NEXTGEN AIR 

TRANSPORTATION 

SYSTEM

FAA Has Made Some 

Progress in Midterm 

Implementation, but 

Ongoing Challenges 

Limit Expected 

Benefits

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2013

GAO-13-264

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-264, a report to 

congressional requesters

April 2013

NEXTGEN AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

FAA Has Made Some Progress in Midterm 

Implementation, but Ongoing Challenges Limit 

Expected Benefits

Why GAO Did This Study

FAA, collaborating with other federal 

agencies and the aviation industry, is

implementing NextGen, an advanced 

technology air-traffic management 

system that FAA anticipates will 

replace the current ground-radarbased system. At an expected cost of 

$18 billion through 2018, NextGen is 

expected to enhance safety, increase 

capacity, and reduce congestion in the 

national airspace system. To deliver 

some of these benefits in the midterm, 

FAA is implementing operational

improvements using available 

technologies. Delivering midterm 

benefits could build support for future 

industry investments, but a task force 

identified obstacles, such as FAA’s 

lengthy approval processes.

GAO was asked to review FAA’s 

midterm NextGen efforts. GAO 

examined (1) key operational 

improvements FAA is pursuing through 

2018, (2) the extent to which FAA is 

addressing known obstacles to the 

implementation of NextGen operational 

improvements, and (3) the extent to 

which FAA is measuring and 

demonstrating midterm benefits. GAO 

reviewed FAA documents, as well as

the task force’s recommendations to 

FAA, and interviewed FAA and airport 

officials and aviation experts.

What GAO Recommends

FAA should, among other things, better 

integrate NextGen efforts; develop 

processes for selecting new PBN 

procedures; and ensure that 

stakeholders have needed information 

on NextGen progress to facilitate

investment decisions. 

DOT did not agree or disagree with 

GAO’s recommendations, but provided 

technical comments. 

What GAO Found

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is pursuing key operational 

improvements to implement the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen) in the “midterm,” which is 2013 through 2018. These improvements

focus on establishing Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures at key 

airports, but benefits could be limited in the midterm. PBN uses satellite-based 

guidance to improve air-traffic control routes (known as “procedures”). These 

procedures can deliver benefits to airlines, such as fuel savings and increased 

efficiency, particularly in congested airspace. To deliver benefits more quickly, 

FAA made trade-offs in selecting sites and in the scope of proposed 

improvements. For example, FAA is not implementing procedures that will trigger 

lengthy environmental reviews. These trade-offs, with which airlines and other 

stakeholders generally agree, will likely limit benefits from these PBN initiatives

early in the midterm. FAA has also made some progress in other key operational 

improvement areas, such as upgrading traffic management systems and revising 

standards to improve aircraft flow in congested airspace. However, FAA has not 

fully integrated implementation of all of its operational improvement efforts at 

airports. Because of the interdependency of improvements, their limited 

integration could also limit benefits in the midterm. 

FAA has efforts under way to help overcome overarching obstacles to NextGen 

implementation identified by an advisory task force, but challenges remain, and 

many of these efforts are scheduled to take a number of years. FAA efforts 

include, for example, a new process for focused and concise environmental 

reviews for some proposed actions (e.g., new procedures), where a detailed 

analysis of the environmental impacts is limited to only those categories involving 

potentially significant impacts, such as increased noise or emissions. Some of 

these efforts do not, however, fully address previously identified obstacles. FAA 

has not fully addressed obstacles to selecting new PBN procedures that will best 

relieve congestion and improve efficiency, for example. FAA continues to rely on 

requests for new procedures from airlines and other stakeholders. This reliance 

may or may not result in procedures that maximize benefits to the national 

airspace system. Not addressing remaining challenges could delay NextGen 

implementation and limit potential benefits.

FAA has made progress in developing NextGen performance metrics, but 

according to key stakeholders, FAA currently provides limited data to 

demonstrate its progress in implementing midterm improvements and the 

associated benefits. FAA is in the process of harmonizing performance metrics 

across all agency programs to ensure that metrics align with agency targets and 

goals. However, information is incomplete on the midterm improvements and 

their benefits at selected airports, and airlines and others lack access to needed 

information to make fully informed investment decisions. FAA has developed a 

website to report on NextGen implementation, but published information is not 

fully tied to FAA’s implementation goals. FAA’s plans also provide limited 

information about future implementation, such as locations and expected 

benefits. Better performance and planning information would provide airlines with 

a stronger basis for making decisions to invest an estimated $6.6 billion on 

NextGen technology through 2018. 

View GAO-13-264. For more information, 

contact Gerald L. Dillingham at (202) 512-

2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

Letter 1 

Background 6

Operational Improvements Largely Target Key Airports for 

Benefits, but Lack Integration and Have Limited Results to Date 14

FAA Is Addressing Some Obstacles, but Project Prioritization, 

Stakeholder Participation, and Consistent NextGen Leadership 

Remain Challenges 31

FAA Has Limited Data to Demonstrate Midterm NextGen Benefits, 

and More Information Is Needed in NextGen Plans 48

Conclusions 54

Recommendations for Executive Action 56

Agency Comments 57

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 58

Appendix II FAA Performance Areas and Metrics 63

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 65

Tables

Table 1: Prioritized NextGen Operational Improvements 60

Table 2: FAA NextGen Performance Areas and Metrics 63

Figures

Figure 1: Examples of Prioritized Midterm NextGen Operational 

Improvements 8

Figure 2: Core Airports and Metroplex Sites Prioritized by the 

NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) Work Group, 2012 10

Figure 3: FAA’s Environmental Review Process for New and 

Revised Air-Traffic Control Procedures 14

Figure 4: Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the 

Metroplex (OAPM) Sites and Implementation Dates, as of 

December 2012 16

Figure 5: Procedures Using Conventional Equipment and 

Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Technologies 18

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

Figure 6: Optimized Profile Descents 19

Figure 7: Airborne and Surface Traffic Management Tools 25

Figure 8: Examples of Revised and Updated Standards 28

Figure 9: Status and Projected Completion Date for Navigation 

(NAV) Lean Recommendations, as of February 2013 34

Abbreviations

ACI-NA Airport Councils International-North America 

ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program 

ADS-B Out automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast out

AeroNav Products Aeronautical Navigation Product Group

AGL above ground level

ASDE-X Airport Surface Detection Equipment–Model X 

ASSC Airport Surface Surveillance Capability

ATO Air Traffic Organization 

CATM Collaborative Air Traffic Management

Data Comm Data Communications

DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

IDAC Integrated Departure/Arrival Capability 

JFK John F. Kennedy International Airport

JPDO Joint Planning and Development Office

NAC NextGen Advisory Committee 

NAS national airspace system

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NATCA National Air Traffic Controllers Association

NAV Lean Navigation Lean 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation System

OAPM Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the 

Metroplex

OEP Operational Evolution Partnership

OPD Optimized Profile Descent 

PBN Performance Based Navigation 

RNAV Area Navigation

RNP Required Navigation Performance 

SFO San Francisco International Airport

SRER System Risk Event Rate

TMA Traffic Management Advisor

TRACON terminal radar approach control 
Page iii GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

April 8, 2013

The Honorable Bill Shuster

Chairman

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Frank A. LoBiondo

Chairman

Subcommittee on Aviation

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable John L. Mica

The Honorable Thomas E. Petri

House of Representatives

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is transforming the nation’s 

ground-based air-traffic control system to an air-traffic management 

system using satellite-based navigation and other advanced technology. 

This transformation is referred to as the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen). FAA released its first plan for NextGen 

in 2004 after Congress passed Vision 100.1

 

1

Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, Pub. L. No. 108-176, § 709, 117 

Stat. 2490, 2582-2585 (2003). Vision 100 directed the creation of the Joint Planning and 

Development Office (JPDO) within FAA to create and carry out an integrated plan for 

developing NextGen and to facilitate collaboration between FAA and other federal 

agencies involved in the effort. In addition to FAA, federal partner agencies include the 

Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, and Transportation; the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and the White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy.

FAA has since issued a 

number of documents to guide NextGen’s implementation, including 

annual updates to implementation plans since 2008. NextGen is intended 

to enhance airspace safety, reduce delays experienced by airlines and 

passengers, save fuel, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other 

adverse environmental impacts. NextGen improvements are projected to 

keep airport delays from getting worse than would be expected without 

implementation of the improvements. By 2020, the agency estimates that 

NextGen improvements, if implemented, could result in a cumulative 

reduction in fuel consumption of 1.46-billion gallons and a cumulative 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 16-million metric tons. FAA 

estimates that these benefits, combined with a projected 41 percent 

reduction in aircraft delays, will generate $38 billion in savings through 

2020 for aircraft operators, the traveling public, and FAA, as compared 

with a scenario where no further NextGen improvements were made.

However FAA does not expect that NextGen improvements alone will be 

sufficient to meet the capacity needs of certain busy, complex airports in 

the national airspace system (NAS).

2

The need for stakeholder buy-in and investment, combined with the 

interdependencies of NextGen improvements, led FAA in 2009 to request 

that RTCA (once called the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) 

recommend deliverables to help establish priorities and build support for 

long-term NextGen investments.

FAA’s modeling indicates that even 

if all ongoing and planned NextGen technologies are implemented, some 

of the busiest airports may not be able to meet the projected increases in 

demand and will need additional capacity, which may require the 

construction of new runways or other infrastructure improvements. FAA 

believes that ongoing runway development programs are still needed at 

airports such as Chicago-O'Hare and Philadelphia International to meet 

long-term demand. NextGen improvements will complement these

runway programs. Full implementation of NextGen will necessitate 

investment by airlines and others in new technologies. Airlines and other 

stakeholders, however, have expressed skepticism about the progress 

made to date by FAA, which, in turn, has affected their confidence about 

whether benefits will justify these investments. In addition to involving 

aviation stakeholders, the numerous improvements required for full 

NextGen implementation involve many parts of FAA and, in many cases, 

are mutually dependent in order to attain the full projected benefits. For 

example, the benefits of more efficient air-traffic control routes (called 

“procedures”) may be limited if air traffic controllers do not have access to 

tools to better manage airborne traffic.

3

 

2

See FAA, Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System 2007–2025 (Washington, 

D.C.: May 2007). FAA is in the process of updating this analysis and anticipates 

completing its report in September 2013.

RTCA’s 2009 Midterm Implementation 

Task Force report included recommendations focused on key 

improvements that can be implemented with existing technologies and 

3

See RTCA, NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force Report (Sept. 9, 2009). 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

capabilities in the “midterm,” which is 2013 through 2018.4 In 2012, at the 

request of FAA, the Integrated Capabilities Work Group of the NextGen 

Advisory Committee (NAC) reaffirmed the RTCA task force’s 

recommendations and developed a subset of priority operational 

improvements for major airports and multi-airport airspace 

(“metroplexes”) that have either the greatest need for improvements or 

offer the greatest potential benefit to the NAS in the midterm.5

In addition to identifying priority NextGen operational improvements for 

the midterm, the RTCA task force also highlighted overarching 

recommendations to help FAA overcome challenges it has faced 

implementing and using those improvements. In 2012, FAA also worked 

with air traffic controllers to identify obstacles specific to the 

implementation and usage of existing high-performance NextGen airtraffic control procedures.

Each 

NextGen operational improvement is a description of a specific 

operational change to the NAS, such as the implementation of improved 

air-traffic control procedures. The priority improvements included 

capabilities that are deemed to be of high value by industry stakeholders 

(particularly airlines), leverage existing airline equipage, and have the

potential to accelerate the delivery of tangible benefits.

6

 

4

For purposes of this report, we will refer to the Midterm Implementation Task Force as 

the RTCA task force. To maintain consistency with the recommendations made by the 

RTCA task force and priorities identified by the NAC’s Integrated Capabilities Work Group

(NAC work group), we are referring to the midterm in this report as lasting through 2018.

FAA’s current NextGen implementation plans include a two-phased “midterm”—to 2015 

and 2018, respectively—and the long term to 2025 and beyond, although agency officials 

now describe the midterm as extending until 2020.

FAA has undertaken some efforts to address 

challenges identified by the RTCA task force and FAA’s obstacles study.

5

The NAC is comprised of aviation stakeholders from the government and industry. The 

NAC was set up by RTCA at the request of FAA, and is the follow-on to RTCA’s Air Traffic 

Management Advisory Committee. The NAC work group works to develop a common 

understanding of priorities in the context of overall NextGen capabilities and 

implementation constraints, with an emphasis on improvements through 2018. The 

committee primarily focuses on implementation issues, including prioritization criteria at a 

national level, joint investment priorities, and location and timing of capability 

implementation. See RTCA, Applying the Metroplex Prioritization Criteria and Mapping the 

Integrated Capabilities to Identified Metroplexes (February 2012). 

6

FAA, Obstacles to Performance Based Navigation Implementation (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 1, 2012) (FAA’s obstacles study). 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

Given questions you raised about challenges identified by RTCA, you 

asked that we review the implementation of NextGen. This report 

addresses the following questions: 1) What key operational improvements 

is FAA pursuing to deliver NextGen benefits with existing technologies 

through 2018? 2) To what extent is FAA addressing known obstacles to 

the implementation and usage of NextGen’s operational improvements? 

3) To what extent is FAA measuring and demonstrating midterm NextGen 

benefits and assessing outcomes?

To address these three questions, we reviewed agency-provided 

documentation, including planning documents such as FAA’s 2012 

NextGen Implementation Plan, internal reports related to NextGen 

initiatives, and FAA process and procedure documentation. We met with 

FAA officials across multiple offices that have a role in implementing 

NextGen, including units within the NextGen Office, the Office of Aviation 

Safety, and Air Traffic Organization (ATO). We also interviewed aviation 

stakeholders and experts with knowledge and experience related to 

NextGen implementation, including representatives from industry 

associations (such as RTCA and Airlines for America), airlines, airports, 

avionics and aircraft manufacturers, and other aviation vendors, as well 

as air traffic controllers.

To identify key NextGen operational improvements that use existing 

technology to deliver benefits through 2018, we reviewed the 

recommendations made by the RTCA task force report and by the NAC 

work group.7

 

7

Organized in 1935, RTCA is a private, not-for-profit corporation that develops consensusbased recommendations for communications, navigation, surveillance, and air-traffic 

management system issues. RTCA’s recommendations are the basis for a number of 

FAA’s policy, program, and regulatory decisions, and have been incorporated into FAA’s 

current NextGen implementation plans. Likewise the NAC—which includes 

representatives from industry and FAA’s senior leadership—advises FAA on the 

implementation of NextGen. 

These recommendations identify operational improvements 

FAA should prioritize and where those improvements should be 

implemented in the midterm, but do not include all operational 

improvements in FAA’s 2012 NextGen Implementation Plan. Based on 

our analysis of these recommendations, we focused our evaluation on 

three broad areas of NextGen operational improvements and assessed 

the status of FAA’s implementation of key operational improvements in 

those areas, the potential benefits to be achieved, and identified 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

challenges to the full implementation of those key operational 

improvements.8

To determine how FAA is addressing known obstacles to the 

implementation of NextGen operational improvements, we reviewed our 

prior work, FAA studies, and recommendations made by the RTCA task 

force and the NAC work group. These sources identified obstacles to 

developing, implementing, or fully using prioritized NextGen 

improvements—such as the limited involvement of stakeholders, 

including airport representatives, and the cumbersome process to 

implement flight procedures. We spoke with officials from relevant 

program offices and facilities within FAA to obtain information about 

efforts designed to address these obstacles. We also interviewed industry 

experts and stakeholders and assessed certain FAA efforts against 

established criteria, including best practices for stakeholder involvement 

from the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)9 and for 

organizational goal setting and performance measurement.10

To determine the extent to which FAA is measuring and demonstrating 

the benefits of NextGen, we reviewed and analyzed NextGen 

implementation plans, performance measures and metrics, and program 

targets. We updated our 2010 findings on the status of FAA’s 

performance system, including setting goals and measuring NextGen 

progress.11

 

8

We did not include improvements that were unlikely to be fully implemented in the 

midterm in our review, such as automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast out (ADS-B 

Out), which the FAA will require for some operations beginning in 2020. We also excluded 

Data Communications (Data Comm), which was in trials during our review.

We also reviewed FAA reports and the agency’s publically 

available information, and interviewed industry stakeholders to assess the 

extent to which available information demonstrates the current and 

potential benefits of NextGen improvements. The RTCA task force 

pointed to the importance of delivering benefits in the midterm to gain 

9

See Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Airport Cooperative 

Research Program Report 15, Aircraft Noise: A Toolkit for Managing Community 

Expectations (Washington, D.C.: 2009). 

10See GAO, Government Reform: Goal-Setting and Performance,

GAO/AIMD-GGD-95-130R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27, 1995).

11See GAO, NextGen Air Transportation System: FAA’s Metrics Can Be Used to Report 

on Status of Individual Programs, but Not of Overall NextGen Implementation or 

Outcomes, GAO-10-629 (Washington, D.C: July 27, 2010). 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

stakeholder confidence and encourage airlines to invest in NextGen 

equipage.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 through April

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. For more information on 

our scope and methodology, including a listing of FAA divisions and 

industry stakeholders we interviewed, see appendix I.

FAA’s planning for the midterm includes improvements based on existing 

technologies that respond to recommendations made in 2009 by the 

RTCA task force.12 The agency seeks to demonstrate tangible NextGen 

benefits to build industry support and encourage future needed 

investments from airlines and others to complete the transformation of the 

air-traffic control system. Industry investments can be significant; for 

example, FAA estimates that it would cost $260,000 in 2011 dollars to 

equip—or $525,000 to retrofit—a commercial aircraft with a Required 

Navigation Performance (RNP) package, which allows precision curved 

flight paths.13 In 2012, 50 percent of the domestic commercial aircraft fleet 

was RNP equipped.14 In 2011, RTCA reported that 80 percent of the 

airline fleet at high-density airports might need to be RNP equipped to 

accrue significant benefits for operators.15

 

12See RTCA, Mid-Term Implementation (2009). 

In total, FAA estimates that 

airlines will need to invest $6.6 billion—of the estimated $18.1-billion 

overall implementation cost shared between airlines and FAA—on 

13See FAA, The Business Case for the Next Generation Air Transportation System

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2012).

14For the purposes of determining the capabilities of the commercial aircraft fleet, FAA 

assesses the equipage levels of major air carriers (airlines); regional carriers, which 

consist of passenger-carrying airlines that only fly aircraft with less than 100 seats; and 

cargo carriers. 

15See RTCA, NextGen Equipage: User Business Case Gaps, A Report of the NextGen 

Advisory Committee in Response to Tasking from the Federal Aviation Administration

(Sept. 2011). 

Background 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

avionics through 2018 to realize the full potential benefits from NextGen 

capabilities.16

The RTCA task force and the NAC work group identified priority 

operational improvements that could provide substantive benefits and are 

viewed as feasible to implement between now and the end of 2018, and 

we grouped these into three improvement areas: 

• Performance Based Navigation (PBN), which uses satellite-based 

guidance to route aircraft and improve approaches at airports. There 

are two main types of PBN procedures, including Area Navigation 

(RNAV) and RNP, which vary in the level of precision guidance they 

can provide.

• Enhanced airborne and surface traffic management, which includes 

tools that help air traffic controllers merge and sequence planes in the 

air and on the ground.

• Additional or revised aviation safety standards, such as those that 

establish the minimum required distances between aircraft in the air or 

minimum visibility distances to the ground. These changes are made 

possible by leveraging advances in technology and are anticipated to 

maintain or enhance safety.

FAA and the aviation industry have emphasized the interrelated nature of 

NextGen’s many components (see fig. 1). Although NextGen 

improvements in each of these three areas offer some benefits when 

implemented individually, they achieve the greatest benefits when 

integrated, according to FAA officials, air traffic controllers, and other 

industry stakeholders, including airline representatives.

 

16These estimates are in 2011 dollars and reflect total expenditures on NextGen midterm 

improvements from 2007 through 2018. These estimates include equipping aircraft with 

RNP, as well as other NextGen technologies. 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

Figure 1: Examples of Prioritized Midterm NextGen Operational Improvements

Through 2018, FAA’s implementation of key NextGen operational 

improvement areas is focused on 30 core airports and key air-traffic 

control facilities.17 These air-traffic control facilities include terminal radarapproach control (TRACON) facilities and the 20 traffic control centers 

that manage enroute traffic throughout the NAS.18

 

17In 2011, the FAA identified 30 core airports with the greatest impact on the performance 

of the NAS and which had more than one percent of passenger enplanements. This list of 

core airports replaced what used to be 35 Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) 

airports, which had been identified by FAA in 2000.

In an effort to help FAA 

prioritize the implementation of NextGen, in 2012 the NAC work group 

identified seven priority multi-airport metroplexes based on an 

18TRACONs typically handle air traffic to within about 40 miles of an airport. Air traffic 

greater than 40 miles from the airport is referred to as enroute air traffic and is controlled 

by enroute traffic control centers. 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

assessment of operational need (see fig. 2).19

 

19The NAC work group equally weighed five categories of operational need to identify 

critical metroplexes: delay, operations, efficiency, complexity, and metroplex connectivity. 

See RTCA, Metroplex Prioritization (2012). 

Because of the integrated 

nature of the NAS, improvements or changes to a portion of the airspace 

or at one airport can affect other parts of the system.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

Figure 2: Core Airports and Metroplex Sites Prioritized by the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) Work Group, 2012

A number of offices within FAA, including ATO, the Office of Aviation 

Safety, and the Aeronautical Navigation Product Group (AeroNav 

Products), are involved in the management and implementation of 

NextGen, as well as the NextGen Office, which oversees implementation 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

and reports directly to the Deputy Administrator.20 The NextGen Office is 

tasked with linking NextGen’s strategic objectives with operational 

requirements in an effort to ensure integration and implementation across 

FAA program offices. The NextGen Office includes a Performance and 

Outreach Office that is tasked with providing information on 

implementation progress, enabling successful collaboration and decision 

making with internal and external stakeholders, and reporting on 

performance measurements. At present, the position heading the 

NextGen office is vacant, which is further discussed later in this report. 

FAA’s Office of Environment and Energy develops and coordinates policy 

relating to NextGen’s environmental impact, including noise and 

emissions. In 2011, this office developed a new NextGen National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Plan to help ensure timely, effective, 

and efficient environmental review of proposed NextGen improvements.21

To address the majority of current flight delays throughout the NAS, the 

RTCA task force identified the implementation of new PBN procedures as 

a high priority initiative. Requests for new air-traffic control procedures, 

including PBN procedures, can come from a variety of sources, including 

airlines, airports, Congress, or individual air-traffic control facilities. 

According to FAA, there are core steps and processes that are common 

to the development of most procedures and involve a number of offices 

within the agency.

• ATO designs and develops procedures and conducts environmental 

reviews. According to FAA officials, environmental reviews typically 

take from 30 days to 2 years, depending on project factors such as 

the presence of sensitive environmental resources (e.g., national 

parks) and the potential for significant impacts such as noise or 

emissions. ATO also helps implement new procedures once they 

have been published by providing needed documentation or training 

to air traffic controllers.

 

20A recent initiative called Foundation for Success was designed to address challenges 

that had been identified by FAA, including the incomplete integration of NextGen, diffused 

and overlapping governance structures, and difficulty managing project complexity, among 

other things, and involved pulling the NextGen Office out of ATO.

21FAA, NextGen National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Plan (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 

2011). 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

• The Office of Aviation Safety establishes design criteria22

• AeroNav Products tests new procedures against design criteria and 

includes new procedures on published charts for pilots. AeroNav 

Products also maintains existing procedures, which need to be 

assessed every 2 years to assure that they still meet criteria and that 

conditions have not changed to render the existing procedures 

unsafe.

for new 

procedures and conducts safety testing, such as flight simulations

testing that includes controllers and pilots. It also grants operations 

approval and certification for aircraft equipment used to fly air-traffic

control procedures.

23

The other priority operational improvements, including those related to 

airborne and surface traffic management and enhanced standards, are 

largely managed by offices within ATO and the Office of Aviation Safety.

Federal actions, including airport expansion and large capital projects that 

use federal funding, require compliance with NEPA.24

 

22Design criteria for procedures provide rules for safely constructing the nominal 

longitudinal and vertical path for departure, enroute, arrival, approach, missed approach, 

and holding procedures. These criteria are developed and published by FAA’s Flight 

Procedure Standards Branch in Oklahoma City. 

Under NEPA, 

federal agencies evaluate the potential environmental effects of actions 

they are proposing or ones for which third parties, such as airports, seek 

federal approval or funding. Agencies can meet the NEPA requirements 

by categorically excluding the project, using an environmental 

assessment to evaluate the likely environmental effects of the project, or, 

if actions are likely to significantly affect the environment, preparing a 

more detailed environmental impact statement. When an agency 

determines that proposed activities fall within a category of activities the 

agency has already determined have no significant impact—called a 

23The conditions around an airport may change over time, making procedures unsafe. For 

example, new construction may result in taller structures around an airport or other 

changes that would affect minimal altitude requirements.

2442 U.S.C. ch. 55. According to FAA, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures 

Order 1050.1E, March 20, 2006, all formal actions taken by FAA officials are subject to 

NEPA review unless statutory law applicable to the FAA's operations expressly prohibits 

or makes compliance impossible, or are otherwise excepted by NEPA regulations. 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

categorical exclusion—then the agency generally need not prepare an 

environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.25

For the development of new flight procedures, FAA assesses the 

potential environmental impacts of proposed changes, including changes 

to carbon dioxide emissions and noise levels for communities below the 

new or changed routes.26 New or revised routes above 3,000 feet above 

ground level (AGL) typically qualify for categorical exclusion in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances.27 Additionally, the FAA

Modernization and Reform Act introduced two new categorical 

exclusions, one of which categorically excluded RNAV and RNP 

procedures below 3,000 feet AGL at core airports and certain other 

airports, absent extraordinary circumstances.28

 

25A federal action may be categorically excluded—thus exempting it from further federal 

environmental review—if, based on agency experience, the agency has determined the 

proposed action is within a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the environment and there are no extraordinary circumstances 

in which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect. See 40 

C.F.R. § 1508.4.

According to FAA, 

extraordinary circumstances would include significant increases in noise 

over noise-sensitive areas (e.g., homes, schools, hospitals) under the 

new or changed flight path. Noise screening and carbon dioxide 

emissions analysis are required for procedures from 3,000 feet AGL to 

7,000 feet AGL for arrivals and up to 10,000 feet AGL for departures. 

Noise screening may be required up to 18,000 feet AGL for special 

resources, such as national parks or wilderness areas. For changes 

closer to the ground, below 3,000 feet AGL, more environmental review 

may be required because of the potential for significant noise or 

emissions increases. Figure 3 illustrates the appropriate level of NEPA 

review needed for actions at various heights AGL. 

26FAA Order 1050.1E, Chg 1, which is the most recent version, was updated on March 20, 

2006. 

27Extraordinary circumstances are factors or circumstances in which a normally 

categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental effect that then 

requires further analysis in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact 

statement. See FAA Order 1050.1E. 

28FAA Modernization and Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 213(c), 126 Stat. 11, 49 

(reauthorization act). 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

Figure 3: FAA’s Environmental Review Process for New and Revised Air-Traffic 

Control Procedures

FAA is concentrating its operational improvement efforts at key airports 

and metropolitan areas and focusing primarily on PBN procedures, 

including in its Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex 

(OAPM) initiative and another effort in the Seattle metropolitan area 

called “Greener Skies over Seattle” (Greener Skies). Increasing the 

number and use of PBN procedures is viewed as a way to accelerate the 

delivery of benefits, such as fuel savings, to airlines in some of the mostcongested metroplex areas. To deliver benefits more quickly and avoid 

some obstacles that have hampered prior NextGen efforts, FAA has 

made trade-offs in selecting sites and the scope of proposed 

improvements, concentrating on those projects that can demonstrate 

some benefits in the midterm and leaving more time-consuming but 

potentially higher benefit-yielding projects for the longer term. The agency 

has also made some progress in the other key operational improvement 

areas, such as upgrading airborne traffic management to enhance the 

Operational 

Improvements Largely 

Target Key Airports 

for Benefits, but Lack 

Integration and Have 

Limited Results to 

Date
 

Page 15 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

flow of aircraft in congested airspace and revising standards to enhance 

airport capacity. By contrast, FAA has made more limited progress 

enhancing surface traffic management at airports, which will likely limit 

overall benefits in the midterm. Finally, there has been little integration of 

key operational improvements, which limits the potential benefits offered 

by any single improvement as well as the potential impacts on the NAS.

FAA’s primary effort to implement new PBN procedures in the midterm is 

the OAPM initiative, which focuses on priority metroplexes with airport 

operations that have a large effect on the overall efficiency of the NAS. 

This initiative is also designed to provide benefits to airlines and airports 

in those metroplexes. If OAPM proceeds as planned, FAA expects to 

begin to demonstrate benefits at the eight sites that are currently active 

by the end of 2015. (See fig. 4.) Projects at five additional sites are 

expected to be fully operational before the end of 2017, according to 

current FAA plans.29 With the exception of the Houston project, each 

OAPM project has about a 3-year implementation time frame, which 

includes 12 to 18 months for the environment assessment process.

30

 

29In total, FAA has identified 18 metroplexes for its OAPM initiative, but does not yet have 

plans or associated timeframes for completing efforts at the final 5 sites. 

30The Houston project is part of a White House initiative to expedite reviews—including 

required environmental reviews—and the permit-issuance process. Consequently, the 

project has a shortened 2-year time frame, with new procedures scheduled to be 

implemented in 2013. FAA officials expressed skepticism about applying the Houston 

project’s time frame to other OAPM sites, given potential environmental considerations at 

those other sites and resource limitations. Each OAPM is different because of the number 

of airports involved, the arrival and departure procedures deployed, and the proximity of 

other congested airspace. As a consequence, time frames vary by location. 

FAA Has Made Certain 

Trade-offs in Designing 

and Implementing PBN 

Efforts to Deliver Midterm 

Benefits 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

Figure 4: Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM) Sites and Implementation Dates, as of December 

2012

OAPM focuses primarily on implementing PBN procedures—long viewed 

as a cornerstone of NextGen—and any necessary airspace redesign for 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

deployment of the new procedures.31

• RNAV procedures, which are enabled by technology available on 

nearly all commercial aircraft in the United States, provide aircraft with 

routing flexibility and more efficient flight paths than conventional 

procedures, and can allow improved access to airports in congested 

airspace or in bad weather.

PBN procedures provide the 

foundation for flight paths, airspace design, route separation, and 

obstacle clearance. (See fig. 5 for an illustration of these procedures.) 

Potential PBN benefits include shorter, more direct flight paths, reduced 

aircraft fuel burned—and resulting reductions in carbon dioxide 

emissions—and reduced noise in surrounding communities. The following 

are the key types of PBN procedures.

32

• RNP procedures (a subset of RNAV) add additional onboard-aircraft 

performance monitoring and alerting and require additional equipment 

as well as specialized crew training. In some cases, RNP can 

increase aircraft access to airports in adverse weather and terrain and 

help air traffic controllers keep aircraft operations at one airport from 

interfering with aircraft operations at adjacent airports by using curved 

flight paths. As mentioned above, in 2012, approximately 50 percent 

of the domestic commercial fleet was equipped for RNP. As of 

January 10, 2013, 352 public RNP procedures are included on charts 

for pilots.

In 2011, 96 percent of the domestic 

commercial fleet was equipped for RNAV. As of January 10, 2013, 

there were over 12,500 public RNAV procedures available for all 

aircraft capable of flying them.

• Optimized Profile Descent (OPD) procedures allow aircraft to descend 

from cruise altitude to final approach more efficiently, eliminating or 

reducing the level offs or step downs of a traditional descent. Low or 

 

31FAA began implementing PBN procedures on a limited basis in 1996, before the launch 

of the NextGen transformation effort. The agency began publishing private routes—which 

can be used only by the airline for which the procedure is designed or approved—in 1996 

in the state of Alaska for use by Alaska Airlines. In 2001, the agency implemented its first 

public RNAV routes, followed by the first public RNP routes in 2005 and its first public 

Optimized Profile Descent procedures in 2007. Public routes are air-traffic control routes 

that are available to all aircraft that are qualified or capable of flying them. According to 

FAA officials, many of the PBN routes that were initially developed were overlays—in that 

new flight tracks followed the existing radar-track flight routes—to set the foundation for a 

satellite-based NAS. Overlay PBN routes also allow aircraft operations in some bad 

weather conditions that otherwise would not be possible.

32According to FAA, before RNAV, aircraft navigation had long been constrained by the 

location of ground-based navigation aids (i.e., radar) that restricted aircraft paths. 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

idle engine power settings save fuel and reduce emissions. OPD 

procedures also require less dialogue between air traffic controllers 

and pilots, which may improve safety by reducing the potential for 

miscommunications.

Figure 5: Procedures Using Conventional Equipment and Performance Based 

Navigation (PBN) Technologies

According to reports by teams planning OAPM implementation, OAPM’s 

benefits for airspace users will stem mostly from implementing OPD 

procedures enabled through the use of RNAV and the resulting 

reductions to fuel use and associated fuel costs. (See fig. 6.) For 

example, FAA projected that shorter routes and OPDs at its eight active 

sites could save at least 29-million gallons of fuel and reduce carbon 

dioxide emissions by 299,000 metric tons annually when fully 

implemented. In turn, improved efficiency and predictability at key 

metroplexes is expected to improve the efficiency of the NAS. FAA 
 

Page 19 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

estimated total annual benefits resulting from new OAPM procedures and 

associated airspace changes using aircraft simulators. As previously 

mentioned, all eight active sites are predicted to begin demonstrating 

benefits in the 2013 through 2015 time frame.

Figure 6: Optimized Profile Descents

To achieve the time frames of its OAPM initiative, FAA has made tradeoffs, which are summarized below, between procedures that yield some 

benefits and can be implemented relatively quickly and those that could 

result in greater benefits but would take much longer to implement.

• Excluded new procedures that would require route changes below 

3,000 feet AGL or very close in to the airport. Although all new flight 

procedures require NEPA review, those deemed to have 

extraordinary circumstances such as significant environmental 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

impacts—including a significant increase in noise or emissions around 

an airport—would require a full environmental impact statement, 

which can take several years to complete.33 By excluding changes 

closer to the airport, FAA is seeking to avoid the lengthy 

environmental reviews that have delayed the implementation of some 

other FAA efforts. For example, we previously reported that FAA’s 

airspace redesign effort in the New York, New Jersey, and 

Philadelphia area has provoked significant community opposition, 

including legal challenges to the environmental review process used 

by FAA.34 That effort, which began in 1998, is currently scheduled for 

completion in 2016.35 Representatives from airlines, equipment 

manufacturers, and industry associations that we spoke with 

acknowledged that there could be additional efficiency benefits from 

new PBN procedures closer to the airport. For example, new 

procedures that would allow for tight turns for the arrival into the 

airport can reduce flight times and associated fuel use and costs and 

facilitate the flow of air traffic flying into or out of different airports in a 

metroplex, as well as increasing predictability of flight schedules. 

Nonetheless, most of these stakeholders did not believe that these 

potential additional benefits warranted the longer project timeframes 

that would be necessary to complete more detailed environmental 

reviews.36

 

33A significant increase in noise is defined by FAA as an increase in the Day-Night 

Average Sound Level (DNL) of 1.5 decibels or more over noise sensitive areas at or 

above the DNL 65-decibels noise exposure level. As we have previously reported, factors 

such as an airport’s number of operations, runway orientation and use, and the type of 

aircraft using the airport are fundamental drivers of the size and shape of an airport’s 

noise exposure area. See GAO, Airport Noise Grants: FAA Needs to Better Ensure 

Project Eligibility and Improve Strategic Goal and Performance Measures, GAO-12-890

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2012). 

34For more information about this airspace redesign project, see GAO, FAA Airspace 

Redesign: An Analysis of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Project, GAO-08-786

(Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2008). At the time that report was issued, plans were to have 

the redesign completed by 2012. 

35When we reported on this project in 2008, 13 separate lawsuits had been filed relating 

to the potential environmental impacts of the project. On June 10, 2009, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed or otherwise disposed of all claims 

against the FAA’s Record of Decision. County of Rockland v. FAA, 335 Fed. Appx. 52 (CA 

DC 2009), cert. den., 175 L.Ed.2d 975.

36Additionally, while some of the proposed changes would benefit a particular procedure 

or operator, they may not fit within the air-traffic control structure for an OAPM effort 

without wholesale airspace redesign, according to FAA officials. 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

• Excluded new procedures that would require new design criteria. FAA 

officials explained that having to wait for new design criteria for 

procedures could jeopardize the OAPM time frames. Outside of the 

OAPM initiative, FAA acknowledged that its staff had at times initiated 

work on a requested PBN procedure only to discover that the design 

criteria—which ensure the safety of procedures—do not yet exist for 

the desired procedure. FAA officials stated that new design criteria 

would be needed to more widely deploy PBN procedures, but that 

effort is being undertaken independently of the OAPM initiative.

• Excluded sites with ongoing airspace redesign projects. Concerns 

about potential implementation delays also factored into FAA’s 

decision about which metroplexes to address in the midterm. Some 

industry stakeholders have voiced concerns that FAA did not include 

in its current OAPM plans the New York/Philadelphia metroplex, 

which is the nation’s most congested airspace and contributes to over 

half of domestic flight delays.37 However, FAA decided to exclude that 

metroplex in light of the Record of Decision for the existing 

environmental reviews for FAA’s ongoing airspace redesign work for 

that area, because the agency did not want to initiate a new 

environmental review process.38

In addition to the OAPM initiative, FAA has other PBN initiatives that aim 

to deliver midterm benefits in less congested areas. For example, FAA’s 

Greener Skies project, which was initiated by Alaska Airlines, aims to 

deliver benefits to the Seattle metroplex beginning in 2013, and was 

shaped by local considerations.39 The initiative’s first phase focuses on a 

new set of PBN procedures planned for implementation in March 2013.40

 

37FAA officials we spoke with acknowledged that no matter which prioritization factor 

(delays, daily operations, extent of connectivity) is weighed most heavily, this metroplex is 

identified as the first priority site for the NAS. It was also identified as the highest priority 

metroplex by the NAC.

38FAA and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey officials pointed out that it 

would not be possible to begin a new project before the ongoing work is done under the 

existing environmental impact statement without triggering the need for a new 

environmental review. The Record of Decision completed the FAA’s NEPA review and 

describes the final action that FAA has decided to take. 

39Greener Skies was initiated by Alaska Airlines in collaboration with Boeing, other 

airlines, and the Port of Seattle, which operates Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. 

Greener Skies became an FAA-sponsored NextGen initiative in 2010. 

40The second phase is a longer-term research effort to revise separation standards for the 

NAS, which will be discussed in the following section.
 

Page 22 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

The procedures are designed to shorten flight tracks and route aircraft 

over water. FAA estimates that the new Greener Skies procedures would 

reduce annual fuel consumption by 112,420 barrels annually, resulting in 

potential annual savings of $13.5 million. To facilitate implementation of 

the project, a number of potentially beneficial procedures were scoped 

out of the Greener Skies effort based on local concerns. For example, 

FAA officials and other Greener Skies participants stated that new 

procedures to the east of the airport were not included because of known 

community concerns about new aviation noise in those areas and to 

avoid any changes that could violate noise commitments made in a 

recent Record of Decision. In addition to Greener Skies, FAA also has 

non-OAPM PBN efforts in place in Denver and Minneapolis.41

Although FAA’s current PBN efforts have the potential to deliver midterm 

efficiency and environmental benefits, the benefits obtained will greatly 

depend on the extent to which the new procedures are used. In the past, 

industry stakeholders, especially airlines, have expressed concerns that 

some published PBN procedures, including those developed at priority 

metroplexes, have not provided sufficient benefits. According to FAA, the 

OAPM and Greener Skies efforts were structured in part to address such 

stakeholder concerns. In each OAPM project, airlines that serve the 

airports are invited to participate fully in the studies and design work that 

produce the PBN procedures to be implemented, for example. For those 

routes that were not developed through such efforts, however, usage 

remains a challenge. For example, an Alaska Airlines analysis of the 

airline’s use of RNP routes in Alaska and in the continental U.S. showed 

that while 5 of its 10 RNP routes in Alaska—which are routes designed by 

or for Alaska Airlines to allow poor-weather airport access—were flown 

more than 40 percent of the time, all 16 of the RNP routes outside of 

Alaska were flown by its pilots fewer than 5 percent of the time, with most 

not used at all.42

 

41In another new initiative, Delta Airlines has requested that FAA assess the potential for 

the development of full RNP simultaneous operations—allowing for the use of parallel 

runways independently—at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. This effort 

would resemble the Greener Skies work in the Seattle metroplex. 

An airline representative suggested that pilots were not 

requesting to use RNP procedures after having been denied them a 

42According to analysis done by Alaska Airlines, of the 27 RNP charts that are carried by 

the airline’s flight crews, 5 of the routes in Alaska were flown more than 40 percent of the 

time, while at least 11 of the routes in the lower 48 states were flown less than 1 percent 

of the time.
 

Page 23 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

number of times by air traffic controllers. Southwest Airlines has 

expressed similar concerns about not being able to obtain projected 

benefits of new PBN procedures. For example, in 2011 the airline 

reported that its usage of RNP procedures had dropped, in part, because 

approval to use existing procedures was often not granted by air traffic 

controllers.43

FAA does not currently have a system to track the use of PBN 

procedures, and is unable to provide information on the extent to which 

existing procedures are either unused or are used on a limited basis. 

There are currently no automatic data collection systems to track the use 

of procedures, either on the aircraft flying the routes or at the air-traffic

control facilities managing those aircraft. FAA officials stated that current 

efforts to track the use of procedures through pilot reporting have been 

hindered by insufficient and unreliable data. Without a way to 

systematically measure the use of particular procedures, the agency may 

not recognize routes that need to be revised to ensure that airlines are 

able to get expected benefits such as reduced fuel use or improved 

access in bad weather. As we have previously reported, critical success 

factors for goal setting and performance management by leading 

organizations include systematically measuring their performance to 

guide goal-setting, managerial decision-making, resource allocations, and 

day-to-day operations.

Some controllers told us that using new PBN procedures 

can be difficult for a number of reasons, including a lack of guidance and 

tools, which will be further discussed later in this report. Finally, in some 

cases, pilots prefer to fly traditional routes—particularly if the PBN route is 

longer or less efficient than a shortcut that may be approved by an air 

traffic controller on a traditional procedure when conditions allow it. 

According to FAA officials, when conditions do not allow for such 

shortcuts, pilots can use the PBN procedures. 

44

 

43See Southwest Airlines, Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(D) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

44See GAO/AIMD-GGD-95-130R. 
 

Page 24 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

Through 2018, FAA is focusing on updating its Traffic Management 

Advisor (TMA), which is an airborne arrival-sequencing program that 

assigns times when aircraft destined for the same airport should cross 

certain points in order to reach the destination airport at a specific time 

and in an efficient order. TMA can enhance the effectiveness of new PBN 

procedures, particularly when controllers are mixing traffic using different 

types of procedures and aircraft with different levels of equipment (e.g., 

RNP equipped mixed with non-RNP equipped aircraft). For example, 

controllers can better merge aircraft on conventional, straight flight paths 

with those on PBN curved approaches and obtain a clearer picture of 

traffic on the ground and in terminal airspace when TMA is used with 

surface management tools (see fig. 7). Currently, TMA is primarily used 

for arrival sequencing by certain air-traffic control facilities at times when 

the demand for arrivals exceeds the capacity of a specific airspace or 

airport.45

 

45According to FAA officials, TMA is currently deployed and operational at all 20 enroute 

air-traffic control facilities, as well as 30 TRACONs and 29 airport towers, and it can be 

used in support of arrival, enroute, and departure flows. 

The upgrades could allow for TMA to be used more often, for 

more purposes (e.g., sequencing aircraft further away from the airport), 

and at additional facilities.

Mixed Progress in Other 

Key NextGen 

Improvement Areas Could 

Limit Benefits

Airborne and Surface Traffic 

Management 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

Figure 7: Airborne and Surface Traffic Management Tools

Many of the active OAPM teams recommended upgrades to TMA’s 

capabilities for their respective air-traffic control facilities; such upgrades 

could provide significant benefits to priority metroplexes, as well as at 

core airports faced with similar congestion issues. For example, the North 

Texas OAPM study team recommended separating the traffic to 

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport from Dallas Love Field’s airport 

traffic more efficiently, largely through TMA upgrades. North Texas OAPM 

team members told us that implementation of the procedures they are 

developing would depend principally on planned TMA upgrades. 

Likewise, the Houston OAPM study team recommended that arrival 

procedures it identified for the Houston metroplex to increase efficiency 

be managed using an enhanced TMA system. FAA has worked to align 

its plans for upgrading the TMA system with issues and concerns raised 

by OAPM teams.46

 

46Of the eight OAPM study team reports published as of January 2013, three of these 

(North Texas, Houston, and Charlotte) stated that an upgraded TMA system would be 

needed to successfully deploy their proposed solutions for new PBN procedures and 

airspace changes, while two other study teams (Atlanta and Northern California) noted 

that their airspace would be more efficient if the TMA system were enhanced. 

For example, FAA plans to launch a new time-based 
 

Page 26 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

metering capability for PBN, which could help facilitate the corresponding 

launch of new PBN procedures in four priority metroplexes.

As part of its upgrades to airborne traffic management, FAA is also 

deploying a system to improve air traffic management in metroplexes by 

sharing information between adjoining air-traffic control facilities. The new 

system allows these facilities to share information and workload. It has 

been deployed at air-traffic control facilities for key metroplexes—

including Atlanta, Los Angeles, Newark, and San Francisco—and FAA 

plans to complete the installation at at least three other sites by the end of 

2014. Finally, FAA is implementing a system that will enable the 

sequencing of aircraft further from the destination airport—current 

sequencing typically occurs at the border between the enroute and 

terminal airspace. This system is to be implemented at one site in 2014, 

and the agency plans to subsequently install it at all others, but locations 

and timeframes have not been specified.

FAA-led surface-traffic management enhancements are not expected to 

begin to be implemented until 2015 at the earliest, mostly through the 

greater use of automated departure-queue management programs that 

are already in place at a number of metroplex airports.47

FAA is also developing a new surface-management capability system, the 

Terminal Flight Data Manager, but does not plan to implement it until at 

These existing 

programs include queue-managements programs currently in use at John 

F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in New York and in Memphis, for 

example, which allow pilots to put their aircraft into a virtual departure 

queue before leaving the gate or ramp area instead of taxiing out and 

waiting on the runway for takeoff. Fuel savings, reduced taxiway 

congestion, and enhanced safety are among the benefits. FAA is working 

to determine which surface-traffic management capabilities to implement 

through testing with air traffic controllers, airlines, general aviation, and 

airport operators. While the airports have not yet been identified and the 

capabilities are still being determined, according to FAA officials, the 

agency tentatively plans to complete the rollout of enhanced surfacetraffic management improvements by the end of the midterm.

 

47A number of airport authorities in major metroplex areas have purchased their own 

systems to improve surface traffic management, including at JFK in New York, HartsfieldJackson Atlanta International Airport, and Denver International Airport. 
 

Page 27 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

least 2017, which will likely limit potential midterm benefits.48 According to 

FAA, reductions in surface traffic congestion largely depend on the new 

system’s implementation. Further, the Terminal Flight Data Manager is 

also key to producing desired efficiency benefits—that is increasing 

arrivals and departures at busy metroplex airports where demand for 

runway capacity is high or where there are multiple runways with 

conflicting traffic. As a result, the agency will not be able to manage traffic 

throughout all phases of a flight—referred to as “end-to-end metering”—

until these improvements are completed, including the integration of TMA 

enhancements with the Tower Flight Data Manager.49

FAA has already implemented systems to increase the safety of surface 

traffic. To improve safety for taxi and surface movement at airports, for 

example, FAA installed Airport Surface Detection Equipment–Model X 

(ASDE-X)—a ground monitoring system—for 35 major airports from 2003 

to 2011. FAA is also installing Airport Surface Surveillance Capability 

(ASSC) for another 9 busy and complex airports. These operational 

improvements were prioritized by the RTCA task force and enhance 

safety and traffic flow on runways, taxiways, and some ramps and allow 

for collaborative decision making among air traffic controllers and pilots.

While originally 

envisioned for the midterm, end-to-end metering is now scheduled to be 

implemented in the long term (by 2025).

FAA has recently approved a few revisions to existing standards, which 

should benefit a handful of airports in the midterm, but further revisions 

are required before the envisioned efficiency and capacity benefits of 

midterm NextGen improvements can be fully realized. A key component 

of FAA’s NextGen plans involves updating separation and other flight 

safety standards to better accommodate modern aircraft and advances in 

technology. Separation standards—required minimum distances used for 

safely spacing aircraft from other aircraft, terrain, and objects—have a 

 

48According to FAA officials, the Terminal Flight Data Manager program has developed a 

phased approach to the implementation of both surface-queue and tower-automation 

decision support tools. It is expected that this approach will provide incremental benefits 

while reducing implementation risks. In 2015, FAA plans to deploy an enhancement to 

departure sequencing. FAA plans to then implement additional enhancements and to 

deploy the full system in 2017.

49With end-to-end metering, flights can be seamlessly managed from the departure gate, 

through all flight phases, to arrival at the destination gate, thereby increasing airport 

capacity. 

Additional or Revised 

Standards
 

Page 28 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

large effect on airport capacity and the overall capacity of the NAS. 

Consequently, according to FAA and industry stakeholders, updating 

separation and other standards could increase the efficiency, capacity, 

and predictability of the NAS. By contrast, if standards are not updated to 

facilitate the use of new technologies and procedures, projected NextGen 

benefits might not be achievable to the same degree. Such revisions to 

standards can be time intensive because safety assessments are 

required to ensure the safety of the changes. Figure 8 provides examples 

of key additional or revised standards that FAA is pursuing through 

2018.50

Figure 8: Examples of Revised and Updated Standards 

Recent work completed by FAA’s Closely Spaced Parallel Operations 

working group51

 

50According to FAA officials, FAA has plans to make other improvements involving 

separation standards, including an initiative to reduce the required distance between 

runways for same direction operations and another for reduced spacing for dependent 

simultaneous approaches, among others. These efforts are still being planned and will 

need to undergo safety assessments before implementation. 

could soon provide benefits to one large metroplex 

airport and several smaller airports. In 2008, the working group initiated a 

51The Closely Spaced Parallel Operations working group includes participants from 

several FAA units such as the office of Aviation Safety, ATO, and the Office of Airports, 

MITRE, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and NASA. 
 

Page 29 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

series of research studies to investigate the potential for reducing runway 

separation standards—the required distance between runway centerlines 

for simultaneous use—to provide increased arrival and departure capacity 

in all weather conditions.52 After a lengthy safety assessment, the working 

group determined in 2011 that this standard could be reduced from 4300 

feet to 3600 feet. FAA is proceeding with the implementation of the new 

standard.

53 According to FAA officials, once this new standard is 

implemented, it will benefit four airports immediately.54

FAA has also recently revised standards in two key metroplex areas in an 

effort to increase capacity and efficiency.

FAA’s 2012 

NextGen Implementation Plan indicates that such reductions in runway 

separation standards should improve overall capability on runways, 

especially during poor weather conditions, but does not provide any 

quantitative estimates of benefits from this new standard.

• In October 2011, FAA implemented a new standard that decreases 

the required angle of divergence between aircraft using RNAV 

departure procedures on the same or parallel runways at HartsfieldJackson Atlanta International Airport—the busiest airport in the NAS. 

According to FAA, this reduction has given controllers the ability to 

allow between 8 and 12 additional aircraft to depart the airport every 

 

52When weather conditions are not clear (Instrument Meteorological Conditions) the 

required separation standard for simultaneous independent operations on closely spaced 

parallel runways is 4,300 feet. 

53This effort involved 3 years of data collected on blunders recorded from over 1.4 million 

simultaneous independent parallel instrument approach operations. (A blunder occurs 

when an aircraft inadvertently changes course. It may result in a loss separation from the

other aircraft on the parallel approach.) It involved research efforts on the part of FAA’s 

Aviation Safety teams, MITRE, and NASA and also involved Human In the Loop 

simulations with controllers and pilots. FAA officials told us that when they began this

work, they were hoping to allow a national standard for runways separated by 2,400 feet 

to allow independent parallel operations, which would have benefited many more airports; 

however, the safety assessment revealed that there would be too many blunders with less 

than 3,600 feet spacing. The working group continues researching the possibility of further 

reducing separation standards for both dependent and independent parallel operations at 

other airports.

54According to FAA officials, going forward, the revised independent and dependent 

standards will also provide airports more options to build parallel runways and, in some 

cases, possibly reduce the amount of land required. Such proposals would have to be 

carefully analyzed to determine whether other factors (including taxi routes and other 

surface movement considerations) would make such proposals workable. Moreover, any 

such proposals would be subject to environmental review under NEPA. 
 

Page 30 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

hour and is expected to save airlines $10 million annually from 

reduced fuel burn on taxiways.

• Throughout 2011 and 2012, FAA implemented several revised 

standards at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) that FAA 

officials said could improve airport efficiency.55 An FAA official and 

industry representatives who participated in this initiative noted that 

these revisions should help address capacity issues at the airport 

created by regional wind and fog patterns. Revised standards include 

a lower visibility minimum for certain types of approaches, as well as 

departures. FAA also increased the use of the airport’s optimal 

runway configurations during various wind conditions.

FAA has had varying success in integrating its NextGen implementation 

efforts, and stakeholders see opportunities for additional integration to 

better deliver benefits in the midterm. In 2010, the NAC approved of 

FAA’s plans to focus its early OAPM efforts on new PBN procedures and 

airspace changes to expedite the delivery of benefits for operators, but 

suggested that FAA incorporate additional operational improvements—

such as revised standards—into future OAPM efforts. In 2012, the NAC 

recommended that FAA incorporate into future OAPM efforts additional 

midterm operational improvements, such as enhanced airborne and 

surface-traffic management tools and other capabilities to enhance the 

capacity of metroplex areas. FAA has coordinated the development of 

PBN procedures with the implementation of airborne-traffic management 

tools in some OAPM projects when study teams identified improvements 

that would facilitate the implementation or usage of new PBN routes, but 

this integration has not been systematic for current OAPM efforts. For 

example, in response to a request from the North California OAPM team, 

FAA has added the San Francisco metroplex to the list of metroplexes 

that will receive an upgraded TMA system, which would allow the enroute 

center to manage traffic in concert with those air-traffic control facilities 

that manage surrounding airspace. The consideration of other non-PBN 

improvements, however, has been done at the discretion of OAPM 

 

55FAA and industry representatives told us that this work at SFO began as an attempt to 

mitigate some especially challenging constraints at SFO. Specifically, two of SFO’s 

runways were scheduled to be periodically closed from the spring of 2012 through 2015 to 

make safety-related upgrades in line with FAA’s Runway Safety Area program. At the 

same time as these intermittent closures were planned to begin, several airlines were 

planning to add flights at SFO. 

Integration of 

Improvements Is Minimal
 

Page 31 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

teams—rather than being included as a goal of the overall OAPM effort—

and has been largely limited to enhancements to TMA.

More broadly, FAA’s obstacles study pointed to the lack of airborne 

management tools as a key obstacle to the use of existing PBN 

procedures, including tools that help air traffic controllers sequence 

aircraft and better predict and visualize the flight trajectories of aircraft on 

PBN procedures. These tools are needed to fully use RNP curved 

approaches in congested metroplex areas, according to the study. One 

such tool will not be operationally available until 2016, according to FAA’s

2012 NextGen Implementation Plan, and the plan did not clearly indicate 

how or where this capability would be rolled out. Stakeholders have 

raised concerns that the lack of some key tools will slow the potential 

benefits of PBN efforts, including those associated with the OAPM 

initiative. Likewise, as mentioned above, the rollout of surface-traffic

management improvements are scheduled to begin in 2015 at a few 

airports, which may hinder FAA’s ability to deliver the full benefits of its 

other improvement efforts, including PBN.

As noted above, FAA’s current operational improvement efforts have 

involved certain trade-offs to achieve some near and midterm benefits, in 

large part, because of the context within which these improvements are 

being made. FAA has long-established processes and requirements in 

place that have made the U.S. airspace among the safest in the world. A 

number of those processes are, however, complex, lengthy, and at times, 

unclear as they relate to new technologies, procedures, and capabilities. 

FAA has a number of efforts under way to help overcome previously 

identified, overarching obstacles to NextGen implementation, such as 

streamlining processes and updating the air traffic controller handbook 

and procedure design criteria.56

 

56As previously mentioned, design criteria provide rules for the safe development of airtraffic control procedures. 

Many of these efforts are scheduled to 

take a number of years, particularly when proposed changes must be 

evaluated to ensure that they will maintain, if not enhance, the system’s 

current level of safety. Some, such as those aimed at increasing 

stakeholder involvement in planning and implementation of PBN 

procedures, do not, however, fully address previously identified obstacles. 

Nor do they change FAA’s overall approach to identifying potential PBN 

FAA Is Addressing 

Some Obstacles, but 

Project Prioritization, 

Stakeholder 

Participation, and 

Consistent NextGen 

Leadership Remain 

Challenges 
 

Page 32 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

procedures for development or amendment, which relies on requests 

from airlines and other stakeholders without determining their impact on 

improving efficiency in the NAS. Finally, continued uncertainty about the 

FAA’s leadership of NextGen affects the agency’s ability to manage and 

oversee the various improvements and efforts needed to achieve the full 

implementation of NextGen.

FAA and others have identified the process for developing PBN and other 

new flight procedures as a challenge. For example, in 2009 the RTCA 

task force recommended streamlining the operational approval and 

certification processes for new flight procedures. Likewise, an FAA report 

described the existing process as a bundle of interconnected, 

overlapping, and sometimes competing processes.57

 

57See FAA, Navigation (NAV) Procedures Project Final Report (Washington, D.C.: 

September 2010). 

It also found 

variations and contradictions in existing guidance on procedure 

development and implementation, which result in a process that is “far 

from optimal, frequently generates rework, and on occasion results in the 

implementation of low- or no-benefit procedures.” To address these 

challenges, FAA initiated the Navigation Lean (NAV Lean) initiative to 

focus on streamlining the implementation and amendment processes for 

all flight procedures, releasing a report with planned improvements in 

2010. FAA anticipates that the initiative will cumulatively cut 40 percent 

off the time needed to implement new procedures (assuming a full 

environmental impact statement is not required), though it acknowledged 

that it will be difficult to measure actual time saved. ATO and the Office of 

Aviation Safety share responsibility for overseeing the initiative, which 

began with the identification of overarching issues that negatively affect 

procedure implementation efficiency. The NAV Lean working groups 

identified nine issue areas with 21 associated recommendations, which 

focus, among other things, on minimizing the workload and delayed 

implementation associated with minor amendments of procedures, 

amending agency guidance to clarify and promote preparation of focused 

environmental assessments, and overcoming challenges to the 

development and implementation of criteria for flight procedures. (See fig. 

9.)

Flight Procedure 

Implementation Process Is 

Being Streamlined, but 

Impact Will Not Be Known 

for Several Years
 

Page 33 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

According to the NAV Lean implementation plan, all planned 

improvements are scheduled to be completed from 2013 through 2015. 

FAA envisions that some are likely to produce benefits soon after 

implementation.58

 

58The NAV Lean implementation plan provided initial action plans to relevant FAA offices, 

including the phases, timelines, actions, metrics, and estimated costs associated with 

implementing the recommendations. A majority of the recommendations involve multiple 

FAA offices. 

However, FAA has acknowledged that it will have 

difficulty setting a baseline from which to measure many of the NAV Lean 

improvements. Agency officials, for example, told us that it would not be 

possible to determine how long the current PBN procedure 

implementation process takes both because the process varies for each 

effort and because agency databases do not track the amount of time 

taken for individual steps in the process. They explained that the more 

than 40 percent cumulative NAV Lean timesaving estimate was 

developed by asking officials the amount of time they expected to save in 

the procedure development process. In February 2013, FAA reported that 

it had made progress on all but one of the recommendations and had 

completed work on three recommendations, including a recommendation 

regarding the use of focused NEPA reviews in some circumstances. 

However, it is too early to determine outcomes associated with the 

implementation of these recommendations such as developing more 

procedures in less time.
 

Page 34 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

Figure 9: Status and Projected Completion Date for Navigation (NAV) Lean Recommendations, as of February 2013
 

Page 35 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

As part of addressing concerns about the length of its environmental 

review process, FAA released guidance on preparing concise and 

focused environmental assessments for proposed FAA actions (including 

new procedures) in January 2011.59 Lengthy environmental reviews have 

been identified as an obstacle to the timely implementation of PBN by 

FAA and others. Environmental considerations were frequently not 

addressed until late in the procedure development process. The NAV 

Lean working group found that previous FAA guidance on the preparation 

of environmental assessments did not adequately address circumstances 

where the environment analysis could be more narrowly focused on only 

certain potential environmental impacts. In those circumstances, FAA 

offices should be preparing environmental assessments that consider all 

impact categories for applicability and significance, but focus the analysis 

only on the impact categories (e.g., noise) where there is potential for 

significant impacts caused by the proposed action (i.e., procedures). FAA 

anticipates that for small, non-OAPM projects involving one airport, 

“focused” environmental assessments could potentially take from 3 to 6 

months, with a cost of $300,000 or less.60

Although FAA has used focused environmental assessments for other 

types of proposed agency actions, FAA is first applying the new guidance 

to procedure-related actions for projects in Houston and Denver. 

Thereafter, the agency intends to use the new guidance at select OAPM 

sites (i.e., based on their complexity, number of potential environmental 

impacts, local considerations, and where proposed changes would not 

qualify for a categorical exclusion under NEPA), and will apply this 

approach to other projects as appropriate. FAA is also working to 

enhance or integrate several environmental screening and modeling 

For more complex OAPM 

projects—involving multiple airports and the assessment of numerous 

new flight procedures—focused environmental assessments generally will 

have 12- to 18-month time frames. By contrast, FAA officials estimate that 

non-focused environmental assessments traditionally take 6 months to 2 

years for new flight procedures and cost $300,000 to over $1 million.

 

59FAA, Guidance on Preparing Focused, Concise and Timely Environmental 

Assessments, FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Guidance Memo #2, January 10, 2011. 

60In contrast to environmental assessments—either traditional or focused—a full 

environmental impact statement may take 2 to 5 years, on average, with costs ranging 

from $500,000 to $5 million, depending on the timely delivery of final procedure and 

airspace designs, the amount of potential controversy, and the amount of significant 

impact.
 

Page 36 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

tools—by including fuel burn analysis in its noise screening tools and 

incorporating environmental screening into a traffic simulator used to 

design PBN procedures. These screening tools allow procedure 

developers to evaluate environmental implications early in the design 

process and determine the potential for extraordinary circumstances that 

would warrant environmental assessments rather than categorical 

exclusions. FAA has also been developing a new tool—the Aviation 

Environmental Design Tool—to facilitate its environmental assessment 

process.61

The FAA reauthorization act included a second new categorical exclusion 

for new PBN procedures that would result in measurable reductions in 

fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and noise, on a per-flight 

basis, as compared to aircraft operations that follow existing 

procedures.62

Also as part of NAV Lean, FAA is working to change the way flight 

procedures requests are prioritized and how existing RNAV procedures 

are amended.

Currently potential noise impacts are measured 

cumulatively for all flights, and FAA has not yet identified an approach for 

such per-flight assessments. According to FAA officials, no currently 

available methodology resolves the technical problems involved in 

making such a determination, so the agency has not applied this new 

categorical exclusion. FAA officials have requested NAC’s input on how 

to address these technical challenges.

63

 

61In March 2012, FAA released guidance on the initial version of the Aviation Environment 

Design Tool (version 2a), a software-based tool which replaces the noise modeling tool 

currently used for air traffic airspace and procedure actions. See FAA, Guidance on Using 

the Aviation Environment Design Tool (version 2a) to Conduct Environmental Modeling for 

FAA Air Traffic Airspace and Procedure Actions, FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, 

Guidance Memo #4, March 21, 2012. A second version of the tool is anticipated for 

release in 2014, which will integrate additional existing modeling tools to produce fuelburn, emissions, and noise estimates.

The change would expedite minor procedures revisions—

which, to date, are subject to the procedure development process that 

FAA’s obstacle study found long and cumbersome—by excluding 

62 Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 213(c)(1), (2), 126 Stat., 49 (2012).

63FAA has proposed reducing the priority categories from 10 to 3, which FAA expects will 

make the process more flexible. As mentioned above, requests for new air-traffic control 

procedures—as well as for amending procedures—can come from a variety of sources 

and are added to a queue with a priority ranking based on the type of procedure involved.

See FAA Order 8260.43A, Flight Procedures Management Program, October 22, 2001. 
 

Page 37 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

amendments from the regional and national prioritization processes. This 

would allow FAA to make minor changes to existing—but potentially 

underused—RNAV arrival and departure procedures more expeditiously. 

This could be an efficient and cost-effective way for FAA to increase PBN 

usage.

While NAV Lean does not assign one FAA office responsibility for 

developing and implementing new procedures, implementation of several 

NAV Lean recommendations will provide additional tools to allow for 

better coordination among ATO, the Office of Aviation Safety, AeroNav

Products, and others involved in the process. In 2012, FAA’s obstacles 

study pointed to the lack of an accountable FAA office for the 

development of PBN to oversee a coherent design, development, 

production, and implementation strategy for new procedures. FAA is 

developing a web-based system to allow each interested party to access 

procedure designs and suggest improvements or mitigate potential 

problems throughout the development process. This is expected to result 

in a more cohesive procedure-development process when implemented 

in 2015. Furthermore, NAV Lean efforts are also intended to strengthen 

the role of the United States Instrument Flight Procedures Panel to 

improve coordination among parties responsible for the development and 

implementation of procedure design criteria.

The RTCA task force and the NAC work group have pointed to the 

importance of prioritizing the implementation of key operational 

improvements, including focusing on the most appropriate PBN options 

such as RNAV or RNP. FAA officials said that they are in the early stages 

of developing a toolbox for those requesting new procedures, which 

would match solutions to identified problems and allow the agency to 

better target its efforts. FAA does not currently assess individual 

procedure requests—which can be made by a number of parties, 

including airlines—to determine if the proposed new procedures would 

generate expected benefits or resolve problems for airports or airspace. 

Rather, once a request for a new PBN procedure is received it is 

prioritized for development as requested on a first-come, first-served 

basis. Requests for new RNP procedures do not currently trigger an 

assessment by FAA (or by the requester) of the potential to use a lesscostly option to resolve the underlying problem or gain the expected 

New Efforts May Better 

Address New Procedure 

Requests, but Do Not 

Proactively Identify Needs
 

Page 38 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

benefits.64

Industry stakeholders have argued that third parties could play a greater 

role in the development of flight procedures, a move that would help FAA 

respond to the current demand for new PBN procedures in the face of 

limited agency resources.

FAA officials noted that, in some cases, new RNAV 

procedures could be used by more aircraft and pilots than the more 

precise RNP curved routes that were being or had been developed. Over 

90 percent of commercial aircraft are equipped for RNAV procedures—

which also allow for curved flight paths—and the RTCA task force 

recommended that FAA should focus on leveraging RNAV and reserve 

RNP to locations where tighter turns are needed.

65 The FAA reauthorization act called for the 

agency to establish a program for qualified third parties to develop, test, 

and maintain flight procedures.66 In May 2012, FAA awarded a $2.8-

million contract to GE’s Naverus and a partner to develop two RNP 

approach procedures each at five mid-sized airports.67 The contractors 

are to design, evaluate, and maintain these RNP approaches and be 

responsible for providing environmental data and analysis to FAA to 

support categorical exclusions and for drafting any required NEPA 

reviews, for review and approval by FAA.68 According to FAA officials, the 

pilot project will allow FAA to assess the potential for third parties to have 

an expanded role in helping address those PBN procedures that FAA, 

because of a lack of resources, may be unable to address.69

 

64As mentioned above, the majority of commercial aircraft in the United States are 

currently equipped for RNAV procedures, while RNP routes may require equipment 

upgrades and additional pilot training.

FAA has 

made progress in recent years in developing a framework plan for 

65There are only a finite number of procedures that are needed. Once these routes are 

developed, the demand for new procedures should be reduced. 

66Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 213(f), 126 Stat., 50 (2012).

67FAA considered a number of factors when choosing the five airports (Syracuse, NY; 

Milwaukee, WI; Anchorage, AK; Dayton, OH; and Kansas City, MO), including whether the 

airport had been identified by airlines. 

68Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 504, 126 Stat., 104 (2012).

69FAA is developing a plan to review and assess reports developed by the contractors, as 

well as identifying measureable benefits and developing metrics criteria to track and report 

progress. FAA plans to evaluate the technical, operational, and costs value propositions 

measured out of this pilot project and will provide recommendations regarding the further 

use of the third-party developers for PBN procedure development.
 

Page 39 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

leveraging third-party procedure developers and overseeing them. The 

potential of third party procedure development may be limited, however, 

given that there are currently two third-party procedure developers—GE’s 

Naverus and Boeing’s Jeppesen—that are eligible to develop public RNP 

approach procedures.70 The use of third-party developers may be more 

costly than the in-house FAA development and maintenance of 

procedures. FAA officials estimate that new RNP procedures cost 

$58,100 on average to develop, conduct safety testing, and implement—

and $2,300 per year to maintain—when these efforts are undertaken in 

house.71 This total is significantly less than the $280,000 average cost for 

each of the 10 procedures that are being developed by the third party, 

although these FAA procedure-development costs do not include 

additional expenses for any NEPA reviews above a categorical exclusion. 

If an environmental assessment is required, then FAA costs could exceed 

$58,100, as the cost of conducting a focused environmental assessment 

can range from $0 to $300,000.72

Despite efforts to streamline the development of flight procedures, FAA 

does not have a process to proactively identify those PBN procedures 

that would best further NextGen goals. Much of the work done by the 

RTCA task force and the NAC work group has focused on prioritizing 

improvements, and the identification of needed new routes might prove 

beneficial in easing congestion in the NAS and key airspace, or in solving 

local problems that have ripple effects across the NAS. OAPM was 

designed, in part, to fill this void, but for airspace or airports that are not 

included in the initiative, FAA depends on stakeholders to initiate 

requests. Once requests are made, however, they are added to the 

procedure-development queue, and are not assessed against other PBN 

procedures in the queue to determine their respective potential to benefit 

the NAS or to resolve problems at specific airports. Further, requests may 

be driven by where a requesting airline flies and not where new 

 

70FAA has not authorized third-party developers to prepare RNAV procedures or those 

involving RNP departures in the United States.

71According to FAA officials, the 2012, non-OAPM estimated cost per procedure includes 

funding for contract support, AeroNav Products, flight inspection, and Aeronautical 

Information Management. The costs do not include environmental work above a 

categorical exclusion, overhead, or the cost for analytical support by a contractor. 

72According to FAA officials, the third-party contractors will be responsible for providing 

environmental information to support a categorical exclusion and for preparing any 

required environmental assessments, for review and approval by FAA. 
 

Page 40 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

procedures are most needed. In 2012, Airlines for America, an airline 

trade organization, led an effort—called 20/20—to identify those 20 new 

procedures most wanted by airlines, as well as the 20 procedures they 

viewed as most in need of amendment.73 Four of the identified new 

procedures were at airports included in the OAPM initiative, so 

participating airlines agreed that FAA should address those new 

procedures through ongoing airspace redesign efforts. Of the remaining 

16 identified procedures, 13 were found to already be under development 

by FAA.74 Similarly, for procedures needing revision, FAA found that 13 of 

the 20 identified procedures were already in the process of being revised. 

In the absence of a procedure-development tracking tool, such as is 

being developed as part of NAV Lean, airlines were not able to monitor 

FAA’s procedure development process for these routes. In response to 

the 20/20 effort, FAA agreed to track the development of the 16 desired 

new routes on its website, although it is not tracking those procedures 

that were identified for revision on the website.75

OAPM or similar efforts may present an opportunity to assess the utility of 

some existing, but underused, conventional air-traffic control routes in a 

more efficient, systematic way. FAA maintains more than 22,000 PBN 

and conventional procedures in the NAS, and the agency is looking to 

cancel underused or redundant flight procedures.

Without a systematic 

means to identify procedures that are most critical to achieving NextGen 

goals and sharing information about its plans and progress in developing 

needed new procedures, it will be difficult for FAA to provide reasonable 

assurance that its efforts are efficiently delivering benefits.

76

 

73The 20 new procedures identified by airlines are located at nine airports. 

As noted, these 

procedures cost $2,300 or more per year to maintain and may be used 

74According to FAA, one procedure identified in the 20/20 effort—for Anchorage, Alaska—

is being developed as part of the third-party contract. 

75As of December 2012, the agency reported publishing (i.e., implementing) 9 of the 

identified new procedures; another 6 new procedures are expected to be completed by 

the end of May 2013, with the final procedure scheduled to be published in October 2013. 

76In 2010 FAA awarded a grant to Flight Safety Foundation to research and develop a 

process that can be used to identify and eliminate underutilized or redundant approach 

procedures. See Flight Safety Foundation, A Recommended Process: Safely Reducing 

Redundant or Underutilized Instrument Approach Procedures (Alexandria, VA: Mar. 

2011). 
 

Page 41 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

only occasionally, if at all.77 Although FAA does not track the number of 

unneeded routes, in a 2011 report, the Flight Safety Foundation proposed 

a process to identify 800 such procedures for potential elimination, 

representing a 12 percent reduction in the total number of ground-based 

approach procedures and a 4 percent reduction in the total number of 

procedures. Identifying these procedures for decommissioning could 

result in savings of approximately $1.8 million per year—or about $18 

million over 10 years—in maintenance costs. An official with AeroNav 

Products pointed out that when OAPM teams assess current needs within 

a metroplex’s airspace, they are ideally positioned to identify some of the 

existing procedures that could be decommissioned, although they are not 

currently tasked with assessing the continued utility of existing routes. 

Once good candidates for route decommissioning are identified, FAA 

could further assess these routes and begin the public-notification 

process that leads to decommissioning.

The lack of design criteria can impede the development of new 

procedures. FAA’s obstacles study, for example, notes that AeroNav 

Products is often unable to design a requested procedure because the 

criteria for the procedure have yet to be developed by the Office of 

Aviation Safety. According to the report, this lack of a coherent design, 

development, production, and implementation strategy slows down the 

process and creates frustration among air traffic controllers and system 

users, such as airlines. FAA officials in the Office of Aviation Safety 

responsible for developing PBN criteria told us that their units have made 

progress in recent years in updating the design criteria to better use the 

capabilities of PBN to respond to requests for new procedures. They also 

told us that they are currently focused on clarifying and consolidating all 

the PBN criteria into one document to make it easier for air traffic 

controllers and others, and have in place several efforts related to specific 

design criteria, such as updating the criteria for holding—a maneuver 

used to delay an aircraft already in flight—for RNAV and RNP 

procedures. However, officials in the Office of Aviation Safety and other 

FAA officials acknowledged that much work remains to be done to 

 

77According an FAA official, it can cost more to maintain non-PBN procedures, given that 

these procedures may require that more notifications are made to pilots regarding radar 

problems or other conditions. 

Standards and the Air 

Traffic Controller 

Handbook Are Being 

Amended
 

Page 42 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

develop new criteria before PBN can be deployed nationwide.78

Controllers and others have also pointed to obstacles posed by existing 

separation standards. For example, the RTCA task force recommended 

that FAA work to encourage controllers to minimize unnecessary buffers 

added to existing separation standards.

Several 

officials also acknowledged that it can be difficult to meet user requests 

for new PBN design criteria given variations in terrain and changing 

technology, especially because the safety tests that are often required for 

changing or amending the design criteria can be time and labor intensive.

79

 

78FAA is evaluating further enhancements to PBN and has developed general criteria for 

Advanced RNP in coordination with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). If 

these operations can provide additional benefits to the NAS, FAA will develop the 

schedule for their implementation in coordination with the Performance Based Operations 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee. The Performance Based Operations Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee provides a forum for the U.S. aviation community to discuss, 

prioritize, and resolve issues, provide direction for U.S. flight operations criteria, support 

FAA’s NextGen Implementation Plan, and produce U.S. consensus positions for global 

harmonization.

In a separate study, MITRE 

found that controllers often separate aircraft by more than the prescribed 

minimum distances to address any uncertainty about the actual positions 

of aircraft as well as to reduce the likelihood of violating the required 

separation distances. NextGen technologies and procedures can provide 

controllers with more precise information about the locations of aircraft 

and allow for aircraft to operate closer to one another, but controllers are 

not able to take full advantage of these capabilities. For example, current 

rules for air traffic controllers do not allow them to reduce the distance 

between aircraft on simultaneous approaches, even though these 

distances can be lessened when aircraft are on traditional routes under 

certain conditions. One of the aims of the Greener Skies initiative is to 

identify obstacles, such as these, to the full implementation of PBN, both 

in Seattle and across the NAS, and to develop solutions, especially any 

needed changes to existing separation standards relative to non-PBN 

79RTCA has pointed to the potential for changes in the way FAA tracks and assesses any 

errors—notably losses of separation where aircraft come in closer proximity than 

allowed—made by air traffic controllers to encourage closer adherence to existing 

standards by eliminating incentives to add buffers between planes. For example, the 

RTCA task force recommended and FAA implemented a non-punitive reporting system for 

losses of separation. For more information about FAA’s new systems for assessing losses 

of separation caused by controllers, see GAO, Aviation Safety: Enhanced Oversight and 

Improved Availability of Risk- Based Data Could Further Improve Safety, GAO-12-24

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 5, 2011). 
 

Page 43 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

procedures to parallel runways.80 Potential solutions are then forwarded 

to FAA for consideration, such as a 2011 proposal that would better 

leverage the safety benefits of PBN to change certain separation 

standards for the use of parallel runways based on safety assessments 

conducted by the Greener Skies team.81

FAA’s primary effort to address issues with the air traffic controller 

handbook is also part of the Greener Skies initiative. The Greener Skies 

team has identified 95 needed changes in FAA orders and regulations to 

date to address obstacles that have contributed to limiting the usage of 

PBN procedures. FAA’s obstacles study noted that the lack of standard 

language for controllers and pilots for certain types of PBN procedures 

could create uncertainty in communications, which would require such a 

change to the handbook. Officials we interviewed at a Seattle-area airtraffic control facility acknowledged that they had known for years before 

the Greener Skies project began that the handbook was outdated. 

According to these officials, although FAA has published many PBN 

routes throughout the NAS, from a controllers’ perspective, there were 

few rules in place for using those procedures. For example, under the 

current handbook there is little guidance on how to safely give less than 

the standard separation for merging planes—as is often done for 

traditional procedures in clear weather conditions—even if the aircraft are 

on precise paths. The separation standards heavily influence the 

guidance in the controller handbook, because much of a controllers’ 

responsibility is to keep safe distances between aircraft. According to 

FAA’s obstacles study, these concerns have led controllers to not 

approve the use of PBN procedures, in some cases.

 

FAA and others have also pointed to the need for additional training of air 

traffic controllers as a potential obstacle to the use of PBN procedures, 

and FAA’s obstacles study suggested developing a national training plan 

for PBN operations. While we did not look at the extent of training 

provided when PBN procedures are implemented at individual airports, 

 

80The Greener Skies team was uniquely equipped to identify problems with standards and 

the handbook, because the team included members of the Performance Based 

Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee, as well as FAA PBN developers. According 

to officials, this level of expertise allows the Greener Skies team to address issues that 

extend beyond the Seattle metroplex or airspace.

81See Performance Based Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee, RNP EstablishedParallel Approach (Jan. 10, 2011).
 

Page 44 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

the larger-scale initiatives in our review have included time and resources 

for controller training. For example, OAPM plans dedicate from 9 to 15 

months to the implementation phase, which includes controller training. 

Officials with the North Texas team told us that some new OAPM 

procedures, such as OPDs, would require significant changes from the 

way local controllers traditionally managed aircraft, so adequate training 

would be especially important for the successful implementation of their 

OAPM procedures. Likewise, officials from the Seattle-area TRACON 

noted that it had taken them about 2 months to develop the controller 

training for using new Greener Skies procedures.

FAA is making progress in systematically involving industry stakeholders, 

air traffic controllers, and other key subject matter experts in its initiatives, 

including OAPM and Greener Skies, as well as surface-traffic

management initiatives. As we have previously reported, collaboration 

has been an ongoing challenge for FAA.82

 

82See GAO, Mechanisms for Collaboration and Technology Transfer Could Be Enhanced 

to More Fully Leverage Partner Agency and Industry Resources, 

For example, officials with the 

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey told us that the failure to 

include controllers early in the procedure design process for the airspace 

redesign effort for the New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia area—

some of the most complex and congested airspace in the world—

contributed to the 4-year-plus implementation delay, because some 

proposed routes had to be amended following controller input. As such, 

we as well as others have made numerous recommendations that FAA 

should collaborate better with key stakeholders to facilitate the 

implementation of NextGen and enhance results. Many of these key 

stakeholders are also involved in other efforts to improve capacity in the 

NAS, such as the development of new or expanded runways, which are 

or will be pursued concurrently with NextGen. FAA officials, local 

controllers, airline officials, and others generally agreed that FAA has 

made significant progress in recent years in its ability to collaborate to 

achieve results. For example, FAA officials and industry stakeholders 

emphasized that OAPM is highly collaborative, as the study teams and 

design teams include local air traffic controllers and airline officials, FAA 

officials with experience in airspace redesign and other fields, 

environmental specialists, and others. The following are among the 

anticipated benefits of this collaborative approach.

GAO-11-604

(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2011).

FAA Has Involved More 

Stakeholders, but Is Not 

Fully Engaging Airports
 

Page 45 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

• Enhances PBN usage: A number of FAA officials and air traffic 

controllers told us that FAA now recognizes that new procedures are 

much less likely to be used if controllers are not involved in the 

design. New procedures developed without controller input may not 

be feasible from an operational or safety perspective, and controllers 

may not see that the new routes are advantageous. Controllers 

serving the Seattle metroplex told us that their level of involvement in 

Greener Skies was more extensive and occurred earlier than in any 

previous procedure or airspace project. According to FAA officials and 

airline representatives, the inclusion of airline stakeholders in the 

design process also helped keep industry informed and involved and 

helps assure that the proposed procedures can be flown by 

participating airlines.

• Addresses community concerns: We have previously reported that the 

inclusion of airports in PBN procedure development and other projects 

can help address potentially adverse environmental—often noiserelated—community impacts, since these entities often have primary 

responsibility for addressing community concerns and are likely more 

familiar than FAA with the airport’s environmental impacts and the 

surrounding communities.83 According to best practices established 

by ACRP regarding community involvement in airport projects, trust 

and respect are the keys to a long-term relationship between 

stakeholders—in this case between FAA and airport representatives, 

who are responsible for addressing community concerns about 

airport-related noise.84

While FAA has made progress involving airports in NextGen projects, 

several FAA officials, a representative of Airport Councils InternationalNorth America (ACI-NA), and officials from several airports said that FAA 

is not fully leveraging the expertise of airport officials about local 

community concerns, although the ACI-NA representative noted that FAA 

has begun to involve airports earlier as the OAPM effort has continued.

Airport officials in one OAPM metroplex told us that FAA had not 

adequately included them in early planning for new PBN routes. 

Consequently, the airport hired environmental consultants to analyze, 

among other things, the potential noise impacts of proposed PBN 

 

83See GAO, Aviation and the Environment: Systematically Addressing Environmental 

Impacts and Community Concerns Can Help Airports Reduce Project Delays, GAO-10-50

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 13, 2010). 

84ACRP, Aircraft Noise Toolbox (2009). 
 

Page 46 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

procedures and submitted concerns to FAA. In addition, although the Port 

of Seattle was initially involved in designing procedures for Greener 

Skies, airport officials told us that they were concerned that FAA had not 

included them during the environmental assessment process or in 

conducting local outreach. The project has raised some community 

concerns about aircraft noise from new flight paths, and some 

neighborhoods have expressed concerns that FAA had not clearly 

explained the potential noise impact on their neighborhoods.85 New 

aviation noise is one of the largest obstacles to NextGen implementation, 

according to FAA officials and others. It can be difficult to address 

community concerns about aviation noise, but FAA may be able to 

mitigate such concerns by involving airport officials more closely in 

procedure design and community outreach efforts.86 FAA officials 

involved in another OAPM team, for example, noted that local airport 

officials, who were not included in initial route planning for the metroplex, 

later provided information about potential community impacts that FAA 

had not anticipated. Information provided by FAA on establishing OAPM 

study teams, however, does not include guidance on the timely 

involvement of airport representatives on these teams, if such 

involvement is appropriate; rather the information indicates that OAPM 

teams should brief airport authorities as the process continues. This is in 

contrast to the best practices established by ACRP, which state that 

educating—in this case briefing—interested stakeholders after the fact is 

not sufficient for effective involvement; rather, proactive involvement is 

required.87 A collaborative approach for NextGen that involves key 

stakeholders, such as airport officials, would better position FAA to fully 

leverage those stakeholders’ expertise, help identify possible solutions, 

and facilitate implementation of NextGen improvements.

 

85According to FAA officials, the final environmental assessment for Greener Skies 

included a finding of no significant impact and the Record of Decision was signed on 

November 1, 2012. Subsequently, no petition for review was filed by the appropriate filing 

deadline.

86For more information about FAA’s noise-abatement efforts, see GAO-12-890. 

87ACRP, Aircraft Noise Toolbox (2009). 
 

Page 47 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

Although the RTCA task force and NAC work group did not make 

recommendations regarding NextGen organizational issues, more 

broadly, FAA has struggled to have the leadership in place to manage 

and oversee NextGen implementation. In the past, industry stakeholders 

have expressed concerns about the fragmentation of authority and lack of 

accountability for NextGen, two factors that could delay its 

implementation. Leading practices of successful organizations reflect that 

programs can be implemented most efficiently when managers are 

empowered to make critical decisions and are held accountable for 

results.88 To ensure accountability for NextGen results, several 

stakeholders suggested that an office was needed that would report 

directly to the FAA Administrator or the Secretary of Transportation. FAA 

has made organizational changes in the past in an effort to address these 

concerns.89

Beginning in 2011, FAA made additional changes to its NextGen 

organizational structure to address NextGen leadership issues. 

Specifically, FAA reorganized the structure of the office responsible for 

carrying out NextGen implementation, moving the office from within the 

ATO to under FAA’s Deputy Administrator. According to FAA, this change 

increased NextGen’s visibility within and outside the agency and created 

a direct line of authority and responsibility for NextGen. In addition, in 

February 2012, the FAA reauthorization act designated that the Director 

of JPDO—who is responsible for NextGen planning and coordination—

report directly to the FAA Administrator90 and created a new leadership 

position—the Chief NextGen Officer.91

 

88See GAO, Best Practices: Better Support of Weapon System Program Managers 

Needed to Improve Outcomes, GAO-06-110 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2005). In this 

study of private sector best practices that could be applied to federal programs, we found 

that program managers at highly successful companies were empowered to decide 

whether programs were ready to move forward and to resolve problems and implement 

solutions. In addition, program managers were held accountable for their choices. 

89For example, in May 2008, FAA announced a reorganization of its NextGen 

management structure and created a new Senior Vice President for NextGen and 

Operations Planning who reported to ATO’s Chief Operating Officer. It also made the 

JPDO director report directly to this newly created position. Prior to this change, the JPDO 

director reported directly to both the Chief Operating Officer and the FAA Administrator. 

90Pub. L. No. 112–95, § 204, 126 Stat., 37. 

91Pub. L. No. 112–95, § 208(a), 126 Stat., 40.

Consistent NextGen 

Leadership Remains a 

Challenge
 

Page 48 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

While these changes indicate a positive step towards addressing 

accountability issues, FAA continues to work to fill NextGen leadership 

positions. As of February 2013, FAA had not yet made all the 

organizational changes called for by the FAA reauthorization act. The 

Administrator has indicated that the new Deputy Administrator will serve 

as Chief NextGen Officer and that a search is on for qualified candidates 

for both the Deputy Administrator and Assistant Administrator of NextGen 

positions. The Administrator, who was sworn-in to the office in January 

2013, has not yet clearly defined the relationship between the JPDO 

Director and other NextGen officials. Appointing a new Deputy 

Administrator to also serve as Chief NextGen Officer and concluding its 

candidate search for the Assistant Administrator of NextGen position, 

would better position FAA to resolve these remaining leadership 

challenges.

FAA has made some progress developing performance metrics, which we 

recommended that the agency do in 2010.92 The NAC recommended in 

2011 that FAA adopt performance areas used by ICAO and, as of 

February 2013, FAA had adopted 6 of the 11 ICAO performance areas.93

 

92See 

FAA provided information about 5 of these performance areas—

Environment, Safety, Efficiency, Capacity, and Cost Effectiveness—and 

GAO-10-629. 

93As of February 2013, FAA is not including the following ICAO performance areas: Global 

Interoperability, Flexibility, Security, Participation by Air Traffic Management Community, 

and Access and Equity. 

FAA Has Limited Data 

to Demonstrate 

Midterm NextGen 

Benefits, and More 

Information Is 

Needed in NextGen 

Plans 

Performance Metrics Are 

Being Developed and 

Linked to Targets
 

Page 49 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

the metrics associated with these areas. Performance metrics for the 

sixth performance area—Predictability—are being developed.94 As we 

have reported in the past, having performance measures is important, 

because they allow an agency to track its progress in achieving intended 

results and develop contingency plans if milestones to complete tasks are 

not met, both of which can be particularly important during the 

implementation stage of a new program.95 Performance metrics would 

also enable stakeholders, such as airlines, to hold FAA accountable for 

results, as well as to make their own business decisions about whether to 

invest in equipment needed to enable the use of NextGen technologies 

and procedures.96

FAA is currently conducting an agency-wide effort to review and 

harmonize its performance metrics to bring order, consistency, and 

accuracy to metrics reporting across its lines of business. The agency 

began this effort to address several problems, including managing and 

monitoring an increasing number of metrics and inconsistent metrics 

names and definitions. Once the harmonization is complete, ATO will 

create a website to display the harmonized metrics, which, according to 

FAA officials, will provide information for many FAA activities, including 

the implementation of NextGen.97

 

94FAA has plans to consider and include two additional performance areas, Flexibility and 

Access and Equity. Access and Equity is one performance area. 

The ongoing modifications to 

performance metrics must be completed before FAA can establish 

baselines from which it can measure progress. Baselines are essential to 

compare past performance to current performance. For some established 

metrics for which FAA already has extensive data, establishing a baseline 

is not expected to be a challenge. By contrast, establishing a baseline for 

95Performance metrics measure the impact or results of a program or activity once it is 

implemented relative to desired outcomes or goals. Effective performance metrics require 

baselining, or determining the current status of whatever is being measured, so that 

targets can then be set. These metrics will, if developed well, measure how well 

something is progressing toward its intended target. See GAO-10-629 (comparing 

proposed FAA metrics with key attributes of successful performance metrics identified in 

prior GAO work).

96See GAO-08-786 and GAO, Aviation Safety: Additional FAA Efforts Could Enhance 

Safety Risk Management, GAO-12-898 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2012). 

97According to FAA officials, the website is preliminary and awaits review from the FAA 

Administrator.
 

Page 50 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

new metrics for which FAA has not yet collected data may present 

challenges and is expected to take time.

FAA is also developing additional NextGen performance metrics in 

response to the FAA reauthorization act, in addition to responding to the 

NAC recommendations.98 FAA was mandated to establish and, beginning 

in 2013, to track 12 performance metrics to measure progress for 

implementing some NextGen capabilities and improvements.99

FAA has made minimal progress in developing goals for NextGen, which 

we also recommended in our 2010 report. FAA’s Destination 2025 report 

establishes cross-cutting agency-wide goals for the midterm, although 

these are not all related to the implementation of NextGen.

Although 

these new reauthorization metrics do not clearly link to the existing 

NextGen key performance areas mentioned above, some of the 

reauthorization metrics are similar to and reflect the same information that 

is already expected to be measured. According to FAA officials, 7 of the 

reauthorization performance metrics are already established, however the 

agency faces some challenges in developing 5 of the remaining metrics. 

For example, FAA is working with the NAC to identify a technically 

feasible way to measure and report on the amount of fuel used between 

key city-to-city (city-pair) markets—one of the required new metrics. It is 

not known at this time if these key city pairs will include some or all 

locations where midterm NextGen operational improvements are being 

implemented.

100

 

98Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 214, 126 Stat. 50 (2012). 

Agency 

99While FAA has reported it is making progress in establishing metrics and baselines, the 

agency failed to meet the August 2012 reporting deadline specified in the FAA 

reauthorization act. The required report was supposed to describe the metrics to be used 

going forward—to include the midterm and thereafter—information on any additional 

metrics developed, and a process for holding the Administration accountable for meeting 

or exceeding the metrics. Currently, FAA officials have said that this report to Congress is 

being reviewed by the Administrator and have not provided a date on which the report will 

be provided to Congress.

100FAA, Destination 2025 (Washington, D.C.: 2011). Destination 2025 outlines the longterm, strategic vision for the agency and addresses the transformation of the NAS and the 

FAA itself over the next 15 years. According to FAA officials, NextGen Interoperability is 

the Destination 2025 metric that is the most obviously attributable to NextGen. According 

to FAA officials, it is important to note that NextGen may affect Destination 2025 metrics 

but that there are many other factors involved. Isolating NextGen's influence on broadbased measures such as the Destination 2025 metrics is very difficult.
 

Page 51 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

officials emphasized that Destination 2025 goals were intended to be 

aspirational and that FAA business plans, which are developed by each 

individual business office, would provide NextGen targets and goals. 

However, agency officials in the NextGen Office acknowledged that 

individual business offices are still developing their respective targets. 

When FAA provided information to us in January 2013 about its efforts to 

align goals and performance metrics, the goals included in Destination 

2025 were used as the source for many of the included metrics. As we 

reported in 2010, having goals and performance measures in place will 

enable FAA to provide stakeholders, interested parties, Congress, and 

the American people with a clear picture of where implementation stands 

at any given time, and whether the technologies, capabilities, and 

operational improvements that are being implemented are resulting in 

positive outcomes and improved performance for operators and 

passengers.101 Thus, we continue to believe that fully addressing our 

2010 recommendations has merit. (See app. II for more information about 

performance areas and metrics.)

FAA has begun to report on implementation progress and benefits at 

certain airports and metroplexes, as well as for some capabilities, but 

implementation and benefits information is incomplete. In March 2012, 

FAA made publically available the NextGen Performance Snapshot 

website102 to provide post-implementation performance data. The website

is designed to emphasize the link between NextGen investments and 

benefits. To date, information on the website provides performance 

progress on the near-term implementation of some, but not all, locations 

and initiatives where FAA has implemented NextGen capabilities.103

 

101See 

As of 

January 2013, the website had information on established metrics for 

three performance areas—efficiency, environment, and access. Efficiency 

is reported at the core 30 airports; environment and access are reported 

GAO-10-629. 

102See http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/snapshots/. 

103During the course of our review, in late October 2012, FAA modified the NextGen 

Performance Snapshot website to focus on two implementation levels—the airport-specific 

level and the NAS-wide level—where NextGen initiatives have been deployed. According 

to FAA officials, once the website being developed by ATO is available, it is expected to 

provide aggregated NAS-wide data using agencywide performance metrics. By contrast, 

the NextGen Performance Snapshot website will provide retrospective information once a 

program has been implemented at specific locations. 

Information on Some 

Costs and Benefits Is 

Available, but Insufficient 

to Encourage Airline 

Investments in the 

Midterm
 

Page 52 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

at the NAS-wide level. For example, the NextGen Performance Snapshot 

website reports some efficiency data, such as the average number of 

minutes that it takes flights to taxi-in and taxi-out at each of the core 30 

airports, and environmental data, such as NAS-wide noise exposure data 

for the U.S. population. In the absence of specific NextGen targets, we 

looked to track FAA’s progress vis-à-vis the NextGen-related goals in 

Destination 2025 on FAA’s NextGen Performance Snapshot website, but 

found it difficult to do so. Information presented was in many cases 

neither in the same format nor on the same scale as goals in Destination 

2025. For example, one goal in Destination 2025 is to improve throughput 

at core airports during adverse weather by 14 percent through 2018, but 

the NextGen Performance Snapshot website tracking progress did not 

include this information either as an average or for individual core 

airports. Likewise, another Destination 2025 goal is to reduce the amount 

of fuel burned per miles flown by at least 2 percent annually—which 

corresponds to international objectives accepted by ICAO—but 

information provided showed changes in the cumulative amount of fuel 

burned per kilometers flown. According to agency officials, the NextGen 

Performance Snapshot website is currently undergoing improvements 

that will include more meaningful measures and additional reporting 

levels—such as metroplex and key city-pair views—to more fully 

demonstrate progress at core airports, prioritized metroplexes, and 

across the NAS. An updated NextGen Performance Snapshot website 

has the potential to help stakeholders—such as airports and airlines—and 

the public understand the progress and some benefits occurring at 

various airports and metroplexes across the nation in a more systematic 

way, as well as providing a link between these benefits and the 

investments made in NextGen by FAA and others.

FAA is also developing a PBN assessment tool—the PBN dashboard—to 

enable FAA to assess the PBN capabilities at individual airports and 

within the NAS. According to FAA officials and the contractors developing 

the dashboard, it will be able to measure PBN usage and impacts and 

changes to conditions (fleet, equipage, etc.). Representatives from one 

airline we spoke with said that they currently do not collect the information 

on procedure usage that FAA needs for the dashboard. In response to 

industry stakeholders’ aforementioned concerns and perceptions that 

some published PBN procedures have provided limited benefits or have 

not been sufficiently used, FAA had undertaken some analyses to 

determine how often published PBN procedures are being used. This 

analysis of flight track data for airspace around some airports showed that 

more aircraft were following the airborne routes of published PBN 

procedures than was being reported by airlines or air-traffic control 
 

Page 53 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

facilities. However, the analysis was unable to determine whether the 

aircraft were actually flying the published PBN procedure or merely 

following the same track on the conventional procedure.104

Key stakeholders, such as airlines and equipment manufacturers 

continue to express the need for timely and reliable information about 

future anticipated benefits from technological and equipage investments 

that FAA deems necessary to take advantage of the NextGen 

infrastructure. According to RTCA, additional information is needed to 

understand potential direct costs, benefits, and return on investments that 

might be realized within approximately 3 years. FAA’s 2012 NextGen 

Implementation Plan provides some examples of benefits that have been 

achieved, as well as projected benefits for planned improvements, from 

the implementation of NextGen capabilities and initiatives. For example, 

FAA reported that during flight demonstrations of OPD procedures at San 

Francisco International Airport from December 2007 to September 2010, 

airlines achieved an average fuel savings of 99 to 176 gallons per flight 

depending on the aircraft type. While FAA plans include such examples, 

RTCA reported that available FAA plans do not include sufficient 

information for airlines making investment decisions,

FAA officials 

stated that the dashboard could help FAA better assess the extent to 

which the fleet is able to use existing procedures. The OAPM study team 

for South/Central Florida used the dashboard to determine the 

percentage of operations at each airport in the metroplex that would 

benefit from proposed new procedures. It is unclear the extent to which 

the dashboard will be used to measure the impact of improvements or 

assess progress toward overarching NextGen goals. FAA officials do not 

plan to use the dashboard to proactively identify additional needed 

procedures at individual airports or make the dashboard available to 

external stakeholders, such as airlines, that may want to identify 

additional needed procedures.

105

 

104FAA officials explained that it was unlikely that so many aircraft flying conventional

procedures would adhere to the PBN route, but using flight track data did not allow them 

to preclude the possibility that the matching radar track was coincidental. PBN procedures 

may overlay or closely approximate existing conventional routes, so it can be difficult 

using only radar track data to determine what procedure the pilots were actually approved 

to fly, and FAA does not currently collect complete information on PBN route usage. 

such as forecast 

benefits by either location or usage, or the proportion of the local fleet that 

105RTCA, NextGen Equipage: User Business Case Gaps (Sept. 2011). 
 

Page 54 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

is currently equipped.106 For example, RTCA noted that FAA’s long-range 

implementation plans should provide information on the roll out of RNP 

procedures at specific airports—the type of information that would be 

useful for airlines that are considering investing in this technology. 

However, RTCA found that the plans lacked such information. Nor do 

FAA implementation plans identify criteria with which additional sites 

would be selected in the case of demonstration projects. Without greater 

certainty on when and where NextGen improvements are planned, 

airlines and others are unlikely to invest in the equipage (and conduct the 

associated staffing and training) that will help achieve the full benefits of 

NextGen implementation.107 FAA has estimated that total industry 

equipage could cost $6.6 billion—compared to $11.5 billion in NextGen 

implementation costs for FAA—through 2018.108 Deciding whether to 

invest in most of that equipage is at each airline’s discretion.109

The implementation of NextGen is expected to enhance safety, improve 

efficiency, and result in a reduction in the environmental costs of aviation. 

Achieving the benefits of NextGen is a collaborative task that not only 

relies on timely and reliable information on progress implementing 

NextGen, but also depends heavily on airlines’ and other stakeholders’ 

continued or increased investments in NextGen technology and training. 

The improvements included in NextGen plans are often interrelated, with 

 

106Information about the level of local equipage is important because the level of equipage 

can affect how often airlines are able to use new routes. A new route in Chicago, for 

example, that allows for the simultaneous use of runways at O’Hare International and 

Midway has to be closed whenever a non-equipped aircraft arrives on the approach to 

Midway.

107We have previously reported that effective performance plans communicate what an 

agency proposes to accomplish, how it will accomplish its goals, and how it will assess 

whether those results were achieved. For more information about best practices for 

performance plans, see GAO, The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing 

Agency Annual Performance Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 1998). 

108According to FAA estimates, purchasing and installing RNP will account for $1.4 billion 

(in 2011 dollars)—about 22 percent—of total equipage costs for aircraft operators by 

2018. 

109In some cases, airlines must comply with future NextGen equipage requirements. For 

example, equipage with ADS-B Out is mandated by 2020 for a variety of operations in

U.S. controlled airspace. FAA estimates that the total cost to aircraft operators to 

purchase and install ADS-B Out will be $2.3 billion dollars (in 2011 dollars) by 2018. 

Conclusions 
 

Page 55 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

benefits in one area dependent on the full implementation of other 

operational improvements.

FAA does not have a system for systematically tracking the use of 

existing PBN procedures. As a result, FAA is unable to assure that 

investment in these routes is worthwhile or that they justify the cost to 

develop and maintain them. In the absence of data on the use of existing 

PBN routes, airlines and other stakeholders remain unconvinced that the 

investments needed for the full implementation of NextGen will be 

justified. Such information could help the agency demonstrate the value 

of PBN technologies and any resulting benefits, as well as allow the 

agency to identify routes that need to be revised to increase their use.

Without a process for proactively identifying new PBN procedures based 

on NextGen goals and targets, requests for new PBN procedures largely 

originate from outside FAA. While the agency has attempted to work with 

industry stakeholders, such as airlines in the 20/20 effort, to identify 

needed routes, results have been mixed. The use of criteria to proactively 

identify needed routes at individual airports, such as criteria used by the 

NAC to prioritize metroplexes, could enable FAA to identify routes that 

can maximize benefits for the NAS. Furthermore, FAA does not assess 

requests received to determine whether the requested route or type of 

procedure (e.g., RNAV or RNP) maximizes potential benefits. Since 

requestors, such as airlines, may have their own reasons for requesting 

routes at certain locations or using specific technologies, their requests 

may not correspond with NextGen goals or result in the most efficient use 

of resources for PBN implementation or vis-à-vis the needs of other 

users.

The NAC work group recommended that FAA develop an integrated 

approach to increase airspace efficiency in key metroplexes, including 

OAPM sites. While FAA has consistently emphasized the importance of 

integrating key operational improvements to maximize NextGen benefits, 

FAA has primarily focused its midterm efforts on PBN and has not 

systematically integrated airborne- and surface traffic management and 

revised standards into these efforts. FAA officials explained that non-PBN 

improvements were not systematically included in the first round of 

OAPM, in part, to achieve OAPM time frames. However, with the 

implementation of some first round improvements, as well as progress 

made in developing and deploying some non-PBN improvements, FAA is 

better positioned to systematically integrate PBN and other improvements 

going forward. Insufficient integration of key improvements decreases 

midterm NextGen benefits, since these benefits are interdependent. 
 

Page 56 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

Furthermore, by not including the identification of unused flight routes for 

decommissioning in OAPM and similar efforts, FAA could be missing an 

opportunity to leverage the expertise of participating stakeholders. 

Decommissioning unused or little-used conventional, non-PBN 

procedures could allow FAA to make better use of its resources by 

reducing maintenance costs.

FAA has made progress in recent years in ensuring the inclusion of 

stakeholders in NextGen efforts, especially air traffic controllers. Some 

airport officials, however, expressed concern that FAA had not fully 

involved them in current efforts or involved them too late in the process, 

although a representative with ACI-NA noted that FAA has recently begun 

to involve airports more significantly in NextGen design and 

implementation efforts. However, FAA has not developed guidelines for 

the timely and consistent inclusion of these stakeholders. Some FAA 

officials told us that they had not fully appreciated the potential value that 

airport officials could provide. A collaborative approach that timely 

involves key stakeholders—including the agency, airport officials, air 

traffic controllers, and airlines—enables FAA to fully leverage the 

expertise of these stakeholders, helps identify the best possible solutions, 

and facilitates the implementation of those improvements.

FAA has made some progress in developing and aligning performance 

metrics and goals since we recommended these actions in 2010. It is 

important for FAA to complete this work to measure progress and 

demonstrate benefits across the NAS, gain confidence, and engender 

needed investments to support the full implementation of NextGen. 

Furthermore, RTCA and others have pointed to the importance of having 

stable, long-term implementation plans for NextGen capabilities and 

determining specific location benefits and implementation dates, but 

FAA’s NextGen implementation plans do not detail such deployment 

information. As a consequence, airlines and other stakeholders have 

been reluctant to invest in expensive avionics, including RNP equipage.

To help ensure that NextGen operational improvements are fully 

implemented in the midterm, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Transportation direct the FAA Administrator to take the following five 

actions:

• work with airlines and other users to develop and implement a system 

to systematically track the use of existing PBN procedures;

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 57 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

• develop processes to proactively identify new PBN procedures for the 

NAS, based on NextGen goals and targets, and evaluate external 

requests so that FAA can select appropriate solutions;

• require consideration of other key operational improvements in 

planning for NextGen improvements, including PBN projects at 

metroplexes such as OAPM, as well as the identification of unused 

flight routes for decommissioning;

• develop and implement guidelines for ensuring timely inclusion of 

appropriate stakeholders, including airport representatives, in the 

planning and implementation of NextGen improvement efforts; and

• assure that NextGen planning documents provide stakeholders 

information on how and when operational improvements are expected 

to achieve NextGen goals and targets.

We provided the Department of Transportation (DOT) with a draft of this 

report for review and comment. DOT responded by email and did not 

agree or disagree with our recommendations, but provided technical 

clarifications, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.

We are sending copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the 

Secretary of Transportation, and interested parties. In addition, this report 

will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me on (202) 512-2834 or at dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points 

for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 

found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 

listed in appendix III.

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 58 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

Our objective was to assess the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) 

progress implementing key Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen) operational improvements in the midterm and demonstrating 

benefits from these improvements. To do so, we addressed the following 

questions: 1) What key operational improvements is FAA pursuing to 

deliver NextGen benefits with existing technologies through 2018? 2) To 

what extent is FAA addressing known obstacles to the implementation 

and usage of NextGen operational improvements? 3) To what extent is 

FAA measuring and demonstrating midterm NextGen benefits and 

assessing outcomes?

To address these three questions, we reviewed our prior reports, met with 

FAA officials with a role in implementing NextGen, including units within 

the NextGen Office, the Office of Aviation Safety, the Air Traffic 

Organization (ATO), Aeronautical Navigation Products (AeroNav 

Products), and the Office of Environment and Energy. We reviewed FAA 

planning documents for NextGen, including the 2012 NextGen 

Implementation Plan and work plans for individual lines of business within 

FAA, as well as FAA reports and briefings related to ongoing NextGen 

efforts, including the Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the 

Metroplex (OAPM) initiative, and FAA process and procedure 

documentation. We also interviewed aviation stakeholders and experts 

with knowledge and experience related to NextGen implementation: 

• representatives from industry associations, including RTCA, Airlines 

for America, and the Airports Council International–North America; 

• airlines, including Alaska Airlines and Southwest Airlines, which have 

both advocated for the increased use of Performance Based 

Navigation (PBN) procedures;

• airports involved in OAPM efforts in North Texas and Southern 

California, in the Greener Skies over Seattle (Greener Skies) 

initiative, and in surface improvement efforts for airports in New York 

and New Jersey;

• avionics and aircraft manufacturers and other aviation vendors, 

including Boeing, Honeywell, and Raytheon; and

• air traffic controllers with the National Air Traffic Controllers 

Association (NATCA) and at individual air-traffic control facilities, 

including facilities involved in the OAPM effort in North Texas and the 

Greener Skies initiative.

To assess the status of FAA’s implementation of key operational 

improvements and the potential benefits to be achieved, and identify 

challenges to the full implementation of those key operational 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 59 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

improvements, we assessed FAA implementation progress for 

operational improvements that were recommended by RTCA’s Midterm 

Implementation Task Force (RTCA task force) in 2009 and those that 

were prioritized by the Integrated Working Capabilities Work Group of the 

NextGen Advisory Council (NAC work group) in 2012.1 (See table 1.) 

RTCA’s recommendations are the basis for a number of FAA’s policy, 

program, and regulatory decisions, and have been incorporated into 

FAA’s current NextGen implementation plans.2 Likewise, the NAC—which 

includes representatives from industry and FAA’s senior leadership—

advises FAA on the implementation of NextGen. The recommendations 

made by the RTCA task force and NAC work group represent consensus 

views in the aviation community regarding which operational 

improvements FAA should prioritize and where those improvements 

should be implemented in the midterm—through 2018—but do not 

include all operational improvements in FAA’s implementation plans. 

They are limited to those improvements that use existing technologies. 

We grouped these operational improvements into three key improvement 

areas for midterm NextGen implementation:

3

1. Performance Based Navigation (PBN),

2. enhanced airborne and surface traffic management, and

3. additional or revised aviation safety standards.

Table 1 provides a listing of the operational improvements recommended 

by the RTCA task force and NAC work group. Operational improvements 

are grouped by the implementation portfolios used by FAA in its planning 

documents.

 

1

See RTCA, NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force Report (Sept. 9, 2009) and 

RTCA, Applying the Metroplex Prioritization Criteria and Mapping to the Integrated 

Capabilities to Identified Metroplexes (Feb. 2012). 

2

Organized in 1935, RTCA is a private, not-for-profit corporation that develops consensusbased recommendations for communications, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic 

management system issues. 

3

We did not include improvements that are unlikely to be fully implemented in the midterm

in our review, including automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast out (ADS-B Out), 

which will be required by FAA for some operations beginning in 2020. We also excluded 

Data Communications (Data Comm), which was in trials during our review. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 60 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

Table 1: Prioritized NextGen Operational Improvements 

FAA implementation 

portfolio Operational improvements

Improved Surface 

Operations

• Improved Runway Safety Situational Awareness for 

Controllers (ASDE-X and ASSC)

• Initial Surface Traffic Management (departure routing, 

external data exchange)

Time-Based Flow 

Management

• Point-in-Space Metering (extended metering; arrival 

interval management using ground automation or flight 

deck capability)

• Time-Based Metering Using Area Navigation (RNAV) 

and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Route 

Assignments

• Improved Management of Arrival/Surface/Departure 

Flow Operations (IDAC)

• Current Tactical Management of Flow in the En Route 

for Arrivals/Departures (TMA capability at additional 

locations/airports)

• Integrated Arrival/Departure Airspace Management 

Improved Multiple 

Runway Operations

• Improved Parallel Runway Operations (wake 

management; separation standards (inc. CSPO); 

SATNAV or ILS for parallel operations.)

Improved Approaches 

and Low-Visibility 

Operations

• Use Optimized Profile Descent (OPD)

• Expanded Low-Visibility Operations Using Lower RVR 

Minima 

Performance-Based 

Navigation

• RNAV SIDs, STARs, and Approaches

• Increase Capacity and Efficiency Using RNAV and RNP 

(OAPM and legacy projects; PBN routing for cruise; 

PBN route eligibility check)

Collaborative Air Traffic 

Management (CATM)

• Traffic Management Initiatives with Flight-Specific 

Trajectories (rerouting; rerouting information to 

controllers)

• Provide Full Flight Plan Constraint Evaluation with 

Feedback (electronic negotiations)

Separation Management • Automation Support for Separation Management (ATPA)

Source: GAO analysis of information from FAA, RTCA, and the NAC.

To determine how FAA is addressing known obstacles to the 

implementation of NextGen operational improvements, we identified

obstacles and challenges to developing, implementing, or fully using key 

NextGen improvements primarily from findings and recommendations 

made by the RTCA task force and an FAA study on obstacles to PBN 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 61 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

implementation.4 To obtain information about FAA efforts to address 

these obstacles, we reviewed agency reports and documents, including 

FAA’s report on efforts to streamline the process for developing and 

implementing flight procedures,5 and spoke with officials from relevant 

program offices and facilities, including environmental review specialists 

and air-traffic control facilities. To assess agency progress toward 

addressing these obstacles and identify ongoing challenges, we spoke 

with industry experts and stakeholders, including airport officials, airline 

representatives, avionics manufacturers, members of the NAC work 

group and the Performance Based Operations Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee, and air traffic controllers. We also assessed certain FAA 

efforts against established criteria, including best practices for 

stakeholder involvement from the Airport Cooperative Research Program 

(ACRP)6 and for organizational goal-setting and performance 

measurement.7

To determine the extent to which FAA is measuring and demonstrating 

the benefits of NextGen, we reviewed FAA lines of business documents 

and analyzed NextGen implementation plans, performance areas, 

metrics, measures, and program targets. We updated our 2010 findings 

on the status of FAA’s performance system, including setting goals, 

developing metrics, and measuring NextGen progress.8

 

4

FAA, Obstacles to Performance Based Navigation Implementation (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 1, 2012). 

To understand 

FAA’s approach and progress toward developing NextGen metrics, we 

interviewed FAA NextGen Office officials that coordinate NextGen 

initiatives, programs, and policy development across the various FAA 

lines of business, and staff offices including the NextGen Performance 

5

FAA, Navigation (NAV) Procedures Project Final Report (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2010).

6

See Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Airport Cooperative 

Research Program Report 15, Aircraft Noise: A Toolkit for Managing Community 

Expectations (Washington, D.C.: 2009). 

7

See GAO, Government Reform: Goal-Setting and Performance,

GAO/AIMD-GGD-95-130R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27, 1995).

8

See GAO, NextGen Air Transportation System: FAA’s Metrics Can Be Used to Report on 

Status of Individual Programs, but Not of Overall NextGen Implementation or Outcomes,

GAO-10-629 (Washington, D.C: July 27, 2010). This report assessed FAA’s progress in 

developing performance goals and metrics against criteria established by GAO, Tax

Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season Performance 

Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 62 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

and Outreach Office. We also interviewed NAC officials. To evaluate the 

consistency and meaningful output that would be provided by the 

NextGen key performance areas, metrics, and measures, we compared 

and analyzed information that was provided in FAA agency-wide reports 

and metrics documentation, the NextGen Performance Snapshot website, 

and the FAA reauthorization act.9 We reviewed FAA reports, NextGen 

business case documentation,10 and the publicly available information on 

NextGen implementation and expected benefits. We also interviewed 

industry stakeholders, including representatives from airports, airlines, 

and equipment manufacturers to assess the extent to which available 

information builds confidence and buy-in toward full NextGen 

implementation. Finally, we compared available information with best 

practices for performance plans.11

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 through April

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

9

Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 214, 126 Stat. 50 (2012).

10RTCA, NextGen Equipage: User Business Case Gaps, A Report of the NextGen 

Advisory Committee in Response to Tasking from the Federal Aviation Administration

(Sept. 2011) and FAA, The Business Case for the Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2012).

11GAO, The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance 

Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 1998). 
Appendix II: FAA Performance Areas and 

Metrics

Page 63 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

The following table provides the description of FAA performance areas 

and metrics. Although some of the performance metrics contained in this 

table have been established, FAA may continue to refine these metrics to 

ensure that the measurements align with agency targets and goals. FAA 

also has a few new metrics under development, and the agency is 

working to identify a technically feasible way to implement them.

Table 2: FAA NextGen Performance Areas and Metrics

Performance area Performance metrics Description of the measures 

Environment Noise Exposure

Renewable Jet Fuel

NAS-Wide Energy Efficiency

Emissions Exposure (e.g., carbon dioxide)

The types of measures include the number of people 

exposed to significant noise (DNL 65 decibels), the 

amount of carbon dioxide and other emissions, and the 

amount of fuel usage across the NAS.

Safety Commercial Air Carrier Fatality Rate

General Aviation Fatal Accident Rate

System Risk Event Rate (SRER)

Runway Incursions Rate (A&B)

Hazard Risk Mitigations

Commercial Space Launch Incidents

World-wide Fatal Aviation Accident Rate

The types of measures include the rate of accidents 

and fatalities, losses of standard separation, rate of 

runway incursions, and the number of aviation fatalities 

worldwide and within the NAS.

Efficiency Taxi-In Time

Taxi-Out Time

Average Gate Arrival Delay

Average Gate-to-Gate Times

Distance at Level Flight from Top of Descent to Runway 

Threshold

Flown versus Filed Flight Times for Key City Pairs

Average Distance Flown between Key City Pairs

Number of Arrival and Departure Delays

Number of Operations

NAS On-Time Arrivals

The types of measures include the average difference 

between the actual gate out and wheels off times, the 

distance flown while maintaining a level altitude from 

when an aircraft begins its descent until it reaches the 

runway threshold, average distance flown between city 

pairs, number of departure and arrival operations, and 

percentage of on-time arrivals at airports across the 

NAS. 

Capacity Average Daily Capacity for All Hours

Average Daily Capacity for Reportable Hours

Actual Rates versus Published Rates

Runway Pavement Condition 

Adjusted Operational Availability

The types of measures include the average daily 

capacity of airports, actual number of arrival and 

departures compared to published rates, the condition 

of paved runways included in the National Plan of 

Integrated Airport Systems, and the availability of 

facilities and services at core airports.

Cost effectiveness The Administration’s unit cost of providing air-traffic

control services

The unit cost for providing air-traffic control services 

per operation in the NAS.

Source: GAO analysis of FAA Data. 

Notes: The performance areas were developed by ICAO and adopted by the FAA. Their associated 

metrics were evaluated and approved under an agency-wide harmonization effort in December 2012. 

This table does not include all 7 NextGen performance areas nor all the established and preliminary 

Appendix II: FAA Performance Areas and 

Metrics
Appendix II: FAA Performance Areas and 

Metrics

Page 64 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

metrics that were either adopted or under development by FAA. Some NextGen performance area 

and metric information that is on the NextGen Performance Snapshot website is not included in this 

table.
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 65 GAO-13-264 NextGen Midterm Implementation

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., (202) 512-2834, or dillinghamg@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Ed Laughlin, Assistant Director; 

Russ Burnett; Jessica Bryant-Bertail; Aisha Cabrer; Tim Guinane; Bert 

Japikse; Delwen Jones; Molly Laster; and Josh Ormond made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(540232)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.