NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide (2016)

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.

Annotated BibliographyD Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography | 131 Reviews and Recommendations on PBN Implementations 1. The MITRE Corporation Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD). 2011. “Perfor- mance Based Navigation Capability Report.” This report provides comprehensive information about the top 50 airports in the National Airspace System. Information includes runway configuration, taxi time, and delay characteristics; fleet and operator characteristics; quantities of types of published procedures; and current and forecast fleet eq- uipage levels for different aircraft navigation capabilities. For each airport, the report provides the fol- lowing information: 1) quantities of published instrument procedures, including conventional, RNAV 1 SIDs and STARs, and RNP AR SIAPs; 2) key performance metrics; 3) top carriers and aircraft types; 4) runway configurations and utilization; 5) distribution of operations by aircraft operator type and aircraft engine type; 6) current and forecasted percentages of operations capable of RNAV 1, RNAV 2, RNP 1, RNP 2, RNP 0.3, RNP 0.3 with Radius-To-Fix, RNP Approval Required, and RNP AR Operational Approval procedures. 2. Office of Inspector General. 2012. “Challenges with Implementing Near-Term NextGen Capabilities at Congested Airports Could Delay Benefits.” This report assessed the extent to which the FAA is responding to recommendations of the RTCA task force’s 32 recommendations from September, 2009 for accelerating NextGen deployment and ad- dressing barriers that hinder successful implementation of the recommendations. The report placed particular focus on the FAA’s Metroplex program. The report found multiple deficiencies in an evalu- ation of 136 solutions proposed for 7 metroplex sites. The report found need for improvement in 1) implementing more advanced technologies and advanced procedures, 2) integrating use of other initiatives, and 3) streamlining procedures for implementation and deployment. The barriers remain- ing included 1) streamlining the process for implementing new flight procedures, 2) applying envi- ronmental regulations, and 3) training controllers. The FAA’s Metroplex program was not leveraging advanced RNP procedures, only RNAV procedures and improved vertical profiles. The FAA’s communi- cation and collaboration with local airline and air traffic management has been limited. The FAA needs to develop a “best-equipped-best-served” policy. The FAA needs to establish a formal mechanism to communicate metroplex progress that allows continual feedback and coordination with the airlines and local FAA air traffic officials as work progresses at each metroplex site. The FAA needs to establish a process to select leads for the Metroplex team well in advance of the time that design and imple- mentation teams are scheduled to begin. The FAA needs to include all stakeholders, including Flight Standards personnel, in implementing new flight procedures. 3. RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee. 2013. “CatEx 2: Recommendation for Implementing the Cat- egorical Exclusion in Section 213(c)(2) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.”

132 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION Identifies obstacles to and proposes remedies for implementing and using PBN procedures to support the FAA OAPM effort. Five major categories of obstacles to utilization of PBN procedures are identified: automation, design, environmental, regulations, and training. Proposes fifteen actions to overcome obstacles to PBN including: 1) prioritize, align, and apply time-based flow management adaptation to metroplexes where PBN has recently been implemented; 2) make effort to identify and address barri- ers to time-based flow management, 3) define a clear objective for the PBN implementation and com- municate it to all stakeholders; 4) consider operating environment constraints in design, 5) develop a robust national simulation capability to test procedures for as many fleet types as possible; 6) develop a standard process to incorporate lessons learned; 7) permit broader operator participation; 8) rewrite 7110.65 and other documents to account for PBN-enabled operational changes, such as reduced separation standards; 9) develop and maintain a standardized national training program to include all operational stakeholders; 10) minimize the number of approach procedures in metroplexes to the extent possible; 11) widely disseminate procedure design criteria changes and use criteria waivers regularly, 12) eliminate operator validation of RNP AR databases, 13) implement RF legs for advanced RNP and terrain avoidance and streamline approval process, 14) expedite implementation of CatEx 2, and 15) provide vertical procedure design guidance. 4. RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee. 2013. “NextGen Prioritization.” Documents purpose for, approach to, and results of analysis to prioritize the thirty-six capabili- ties of the FAA’s NextGen program to accommodate forecasted budget cuts. The analysis estimates 1) monetizable benefits, 2) non-monetizeable benefits, 3) implementation readiness, and 4) other criteria. The results identify Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) to be the highest priority capabil- ity. The thirty-six capabilities evaluated spanned surface operations, surface/terminal operations, low visibility approaches, multiple runway operations, PBN, Time Based Flow Management, Collaborative Air Traffic Management, Separation Management, On Demand NAS Information, Weather, and Core Infrastructure. Monetizable benefits evaluated included capacity, efficiency, air traffic control system productivity, and impact on environment. Non-monetizable benefits included access, flexibility, safety and security. Implementation readiness included standards and approvals, policy/operations, systems, institutional, roles and operational complexity, community perceived noise and emissions impact, and time for completion. Other criteria included global harmonization, confidence building, and critical infrastructure. Ranking was derived by a decision support tool process involving voting on the applica- tion of the four criteria for the 36 candidate consolidated capabilities. Rankings are PBN 0.82, Multiple Runway Operations – Reduced Separation Standards 0.75, PBN OAPM 0.65, ADS-B Out Separation Management 0.63, Data Comm Revised Pre-Departure Clearance 0.62, Low Visibility Approaches GLS I 0.57, ADS-B Interval Management 0.530, Low Visibility Approaches GLS II and III 0.51, Low Vis Ap- proaches Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) 0.49, PBN Advanced PBN 0.478, Low Vis Approaches Advanced EFVS 0.46. 5. RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee. 2014. “Addendum to Recommendations for Increased Utilization of PBN in the NAS–Industry Barriers.” RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee revisits its recommendations for increased utilization of PBN in the NAS to address industry barriers. The report lists numerous industry barriers and mitigations including 1) the need for a common view among technical pilots and planners regarding aircraft and system impacts of PBN procedures (including the TBFM system), and the need to consider these impacts dur- ing PBN design; 2) collaboration of industry and FAA on investment decisions, timelines, and priori- ties related to PBN initiatives, such as TBFM and automation; 3) the need to conduct flight simulation evaluation of designed PBN procedures for broad range of aircraft and Flight Management Computers before deploying them, and to enhance existing TARGETS or other tools for more rapid evaluation; 4) the need for training materials for industry, pilots, controllers, and other stakeholders to understand the differences among different PBN approach procedures (e.g., RNAV, VNAV, LNAV, and LPV) and

Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography | 133 aircraft capabilities, and the capabilities among the local community of users of PBN procedures at the airport or in the metroplex. This will help industry to develop training and education materials to en- able better understanding and use of PBN procedures. 6. United States Government Accountability Office. 2013. “NextGen Air Transportation System: FAA Has Made Some Progress in Midterm Implementation, but Ongoing Challenges Limit Expected Benefits.” The GAO reviews the FAA’s mid-term NextGen efforts. The GAO consulted documents and task force recommendations, interviewed airport officials and aviation experts in order to examine (1) planned NextGen operational improvements through 2018, (2) FAA efforts to address obstacles to implementa- tion of operational improvements, and (3) FAA measurement and demonstration of benefits. The GAO found the FAA needs to integrate the NextGen efforts, develop a process for selecting PBN-appropriate procedures, and disseminate information to stakeholders. The GAO found that lengthy environmental reviews are an obstacle to timely PBN implementation. Environmental reviews typically take from 30 days to 2 years. Environmental assessments could be more narrowly focused on potentially significant impact categories. The FAA is working to enhance and integrate its environmental screening and analysis tools, including fuel burn and noise analysis, with a traffic simulator for PBN procedure design. The FAA is working to change the way flight procedure requests are prioritized and amended. The FAA created an office for PBN to oversee a coherent design, development, production, and implementa- tion strategy for new procedures. The FAA is developing a toolbox to match the most appropriate PBN options such as RNAV or RNP to identified problems. The report defines roles and responsibilities in PBN procedure development. The FAA ATO designs and develops procedures and conducts envi- ronmental reviews. ATO also helps implement new procedures once published with documentation or training to air traffic controllers. The Office of Aviation Safety establishes design criteria for new procedures and conducts safety testing. AeroNav Products maintains existing procedures, tests new procedures against design criteria, and includes new procedures on published charts for pilots. The FAA OAPM has a 3-year implementation time frame for each site, including a 12-18-month environ- mental assessment process. 7. RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee. 2014. “Blueprint for Success to Implementing PBN.” The RTCA NAC recently published the Blueprint for Success to Implementing PBN procedures. This document specifies categories of stakeholders in PBN development and provides rich descriptions of and detailed recommendations to the FAA for conducting the 5-phase PBN procedure development process. This document provides useful descriptions of technical and non-technical stakeholders and recommendations for outreach to those groups. Non-technical stakeholders include the public, com- munity groups and non-governmental organizations, airport authorities, airport advisory boards, and local, state, and federal government officials. Technical stakeholders include industry representatives, including the lead operator, A4A, the NBAA, the Regional Airlines Association, airport authorities, air traffic facilities, pilot unions, the Department of Defense, third-party procedure developers, and others. The document provides recommendations for working with or considering technical and non-tech- nical stakeholders, and outreach strategies for non-technical stakeholders. For each of the 5-phases, recommendations account for capturing the needs of stakeholders, defining objectives and metrics for the PBN procedures, involving technical and non-technical stakeholders in the development process, planning and coordinating community outreach with PBN procedure development, managing data, and capturing lessons learned. While these recommendations are pending review and approval of the FAA, and may not be accepted and applied wholesale, they can help to further detail understanding of the nature and mechanics of each design phase, and potential contributions of the airport operator.

134 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION Background of PBN 8. Federal Aviation Administration. 2012. “RNAV (GPS) Approaches.” This briefing describes the different categories of RNAV GPS and WAAS approaches. Approaches include LPV, LP, LNAV, and LNAV/VNAV. It also defines advisory vertical guidance, approved vertical guidance, barometric aiding (Baro-Aiding), and Baro-VNAV. 9. Federal Aviation Administration. 2013. “Fact Sheet –NextGen Goal: Performance-Based Navigation.” http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=10856. (As of August 2013). This web site provides a high-level summary of PBN including definitions of RNAV, RNP, RNP AR and OPDs; descriptions of benefits of PBN; and list of U.S. airports with RNAV and RNP procedures. 10. The MITRE Corporation. 2010. “Flight Management Computer Systems (FMCS), Vertical Navigation (VNAV).” MITRE Document 10-1114, F064-B10-009. This slide package provides an overview of the VNAV capability of aircraft. This includes history, back- ground, flight phases, descent path construction to satisfy the procedure lateral route and altitude and speed restrictions, types of descent paths planned by aircraft FMSs, tailwind and headwind influences on descent path planning and execution, and benefits of VNAV path planning and execution. 11. Nolan, M. 2004. Fundamentals of Air Traffic Control. Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont, United States. This is a college-level textbook providing a comprehensive description of ATC in the United States. Subjects include the history of ATC, navigation systems, ATC system structure, airport ATC commu- nications: procedures and phraseology, ATC procedures and organization, control tower procedures, non-radar en route and terminal separation, theory and fundamentals of radar operation, radar separa- tion, operation in the national airspace system, oceanic and international air traffic control, the future of the National Airspace System, and an overview of the FAA. 12. Ricondo & Associates. 2013. “Instrument Navigation.” This slide package provides a comprehensive summary of instrument navigation. This includes types of navigation, types of ground-based navigation, types of space-based navigation, augmentations to space-based surveillance, RNAV and RNP, TERPS, Obstacle Clearance, SIDs, STARs, SIAPs, and the FAA information and procedures maintenance schedule. PBN Plans and Status 13. Federal Aviation Administration. 2011. “ADS-B Program Overview.” Slide package providing overview of the FAA’s ADS-B program. ADS-B periodically transmits aircraft position and velocity information with no pilot or operator input required. The position and velocity information are derived from GPS. ADS-B provides a method of determining the position of aircraft, vehicles or other assets. ADS-B information transmitted is available to anyone with appropriate receiv- ing equipment. ADS-B supports air traffic control separation services in en route, terminal, and surface domains. It provides pilot advisory services including TIS-B and FIS-B. It supports situational awareness applications including enhanced visual acquisition, enhanced visual approaches, final approach and runway occupancy awareness, airport surface situational awareness, and traffic situational awareness

Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography | 135 with alerts. Supporting ground infrastructure is planned for deployment in 2010-2013 and supporting avionics equipage is planned for deployment in 2010-2020. 14. Federal Aviation Administration. 2012. “Airport Capacity Benchmarks and Metroplex Airspace Optimi- zation.” Presented at the TRB 8th National Aviation System Planning Symposium, Galveston, TX. This presentation provides an overview of the FAA’s 2012 Airport Capacity Benchmark assessment and OAPM efforts. Airport capacity is defined as the hourly throughput an airport’s runways can sustain during periods of high demand. Rates are determined for specific runway configurations and Visual, Marginal, and Instrument weather conditions. PBN components specified in the FAA 2012 NextGen Plan, Appendix A include 1) RNP 10 in oceanic airspace for reduced separation; 2) RNP 4 in oceanic airspace for reduced separation with FANS 1/A; 3) RNAV 2 in en route airspace; 4) RNAV 1 in terminal airspace to fly more efficient routes and procedures; 5) RNP with curved path, providing the ability to precisely fly departure, arrival and approach procedures including repeatable curved paths; 6) LPV for improved access to many airports in reduced visibility, with an approach aligned to runway (Category 1); 7) RNP AR for improved access to airports in reduced visibility with an approach that can turn to runway, and improved procedures to separate traffic flows. 15. Federal Aviation Administration. 2012. “Performance Based Navigation Implementation Plan for the 35 Operational Evolution Plan (OEP)/Core 30 Airports.” This is a chart indicating the current and planned new PBN procedures for the 35 OEP and Core 30 airports in the US. Most airports had some quantity of RNAV SIDs or STARs, and even RNP AR IAPs, implemented as of Feb 8, 2012. The FAA had extensive plans for RNAV STAR, RNAV SID, and RNP AR implementation across numerous airports throughout 2013. The plans called for extensive implemen- tation for a few specific airports in 2014/2015 (e.g., ATL and Charlotte (CLT)). 16. Federal Aviation Administration. 2012. “Performance Based Navigation Implementation Plan for RNP AR Procedures at 35 Non-Operational Evolution Plan (OEP)/Non-Core Airports.” Chart indicating current and planned new RNP AR approach procedures for 35 Non-Operational Evolution Plan/Non-Core 30 airports. Only a few airports had RNP AR approach procedures as of Feb 8, 2012, although many implemented some throughout 2012. 37 were procedures planned to be implemented during 2013. 17. Federal Aviation Administration. 2013. “FAA NextGen Implementation Plan 2013, Appendix B, Deliv- ering NextGen.” This documents the FAA’s plan for the ongoing transition to NextGen. NextGen integrates new and existing technologies, policies, and procedures to reduce delays, save fuel, and lower aircraft exhaust emissions. The NextGen Implementation Plan provides an overview of current and future benefits for aircraft operators and passengers. RNAV permits any flight path within coverage of ground- or space- based navigational aids. PBN defines the accuracy, integrity, continuity, and functionality requirements for aircraft to operate in airspace, and may define required sensors and equipment for aircraft. Metro- plex is the FAA’s fast-track initiative to implement PBN procedures and airspace improvements. Aircraft avionics, which enable PBN procedures at metroplexes include RNAV 1, RNAV 2, RNP 1 with Curved Path, VNAV, and RNP AR Approach. Aircraft avionics which enable PBN procedures at General Aviation airports include, RNAV 1, RNAV 2, and LPV. PBN-based airport enhancements include: PBN instrument flight procedures to improve arrival and departure efficiency, LPV approach procedures that provide Category I minimums (typically at general aviation airports), and RNP AR approach procedures. Busi- ness jets and air carriers are RNAV and RNP capable and can perform RNP AR approach minimums. The FAA may eliminate ILS CAT I installations and replace them with LPV and RNP approaches. In turn, the GBAS capability will boost ILS Category II and III operations. The NextGen Implementation Plan for Airport Enhancements includes reduced separation standards for CSPO and dependent runway opera-

136 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION tions, particularly in poor-visibility conditions. This depends on PBN implementation and aircraft equi- page. It includes implementing RNAV approaches, including RNP and WAAS LPV approaches, in place of ILS approaches for parallel runways. Airport enhancements also include implementing combinations of RNAV and ILS approaches for dependent runways ≥ 2,500 feet apart and for independent runways. 18. Federal Aviation Administration. 2013. “FAA NextGen Implementation Plan 2013.” This provides an executive summary of the FAA’s NextGen Implementation Plan. The Metroplex initia- tive is a fast-track effort to implement satellite-based procedures and airspace improvements. The FAA is publishing a significant number of satellite-based precision arrival and departure procedures and high- and low-altitude routes. The benefits include reduced flight delay and carbon dioxide emissions, fuel and passenger time savings, less aircraft noise, increased predictability and reliability of airport operations to enhance the airport’s role as an economic engine for its community. The GPS WAAS en- ables LPV approach procedures for equipped general aviation aircraft to minimum altitudes as low as 200 feet. The FAA has published 3,123 approaches, and it will publish 5,128 by 2016. ADS-B and Data Communications will be leveraged with PBN to save time and fuel, decrease emissions, and improve the ability to address noise. The Environmental Management System (EMS) will be used to integrate environmental and energy objectives into the planning, decision making, and operation of NextGen Continuous Lower Emissions, Energy and Noise program with industry. 19. Federal Aviation Administration. 2013. “NextGen for Airports.” This publication concerns the NextGen components impacting general aviation and commercial airports. At general aviation airports, the WAAS-based approach procedures will increase access during low visibility by providing horizontal and vertical navigation accuracies to 7 feet, LPV decision altitudes 200 feet above runway, and ILS-like approaches. So far, 3,100 approaches have been published in the U.S. ADS-B Out will be required for most aircraft in controlled airspace by 2020. At commercial air- ports, PBN procedures are to be implemented at 13 metroplexes via FAA Metroplex, leveraging RNAV and RNP independent of ground-based navigational aids. Closely spaced parallel runway operations are to operate with reduced separation, allowing runways as close as 3,600 feet (now 4,300 feet) apart to operate independently. This requires an update to 7110.65 and impacts 16 runway pairs in the U.S. 20. Federal Aviation Administration. 2013. “NextGen Implementation Plan 2013, Appendix B, NextGen Infrastructure.” This publication concerns near-term implementation plans for NextGen infrastructure. ADS-B provides accurate and comprehensive surveillance via a broadcast communication link. ADS-B receives flight data from aircraft via a data link. Flight data is derived from on-board position-fixing and navigational systems. Aircraft position (longitude, latitude, altitude and time) is determined using GPS, an internal inertial navigational reference system, or other navigation aids. Data Communications (DataComm) implements capabilities providing new methods to deliver departure clearances, revisions, and taxi instructions in terminal environment. DataComm will be particularly useful to airport control towers. 21. Federal Aviation Administration. 2013. “Optimization of Airspace & Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM), OAPM FY 12 & FY 13 Milestones Summary and Dashboard Status.” This presentation provides an overview and planned implementation dates of metroplexes included in the FAA’s OAPM program. At the time of publication, the metroplexes and dates were: DC, North Texas, FY11-FY15; Houston, FY12-FY14; Charlotte, FY12-FY15; Atlanta, FY12-FY15; No. Cal, FY12 – FY15; So Cal, FY13 – FY16; Florida, FY13 – FY16; Phoenix, FY13 – FY16; Chicago, FY13 – FY17; Mem- phis, FY14 – FY 17; Cleveland/Detroit, FY14 – FY17; and Boston, FY15 – FY18.

Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography | 137 22. Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. “Performance Based Navigation Non-OAPM, PBN Mile- stones Summary and Dashboard Status as of Feb 28, 2013.” http://mspfairskies.com/wp-content/ uploads/2013/08/PBN.pdf. (As of December 18, 2014). This report summarizes the progress of the FAA’s PBN implementation initiative across multiple sites, including program progress and per-site progress, as of Feb 28, 2013. The PBN process employed fol- lows the 5-step Metroplex process of 1) Study and Scoping, 2) Design and Procedure Development, 3) Operational, Environmental, and SMS Review; 4) Implementation and Training; 5) Post-Implementa- tion Review and Modifications. An explanation of each step is provided. Step 1 comprises project start, data collection, initial draft prototype designs, kickoff meeting. Steps 2 and 3 include Environmental Review Start, flight simulations, prototype designs draft, procedure design, post prototype design work, public meetings, and completion of environmental review. Steps 4 and 5 include procedures submitted to Flight Procedures Team (FPT), procedures submitted to AJV-3, quality assurance, flight inspection, charting, training, procedures published, procedures implemented, and post-implementa- tion review. Published procedures included the Denver STARs and RNPs, Nashville procedures, Denver SIDs and St. Louis STAR & RNPs. Remaining procedures included the Seattle procedures, Portland STARs and Minneapolis STARs and SIDs. 23. Informal Pacific Air Traffic Control Coordinating Group (IPACG). 2013. “38th Meeting Agenda Item 6: CNS Issues, Summary of U.S. ADS-B Activities.” This report summarizes the ADS-B activities in the U.S. that may be of interest to IPACG participants. For ADS-B, aircraft with Version 2 avionics certified and installed in accordance with FAA AC 20-165 (or an equivalent approved by FAA Aircraft Certification) will receive ATC separation service in the U.S. ADS-R is a pilot advisory service that receives data from aircraft on one link and immediately rebroad- casts it on the other link. TIS-B is pilot advisory service for situation awareness, gathering data from U.S. ATC radars and multi-lateration systems. The FIS-B message set contains Airman’s Meteorological Information, Aviation Routine Weather Report (METAR) and Unscheduled Specials, Next Generation Radar (NEXRAD) precipitation reflectivity, Pilot Reports (urgent and routine), Significant Meteorologi- cal Information, Terminal Area Forecast and unscheduled Amendments, Winds and Temperatures Aloft, NOTAMs important to flight safety, and Status of Special Use Airspace. IM is a new method for flight crews and ATC to achieve a desired spacing between aircraft in all phases of flight. Initial applications are to aircraft in en route airspace arriving to a terminal area metering fix meeting current IFR proce- dures and criteria. GIM-S schedules and manages arrival traffic flows. FIM-S allows aircraft to manage a separation interval assigned by ATC. GIM-S is included in the TBFM and ERAM programs. PBN Design and Implementation 24. LeighFisher et. al. ACRP Report 38: Understanding Airspace, Objects, and Their Effects on Airports. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Washington, D.C., 2010. This is a comprehensive description of the regulations, standards, evaluation criteria, and processes de- signed to protect the airspace surrounding airports. This supports aviation practitioners, local planning and zoning agencies, and developers in understanding and applying airspace design and evaluation criteria to ensure a safe operating environment for aircraft, to maintain airport operational flexibility and reliability, without limiting building development and economic growth in the surrounding com- munity. The report provides background information and guidance. Background information includes fundamental airspace protection criteria of Federal Aviation Regulation 77, FA Order 8260.3B, and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, and presents mechanisms and processes for airspace protection. The

138 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION report provides recommendations and best practices for airport management; local and regional plan- ning agencies and municipal authorities; and building developers to minimize the impact of surround- ing development on airport operations, flight procedures and future developments. 25. United States Government Accountability Office, “FAA Airspace Redesign, An Analysis of the New York/New Jersey Philadelphia Project,” July 2008. The report documents the GAO’s assessment of the FAA’s methodology in implementing a new air- space structure for the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia metropolitan area. The GAO was asked to examine (1) the extent to which the FAA followed legal requirements for its environmental review, (2) the extent to which the FAA’s methodology in assessing operational and noise impacts was reasonable, and (3) the likelihood the FAA will meet its projected time frames and costs of implementation. Among other things, the GAO found the FAA reasonably involved the public throughout the environmental review process. The FAA took actions required to ensure public outreach including conducting an early and open process, providing notice of and holding public meetings, and soliciting and responding to public comments. The Airspace Management Handbook describes the step-by-step procedures for airspace design management. After selecting the preferred alternative airspace design, the FAA began identifying measures to mitigate the noise impacts associated with the preferred alternative. An itera- tive process using operational and noise modeling tools was applied to identify potential noise mitiga- tion strategies. Operational and noise models and simulations required substantial amounts of data, numerous assumptions, and extensive professional judgment. Supplemental noise metrics would have provided information that may be more readily understood by decision makers and the public than the DNL metric. FAA used U.S. Census Bureau block data to identify the areas that could be signifi- cantly impacted by noise. The FAA worked with congressional offices to determine the appropriate locations that would accommodate the specific needs of minority and low-income populations. 26. Federal Aviation Administration. “Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM) Study Team Final Report North Texas Metroplex.” This report identifies operational issues in the North Texas metroplex and proposes PBN procedures to address them. The design included adding RNAV procedures, optimizing descent and climb profiles, segregating arrivals by airport and adding configuration-dependent RNAV departure procedures. The report outlines a 5-step process for PBN design and implementation. Step 1 identified and character- ized issues. Step 2 proposed conceptual designs, including outreach meetings with local facilities and operators. Step 3 estimated the expected benefit, quantitatively and qualitatively, and explored poten- tial solutions, including technical input from operational stakeholders. This step was supported by the OAPM National Analysis Team (NAT), which provides a centralized analysis and modeling capability for data collection, visualization, analysis, simulation and fuel burn modeling. Step 4 identified con- siderations and risks of proposed changes, with the support of the OAPM Specialized Expertise Cadre (SEC), which provides expertise from various FAA Lines of Business, including environmental, safety management, airports, and programs. Step 5 was documentation. 27. Kim, Brian et al. ACRP Report 86: Environmental Optimization of Aircraft Departures: Fuel Burn, Emissions, and Noise. Transportation Research Board of the Natioanal Acadamies, Washington, D.C., 2013. This is a comprehensive guidebook concerning the design of Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADPs) to optimize the balance of noise exposure and emissions and fuel burn reduction in light of the ground tracks, flight profiles, aircraft types, and nearby populations of a particular application. The report includes a Departure Optimization Investigation Tool (DOIT), a spreadsheet-based program for the evaluation and design of departure procedures. Different types of noise abatement procedures are categorized as ground-track, profile, temporal, ground-based operational measures, and aircraft and air traffic control technology. Their benefits and drawbacks are presented. Ground track procedures

Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography | 139 include optimized ground tracks avoiding noise-sensitive areas, fanning of ground tracks over an area, area navigation overlays of existing departure procedures, and preferential routing for low-noise jet aircraft. Profile procedures are the FAA’s close-in procedure, the FAA’s distant procedure, and climb- ing over unpopulated land or water. Temporal procedures consist of varying ground tracks by time of day. Ground-based operational measures are single-engine taxi and preferential runways. Technology measures are automated thrust reduction, low-noise and low-emissions engines, and trajectory based operations. Each of these measures has benefits and drawbacks, and measures may be combined for increased effect. Case studies evaluate and compare the impact of each of these procedures on noise, emissions and throughput. An optimization tool is developed and described to support the design of departure procedures for a particular airport application. 28. Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA). 2013. “Airports’ Role in the Development and Implementation of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Flight Procedures.” This position paper proposes involvement of U.S. airports in the FAA’s implementation of NextGen PBN. RNAV and RNP are key PBN capabilities leveraged in the design of arrival and departure pro- cedures at airports. Benefits of RNAV and RNP procedures may include reduced flight time, reduced flight distance, reduced fuel burn, increased efficiency, increased airspace and airport capacity, and increased safety. Environmental benefits may include reduced aircraft emissions, reduced noise, and aircraft routing flexibility. Section 213 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act calls for coor- dinated and expedited review of PBN procedures. All procedures are CatEx’d from further detailed environmental review unless FAA administrator identifies extraordinary circumstances exist. The FAA Administrator’s estimation of measurable reductions in fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and noise on a per-flight basis warrant CatEx. The ACI-NA is concerned by this, particularly noise on per-flight basis. Per the FAA 1976 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy, the community, airport and other stakeholders collaborate to mitigate noise impacts. Airport operators are primarily responsible for planning and implementing actions to reduce the effect of noise on residents. Airport operators have a long history working with community and reducing impacts. Airports need to understand how PBN may impact existing noise abatement procedures, develop an environmental strategy, and incorporate these into PBN design via an environmental review. Airports should advise the FAA ATO on community and industry dialogue mechanisms. Examples of positive outcomes of airport engagement in PBN pro- cedure development include Portland, Denver and Louisville airports. Some stakeholders report that Minneapolis had a negative outcome. 29. Federal Aviation Administration. 2013. “Order 8260.43B, Flight Procedures Management Program.” This document describes the process for requesting the development, amendment, or cancellation of an IFP, and the FAA process for approving and prioritizing requests. The intended audience is the RAPT, the NAPT, and others requesting or amending an IFP. Any proponent may initiate a request for IFP creation, amendment, or cancellation. The proponent must contact the FPT in the respective Service Area. The proponent contracts with the FAA or with an AFS-approved IFP service provider. The FAA IFP development branch submits the procedure request to FPT for RAPT review. The service provider submits the procedure request to the Regional NextGen Branch (RNGB). Implementation depends on airport/obstacle data, environmental review, airspace and/or rulemaking action, installation/commis- sioning of navigational aids, concurrent modification of other flight procedures, data to support a de- viation from standards (non-standard conditions), special flight evaluation, flight inspection, changes in runway/taxiway markings, charting intervals, and other criteria. The RAPT analyzes the procedure request, identifies possible conflicts, and considers implementation timing. The RAPT approves or dis- approves a request and signs consensus forms documenting the collective decision. There is a process for the proponent to appeal the RAPT’s decision if it is disapproved.

140 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION 30. Federal Aviation Administration. 2013. “Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM), Los Angeles World Airports Community Noise Roundtable.” This slide package provides an overview of the OAPM Southern California metroplex project as presented to the local community noise roundtable. Content includes the general design and imple- mentation process, specific issues/inefficiencies in Southern California Metroplex to be addressed by the OAPM team, project progress, tasks and schedule, and a schedule of outreach meetings. For the OAPM process, the study team conducts study and scoping for approximately 3 months. The Design and Implementation (D&I) team conducts design and procedure development for 6-9 months; opera- tional, environmental, and safety review for 16 months; implementation and training for 9-15 months, and post-implementation review and modifications for 3-6 months. This is an approximately 3-year process. Environmental involvement is required at all stages of the process. The initial study period of design and procedure development includes outreach, which entails design team meetings scheduled for each milestone in the design and procedure development phase. 31. Federal Aviation Administration. 2013. “Third-Party Vendor Report.” This slide package provides a progress report of a demonstration project for 3rd party development and delivery of RNP Instrument Flight Procedures at 5 FAA-selected mid-size airports. Vendors design, deploy and maintain public-use RNP approaches, including preparing environmental paperwork for environmental assessments. The process includes: 1) vendor work planning, 2) initial site coordina- tion, 3) instrument flight procedure concept development, 4) implementation and training package development, and 5) pre- and post-implementation review and modifications. Step 2 includes site coordination, gathering of data, and an initial site visit. Step 3 includes an environmental impact brief- ing, RNP benefits estimation including limitations, and capabilities briefing; submitting a draft to RAPT; RAPT approval and assigned publication date; kick-off meeting; development of the instrument flight procedure concept; submission of the procedure draft for review; IFP design review; environmental review; obstacle evaluation; flight validation report development; and generation and review of final procedure design package. Step 4 includes an implementation and training package, ATC training, pre- and post-implementation reviews and analysis; Safety Management System documentation; quarterly PMRs and TIMs (Program Management Reviews, Technical Interchange Meetings). The five airports were: Syracuse Hancock (SYR), General Mitchell (MKE), Ted Stevens Anchorage (ANC), Dayton International (DAY), and Charles Wheeler Downtown (MKC). 32. Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. “Order 7100.41, Performance Based Navigation Implementa- tion Process.” This document describes the process, the participants, and their roles and responsibilities in the PBN Implementation Process. The process is a standardized 5-phase implementation process for PBN routes and procedures. The process involves a Core Working Group (CWG) including the route/procedure proponent, a project facilitator, a TARGETS operator, the FAA ATO Service Center OSG, the regional NextGen branch, AeroNav Products, an airline representative, air traffic facilities; an airport authority; flight inspection services; and the PBN policy and support group. The Regional NextGen Branch sup- ports “Reach Out” programs for new PBN routes/procedures. The 5 steps are 1) Preliminary Activities, 2) Development Work, 3) Operational Preparations, 4) Implementation, and 5) Post-Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation. A project tracking tool is used for management and documentation. The Preliminary Activities step defines and justifies the procedure. The Development Work step develops and verifies the PBN procedure. The Operational Preparations step identifies and addresses opera- tional items for PBN route procedure implementation. The Implementation step publishes and imple- ments routes and procedures on chart date. The Post-Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation step monitors operation of routes or procedures for 60 days, evaluates them against the project goals, and generates a PBN Post-Implementation Analysis Report.

Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography | 141 33. Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. “Process for Requesting PBN Procedures.” This brief describes the process for accessing the FAA’s IFP Request web link and processing a request for a PBN procedure or procedures. The FAA provides a web-based tool for requesting a new IFP to serve a particular airport. Request inputs include: 1) the airport’s ICAO code; 2) the type of procedure requested, such as RNAV SIDs, RNAV STARs, RNP ARs, Q or T routes; 3) the details of the application, such as the runways or traffic flow served; and that 4) the Anticipated Benefit in Additional Remarks fields must be included. The request is forwarded to the FAA Service Center Operations Support Group, Flight Procedure Team. A local team representing this group can help with the request and initiation. 34. Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. “Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex, Houston ZHU/I90, Implementation Play Book, Version 1.2.” This report documents a phased approach for implementing OAPM-developed arrival and departure procedures in the Houston metroplex. It documents who does what in particular time frames prior to and during implementation. Time frames include 90-120 days prior, 60-90 days prior, 30-45 days prior, 30 days prior, 15-30 days prior, 7-15 days prior, and implementation day/phase in. The process calls for regular meetings among interested parties to coordinate planning and implementation. Par- ties include Implementation Team Core members, air traffic control facilities, control center and local traffic management unit personnel, industry representatives and pilots and internal facility depart- ments. Topics include waiver processing, industry outreach, flight check results and validation flight planning, training and briefings, addressing procedure errors, and contingency plans. 35. Metropolitan Airports Commission. 2014. “Resolution # 01-2014 Approved by the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Regarding Future FAA Perfor- mance Based Navigation (PBN) and Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Departure Procedure Design and Implementation Efforts at MSP.” The resolution memorializes the entire experience of the MSP NOC in working with the FAA to imple- ment PBN flight procedures for MSP, and provides lessons learned from the collaboration between the MSP NOC and the FAA. The letter first documents the timeline and steps of developing PBN proce- dures at MSP. The process begins with the NOC’s efforts to leverage PBN to design noise abatement procedures. These initial efforts then expand to an initiative undertaken by local FAA for airspace-wide PBN procedure design. The letter then sites the insufficient time and effort allocated to community outreach regarding the new procedures as the main cause of the resulting public opposition to their implementation. The MSP NOC recommended 5 key provisions for how the FAA should conduct PBN design: 1) Obtain NOC support of proposed RNAV STARs, 2) Design OPDs for STARs to all runways at MSP; 3) conduct a case study of successful RNAV SID implementation at another airport with similar challenges, particularly dense population surrounding the airport; 4) future RNAV SID designs and im- plementations should incorporate previous outreach guidelines; 5) adequate time should be provided in future PBN implementations to prepare and conduct case study and community outreach plan. PBN Metrics 36. Federal Aviation Administration. 2011. “Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM), Overview of Prototype Study Team Results.” Presented at the RTCA Integrated Working Group.

142 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION This slide package provides an overview of the initial findings from North Texas, Washington DC prototype studies. The studies identified inefficiencies, proposed mitigations, and evaluated opera- tional, safety, airspace user benefits and environmental issues. Inefficiencies were identified in various configurations of each metroplex (e.g., north flow, south flow). RNAV and RNP AR enabled mitiga- tions were proposed. Operational and safety benefits were 1) de-conflicting traffic flows via procedural separation; 2) repeatable, predictable flight paths; 3) reduced air traffic controller task complexity; 4) reduced pilot-controller communications; and, 5) reduced need for Traffic Management Initiatives. Operational and safety challenges include managing mixed equipage, in particular the sequencing of capable and incapable aircraft. Airspace user benefits are reductions in 1) fuel burn and emissions, 2) flight distance and time, 3) track length, 4) excess fuel carry, 5) pilot workload, and 6) reduced pilot- controller communications. Airspace and user benefits are increased capacity and improved connectiv- ity to the en route structure. Airspace user costs are increase in flight distance (track length) and RNP AR qualification. Initial environmental screening included noise analysis. Tools used included Graphical Airspace Design Environment (GRADE), Monte-Carlo FMS Aircraft Simulation Tool (MFAST), and Base of Aircraft Data (BADA). 37. Federal Aviation Administration. 2013. “Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM).” Presented at the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) Community Noise Roundtable. This slide package provides an overview of the FAA’s OAPM effort in the Southern California Metro- plex. Benefits metrics presented include fuel costs ($6M - $53M), gallons of fuel (2.3M – 17.8M), metric tons of carbon (23k – 184k), and nautical miles of flight distance (648k – 5.4M). 38. Federal Aviation Administration. “Report on NextGen Performance Metrics.” This report defines 12 congressionally mandated metrics to measure NextGen improvements in safety, capacity, efficiency, and the environment. The metrics are reported publicly on 2 FAA websites. The metrics are 1) actual arrival and departure rates per hour measured against the currently published aircraft arrival rate and aircraft departure rate for the 35 Operational Evolution Partnership airports; 2) average gate-to-gate times; 3) fuel burned between key city pairs; 4) operations using advanced navigation procedures, including PBN procedures; 5) average distance flown between key city pairs; 6) time between pushing back from the gate and taking off (taxi-out time), and duration between gate out time and take off (wheels off) time; 7) continuous climb or descent, with level flight distance calculated from Top of Descent (TOD) to runway; 8) average gate arrival delay for all arrivals, 9) flown versus filed flight times for key city pairs; 10) implementation of NextGen capabilities designed to reduce emissions and fuel consumption; 11) unit cost of providing air traffic control services; and 12) runway safety, including runway incursions, operational errors, and loss of standard separation events. 39. Timar, S., Hunter, G., Post, J. 2013. “Assessing the Benefits of NextGen Performance Based Naviga- tion (PBN).” Presented at the 10th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar, Chicago, IL. This report documents a method for and results of simulation-based evaluation of the throughput benefits of OAPM-proposed RNAV SIDs and STARs to mitigate different inefficiencies in the Northern California Metroplex. Applications of PBN include RNAV STARs to decouple fixes, routes, or airspace, shared with other SIDs or STARs; RNAV STARs with additional en route transitions; RNAV STARs permit- ting reduced in-trail separation minima between successive arrivals; and parallel RNAV STARs to relieve existing overloaded STARs. The study analyzes STAR/SID route data and flight tracking data to charac- terize particular metroplex inefficiencies identified in the OAPM reports. The study employs a queu- ing system-based approach to model the baseline SID or STAR capturing inefficiency, and the RNAV SID or STAR capturing the proposed mitigation mechanism. The study uses the models to evaluate the throughput impact of RNAV SIDs and STARs to mitigate each inefficiency type. Results showed

Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography | 143 SID/STAR throughput increases for each type of inefficiency for specific instances documented in the OAPM Northern California Metroplex report. 40. Bellamy, W. 2014. “United Airlines Starts NextGen Flight Procedures in Houston.” Aviation Today. http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/commercial/United-Airlines-Starts-NextGen-Flight-Procedures-in- Houston_82359.html#.VgGkZN9VhBc. (As of 22 September, 2015). This article discusses implementation of satellite-based navigation procedures in the Houston Me- troplex. Houston has 20 new RNAV STARs, 20 new RNAV SIDs, and 6 modified ILS transitions. The Houston traffic control center published notices to airmen for non-equipped aircraft. The procedures were developed with a high level of collaboration with FAA and industry. The first fully implemented new procedures permit United Airlines to use FMCs of aircraft to plan path descent. The legacy system permitted the FMC to plan lateral path, with air traffic controllers controlling the aircraft’s descent with a sequence of descents and level-offs. The benefits of the new procedures are permitting aircraft to fly efficient, near-idle descent profiles, which save fuel, reduce noise, and reduce emissions; reduce com- munications by eliminating need to issue headings, speeds, and altitudes; and improve arrival rates (throughput). United Airlines was the lead carrier working with the FAA. 41. Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. “NextGen: Performance Success Stories.” http://www.faa.gov/ nextgen/snapshots/stories/. (As of 19 September 2014). This web site summarizes the airport- and airspace-specific benefits of NextGen improvements. They include Improved approaches and low-visibility operations, improved surface operations, NAS infra- structure, PBN, separation management, and time-based flow management. The PBN section docu- ments throughput, flight efficiency, access, safety, noise, controller workload, and airport maintenance benefits of various PBN procedures at airports across the U.S., including RNAV arrival and departure routes, and RNP AR and LPV approach procedures. 42. Federal Aviation Administration. “Performance Assessment of NextGen Capabilities Implemented in CY2010.” This report documents the assessment of recently fielded NextGen operational capabilities based on the ICAO Key Performance Areas (KPAs) using empirical data. The capabilities included PBN RNAV and RNP SIDs, STARs with OPDs, RNP AR approaches, and RNAV Q and T routes. Airports analyzed includ- ed Houston, Philadelphia, Logan International, and Anchorage. Measures of performance that may be of interest include airport and airspace capacity, throughput, capacity utilization and in-trail spacing. Measures also include Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) operational and capital investment costs. Measures also include flight distance, time, fuel burn, variability thereof, and difference from great circle distance, time, or fuel burn. Measures also include time in level flight below cruise altitude, dis- tance between top of descent and the runway threshold. Measures also include environment number of people exposed to 65 DNL or higher, CO2 and other emissions; safety separation conformance, loss rate, airport surface incidents. Flight times and distances for aircraft at study airports increased or decreased depending on the airport. Tailored arrivals demonstrated decreased time below 10,000 feet, higher average altitudes between 20,000 and 30,000 feet, reduced fuel burn and shorter flight times. Airport Planning and Environmental 43. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. et al. ACRP Report 20: Strategic Planning in the Airport Industry. Transpor- tation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009.

144 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION This guidebook presents a step-by-step process for the strategic planning of airports, including tools, techniques and information to develop and understand strategic plans that guide airport-related actions and decisions. Process steps include 1) creating a process plan and road map; 2) evaluating and understanding the organization; 3) defining and articulating the organization’s mission, vision, and values; 4) scanning the environment and predicting developments; 5) identifying strategic issues, strategies, and long-term objectives; 6) formulating short-term objectives and creating action plans; 7) writing, communicating, and executing the plan; and 8) monitoring, evaluating, and modifying the plan. Case studies of different airports are presented in each process step to illustrate the principles and practices. 44. Legal Research Digest 22: The Role of The Airport Sponsor in Airport Planning and Environmental Reviews of Proposed Development Projects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Mini-NEPA Laws. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washignton, D.C., 2014. This is a comprehensive assessment of the airport sponsor’s role in each phase of the environmental review process of NEPA for proposed development projects. The airport sponsor’s role is described for pre-NEPA planning, categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, findings of no significant impact, environmental impact statements, records of decision and supplementation. Guidance is sup- ported by surveys across a wide range of airport operators. 45. Legal Research Digest 9: Case Studies on Community Challenges to Airport Development. Transporta- tion Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. 2010. This is a comprehensive summary of strategies for and outcomes of municipality and community challenges to airport and FAA expansion and development projects. Content includes discussion of litigation avoidance, federal actions and state actions, and challenges to those proposed airport development actions. Challenges include existence of federal actions in NEPA; challenges to NEPA process; challenges to agency or consultancy that prepared the environmental evaluation; challenges to the standard of review under NEPA; challenges to the FAA determination of a FONSI; challenges to whether alternatives, cumulative effects or proposed mitigations were adequately considered by the FAA; challenges to whether the FAA properly supplemented the EIS; litigation brought under the envi- ronmental policy act, endangered species act, historic preservation act, department of transportation act, clean air act, or clean water act; constitutional law challenges; state law issues; jurisdictional issues; challenges to passenger facility charges; and others. A summary of the relevant cases, laws and rules is also provided. 46. Infrastructure Mangement Groug, Inc. et al. ACRP Report 19: Developing an Airport Performance Measurement System. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. 2010. This is a comprehensive guidebook for developing an airport performance measurement system as the basis for managing airport performance. The guidance includes an extensive list of areas for perfor- mance measurement and performance measures. Performance measurement areas proposed include safety and environmental sustainability. Safety measures include airfield violations of runway incur- sions, FAA safety compliance violations, and warning citations. Environmental sustainability measures include environmental compliance, including violations identified by a regulatory agency; air quality, including emissions per aircraft movement and air quality at the airport; and noise, including noise levels and noise complaints. Additional guidance concerns the development and implementation of the airport performance measurement system, and incorporating the measurements as feedback into a larger airport management system.

Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography | 145 47. Federal Aviation Administration. 2006. “Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions.” This order presents the guidelines for the FAA’s Office of Airports to assess the environmental effects of a proposed airport action in complying with NEPA. The ARP reviews EAs or prepares EISs to assess the environmental effects of no action, the proposed action, and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, and conceptual measures to mitigate those effects. Review of the EA may yield a FONSI to environmental resources, or that an EIS is needed. After completing the EIS, the FAA prepares a Record of Decision for the preferred alternative. The result is approval or disapproval of the airport action. Categorical exclusions are categories of actions that normally do not individually or cumulatively have significant adverse effects on the human environment. However, there may be extraordinary circum- stances where a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental effect. Impact on noise sensitive areas is an extraordinary circumstance. Significance thresholds are defined for assessing extraordinary circumstances. For example, a 1.5 dB increase in DNL of noise-sensitive areas at or above 65 dB, or an increase from 63.5 to 65 dB, or a 3 dB or less increase in DNL of parks, wildlife refuges, historic or cultural sites are considered significant. The EA documents a purpose and need of action, the proposed action, the alternatives, the affected environment, the environmental consequences, the mitigation, the cumulative impact analysis, and the agencies and people con- sulted. Coordination with appropriate resource agencies, industry groups, and affected communities is required to address issues of greatest concern. A scoping package is distributed to participants for en- gagement. A 30-day public review period is required. The EIS analyzes and discloses potential signifi- cant individual and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed airport actions and alternatives. 48. Federal Register. 2007. Vol. 72, No. 145, p. 41578. This registrar segment documents the FAA’s requirements, policies, and guidance concerning air traffic control activities and adopting approach, departure, and en route procedures for air operations. In particular, it defines 3,000 feet AGL as the “mixing height,” and states that aircraft emissions in that region have little impact on ground-level pollution concentrations. Furthermore, it states that air traf- fic procedures above 1,500 feet AGL and below the mixing height have little effect on emissions and ground-level contamination. 49. Federal Aviation Administration. 2006. “Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.” This order presents policy and procedures to ensure compliance with CEQ regulations for implement- ing the provisions of the NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508; DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Consid- ering Environmental Impacts, and other related statutes and directives. Section 209 concerns public hearings, workshops and meetings. Section 214b designates the Associate Administrator for Airports as responsible for considering environmental impacts of proposed FAA approvals and FAA-funded airport actions, airport layout plans, and assuring compliance with NEPA requirements. Section 303 concerns Categorical Exclusions and charts the determination process. Section 304 defines extraordi- nary circumstances. Section 311 defines categorical exclusions for FAA actions involving establishment, modification, or application of airspace and air traffic procedures. Section 401 defines actions normally requiring an environmental assessment. Section 404 defines the environmental assessment process and components of EA. Chapter 5 concerns EIS and records of decision. 50. Federal Aviation Administration. 2012. “Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Guidance Memo #5, Guidance for Implementation of the Categorical Exclusion in Section 213(c)(1) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.” This order provides guidance to implement a legislative categorical exclusion 123(c)(1) CatEx estab- lished by the Congressional FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, effective 6 December 2012.

146 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION Section 213(c)(1) states that navigation performance and area navigation procedures developed, certi- fied, published or implemented under this section are presumed to be covered by CatEx under chap- ter 3 of FAA Order 1050.1E unless the FAA Administrator determines extraordinary circumstances exist. This is specific to the 35 OEP airports, medium or small hub airports within the same metroplex (at the Administrator’s discretion), and 35 non-OEP airports. It calls out 1050.1E 401m and 401n normally requiring an EA, and states that RNAV/RNP procedures normally requiring EA under these provisions now fall within the scope of this categorical exclusion, absent extraordinary circumstances. Extraordi- nary circumstances may exist as described in paragraph 304 of 1050.1E. The FAA conducts screening and other consultation or analyses to determine if the potential for extraordinary circumstances applies to this CatEx. Screening is a first-order evaluation to determine the potential for significant environ- mental impacts. It calls for using FAA-approved lookup tables and screening tools. The documented CatEx should include screening results and other reviews supporting lack of extraordinary circumstanc- es. Otherwise, the FAA must generate an EA or EIS. 51. Federal Aviation Administration. 2012. “Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Guidance Memo #3, Consider- ing Greenhouse Gases and Climate Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Interim Guidance.” This order provides guidance concerning consideration and evaluation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and climate under NEPA. Guidance includes the NEPA evaluation process, considering the context of GHG emissions, and reducing GHGs. It includes an appendix citing NEPA text concerning the affected environment, environmental consequences (for airport and air traffic actions), and cumulative effects. 52. Federal Aviation Administration. 2012. “Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Guidance Memo #4, Guidance on Using AEDT 2a to Conduct Environmental Modeling for FAA Air Traffic Airspace and Procedure Actions.” This order provides guidance on the use of the AEDT Version 2a to conduct aircraft noise, fuel burn and emissions modeling for FAA air traffic airspace and procedure actions based on NEPA. It includes applicability, background, and a technical appendix. The technical appendix documents requirements for using AEDT 2a, including input of representative schedules, outputs (noise, criteria pollutant emis- sions, fuel burn and CO2 emissions), and non-default methods and data, use of weather information in analysis, atmospheric absorption, use of terrain for analysis, use of lateral attenuation for propeller aircraft and helicopters, and impact evaluation. 53. RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee. 2013. “CatEx 2: Recommendation for Implementing the Cat- egorical Exclusion in Section 213(c)(2) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.” This report provides guidance to the FAA on how measurable reductions in noise for PBN procedures might be assessed on a per-flight basis, as described in Section 213(c)(2) CatEx 2 of the FAA Modern- ization and Reform Act of 2012. Assessment interprets “per-flight basis” for assessing noise as averag- ing the noise of a representative set of flights for a particular flight procedure. The report proposes the net noise reduction method. For this method, the PBN procedure is compared to the existing proce- dure to assess 1) the number of people who experience a reduction in noise compared to the number of people who experience an increase in noise, at noise levels greater than DNL 45 dB; 2) the increase in the number of people experiencing DNL 65 dB or greater, including a DNL increase from 63.5 to 65 dB. It describes applying the proposed methodology to the FAA noise screening analysis to deter- mine if the procedure complies with CatEx 2. The report proposes a 3-step process for implementing CatEx 2: 1) identify area around airport where people might be impacted, 2) determine change in number of people exposed to noise in DNL bands with PBN versus conventional, and 3) apply the net noise reduction method. DNL is computed at census block centroids. Noise does not involve just sound energy, but exposure and experience of people to the energy. The committee considered a range of noise metrics, including DNL, aircraft noise certification levels, time above threshold, maxi-

Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography | 147 mum sound level (LAMAX), and SEL. SEL captures noise level and duration; however, there are no accepted criteria or thresholds for evaluating the impact. Selection of points on the ground and noise thresholds complicates application of these alternative metrics. 54. U.S. Environmental Protection Administration. 2014. “Six Common Air Pollutants.” http://www.epa. gov/oar/urbanair/sipstatus/overview.html. (As of July 29, 2014). This web site defines six common air pollutants included in the NAAQS under the CAA. The six pol- lutants are ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. Comprehensive information for each pollutant is provided in additional linked web pages. Airport Community Outreach 55. Schaar, D., Sherry, L. “Analysis of Airport Stakeholders.” Presented at the Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference.” This research paper identifies, defines and specifies the goals of a comprehensive set of airport stake- holders, and proposes flowchart model of their relationships. Airport stakeholders include 1) passen- gers; 2) business, commerce, tourism, arts, sports, and education organizations that are customers of the airport; 3) air carriers, including passenger and cargo; 4) general aviation users; 5) airport organi- zation, 6) investors and bond-holders, which fund general airport revenue bonds, 7) concessionaires in terminal buildings, 8) service providers in terminal buildings, 9) employees, 10) federal government; 11) local government, which elects airport board to oversee strategic direction and management of airport, 12) communities affected by airport operations; 13) non-governmental organizations, such as airport and environmental interest groups; 14) parking and ground transportation operators; and 15) airport suppliers. Flight operations of an airport may adversely affect the local community through in- creased noise, reduced air quality, reduced water quality, hazardous waste emissions and increased au- tomobile traffic. The goals among numerous stakeholders are similar: maximizing passenger and traffic levels, maximizing destinations served and service frequency, maximizing economic impact, managing costs, and ensuring safety. The goals of the airport organization and community include these and also minimizing noise and achieving environmental sustainability. 56. Woodward, Jon M. et al. ACRP Report 15: Aircraft Noise: A Toolkit for Managing Community Expecta- tions. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. 2009. This is a comprehensive guidebook for airport managers to address the impact of passenger jet traffic noise on the community surrounding the airport. It provides background information concerning aircraft noise and noise abatement, best practices and guidance for communicating and engaging with the public, and tools to develop and refine programs for communicating with public and private stakeholders regarding noise. The guidance focuses on exchange; that is, a bi-directional communica- tion between the airport representatives and the community and other stakeholders. The guidance is targeted towards airports of all sizes; that is, small, medium, and large, beginning with basic com- munication methods, then extending to staffing approaches and techniques and strategies for com- munications. Best practices for effective communications include building trust through bi-directional communications, having senior airport leadership represent the airport, using graphics to illustrate key messages, openness and truthfulness in communications, airport noise staff who are equally skilled in public communications, and proactive communications that educate the community regarding future airport developments and changes that may impact them. Best metrics for evaluating noise include DNL for noise exposure patterns, SEL for sound impact on individuals and sounds attenuation require- ments, Number of Events Above (NA) to evaluate alternative conditions and assess their impact on

148 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION individuals, and Time Above (TA) to assess ground noise and its impact on the communications and cognition of students in school. Best practices for managing noise compatibility issues include shifting ground tracks, runway use programs, restricting run-up operations, pilot awareness programs, and planning to address and avoid land use conflicts. 57. ACRP Report 26: Guide Book for Conducting Airport User Surveys. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. 2009. This is a comprehensive guidebook for conducting user surveys at airports. Such surveys are often the primary source of information to support planning and operations. Surveys can be subject to a number of pitfalls, which can make them ineffective, such as poor continuity among surveys, poorly designed surveys, infrequency in surveying, inappropriate sample sets for accurate results, and weight- ing responses from individuals and large parties. Background information includes survey sampling concepts, survey planning and implementation, types of surveys, survey design, and results analysis. Applications include surveys of air passengers, employees, tenants, area residents, area business and cargo. Guidance for each survey category includes purpose, data to be collected, survey methodol- ogy; sampling, coverage and timing; questionnaire wording and length; measures to obtain adequate responses; and survey budget and survey summary. 58. Chicago Sun Times. 2014. “Hearings On Runway Changes at O’Hare Out of Earshot of Affected Resi- dents: Analysis.” This article reports on the outreach efforts undertaken by the FAA in the O’Hare Modernization Pro- gram. The FAA hosted a public hearing about its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) to obtain comments for the proposed modernization of O’Hare International Airport on a Tuesday afternoon at Avalon Banquets in Elk Grove Village. The modernization plan calls for using the parallel runways instead of the diagonal ones to expand airport flight capacity. The FAA is legally required to hold public hearings. Three public hearings were held by the FAA in areas not impacted by heavy traf- fic under the modernization plan. Instead, it held hearings in areas where noise was diminished. The hearings were held nine years prior to a change in the flight paths. The hearings were lightly attended relative to the population. Now the airport is receiving numerous noise complaints from Norridge and Itasca wards in wake of the FAA implementing the flight path changes; 24,000 Chicago residents are subjected to serious jet noise, an increase of 6267 people. U.S. Representative Mike Quigley, D-Ill., was getting involved. 59. Port of Portland. 2015. “Community Outreach,” http://www.portofportland.com/Cmnty_Outrch_ Home.aspx. (As of 22 September 2015). This web site documents community outreach events related to Portland Airport (PDX) operations and community impacts. The citizen noise advisory committee is the official forum to address community’s aircraft noise concerns, residential and business concerns; input to noise abatement projects, PDX Airport Noise Compatibility Plan, future airport noise plans, long-range airport planning, and citizen understanding of noise issues. The 15-member committee comprises representatives from cities and counties around PDX (e.g., Portland, Vancouver, Gresham; Multnomah, Clark, Washington, Clacka- mas). The Port of Portland Noise Management has a PDX Noise Alerts Twitter feed to notify citizens in advance of scheduled noise events. The PDX Noise Compatibility Study (Part 150 Study) identi- fies and evaluates measures to aid in reducing aircraft noise impacts to residential communities and other noise-sensitive areas. Stakeholder involvement includes airline, pilot, community, business, and environmental groups. The airport must update its noise exposure maps when a change in operations results in a significant change in noise exposure over areas categorized as non-compatible with aircraft noise.

Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography | 149 PBN Flight Procedures, FAA Orders 60. Federal Aviation Administration. 1998. “JO 7130.3A, Holding Pattern Criteria.” This order prescribes criteria for determining holding pattern airspace area dimensions and instruc- tions for their use. These criteria apply to all IFR holding operations conducted within airspace where domestic Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control procedures are used. Personnel responsible for planning holding airspace areas shall adhere to these criteria. 61. Federal Aviation Administration. 2001. “JO 7110.79D, Charted Visual Flight Procedures.” This order establishes criteria for developing charted visual flight procedures when required for en- vironmental/noise considerations and/or, when necessary, for the safety and efficiency of air traffic operations. 62. Federal Aviation Administration. 2005. “JO 8260.53, Standard Instrument Departures That Use Ra- dar Vectors to Join RNAV Routes.” This order provides the criteria to evaluate the use of radar vectors to join the initial departure fix of an RNAV SID. 63. Federal Aviation Administration. 2006. “JO 8260.49A, Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach (SOIA).” This order provides criteria and guidance for constructing and operating simultaneous offset instru- ment approaches to parallel runways spaced at least 750 feet apart, and less than 3,000 feet apart at airports identified by the FAA for SOIA. 64. Federal Aviation Administration. 2009. “JO 8260.42B, United States Standard for Helicopter Area Navigation (RNAV).” These criteria are the FAA standards for developing helicopter RNAV instrument procedure construc- tion based on GPS. 65. Federal Aviation Administration. 2012. “JO 8260.58, United States Standard for Performance-based Navigation (PBN) Instrument Procedure Design.” This order provides consolidated United States PBN procedure design criteria. 66. Federal Aviation Administration. 2013. “JO 8260.43B, Flight Procedures Management Program.” This order provides guidance for initiating and processing requests for public and special instrument and visual flight procedures including RNAV procedures. It establishes an RAPT at each FAA regional office as the point of contact for standardized consideration, prioritization, and processing of requests for new and amended flight procedures. It also establishes the NAPT. 67. Federal Aviation Administration. 2013. “JO 7100.9E, Standard Terminal Arrival Program and Procedures.” This order provides guidance and standardization for procedures development and management of the STAR program. 68. Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. “JO 7110.65V, Air Traffic Control.” This order prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control services. Controllers are required to be familiar with the provisions of this order that per-

150 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION tain to their operational responsibilities and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations that are not covered by it. 69. Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. “JO 7400.2K, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.” This order specifies procedures for use by all personnel in the joint administration of the airspace pro- gram. The guidance and procedures herein incorporate into one publication as many orders, notices, and directives of the affected services as possible. Although every effort has been made to prescribe complete procedures for the management of the different airspace programs, it is impossible to cover every circumstance. Therefore, when a situation arises for which there is no specific procedure covered in this order, personnel must exercise their best judgment. FAA Order JO 7400.2K (Order 7400.2) is an internal agency document that gives administrative guid- ance to agency officials with jurisdiction over Obstruction Evaluation and Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA). Part 2, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, and Part 3, Airport Airspace Analysis, contain relevant information pertaining to matters of physical objects and airspace navigation safety. Order 7400.2 refers to other documents, both regulatory and administrative, that provide the technical requirements for OE/AAA, and provides systematic guidance to administrators regarding the OE/AAA decision-making process. Order 7400.2 also provides diagrammatic clarifications to the regulations and standards found within it, and within other texts, including FAR Part 77. 70. Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. “JO 7930.2P, Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs).” This order prescribes procedures used to obtain, format, and disseminate information on unanticipat- ed or temporary changes to components of, or hazards in, the NAS until the associated aeronautical charts and related publications have been amended. 71. Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. “JO 8260.3B, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS).” This order contains the criteria used to formulate, review, approve, and publish procedures for instru- ment flight operations to and from civil and military airports. Technical guidance is provided within this Order and its several derivative Orders to the agencies re- sponsible for developing instrument flight procedures, which are specific to the navigation equipment available and the operating capacity of individual aircraft types. The TERPS guidance is highly technical in nature, and is intended for use by the agencies charged with developing safe and efficient operating procedures. For civil aviation, the FAA either prepares or must approve new and revised procedures. Instrument flight procedures are designed based on existing and known planned obstacles, among other factors. Civil Airports: IFPs must be provided at civil airports open to the aviation public whenever a reasonable need is shown. No minimum number of potential instrument approaches is specified; however, the responsible FAA office must determine that a public procedure will be beneficial to more than a single user or interest. Private procedures, for the exclusive use of a single interest, may be provided on a reimbursable basis under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 171, where ap- plicable, if they do not unduly conflict with the public use of airspace. Reasonable need is deemed to exist when the IFP will be used by: (1) A certificated air carrier, air taxi, or commercial operator; or (2) two or more aircraft operators whose activities are directly related to the commerce of the community; and (3) military aircraft. REQUESTS FOR PROCEDURES: Requests for military procedures are processed as described by the appropriate military service. Civil procedures may be requested by letter; therefore, no special form is required. Send requests to the appropriate Regional or Service Area Office. Requests are accepted from

Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography | 151 any aviation source, provided the request indicates that the airport owner/operator has been notified of the request. (Such notification is necessary only when the request is for an original procedure to an airport not already served by an approach procedure.) The FAA will advise airport owners/operators of additional requests for procedures. APPROVAL: Where a reasonable civil need has been established or a military requirement exists, a request for an IFP must be approved if the following minimum standards are met: a. Airport. An airport airspace analysis conducted under Order JO 7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, or appropriate military directives, as applicable must find the airport acceptable for IFR operations. The airport landing surfaces must be adequate to accommodate the aircraft expected to use the procedure. The airport infrastructure requirements of FAA AC 150/5340-1, Standards for Airport Markings, and FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, paragraph 317 must be met to achieve the lowest possible minimums. Only circling minimums may be approved to airports where the runways are not clearly defined. Run- way lighting is required for approval of night instrument approach operations. Do NOT deny takeoff and departure procedures at night due solely to the absence of runway edge lights. b. Navigation Facilities. All instrument and visual navigation facilities used must successfully pass flight inspection. c. Obstacle Marking and Lighting. Obstacles that penetrate 14 CFR Part 77 imaginary surfaces are obstructions and, therefore, should be marked and lighted, insofar as is reasonably possible under FAA AC 70/7460-1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting. Those penetrating the 14 CFR Part 77 approach and transitional surfaces should be removed or made conspicuous under that AC. Do NOT deny in- strument approach procedures due to inability to mark and light or remove obstacles that violate Part 77 surfaces. NOTE: In military procedures, the appropriate military directives apply. d. Weather Information. Terminal weather observation and reporting facilities must be available for the airport to serve as an alternate airport. Destination minimums may be approved when a general area weather report is available prior to commencing the approach and approved altimeter settings are available to the pilot prior to and during the approach consistent with communications capability. e. Communications. Air-to-ground communications must be available at the initial approach fix mini- mum altitude and where an aircraft executing the missed approach is expected to reach the missed approach altitude. 72. Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. “JO 8260.16, Airport Obstruction Surveys.” This order provides procedures for obtaining Airport Obstruction Surveys relating to ILS installations. Cancelled by Order 8260.3B, “United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS).” 73. Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. “JO 8260.26F, Establishing and Scheduling Civil Public-Use Standard Instrument Procedure.” This order provides policy and guidance for establishing public use SlAP and ODP effective dates. It ensures that aeronautical charts and supporting data will not be released to the public until it is known that the supporting navigation equipment will perform satisfactorily and that all procedural data are correct and confirmed by flight inspection. 74. Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. “JO 8260.46E, Departure Procedure (DP) Program.” This order provides the policy, guidance, and standardization for initiating, developing, processing, and managing the departure procedure program.

152 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION 75. Federal Aviation Administration. 2015. “JO 8200.1D, United States Standard Flight Inspection Manual.” The purpose of this order is to prescribe standardized procedures for flight inspection of air navigation services. 76. Federal Aviation Administration. 2015. “JO 8260.19F, Flight Procedures and Airspace.” This order provides guidance to all FAA personnel for the administration and accomplishment of the FAA Flight Procedures and Airspace Program. Requests for Public-Use IFPs: Requests for approval and/or establishment of instrument flight procedures may originate from many different sources. See Order 8260.43, Flight Procedures Management Program. It may be a request from a state, city, airport manager, or an individual. It may also be from an air carrier, air taxi, military, commercial operator, ATC, or FAA Flight Standards Service (AFS) personnel. General information on the lifecycle process associated with IFPs can be found in appendix O. Requirements for approval of instrument approach procedures are contained in Order 8260.3, U.S. Standard for TERPS, Volume 1, Chapter 1. 77. Federal Aviation Administration. 2015. “FS 8260.57A, Oversight of Third Party Instrument Flight Procedure Service Providers.” This order establishes FAA Flight Standards Service (AFS) policy, guidance, and standardization for the oversight of third party IFP service providers. 78. Federal Aviation Administration. 2015. “JO 8260.60A, Special Instrument Procedures.” This order provides the policy, guidance, and standardization for initiating, developing, processing, and managing Special [non-Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 97] Instrument Proce- dures. This guidance formerly resided in Order 8260.19, Flight Procedures and Airspace. Special instru- ment flight procedures authorized for use only by air carriers or some other segment of the aviation industry are not published in the Federal Register and are identified as “Special Procedures.” Special Procedures may be developed for public and private use based on aircraft performance, aircraft equip- ment, or crew training, and may also require the use of landing aids, communications, or weather services not available for public use. PBN Flight Procedures, FAA Advisory Circulars 79. Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. “FAA-H-8083-16, Instrument Flying Handbook.” This handbook supersedes FAA-H-8261-1A, Instrument Procedures Handbook, dated 2007. It is designed as a technical reference for professional pilots who operate under IFR in the NAS. This Instrument Fly- ing Handbook is designed for use by instrument flight instructors and pilots preparing for instrument rating tests. Instructors may find this handbook a valuable training aid as it includes basic reference material for knowledge testing and instrument flight training. 80. Federal Aviation Administration, 2007. “AC 70-7460-1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting.” This document contains the Federal Aviation Administration’s standards for marking and lighting struc- tures to promote aviation safety.

Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography | 153 81. Federal Aviation Administration. 2007. “AC 90-100A, U.S. Terminal and En Route Area Navigation (RNAV) Operations.” This AC provides operational and airworthiness guidance for operation on U.S. RNAV routes, SIDs, and STARs. Operators and pilots should use the guidance in this AC to determine their eligibility for these U.S. RNAV routes and procedures. 82. Federal Aviation Administration. 2011. “AC 90-101A, Approval Guidance for RNP Procedures with Special Aircraft and Aircrew Authorization Required (SAAAR).” This AC provides airworthiness and operational approval guidance material for aircraft operators con- ducting Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 97 Area Navigation RNAV RNP IAP with AR, charted as “RNAV (RNP) RWY XX.” 83. Federal Aviation Administration. 2011. “AC 90-110, Authorization Guidance for Development of RNP Procedures with AR by Third Party IFP Service Providers.” This AC provides guidance material for third party IFP developers, referred to as “IFP Service Provid- ers,” to become authorized by the FAA to develop Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 97 RNP IFPs with AR. IFPs are then referred to as “RNP AR.” This advisory circular was cancelled on 13 February 2015. 84. Federal Aviation Administration. 2015. “AC 90-113A, Instrument Flight Procedure Validation of IFPs.” This AC provides guidance for conducting instrument flight procedure validation of satellite-based PBN IFPs for both fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft. This AC also addresses validation of helicopter WAAS special IFPs. 85. Federal Aviation Administration. 2012. “AC 150/5200-28, Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) for Airport Operators.” This AC provides guidance on using the NOTAM system for airport condition reporting. 86. Federal Aviation Administration. 2012. “AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design.” This AC contains the FAA standards and recommendations for airport design. Airport Design is the most widely utilized AC in the airport planning industry. Airport operators are advised in this AC regarding the standards of airport design that are known to maximize the safety and efficiency of the NAS. Within these guidelines are regulations and guidance for the clearance of obstacles. For off- airport obstacle clearance, this AC refers heavily to the regulatory standards set forth in FAR Part 77. The AC also provides guidance for those obstacle clearance concerns that would typically be on airport property, such as Runway Protection Zones, Object Free Areas, and Obstacle Free Zones. While this AC offers references to statutory requirements and provides quantitative guidelines for obstacle clearance that promote safe air navigation close to an airport, the document also provides qualitative guid- ance as responsible parties make decisions related to obstacle clearance. The principles within this AC related to obstacle clearance stem from an introductory premise that, “existing and planned airspace required for safe and efficient aircraft operations should be protected by acquisition of a combination of zoning, easements, property interests, and other means” (§201(a)(1)). Appendix 2 of this AC (“Runway End Siting Requirements”) describes, quantifies, and diagrams the sloped airspace clearance requirements for the critical points on the runway for arriving and departing aircraft. The emphasis of this appendix is that a new object that penetrates a critical runway end siting surface may result in serious impacts on the use of the runway by requiring the critical points to be moved, resulting in a reduction of usable runway length, which, in most cases, will incrementally re- duce the capacity of that runway. As a companion to Appendix 2, Appendix 14 (“Declared Distances”)

154 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION prescribes the usable length reductions that must be made in order for the runway to be in compli- ance with runway end siting and other airport design standards. Chapter 3 covers Runway Design Standards and contains an interactive Runway Design Standards Matrix found on Page 93, Table 3-5, Runway design standards matrix, in the document. 87. Federal Aviation Administration. 2007. “AC 150/5300-16A, General Guidance and Specifications for Aeronautical Surveys: Establishment of Geodetic Control and Submission to the National Geodetic Survey.” This AC explains the specifications for establishing geodetic control on or near an airport. It also de- scribes how to submit the information to the National Geodetic Survey for approval and inclusion in the National Spatial Reference System in support of aeronautical information surveys. 88. Federal Aviation Administration. 2011. “AC 150/5300-17C, General Guidance and Specifications for Aeronautical Survey Airport Imagery Acquisition and Submission to the National Geodetic Survey.” This AC provides the specifications for Airport Imagery acquisition and how to submit the imagery for review and approval in support of aeronautical information and airport engineering surveys. 89. Federal Aviation Administration. 2009. “AC 150/5300-18B, General Guidance and Specifications for Submission of Aeronautical Surveys to NGS: Field Data Collection and Geographic Information System (GIS) Standards.” This AC provides the specifications for the collection of airport data through field and office method- ologies in support of the FAA. It also explains how to submit data to the FAA, who will forward the safety critical data to the National Geodetic Survey for independent verification and validation. This AC provides standards for documenting airport geographic information using both field survey and remote sensing data gathering methods, and mapping using GIS, in such a manner that survey data generated by any entity conforming to the standard will be usable by the FAA and the National Geo- detic Survey. Chapter 16 of this AC considers the requirement to identify, with precision and accuracy, the presence of obstructions on and around an airport. The AC details the regulatory requirements for airspace obstruction limitations from FAR Part 77 both quantitatively and diagrammatically for each type of runway approach and for non-approach areas around an airport. While FAR Part 77 requires notification of construction for all structures that meet the requirements in §77.13, this AC provides guidance regarding the types of obstructions that must appear on airport aeronautical survey charts. This AC provides checklists for the data required to chart obstructions on or around an airport. Also contained within this AC is guidance for charting the numerous declared distance considerations (as outlined in AC 150/5300-13), which may have an impact on the obstruction evaluation process. 90. Federal Aviation Administration. 2013. “AC 150/5340-1L, Standards for Airport Markings.” This AC contains the FAA standards for markings used on airport runways, taxiways, and aprons. PBN Flight Procedures, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 91. Federal Aviation Administration. 2015. “Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace.” This part establishes: (a) the requirements to provide notice to the FAA of certain proposed construc- tion, or the alteration of existing structures; (b) the standards used to determine obstructions to air

Appendix D: Annotated Bibliography | 155 navigation, and navigational and communication facilities; (c) the process for aeronautical studies of obstructions to air navigation or navigational facilities to determine the effect on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace, air navigation facilities or equipment; and (d) the process to petition the FAA for discretionary review of determinations, revisions, and extensions of determinations. FAR Part 77 provides the statutory requirements for notification to the FAA of proposed construction or alteration; defines physical airspace obstruction standards; and outlines FAA’s obstruction evalua- tion procedures. FAR Part 77 outlines procedures available for additional review when the effect of a proposed structure on airspace navigation safety or efficiency is questionable, or when the public need for the proposed development justifies acceptable modifications to existing airspace procedures. As a regulatory document, FAR Part 77 provides limited technical information. Interpretation of the regula- tion may require the review of other technical guidance documents. In addition to a general introduction, FAR Part 77 consists of five subparts. Subparts (1) and (2) com- prise the substantive regulations while subparts (3) and (4) are procedural regulations. Subpart (5) provides special regulations for the broadcasting industry. (1) FAR Part 77 outlines the specific condi- tions that require notice to the FAA prior to new construction or alteration of an existing structure. This provision includes instructions and time requirements for the notification process. (2) FAR Part 77 provides the criteria that the FAA uses to determine whether an object constitutes an “obstruction to air navigation.” These criteria, including heights above ground, civil or military “imaginary surfaces,” and effects to flight procedures, are the three-dimensional boundaries by which the FAA classifies an object as an obstruction. (3) FAR Part 77 describes the process for conducting an aeronautical study, and potential rulings that may result. An aeronautical study may be necessary if a proposed construc- tion exceeds obstruction standards, and the entity proposing the development seeks a favorable determination from the FAA. This section outlines the rights and responsibilities of parties involved in an aeronautical study. (4) FAR Part 77 prescribes “rules of practice for hearings,” in the event that an aeronautical study ruling is contested. This subpart, like the preceding subpart, clarifies rights and responsibilities, as well as rules of representation of all parties involved in an airspace obstruction hear- ing. (5) FAR Part 77 includes special provisions and recommendations for maximizing the compatibility of airspace navigation and broadcasting infrastructure. 92. Federal Aviation Administration. 2015. “Part 97, Standard Instrument Procedures.” (a) This part prescribes standard instrument approach procedures to civil airports in the United States and the weather minimums that apply to landings under IFR at those airports. (b) This part also prescribes ODPs for certain civil airports in the United States and the weather minimums that apply to takeoffs under IFR at civil airports in the United States. PBN Flight Procedures, Other Publications 93. Federal Aviation Administration. 2015. “Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), Change 3.” This manual is designed to provide the aviation community with basic flight information and ATC procedures for use in the NAS of the United States. 94. Federal Aviation Administration. “Airport Facility Directory (A/FD).” The A/FD is a 7 volume set plus Alaska and Pacific Territories of printed paper books containing data on public and joint use airports, seaplane bases heliports, VFR airport sketches, NAVAIDs, communi- cations data, weather data sources, airspace, special notices, and operational procedures. The seven volumes cover the conterminous United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

TR A N SPO R TA TIO N R ESEA R CH B O A R D 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERVIC E REQ U ESTED NO N-PRO FIT O RG . U.S. PO STAG E PAID CO LUM BIA, M D PERM IT NO . 88