DRVSM Work Group

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

Meeting Notes

Kansas City ARTCC

7 -- 8 June 2005

![](media/image2.jpeg)

**Table of Contents**

[Executive Summary 2](#executive-summary)

[**1. Introduction:** 3](#introduction)

[**2. Survey Data Collection** 3](#survey-data-collection)

[**3. Review of PDARS Information** 4](#review-of-pdars-information)

[**4. Specific Data/Reports for DRVSM Analysis**
6](#specific-datareports-for-drvsm-analysis)

[**5. Format for DRVSM Benefits Analysis Report**
6](#format-for-drvsm-benefits-analysis-report)

[**6. Review of TMO DRVSM Survey Responses**
7](#review-of-tmo-drvsm-survey-responses)

[**7. MAP Values** 8](#map-values)

[**8. Review of TFM Plan for DRVSM** 10](#review-of-tfm-plan-for-drvsm)

[**9. Next Plans and Meeting Close:** 11](#next-plans-and-meeting-close)

[**Attachment A: Meeting Attendees:**
12](#attachment-a-meeting-attendees)

[**Attachment B: Meeting Actions:** 12](#attachment-b-meeting-actions)

## 

## 

## Executive Summary

CDM's Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (DRVSM) Work Group
conducted a Meeting on 7 -- 8 June 2005 to continue review of DRVSM
implementation results.

A key focus for the meeting was to review initial survey data and
metrics regarding DRVSM implementation. Additional information is still
being collected and will be compiled and formatted into a final report
by SEP2005, which will include observations and recommendations from the
Work Group.

One of the principal items discussed at the meeting is the possibility
of increasing Monitor Alert Parameter (MAP) values as a result of the
new high- altitude operating environment with six additional altitudes.
Specific recommendations are likely from this Work Group regarding MAPs.

## **1. Introduction:** 

The DRVSM Work Group meeting convened at 8 am on Tuesday, June 7, 2005
at the Kansas City ARTCC facility. Attendees are shown in Attachment A.
These meeting notes will be reviewed and then posted at
[www.metronaviation.com/Workgroups/drvsm.html](http://www.metronaviation.com/Workgroups/drvsm.html)
.

The purpose of the meeting was to:

-   Discuss data gathered to date regarding RVSM implementation results
    (from TMO survey and PDARS)

-   Determine additional data needs

-   Define RVSM results analysis and report plans

## **2. Survey Data Collection** 

FAA RVSM RESULTS SURVEY DATA:\
The group began with a review of feedback from the survey of TMOs
regarding DRVSM results seen at the ARTCCs around the country.
Approximately half of the Centers have responded so far. The results
look promising; for example,

-   Most facilities indicate ease of complexity due to less vectoring
    and more flexibility

-   Several facilities have raised MAP values or are considering it

-   Several facilities report raising cap or LOA restrictions

AIRLINE RESULTS DATA:\
Only three airlines have responded to the request for feedback. Most
have moved on to what they consider more important challenges still on
the horizon. Airline representatives to the group again iterated the
difficulty of segregating/quantifying results. Rob Deering pointed out
at the last meeting that he knows that fuel use has decreased over the
past year, but several simultaneous initiatives along with DRVSM make it
difficult to segregate the precise impact of each one. Bill Leber
similarly reported that delay time has improved, but segregating which
variable has had exactly what effect is difficult.

In short, the airlines expected clear and dramatic impacts, but results
have been difficult to determine. How to isolate just the RVSM variable
with its specific impacts has been problematic.

The group agreed that the full benefits of RVSM depend on concomitant
process/ procedural changes; that is, MAP value changes, crossing/LOA
changes, HAR/NAR changes, etc. They realize tacitly that results are
there (higher altitudes, etc.), but measuring the precise extent of
those benefits is not a priority right now. DRVSM is a past event and
other continuing crises drive the attention of the industry.

It was reported that PDARS data can be sorted by Carrier if Airlines
want to further pursue their benefits analysis.

MILITARY RESULTS:\
The military is gathering results data also and is expected to be
putting together their position based on their own findings. NASA is
also still making requests for exemptions into RVSM altitudes for
non-equipped aircraft.

HAR/NAR Involvement in RESULTS:\
The attention of the HAR/NAR group is needed to help drive continuing
benefits; for example, for LOA negotiations, efficient sector strata
design, etc. Some facilities have already submitted requests for changes
to altitude structures, LOAs, etc.

CALCULATING BENEFITS:\
The difficulty of quantifying benefits in a meaningful fashion was
discussed. We probably need at some point to apply dollar figures to
catch attention. We should be able to look at things like the following
in PDARS:

-   Slight decrease in the [average distance flown]{.underline} in
    sectors

-   An increase in the [average altitude flown]{.underline}

Once these numbers are determined, we can apply a dollar figure such as
that recently used in a draft study calculating benefits for
TFM-Modernization.

**[ACTION]{.underline}**: Find and disseminate the dollar values used in
the TFM-Modernization Benefits Study. \~ M. Krause

The group also noted that any possible negative impacts should be
reported; for example, the number of flights below FL 280 (although most
FAA facilities report this is being handled without problem at this
time).

DELAY REDUCTIONS:\
It was reported that delays have decreased approximately 40% in May05,
but this is probably largely weather-related (Severe Wx not as
significant this Spring as in 2004). It may be important to look at JUN
numbers. If they are up but still less than 2004, then maybe we have
some evidence that flexibility improvements due to RVSM altitudes have
contributed significantly.

The group will continue to track this.

## **3. Review of PDARS Information** 

Bryon Li of ATAC then led the group through a review of PDARS data --
both samples and some actual numbers.

ATAC has collected DRVSM data for a report. The information compares
four weeks of data prior to DRVSM implementation with four weeks of data
in FEB-MAR05. Some of the more useful or interesting data samples and
comments included:

-   Average sector time and distance data in the reports assumes all
    sectors are open all the time (i.e., not the distance through two
    combined sectors)

-   MAP values: PDARS Reports on MAP 'exceedances' along with the number
    of times action was requested may help support a drive for higher
    MAPs

    -   Much more discussion on MAP values continued over the two days
        (see below)

    -   Other analysis/judgment still is, and should be, applied to
        defining MAPs

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   BAR CHARTS showing the following will be very useful:

    -   Time at or above requested altitude before and after RVSM

    -   Average altitude flown before and after RVSM

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It was AGREED that we need to segregate reports for 290 -- 410 to
    distinguish the impact/benefits of RVSM.

    -   Also need to segregate FL240-280 data to show the impact of RVSM
        on this segment of airspace

    -   Separate by category (Airline/Air Taxi vs. Military vs. GA)

    -   Then a total picture of the impact of RVSM on the NAS can be
        seen

-   Roger Bruce pointed out that increase in the time in a sector could
    be a positive indicator, not negative, because it may well mean that
    flights are spending more time at altitude rather than in transition

-   TMIs: The group discussed how many TMIs (especially MIT
    restrictions) were implemented on past data rather than on
    real/current data. Tools like PDARS or FEAs/FCAs can often show no
    real need to do a TMI at this time.

    -   Real-time vs. historic data is needed for decision making
        instead of planning automatically for the worst case

-   There is serious doubt about the value of MAP and other raw data

    -   Example: ZDV reported recently ignoring MAP during a recent
        heavy Wx event and the situation was handled without incident.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   AVERAGE SECTOR FLIGHT LEVEL PER FACILITY

    -   This data shows a very definite increase for Air Carrier traffic
        and a decrease for Military and GA flights.

    -   The Airlines say they should be able to use this data and apply
        a value (\$) to it

    -   This Report will be of great importance to the WG's report

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Access to PDARS by Airlines/CDM Users may be important now that POET
    is no longer available. Waiting three days for POET Reports is
    highly undesirable because of the frequent need to do analysis
    quickly.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   RVSM AVG SECTOR FLIGHT DISTANCE/AVERAGE SECTOR FLIGHT TIME

    -   Air Carrier distance flown decreased 10.42 miles

    -   Air Carrier time in sector decreased 1.07 minutes

    -   These are very significant results and this will be another key
        report for the WG's analysis

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ATAC's PDARS Contract requires a Report by 15JUN to ATO-P

    -   This WG expects to obtain a copy of that report

NOTE:

-   Items designated with this bullet format were determined to be the
    most potentially useful for an RVSM Results Report.

## **4. Specific Data/Reports for DRVSM Analysis** 

After reviewing Bryon's data samples, the WG then reviewed specific data
sources and reports that might be used to gather information for
analysis of benefits.

-   AGREED: our report should emphasize [benefits]{.underline}. Mention
    of negative or undone items is necessary but should not be a focus
    of a report

    -   This means we focus on Air Carrier PDARS information between FL
        290 and FL 410

    -   May likely mention that FL 240 -- 280 traffic has increased but
        anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that there have been no
        issues as a result.

-   **[ACTION]{.underline}**: Define Air Carrier vs. Air Taxi vs.
    General Aviation in PDARS Reports to ensure we understand exactly
    what those distinctions mean before publishing information. \~ B. Li

-   Other possible sources of RVSM Information:

    -   Operational Errors at 290 -- 410 before vs. after RVSM
        implementation

        -   **[ACTION]{.underline}**: Gather info on OEs before vs.
            after RVSM\
            \~ M. Stott

    -   As previously suggested, determine if there is data on MIT
        restrictions before vs. after RVSM

-   AGREED: to collect the following PDARS data

    -   Average Time in Sector

    -   Average Altitude

    -   FL 290 -- 410: All traffic

    -   FL 290 -- 410: All 35 OEP airports, or, if unable,\
        for select City Pairs as follows (determined by reviewing counts
        and as a cross section of east-west and north-south flights of
        500 miles or more):

    -   Apply dollar figures to time/distance data if possible (using
        same metrics applied in TFM-M Benefits Analysis or metrics
        supplied by Airlines)

## **5. Format for DRVSM Benefits Analysis Report** 

The WG then discussed what format/contents should be used for the DRVSM
Results Report. Suggestions were that:

-   It should track to the DRVSM Plan we prepared last year

    -   Two main objectives for the Plan were:

        -   Fuel Savings

        -   Added Flexibility

        -   Both of these will need to be addressed

-   It should track to accomplishment of the FAA "Flight Plan" goals
    where possible

-   It should include a section on "additional actions" or
    "recommendations" that the WG feels are still necessary

A proposed outline might look like:

-   Background

    -   Include here things like:

        -   a description of the tasking (what and why),

        -   reference to the original DRVSM Plan document,

        -   reference to the performance/analysis mechanisms (PDARS and
            others),

        -   reference to the "Flight Plan",

        -   scope and contents/organization of the Report.

            -   It was noted that the Scope or some part of the Intro
                should have a caveat that data comparison is at least
                difficult due to other variables that cannot be
                controlled and that the sample is only for the first few
                months -- not multi-year trends.\
                We expect that the results should be cumulative and
                should increase as other necessary follow-on actions and
                learning are taken into account.

-   Data

    -   Metrics along with analysis and conclusions based on the metrics

    -   Include some examples/anecdotes but back up with metrics where
        possible

    -   Tabulate and use the TMO survey data

-   Open Items and Recommendations

    -   For example:

        -   the MAP value discussion and recommendations

        -   a NAS-wide airspace evaluation of how to best
            exploit/organize altitude stratifications in light of RVSM\
            - How much standardization is necessary or possible?\
            - Are there obvious breaks or data chunks that we can use

-   **[ACTION]{.underline}**: Put together a draft "Outline" for the
    Results Report\
    \~ M. Krause

## **6. Review of TMO DRVSM Survey Responses**

The morning of Day 2, the WG reviewed and discussed feedback received
from TMOs on the survey questions distributed during the last meeting.

-   Most of the feedback received so far was excellent -- some very
    anecdotal but some with specific numbers of MAP changes or LOA
    changes.

-   The WG feels use of quotes or stories will be OK, but the real focus
    of a report should be on numbers/metrics whenever possible

**[ACTION]{.underline}**: Organize/tabulate TMO DRVSM Survey Feedback
for review by the WG. \~ T. Wray / M. Krause

-   Survey feedback has been received from the following facilities:

    -   ZID, ZKC, ZFW, ZOB, ZMP, ZLA

-   Survey feedback is known to be forthcoming from the following:

    -   ZHU, ZME, ZDV, ZAU

-   Survey feedback/correspondence not received from the following:

    -   ZTL, ZMA, ZJX, ZDC, ZNY, ZLC, ZBW, ZOA, ZSE, ZAB

**[ACTION]{.underline}**: Contact the 10 remaining facilities to repeat
request for DRVSM Survey feedback. \~ T. Wray, G. Tigert

**[ACTION]{.underline}**: Request the five MTOs forward to the DRVSM WG
the information they are gathering from TMOs on MAP Reviews.

OTHER DATA SOURCES:

It was again suggested that other data sources need to be considered for
the RVSM Results Report document; for example:

-   Operational Error (OE) information from the Safety Office (FL 290 --
    410 OEs before and after DRVSM)

-   Any MIT/Restrictions data before and after DRVSM (QA Office)

    -   TMIs due to enroute volume: 2004 vs. 2005

-   Delay Metrics before and after RVSM.

    -   Again, with the caveat that determining what segment of delay
        changes may be related to RVSM could be very difficult at best.

**[ACTION]{.underline}**: Review the *TFM Plan for DRVSM* document to
determine what other IOUs or incomplete actions might remain. \~ DRVSM
WG

## **7. MAP Values**

The WG then returned to the discussion of MAP Value changes that might
be warranted due to new efficiencies such as DRVSM altitude gains, URET,
and others.

There are probably two steps or actions we need to take:

1.  Collect current data

-   This may be one of the most concrete benefits that we can show after
    RVSM implementation if it is quantifiable

-   It is currently the main vehicle we have to measure capacity

-   There should be some new data forthcoming from TMOs

2.  Recommend a national level review and standardization of the MAP
    process and formula; an outside non-parochial review

Dave Frame led a discussion on how the MAP values are currently
developed. The calculus may be the best we can come up with at this
time. What therefore may be a better focus is a review of the
application of MAPs. It is especially important to note that

> *MAP is [not]{.underline} intended to be a threshold; it is intended
> to be a trigger value\
> to prompt a review of the operation.*

Review of the operation might determine that no action is required, or
that a tracker or D-side should be added, or that a traffic management
initiative of some sort is necessary. It does not immediately have to
trigger MIT restrictions.

Roger Bruce suggested we might therefore just use the same formula from
the original MAP setting process to review current numbers.

The WG then reviewed some actual numbers from a PDARS report on MAP
Values. The report compared "book value" MAPs to those currently being
used.\
Book values look approximately like this:

  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------
  **Time in Sector**                **Associated MAP**

  3 min                             5

  4                                 7

  5                                 8

  6                                 10

  7                                 12

  8                                 13

  9                                 15

  10                                17

  11                                18
  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------

-   PDARS can provide data on any Center, any sector, and Total how much
    over or under they are compared to the Book Value MAP. The compare
    point is a pre-RVSM day.

-   These reports/calculations make review of any sector or any Center
    very simple and very quick to do.

    -   This effort should be reviewed by the facility TMU and OM at
        least annually

    -   The review should also be nationally reviewed/standardized

-   The Report also includes excellent information on each sector that
    exceeds MAP, and how long they exceed the MAP.

-   In general, if TMIs are set on sector MAP assumptions, the Report
    would indicate that needs to be scrutinized.

The TFM PLAN for DRVSM document indicated we would review MAP values as
a result of the new RVSM altitudes available. As a result of the
analysis to date, the WG would probably recommend:

-   A 10 -- 17 % increase in MAPs

    -   18 to 20 = 2/18 = 11%

    -   18 to 21 = 3/18 = 16.66%

    -   Just this increase of 2 to 3 in High Alt MAPS equates to a large
        increase in NAS capacity

-   We would presumably also want to establish the newly increased
    values as a new baseline (review-able on an annual basis)

-   Reviews to check on compliance

-   In one month, the WG will pull the MAP value information for Centers
    and check on deltas from book values (Exceeds or Unders)

-   The logic/rationale for changing MAPs would be:\
    If the measured volumes of traffic are not exceeding MAP today, then
    we are likely managing the numbers very well now. So, increasing the
    value of MAPs should be worth trying.

A question was raised regarding who "owns" MAP oversight. The consensus
is that is System Ops, but with close cooperation/coordination with
EnRoute. The MTOs have MAP responsibility and oversight, but day-to-day
operational management should be done with close
cooperation/coordination between ATO-R and ATO-E.

In summary, at this time the DRVSM Results Task Team feels it will make
a strong recommendation to reanalyze MAP values and to provide
national/standardized oversight of MAP application.

## **8. Review of TFM Plan for DRVSM**

The WG then briefly reviewed the original TFM Plan to determine where we
might stand regarding follow-up review and reporting.

-   Section III: DRVSM Action Plan

    -   Optimizing Flows has been reviewed and some metrics will be
        gathered as discussed in these notes. The only thing possibly
        remaining is the question of secondary flows and how they might
        or might not be impacted. Some info on this in the TMO Survey
        responses.

    -   MIT: Still open, but we know it needs to be looked at. Action
        assigned to request data.

    -   MAP: As discussed above, the team is pretty much clear on how to
        pursue this.

    -   Reduce Reroutes/Vectors: Pretty much a given. Anecdotal reports
        already received in TMO Survey responses indicate improvements
        here.

    -   Non-RVSM procedures. Done. Military may be working further on
        this.

    -   Metrics Plan: Underway. Significant help from ATAC.

-   Section IV: NAR

    -   Integration of RVSM into NAR: Mostly done

    -   LOAs. Work In Progress (WIP); needs follow-on?

    -   Re-align sector boundaries/strata. Needs follow-on?

    -   Improved capacity for airborne holding. Needs follow-on?

Much of the work in this section requires HAR/NAR lead. TFM and others
may help.

As a continuing action, Mandy will ask Mike Sammartino how he wants to
handle the HAR/NAR follow-up work on RVSM.

## **9. Next Plans and Meeting Close:**

The formal meeting adjourned at approximately 1 PM to allow members to
work on action items. Several adjourned to the TMO office to begin
follow-up phone calls on open actions (e.g., requesting responses to
Survey).

[Upcoming Events/Meeting Schedule]{.underline}:

-   Mandy will report to CDM Lead on status/progress/plans

-   19-21 JUL: DRVSM WG at ZDV

    -   Plan Residence Inn in Longmont

-   AUG 10: Mandy to brief S2K

-   13-15SEP: CDM Meeting in Fairfax, VA

## Attachment A: Meeting Attendees:

  ---------------- ------------------- -------------- -------------------------------------
  **NAME**         **ORG/FACILITY**    **Phone**      **E-mail**

  Bruce, Roger     FAA/ZDV/STMC        303.651.4202   [roger.bruce@faa.gov]{.underline}

  Deering, Robert  American Airlines   817.967.7195   [robert.deering@aa.com]{.underline}

  Frame, David     FAA/ZHU/TMO         281.230.5530   <david.frame@faa.gov>

  Krause, Mike     ATO-R/TAC           703.345.6943   <mike.krause@auatac.com>

  Leber, Bill      Northwest Airlines                 <william.leber@nwa.com>

  Li, Bryon        ACARS                              <bjl@atac.com>

  Stott, Mandy     FAA/ATCSCC/NTMO,    703.904.4510   [mandy.stott@faa.gov]{.underline}
                   Team Lead                          

  Tigert, Gary     FAA/ZME/TMO         901.368.8548   [gary.n.tigert@faa.gov]{.underline}

  Wray, Tom        FAA/ZKC/TMO         913.254.8460   <tom.wray@faa.gov>
  ---------------- ------------------- -------------- -------------------------------------

## Attachment B: Meeting Actions:

+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| **  | **Action              | *         | **Status/comments**      |
| Act | Description**         | *Assigned |                          |
| ion |                       | to:**     |                          |
| \   |                       |           |                          |
| #** |                       |           |                          |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| J   | Find and disseminate  | M. Krause | Done.                    |
| UN0 | the dollar values     |           |                          |
| 5-1 | used in the           |           | ADOC:\                   |
|     | TFM-Modernization     |           | - Airborne: 39.72/min\   |
|     | Benefits Study.       |           | - Ground: 23.03/min      |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| J   | Define AC vs. AT vs.  | B. Li     | OPEN.                    |
| UN0 | GA in PDARS Reports   |           |                          |
| 5-2 |                       |           |                          |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| J   | Gather info on OEs    | M. Stott  | OPEN.                    |
| UN0 | before vs. after RVSM |           |                          |
| 5-3 |                       |           |                          |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| J   | Draft an "Outline"    | M. Krause | OPEN.\                   |
| UN0 | for the Results       |           | Due: end-JUN or          |
| 5-4 | Report                |           | early-JUL                |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| J   | Organize/tabulate TMO | T. Wray   | WIP.                     |
| UN0 | Survey Feedback       | /\        |                          |
| 5-5 |                       | M. Krause |                          |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| J   | Contact the 10        | T. Wray   | WIP? Done?               |
| UN0 | remaining facilities  | /\        |                          |
| 5-6 | to repeat request for | G. Tigert |                          |
|     | DRVSM Survey          |           |                          |
|     | feedback.             |           |                          |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| J   | Request MTOs forward  | T. Wray   | OPEN                     |
| UN0 | to the DRVSM WG any   |           |                          |
| 5-7 | MAP Review info they  |           |                          |
|     | receive from TMOs     |           |                          |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| J   | Review the *TFM Plan  | DRVSM WG  | WIP.                     |
| UN0 | for DRVSM* document   |           |                          |
| 5-8 | to determine what     |           | Mostly done at JUN Mtg?  |
|     | IOUs or incomplete    |           |                          |
|     | actions might remain  |           |                          |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+

Carry-Over Actions from previous meetings:

+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| **\ | **Action              | *         | **Status/comments**      |
| #** | Description**         | *Assigned |                          |
|     |                       | to:**     |                          |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| A   | Research HAR/NAR      | M. Stott  | OPEN.                    |
| PR0 | activity re. DRVSM    |           |                          |
| 5-4 | follow-up with Nancy  |           | Will discuss. w/ Mike S. |
|     | Kalinowski (sp?) or   |           | how to pursue            |
|     | others.               |           |                          |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| A   | Ask the QA Dept. if   | M. Stott  | OPEN.                    |
| PR0 | they have             |           |                          |
| 5-5 | tracked/seen a        |           |                          |
|     | decrease in MITs      |           |                          |
|     | since DRVSM           |           |                          |
|     | implementation.       |           |                          |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| A   | Attempt to gather     | R.        | Done.                    |
| PR0 | some data from        | Deering   |                          |
| 5-6 | Customers for filed   |           | Initial summary received |
|     | vs. flown altitudes.  |           | from R. Deering.         |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| A   | Check with J. Damato  | M. Stott  | Done.                    |
| PR0 | re. possible impact   |           |                          |
| 5-7 | of DRVSM on GA        |           | No significant feedback  |
|     | traffic since         |           | received.                |
|     | implementation        |           |                          |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| A   | Prepare memo to TMOs  | DRVSM WG  | Done.                    |
| PR0 | requesting input re.  |           |                          |
| 5-1 | DRVSM impact on       |           | E-mail sent 4/27         |
|     | operations            |           | requesting response by   |
|     |                       |           | 5/20/05                  |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| A   | Distribute a copy of  | M. Stott  | Done.                    |
| PR0 | the Mitre DRVSM Study |           |                          |
| 5-3 | for review            |           |                          |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| A   | Prepare similar       | R.        | Done.                    |
| PR0 | request to Customers  | Deering   |                          |
| 5-2 | requesting impact of  |           | Awaiting more input      |
|     | DRVSM on their        |           |                          |
|     | operations            |           |                          |
+-----+-----------------------+-----------+--------------------------+