • Operations describe the implementation of management direction and how infrastructure is used to enhance sustainability. • Management describes how an airport is administered at a high level. It directs and connects sustainability across both infrastructure and operations. Stakeholder Input. Stakeholders found the IOM classification added complexity without adding apparent value to the system. In addition, stakeholders were not clear how the EONS framework and the IOM classification related to each other and operated together. Spheres of Influence When considering the application of sustainability airport-wide, it is important to recognize that airport management exercises varying degrees of control within the airport’s boundaries and beyond. These degrees of control can be characterized as spheres of influence, as shown in Figure 3-6: • Sphere 1 encompasses those activities that the airport can directly control (e.g., infrastructure at the airport, the operations that the airport controls, and the airport management).

Phase I and Phase II Stakeholder Outreach 27 • Sphere 2 encompasses those activities that the airport indirectly controls (e.g., contracts held by the airport, the requirements that the airport imposes on tenants as a condition of use). • Sphere 3 encompasses those activities that the airport influences (e.g., tenant and passenger education). The Prototype Rating System focused on activities that the airport could directly control (Sphere 1) as well as on a limited number of high-priority indirect activities (Sphere 2). Stakeholder Input. Across the board, stakeholders thought it makes sense for Sphere 1 activities to be the focus of the rating system. Larger airports supported the inclusion of Sphere 2 and Sphere 3 in the rating system, acknowledging the important role these activities can play within the larger “city” of an airport. Stakeholders suggested that, ideally, airports could begin using the rating system with a preliminary focus on Sphere 1 activities, and gradually begin to incorporate activities from Sphere 2 and Sphere 3 to count as extra credit toward the airport’s total rating. Certification and Verification Although airports will be able to evaluate their sustainability performance and certify their scores, the next step for the Prototype Rating System would be to institute a more structured governance process whereby airports would elect to voluntarily have their measurements and scores verified for accuracy and completeness, lending more credibility and comparison. Doing so would require a certification and verification system that would support the long-term use of the airport sustainability rating system. An airport can certify and verify its sustainability rating in one of several ways: • First-Party Certification. This is an internal determination that the airport meets the require- ments of a rating level made by the same airport staff that is responsible for compiling the data and documentation use to determine the rating level. For example, an airport may task a sustainability team with determining the airport’s rating level by collecting and documenting the data and how the data determined the rating. • Second-Party Verification. Using this process, the verification of the rating determination for the airport (which confirms that the data and documentation used to determine the rating level are accurate and complete and the resulting rating is appropriate) is made by individuals Source: ICF, 2013 Figure 3-6. Spheres of influence.

28 Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating System—Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options at least one step removed from the development of the data and the determination of the rating. The second party may be another individual or group within the same airport. For example, after conducting a first-party certification, the airport may assign a separate, independent team of individuals within the airport to review the data and documentation to verify its accuracy. The combination of a first-party certification and a second-party verification may be sufficient for an airport to feel confident in establishing its sustainability rating. • Third-Party Verification. Using this process, the verification of the rating determination for the airport (which confirms that the data and documentation used to determine the rating level are accurate and complete and the resulting rating is appropriate) is made by an independent organization that is not affiliated with the airport and is free from real or potential conflict of interest in making its verification. Stakeholder Input. Airport industry representatives were split as to whether the intent of the rating system is for airports’ internal decision-making purposes or for an external use, such as public relations. Many stakeholders prefer the idea of using the rating system as an internal guide and believe first-party certification and verification would be appropriate for these purposes. Most FAA representatives, as well as representatives of most large airports and small airports, as well as approximately half of the representatives of medium airports in this research tend to favor internal use of the tool, whereas representatives of airport industry groups, most vendors, some small airport representatives, and approximately half of the medium airport representa- tives in this research see value in external use of the tool. If the scoring is intended for external use, stakeholders believe third-party verification should be required for credibility, but they are concerned that the verification process could be cost-prohibitive. Scoring Framework To measure progress over time, the rating system employs a simple two-level scoring mechanism: 1. At the sustainability activity level. 2. At the airport-wide overall sustainability rating level. The Prototype Rating System proposed evaluating airport sustainability performance by allocating a certain number of points for performance in each sustainability activity (e.g., waste diversion, impervious surface). Both evaluation types—metrics and actions—are scored and used to assign one of four performance levels—Basic, Improved, Enhanced, or Superior—based on points. In both evaluation types, increasing performance leads to greater points (Table 3-1). An airport-wide overall score is a percentage, obtained by dividing the total number sustain- ability activity points earned by the total points possible for all sustainability activities (Figure 3-7) and multiplying the result by 100. The overall score would be used to determine the airport-wide overall sustainability rating level, which is a distinction based on an airport’s level of performance. The rating-level distinctions Waste Diversion Performance Level Basic Improved Enhanced Superior Waste Diversion Performance Threshold 20% 40% 60% 80% Points 1 2 3 4 Note: Threshold percentage is theoretical and is included for example purposes only. Table 3-1. Example performance evaluation at the sustainability activity level.

Phase I and Phase II Stakeholder Outreach 29 Figure 3-7. Example overall score formula. serve as an incentive to drive an airport toward greater levels of performance so that it may advertise (internally or externally) its accomplishment in achieving a high degree of sustainability. Stakeholder Input. Although the scoring framework was generally perceived as clear, some stakeholders had concerns about the value of having an overall airport score and believed that individual scores for departments or activity categories might be more useful. (Notice that this opinion is somewhat in conflict with the previous recommendation to simplify the number of activity categories.) Materiality (i.e., local applicability) was a clear concern, and some stakeholders believed overall scores would lack value for external use. Many stakeholders thought it would be meaningless to compare overall scores for airports that may well be dramatically different in terms of the size and scale of their operations, and their unique environmental and local challenges. Stakeholders believed that recognition levels (such as Gold, Silver, and Platinum) would not add value for internal decision making, but would add value if the scores were used externally, as they would be easier for the public to understand. Rating recognition levels similar to the LEED system were seen as confusing. The majority of stakeholders preferred to see the rating system operate as a process so that there was no end point at which sustainability could be considered attained; rather, they approached sustainability as a continuum of ongoing improvement. Decision Tool Input Only Phase I solicited input on the Decision Tool. It focused on industry perspectives on: • The need for a Decision Tool. • Desired features of a Decision Tool to help airports evaluate and select sustainability best practices. Consistent across all phases of this research, there is a strong level of interest in a computer-based Decision Tool that would allow airport industry representatives to select the sustainability practices most appropriate for them tailored to the characteristics of a specific airport. Across all of the out- reach instruments, airport stakeholders expressed a strong preference for the Decision Tool to be: • A web-based tool, rather than a desktop program, including one that is based in Microsoft Excel; and • Customizable for individual airports to reflect the unique characteristics of the airport, such as its size, aviation role, geographical setting, or operational characteristics. Airport stakeholders voiced a preference for additional information to be provided for each sustainability practice as a method for selecting the most appropriate practice and to be able to provide a rationale behind selecting that practice. In general, stakeholders want additional detailed information relating to energy use reduction, operational costs, and capital costs. Other detailed information of interest includes staff requirements, environmental benefits, and issues specific to a particular region. Like other stakeholders, many airport stakeholders would like the Decision Tool to enable users to: • Search, sort, and browse a database of sustainability practices. • Sort and rank sustainability practices based on user preferences.

30 Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating System—Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options • Provide the rationale behind the selection of certain practices. • Rank and compare practices. • Prioritize or weight screening criteria. • Add new sustainability initiatives to the database. • Submit additional information for each practice in the database, such as lessons learned or contact information. Airport stakeholders would like the tool to offer them a variety of output formats, including fact sheets, spreadsheets, and checklists. Established software formats (such as Excel, Word or PDF) are preferred over less well-known formats. 3.4 Conclusions Stakeholders provided critical input throughout the study to inform the development of the Prototype Rating System as well as the Decision Tool. Prototype Rating System Input from Phase I stakeholder outreach was often mixed. At times, therefore, the research team made informed decisions about how to evolve the rating system based on professional judgment and experience. Phase I stakeholder outreach resulted in the following components of the Prototype Rating System: • Single, points-based rating system. • Sustainability categories based on the EONS sustainability framework. • Encouragement of airport-wide sustainability performance, as opposed to encouragement of sustainability on individual airport projects. (Although there was no consensus among the stakeholders on this issue, the project team felt strongly that a rating system should address activities across the airport, from airport management to operations, to physical infrastructure. In addition, a project-specific rating system would limit the system’s ability to address EONS, as it would not address overall economic, operational, environmental, and social considerations resulting from airport-wide activities.) • Initial focus on rating activities and performance under the airport’s direct control as well as a limited number of high-priority indirect activities, such as tenant contracts. • Flexibility to be applicable to all airport types. • Elements of existing rating systems incorporated to the extent possible. • A clearly defined rating system structure that includes: – Approximately 10 to 15 activity categories (e.g., energy management, economic performance). – A preliminary set of sustainability activities (e.g., recycle, identify locally based suppliers) that will support sustainability performance within each activity category. – A preliminary set of performance metrics (e.g., percentage of waste diverted, percentage of employees trained) to support performance evaluation at the activity category level. – A scoring framework based on a preliminary set of performance thresholds (e.g., 20 per- cent reduction, 40 percent reduction) to support an internal airport verification process. – A preliminary companion protocol that standardizes use of the rating system. Additional sustainability activities, performance metrics, and performance thresholds beyond the preliminary sets, as well as a final companion protocol, could be developed as part of future research. Phase II stakeholder outreach resulted in the following changes to the Prototype Rating System: • Simplification of the activity categories and inclusion of additional social and economic categories.

Phase I and Phase II Stakeholder Outreach 31 • Expansion of the range of airport activities covered in the rating system. • Full descriptions of all 60 sustainability activities. • Clarification of the use and applicability of EONS icons. • Simplification of the rating system by de-emphasizing use of IOM classification. • Focus on areas under airport control, encouraging performance improvement for areas under influence and indirect control of the airport. • Simplification of the scoring framework to allow for scoring of areas under influence and indirect control of airport. • Consideration of contractor activities revisited. • Revision of the scoring framework to allow for rating of activity categories. • Revision of the scoring framework to recognize innovation. • Focus on internal certification and verification. Decision Tool The Phase I stakeholder outreach and ACRP Project 02-28 panel input resulted in: • ACRP Project 02-28 working collaboratively with ACRP Project 02-30 to further develop the SAGA database, making it relevant for incorporation into ACRP Project 02-28. • Recognition of the importance of allowing users to add information relevant to their airport to the updated SAGA database. • Discussion regarding the final hosting and governance of the Decision Tool. The Phase II stakeholder outreach focused on the Prototype Rating System. Also in Phase II, the research team received guidance from the project panel regarding collaboration with the ACRP Project 02-30 research team to produce a single Decision Tool for the industry. An execu- tion plan was agreed upon, and development of the joint tool and website began. Accordingly, the Decision Tool component of ACRP Project 02-28 will be incorporated into the enhanced SAGA website. Preliminary details about the content of the tool and website are outlined in the Summary section of this report. The final Decision Tool and website will be published on completion of ACRP Project 02-30.