CDM

Flow Evaluation Team

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.893055555555556in"
height="1.832638888888889in"}

Meeting Notes

September 11 - 14, 2006

Metron & Fair Lakes, VA

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="1.3216535433070866in"
height="1.3251968503937008in"}

## Executive Summary

CDM's Flow Evaluation sub-team (FET) conducted meetings at Metron
Aviation in Herndon, VA and at Northrop Grumman in Fair Lakes, VA from
September 11 - 14, 2006. The key objectives of the meetings were to
prepare for the CDM General Meeting and to meet with FCT and GDPE
Sub-teams to coordinate handoffs of work assignments for the future.

Key activities during the meeting included:

-   Review of AFPs conducted to date

-   Receive input of AFP process

-   Prepare AFP presentation to CDM

-   Meet with FCT to clarify specific tasks for the future

-   Meet with GDPE to clarify specific tasks for the future

-   Plan future meetings and activities for FET

These meeting notes will be reviewed and then posted on line at:

<http://cdm.fly.faa.gov/Workgroups/route_eval.html>

### September 11 2006

## Introduction

The meeting began at noon at Metron Aviation in Herndon, VA.

Attendees were:

Mark Libby, ATCSCC Curt Kaler, ZMP Joe Bertapelle, MITRE

Dennis O'Hara, ZDC Jeff Miller, ATA Gary Dockan, USA

Glenn Godfrey, ATCSCC Jeff Tichenor, D01 Phil Smith, OSU

Joe Hof, ATCSCC Jill Sparrow, ATCSCC Gretchen Wilmouth, Metron

Al Mahilo, ZOB Rob Deering, AAL Dave Rose, NavCanada

Paul Eure, TAC2 Ed Olsen, NWA Forrest Terral, FAA

Mark Hopkins, Delta Ken Howard, Volpe Joe Mealie, USA

Sandy Clover, Metron Neil Martin, NavCanada Gordon Fernie, NavCanda

Bob Flynn, ORD

### Welcome/Agenda Review 

Mark Libby and Mark Hopkins welcomed attendees to the meeting and
reviewed the agenda items:

1.  Will not likely meet on Thursday, but need to add future meetings.

2.  What to handoff to GDPE.

3.  To meet with FCT on Tuesday to receive tasks (ICR)

4.  Plan presentation for CDM meeting

5.  Jill will be here later with metrics info

6.  Bob Flynn will be here at 2:30 pm to discuss ORD EDCTs

7.  Plan to meet with GDPE on Tuesday at 3:00 pm

8.  Phil to review CDR issues

### AFP General Discussion

Mark Hopkins led a discussion on the status of AFP and future issues.
The following key items were discussed and documented:

-   FET is closing out some of their work on AFP and GDPE will be taking
    the technology issues.

-   The customers within FET feel strongly that FET should retain all of
    the procedural issues.

-   FAA wants to start using AFPs more tactically. How the customers are
    brought on board will be an important issue for FET.

-   Discussed the formation of a team at the ATCSCC to work these
    issues.

-   AFP is not seen as a mature tool now and it is thought that it may
    take several seasons to fully mature.

-   Mark Libby advised that FET may need to be re-tasked by the CSG to
    continue working related items.

-   He also feels that it may be best to keep work on FET rather than
    forming a new team at the ATCSCC.

-   All were reminded that the focus task assigned by CSG was to develop
    AFP primarily as an alternative to multiple GDPs in support of SWAP.

-   Equity is an issue that needs to be looked at in the future.

-   All agree that AFP is at least a two phase program, with Phase I
    being the implementation this past summer and Phase II being the
    future use of ad hoc AFPs (tactical use).

-   Many feel that it may be too early to handoff AFP. The handoff
    process is OK, but the timing is bad with so many issues to work.

-   Many on FET want more canned AFPs implemented and used prior to
    starting the use of ad hoc AFPs.

-   Mark L. feels that the future development of the early phases of ICR
    is closely associated with the current way AFPs are used. Giving the
    customers more choices and options is the goal of both and AFP
    seemed to have reduced the number of required reroutes, a similar
    goal as ICR has.

-   A suggestion was made for a sub-team to work on more canned AFPs.

-   Another suggestion was made to handoff only specific parts that are
    ready to be handed off.

-   Mark L. and Mark H. will meet with Jim Ries and Lorne Cass to
    discuss and clarify the specific direction.

-   All of FET agrees on the handoff of automation issues to GDPE.

-   All are hopeful that we will be able to show CDM some positive data
    from AFPs.

-   Mark H., speaking for all of the customers, wants raw data released
    for customer review as soon as possible.

-   ZDC feels that AFPs to date have really helped keep the traffic
    levels down for the first few hours of the mid shifts, when in the
    past there have been times when heavy traffic was a big issue at the
    end of a program.

-   ZOB feels there were substantially less "hot spots" during AFPs as
    compared to past TMIs. ZOB is trying to do some analysis of monitor
    alert numbers.

-   Ed Olsen feels that cancellations were down at NWA. Any input from
    customers will be very important. Any data on diversions? No.

-   It was suggested that cancellations be viewed carefully since the
    level of cancellations and their reasons can be tricky.

-   Want to make sure that the fact that customers have taken advantage
    of more options associated with AFPs is highlighted.

-   Gary Dockan of US Air was shocked when AFPA01 and AFPA02 were
    implemented due to the delays. Have been pleasantly surprised at the
    small number of VUL and MGE playbooks used.

-   Canada reported that things have gotten steadily better. The initial
    AFPs caused problems, mostly route problems. Once the route issues
    got consistent, things got much better.

-   Several customers discussed the CAN routes and how they interacted
    with some of the northern military areas. Curt Kaler advised that it
    would be unlikely that the military would give up any of that
    airspace due to the level of training now being conducted in those
    areas.

-   Canada and Joe Hof discussed the need to schedule the CDR/Playbook
    meetings to accommodate the Canadian schedule.

-   Jeff Miller suggested that AFPs may have reduced the number of
    advisories. This would be seen as a very positive thing,
    particularly at smaller airlines where resources are slim.

-   Curt K. advised there were days when the airlines were requesting
    AFPs and that is good.

-   There have been reports from Fed-X that AFPA08 has worked well for
    them.

### AFP Analysis

Jill Sparrow went over a presentation on the analysis of AFP data to
date. She again emphasized that the data is preliminary. The following
discussions were documented:

-   All agree that the accuracy of reporting delays should be better.

-   Looked at new airports getting EDCTs. Sandy making case for
    compliance. She feels that this points to good training and there
    appears to not be a big issue with new EDCT airports.

-   There is a big jump in EDCT arrival airports and a reduction in the
    number of controls.

-   Gary D. would like to see OPSNET for scheduled and un-scheduled to
    check on equity of delays.

-   Ken Howard had data on EDCTs at the larger airports.

-   Most feel that it would be best to use the OPSNET 48 airport data.

-   Overall metrics should be available on the web sites by October 15.
    Sandy reviewed the pages and explained each item that is expected to
    be available.

-   A question was asked about any reduction in Ops Errors with AFPs. No
    analysis has been done so far.

-   ZOB is looking at monitor alert and will compare the number of
    alerts this year to 2005.

-   Curt Kaler emphasized that it would be very good if we could come up
    with some "plain language" explanation of benefits.

### EDCT Issues

Bob Flynn, Chicago Area Terminal TMO joined the meeting to discuss
specific issues with EDCTs at ORD and ATL. He had talked to Billy Joyce
from Atlanta and his views were also representing ATL. He stated that
the number of EDCTs for both of these key airports were so high and so
work intensive that he felt it was impossible to declare AFP victories.
On suggestion Bob has made is to move the AFP boundaries west of ORD.
When AFPA05 is implemented, it generates 242 EDCTs at ORD. Ken Howard
and Volpe have done substantial analysis and it appears that automation
changes that will help have been accomplished. Ken emphasized that
further automation changes will likely not make much difference. He
stated that all need to think "out of the box" to look for solutions.
Another suggestion was made to consider an AFP within an AFP for ORD and
ATL. Several suggestions having to do with splitting AFPs high and low
were discussed. Other suggestions to conduct HITLs to test groups of
slots for departures were discussed. All agreed that these and other
issues would be discussed when FET met with GDPE.

### PDARs/PARs

Curt K. has been checking with many facilities and to date has found no
issues with flights routing out of AFPs.

### September 12 2006

## Introduction

The meeting began at 9:00 am at Northrop Grumman in Fair Lakes, VA. This
meeting was a joint meeting of FET and FCT.

Attendees were:

Mark Libby, ATCSCC Curt Kaler, ZMP Joe Bertapelle, MITRE

Dennis O'Hara, ZDC Jeff Miller, ATA Gary Dockan, USA

Glenn Godfrey, ATCSCC Jeff Tichenor, D01 Phil Smith, OSU

Joe Hof, ATCSCC Gretchen Wilmouth, Metron Sandy Clover, Metron

Al Mahilo, ZOB Rob Deering, AAL Dave Rose, NavCanada

Paul Eure, TAC2 Ed Olsen, NWA Forrest Terral, FAA

Mark Hopkins, Delta Ken Howard, Volpe Joe Mealie, USA

Neil Martin, NavCanada Gordon Fernie, NavCanda Bill Cook, FAA TUT

Mike Klinker, Mitre Michelle Duquette, Mitre David Follett, FAA

Loraine Sandusky, COA Claude Jackson, Mitre Ernie Stellings, NBAA

Dave Winters, Netjets Gary Blackwell, FAA ZJX Rick Oiesen, Volpe

Judy Morrill, FAA Bob Ocon, FAA ZNY Ricky Bell, ATCSCC

Mark Evans, FAA ZOB Charlie Bailey, Mitre Michelle Sommerday, FSC

Mark Klopfenstein, Metron Norma Taber, Mitre Bill Leber, NWA

Ved Sud, FAA Amy Spencer, OSU Riley Shamburger, RAA

Mike Meyers, ATCSCC Mike Golibersuch, Volpe

### Opening

Ved Sud, FAA Lead for the Future Concepts Team (FCT) welcomed
participants and reviewed the agenda for the day. He introduced Mark
Evans, FCT member for the first presentation.

### ICR Presentation

Mark Evans conducted a presentation on ICR. The full presentation can be
found at:

<http://cdm.fly.faa.gov/Workgroups/route_eval.html#minutes>

The following comments and discussions were documented:

-   The decision to field Phase 0 of ICR has already been made.

-   This exercise is a handoff and we need to make it happen as soon as
    possible.

-   The presentation today should be a good review for all.

-   AFP is viewed as a good intro for ICR as ICR will provide customers
    with route options.

-   Most customers feel that AFPs have already provided less required
    routes this year.

-   AFP has also provided the customers with greater flexibility and has
    allowed them to prioritize flights as needed based on business
    decisions.

-   There are some concerns with fielding more tools and getting users
    trained.

-   Others feel that it is the job of the FAA to provide more tools and
    capabilities and the customers will then pick what they feel they
    need to use.

-   Rick Oiesen of Volpe explained the upcoming hub site freeze
    necessitated by TFMM. Some desired items may be delayed by as much
    as 2 to 3 years.

### ETMS 8.3 Changes for ICR

Mike Golibersuch of Volpe conducted a presentation on ETMS 8.3 changes
for ICR Phase 0. The full presentation can be found at:

<http://cdm.fly.faa.gov/Workgroups/route_eval.html#minutes>

The following discussion items were documented:

-   Rick O. asked for input on a time parameter setting that would knock
    out filed wind intent flight plans and catch early, operational
    intent. He was recommending 3 hours for the setting based on
    previous input. After talking to several of the customers about the
    way and time they file different flight plans, it seemed that the 3
    hour parameter was a good starting point.

-   On Reroute Monitor, if one flight is in two reroutes, the call sign
    will be colored blue.

-   Members discussed the potential need of adding a new reroute
    category of "Optional" (OPT) to the Reroute Monitor for AFPs. FET
    will discuss this later in the meeting. This will be added as an
    action item for future meetings.

### ROG Presentation

Gretchen Wilmouth of Metron Aviation conducted a presentation on the
Route Option Generator (ROG). The full presentation can be found at:

<http://cdm.fly.faa.gov/Workgroups/route_eval.html#minutes>

The following discussion items were documented:

-   You can't currently summit routes directly from ROG. This will
    likely be an enhancement in later phases. This is not seen as a hub
    site issue.

-   Airlines will be able to import their own set of routes into ROG for
    use in their own database only.

-   Joe Hof in the Procedures Office is trying to synchronize CDR and
    Playbooks.

-   Curt K. suggested that a color code (maybe Yellow) be used to denote
    "No" on RMT so you won't have to scroll to the Yes/No Column.

-   It was noted that the columns can be moved and the default set so
    the "Yes/No" column is always visible.

### ICR Impact to TFM

Mike Klinker of Mitre/CAASD conducted a presentation on ICR Impact to
TFM. The full presentation can be found at:

<http://cdm.fly.faa.gov/Workgroups/route_eval.html#minutes>

ICR will reduce AT coordination/communications either verbally or via
automation and improve customer options.

### Implementation Discussion:

Members of FET and FCA engaged in a discussion on implementation issues
and the following questions were raised and issues documented:

-   What are the differences between initial ICR and the FEA/FCA process
    that allows UPT?

-   Why was the FEA/FCA process unsuccessful and how can the
    implementation be improved this time?

-   How can incentives/disincentives be built into the process to
    optimize participation?

-   What level of route freedom can the FAA handle without additional
    tools such as Future Traffic Display (FTD)?

-   Are there any other ways to assess impact besides monitor alert or
    monitoring FEAs/FCAs?

-   Will the use of early intent messages in the ETMS FP database
    improve data?

-   How large of a rollout is practical for initial ICR concept? Should
    it be associated with AFP? Not AFP? Closed routes? Other
    applications?

-   How will the process for customer submitted routes be done? What
    will be the level of coordination?

-   Some of the upcoming tasks:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Refinement of concepts for implementation.

-   How will ICR interact with other TMIs?

-   Procedures development; both FAA and customer.

-   Training; both FAA and customer.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ed Olsen feels early intent is good and customers must participate
    more. He feels we should look for some way to provide benefit for
    providing it.

-   Loraine advised that FEA/FCA/AFP has created extra workload on
    planners and dispatchers and they need to be able to see benefits by
    getting the early intent routes or finding ways to reduce workload.

-   Riley Shamburger agreed that there is extra work now. There is a
    process for each aircraft and we need a system that minimizes having
    to "rework" aircraft route planning, especially aircraft by
    aircraft.

-   Mark H. advised that customers need to have a high expectation of
    approval for early intent without constantly replanning.

-   Bill Leber interjected that much of the early stages of ICR will
    require manual interactions. Concept 7 and future phases will
    hopefully be more automated to reduce manual work.

-   What has happen to electronic exception? Later phases of ICR will
    provide similar capabilities.

-   On a bad day, restrictions are cumulative. EDCTs will likely get
    longer. ICR will offer some usable route alternatives.

-   During the HITLs, a group of historical routes were used.

-   Is ROG flexible enough to allow ATCSCC to daily change the ROG based
    on constraints? There is no current capability to do this, but it
    could be done.

-   There is no current way to import routes from ROG into the Create
    Reroute tool.

-   Bill Leber feels that higher participation will provide more
    predictability for TFM.

-   Could Chokepoints be affected? Chokepoints could be recommended
    routes in the future.

-   Most feel that ICR should be associated with AFP for more overall
    benefits than being associated with routes.

-   Customers would like to have approvals on individual early intent
    routes to build confidence in the process and give the users the
    feeling that early intent is worthwhile.

-   Discussed closed and/or restricted routes.

-   Any approval authority will likely stay at the ATCSCC for the near
    term.

-   Ved Sud feels that probably FET needs to develop ideas for training.

-   How will the customers know if other TMIs are active; e.g., MIT,
    GDP,ESP, etc.?

-   Customers need to know about other TMIs so they can make an informed
    decision. Mark L. advised that the FAA is working toward showing an
    average delay on the OIS.

The FCT members left the room. The transition members remained with FET
to discuss and plan an agenda for the future. Some things to do were
listed:

-   Set meeting dates

-   Initial discussion on ICR with target dates.

-   CDR/Routes updates.

-   Finalize CDM presentation.

-   GDPE handoff items.

-   Training issues.

-   Procedures issues.

Discussed the feasibility of trying Snowbird routes for "ad hoc" AFPs.
What is the timing? Can it be done? Is it worthwhile? Some like use of
Snowbird routes. They feel it could be started as a slow process, maybe
combined with a high rate AFP.

### Balancing Traffic Demands using AFP and ESP

Phil Smith of OSU conducted a presentation on data analysis collected
via POET during AFPs. The full presentation can be found at:

<http://cdm.fly.faa.gov/Workgroups/route_eval.html#minutes>

The following issues were discussed:

-   Phil got a number of suggestions on ways to drill down to get more
    needed data.

-   Discussed using ESP more on CAN routes.

-   Discussed MITs from ZAU.

-   Phil discussed CDR analysis of JFK to MCO routes.

-   He has been and will continue to work with Netjets on analysis.

-   Ed O. advised that ground position data from DTW is being provided
    to ZOB to help get routes for aircraft close to the front of the
    line.

-   Ed O. has worked with ZOB on several occasions to exchange ground
    data and has seen extremely good results. Ed will meet with Steve
    Ryan of the Surface Management team to discuss this.

### Meeting Dates

The following meetings were planned:

October 18 -- 19, 2006 Metron Aviation, Herndon, VA

Wed. Oct 18 10:00 am to 5:00 pm

Thurs. Oct 19 7:00 am to 2:00 pm

November 15 -- 16, 2006 Metron Aviation, Herndon, VA

Wed. Nov. 15 10:00 am to 5:00 pm

Thurs. Nov. 16 7:00 am to 2:00 pm

A target date was discussed for ICR. FET hopes to have work done by late
winter or early spring and shakedown in February if possible.

### Jim Ries/Lorne Cass/Mike Gough Visit with FET

Jim Ries, FAA CDM Lead, Lorne Cass, CDM Industry POC, and Mike Gough,
Director Systems Ops Programs, visited with the FET. Jim discussed the
overall handoff process and why it was being done this way. There were
lots of AFP discussions. It was suggested that there may be a need for a
FAA/Customer SOP to provide consistency. Maybe we need to do some role
playing to work issues or maybe put out proposed AFPs early to allow
more planning. Jim advised that Midori and her team will continue to
work the EDCT issues.

Lorne Cass thanked FET for their work in getting AFP fielded. He stated
that AFPs are good and have provided benefits, even though the benefits
are hard to measure. The future route and route options changes will fit
well with AFPs.

Jim advised that the FAA is committed to re-evaluate Playbooks to save
customers fuel. He is trying to get funding for a future meeting. A
question was asked about involving Canada in the future meetings. Jim
advised that they should be involved and so should the military. An
important item for this future meeting needs to be RNAV Playbooks and
CDRs. Jim also wants to ensure that we have NESP representatives
available for all meetings and testing.

Jim explained the funding for TFMM and how important it is to stay on
schedule. Mike Gough emphasized that they are hopeful that some things
will still get done outside of the hub changes. Jim and Lorne will meet
with Mark L. and Mark H. to clarify the FET, FCT and GDPE roles. Another
issue to discuss will be to identify issues that might not get worked
until 2009 because of TFMM. They don't want any of the teams working
issues now that are years away. Jim also wants the FET to define
"tactical AFP" so it will suit both the FAA and the customers. Jim
explained the early work to develop a web-based analysis tool to replace
POET and FSA. Loraine emphasized that it is important to ensure that
customers will continue to have some way to accomplish analysis. The
EDCT issues at ORD and ATL was discussed. There may be a new work group
formed of technical resources to deal with these specific issues.

Jim would rather for FET to work on an AFP process rather than spending
time and resources working on specific HITLs or tests. There were
general discussions on how best to proceed on ad hoc AFPs, rate setting
and popup rates. Mark H. interjected that it is likely that we will move
in two directions; some more canned AFPs and a need to develop a process
for ad hocs. Jim emphasized that there will be times that AFPs should
not be the answer to recurring problems. The FAA should look at any
recurring problem to identify airspace or other operational solutions.

There were still some uncertainty with specific items and
responsibilities to be received from FCT and passed to GDPE. The leads
will meet with Jim and Lorne later today to discuss these and other
issues.

### General Discussions

Attendees discussed various options for changing the floor of AFPs. Some
expressed caution that we should move slowly on since the precise
location of weather may make a big difference. There were several
suggestions discussed based on tunneling and capping. Maybe splitting
the AFP vertically into two AFPs was discussed; 120 to FL 280 and FL 290
and above. It was also suggested that raising the floor to FL 230 and
allowing departures going to major airports to free flow might be a
viable option. All agree that this discussion should continue once the
team responsibilities are clarified.

Sandy Clover reviewed the slide presentation planned for the CDM general
meeting. Members provided input on slide selection.

###  September 14 2006

## Introduction

The meeting began at 1:30 pm at Northrop Grumman in Fair Lakes, VA. This
meeting was attended by FET members only. The key goals of the meeting
were to brainstorm ideas for future development and coordination with
FCT and GDPE. The following discussed issues were documented:

-   There is lots of work to be done and we need to stay connected to
    GDPE.

-   We now have ICR and ROG will bring something to the process beyond
    FEA/FCA with UPT.

-   Most see ICR as fitting in with what we are now doing with AFP and
    most feel it will cut down on required routes.

-   Discussed the need to clarify required, recommended and optional
    reroutes.

-   All agree that for early intent to be effective, more participation
    is needed.

-   Need to discuss the use of ROG for individual carrier routes and how
    ATCSCC will view and use these routes.

-   SWA may have some identified issues at OAK using the NWA Turbulence
    Plot tool to pick routes. After picking the routes, they were put on
    PDAR/PAR.

-   There were some discussions on maybe developing more canned AFPs for
    the future. No more than 12 to 14 would be expected. Also need to
    work on procedures for the development and use of ad hoc AFPs.

-   Forrest T. advised that when FCAA05 was implemented, the CAN routes
    were used more this year as compared to last. He even feels some
    days there may have been too many on those routes. Ed O. feels that
    taking the CAN routes provides predictability which is important.

-   The overall goal must be to give customers maximum options early and
    let them have choices when able to do so.

-   Another big benefit is likely the departure flow. All agree that
    metrics are needed on this and we would like to have that data by
    the End of Season review.

-   Would like to see data on number of GSs and GDPs during AFPs and
    would like to see the number of flights put back in.

-   The following key issues were identified as important to work:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ICR

-   Ad Hoc AFP process

-   Playbook AFPs

-   Filters (Altitude and/or others)

-   Floor of AFPs

-   Dynamic

-   East to West AFP

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Discussed the scenario of a solid line through ZKC and how to handle
    it. This might be an ICR situation without an AFP. Normally, don't
    use a "no fly zone" approach for this type of weather. Might use
    FEAs to monitor flows.

-   Very important that there are no disincentives for filing early
    intent.

-   Need to define ad hoc vs. tactical. Is there a difference? Which one
    should be used? May want to match terms in Create Reroute. Also need
    to define dynamic and playbook.

-   Sandy C. took an action item to come up with a list of draft terms
    and definitions.

-   Directions are to use the test string vs. HITLs due to the costs.

-   Based on the meeting yesterday, FET will keep the procedural aspects
    of AFP and GDPE will work the automation issues.

-   Group brainstormed ideas of upfront work in preparation for the next
    meeting.

-   There were concerns raised about setting rates in public forums.
    Most feel that it would be better to develop a process that all
    trust.

-   Members discussed various ways that rates might be determined for an
    ad hoc AFP. One suggestion was to use PDARS and the boundary
    crossing times for sector crossings. You could then validate the
    process. Most feel that a rate within 10% would be a good starting
    number.

-   Sandy advised that there is funding for future support of ICR, AFP,
    etc. at Metron.

### Action Items

The following action items were discussed and documented:

1.  FET to consider Optional "OPT" as a new category for Reroute
    Monitor. ***(TEAM)***

2.  Attempt to develop metrics on departure flow during AFPs for use
    during End of Season Review. **(*QA Sub-team)***

3.  Develop a draft list of terms and definitions prior to next meeting;
    e.g., ad hoc, dynamic, playbook, etc. ***(Sandy)***

4.  Send note to TMOs soliciting ideas for candidate "ad hoc" AFPs.
    ***(Mark L.)***

5.  ATCSCC group to develop list of candidate list of "ad hoc"
    candidates for AFPs. ***(Mark L., Glenn G., Forrest T.)***

6.  Conduct telcon with customer to solicit ideas for "ad hoc" AFPs.
    ***(Mark H.)***

7.  Collect data that might correlate AFP rates with Monitor Alert
    numbers or other available data working toward the development of a
    formula for setting rates for "ad hoc" AFPs. ***(Mike M.)***

8.  Develop draft options for the integration of ICR with AFP and/or
    other TMIs. ***(Curt K.)***

9.  Work with Bryon Li at ATAC using PDARS to search for methods to
    determine rates for "ad hoc" AFPs. ***(Jeff T.)***