type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'Office of Inspector General\n Audit Report\n\n\nSTATUS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL\n PROGRAMS AND RISKS TO\n ACHIEVING NEXTGEN GOALS\n Federal Aviation Administration\n\n Report Number: AV-2012-094\n Date Issued: April 23, 2012\n\x0c U.S. Department of\n Memorandum\n Transportation\n Office of the Secretary\n of Transportation\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\nSubject: ACTION: Status of Transformational Programs Date: April 23, 2012\n and Risks to Achieving NextGen Goals\n Report No. AV-2012-094\n\n From: Jeffrey B. Guzzetti Reply to\n Attn. of: JA-10\n Assistant Inspector General\n for Aviation and Special Program Audits\n\n To: Acting Federal Aviation Administrator\n\n In 2003, Congress mandated that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)\n transition the current National Airspace System (NAS) to the Next Generation Air\n Transportation System (NextGen)\xe2\x80\x94a major redesign of the air transportation\n system intended to accommodate a significant increase in air traffic by 2020. As\n envisioned, NextGen will provide new capabilities such as precision satellite\n navigation, digital data link communications for air traffic controllers and pilots,\n and an integrated weather system. NextGen is also expected to reduce aviation\n impact on the environment, increase the capacity of the NAS, and make air\n transportation safer and more reliable.\n\n FAA has identified six \xe2\x80\x9ctransformational programs,\xe2\x80\x9d which are to provide the\n foundational technologies and infrastructure needed for NextGen. These six\n programs are Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), System\n Wide Information Management (SWIM), Data Communications (DataComm),\n NextGen Network Enabled Weather (NNEW), NAS Voice System (NVS), and\n Collaborative Air Traffic Management Technologies (CATM-T). Through fiscal\n year (FY) 2011, FAA has invested approximately $1.5 billion in these programs.\n Projected spending for the transformational programs represents about 60 percent,\n or $549 million, of FAA\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2012 capital budget for NextGen.\n\n The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce,\n Science, and Transportation and the leadership of the Subcommittee on Aviation\n Operations, Safety, and Security requested that we review FAA\xe2\x80\x99s progress in\n planning and implementing the NextGen transformational programs. Accordingly,\n our audit objectives were to (1) determine the status of the programs\xe2\x80\x99 cost,\n schedule, and performance baselines, (2) assess FAA\xe2\x80\x99s progress in implementing\n\x0c 2\n\n\nthese programs, and (3) identify the risks to achieving NextGen goals. We\nconducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted Government auditing\nstandards. Exhibit A details our audit scope and methodology.\n\nRESULTS IN BRIEF\nFAA has not yet established total program costs, schedules, or performance\nbaselines for any of the six NextGen transformational programs. Rather, the\nAgency has decided to approve these programs in shorter, discrete segments in\norder to minimize risk in the near term. According to FAA, this approach allows\nthe Agency to develop programs and implement some capabilities while\nrequirements continue to evolve. However, according to acquisition management\nbest practices and our past work, having a reliable and comprehensive program\nbaseline through its end-state is key to providing effective oversight of a program\nand avoiding the cost overruns, schedule delays, and unmet expectations that FAA\nhas experienced with past modernization efforts. Specifically, FAA has only\nestablished formal baselines (i.e., firm cost, schedule, and performance\nparameters) for segments of three of the six programs, and plans to baseline the\ninitial segments of the remaining three by 2013. As a result, FAA\xe2\x80\x99s approach\nlimits visibility into what the transformational programs will require for successful\nimplementation, how much they will cost, and what they will ultimately deliver.\n\nFAA\xe2\x80\x99s progress in implementing the transformational programs has been limited\nby a lack of finalized program requirements. Firm program requirements are\nessential to successful program implementation. For example, FAA has not yet\nfinalized requirements for displaying ADS-B In traffic information in the cockpit,\nfor accelerating the initial delivery of DataComm services to air traffic control\ntowers, or for finalizing agreements between the SWIM program office and other\nprogram offices implementing SWIM. Because the transformational programs\xe2\x80\x99\nrequirements are not yet finalized, FAA does not plan to start implementing their\ncapabilities throughout the NAS until 2015 at the earliest, and it is uncertain when\nthe programs will start delivering benefits to achieve NextGen goals, such as\nenhanced capacity and reduced Agency operating costs. Due to this lack of clarity\non when they will realize benefits, airspace users are concerned about investing to\nequip aircraft with NextGen avionics for ADS-B and DataComm, two programs\nkey to FAA\xe2\x80\x99s continued NextGen progress. Without widespread equipage,\nhowever, FAA states the Agency will be unable to begin markedly increasing\nsafety and capacity or saving time and fuel through these NextGen technologies.\n\nOther risks exist to the effective implementation of the transformational programs.\nThese include the lack of an integrated master schedule for all the transformational\nprograms to better coordinate how program capabilities\xe2\x80\x94many of which are\ninterdependent\xe2\x80\x94will be implemented. Without this key planning tool, it will\nremain difficult for FAA to fully prioritize which transformational program\n\x0c 3\n\n\ncapabilities will provide users with the greatest benefits or make trade-offs\nbetween program requirements when necessary. FAA also has yet to address\ncomplex integration issues with its automation systems to enhance flight data\nprocessing and its telecommunications infrastructure. For example, FAA must\nresolve interface problems between the transformational programs and automation\nsystems that enhance flight data processing such as the En Route Automation\nModernization (ERAM) program. 1\n\nWe are making several recommendations on steps FAA needs to take to better\nimplement and oversee the transformational programs.\n\nBACKGROUND\nSix cross-cutting transformational programs are expected to deliver the new\ninfrastructure required to achieve FAA\xe2\x80\x99s NextGen vision, as described in table 1.\nTable 1. Six NextGen Transformational Programs\n\n Program Name Program Description\n\nAutomatic Dependent A satellite-based surveillance technology that combines the use of satellites,\nSurveillance-Broadcast aircraft avionics, and ground-based systems to provide more accurate\n(ADS-B) information about aircraft location for pilots and air traffic controllers.\n\nSystem Wide Information Will provide for a more agile exchange of information through a secure,\nManagement (SWIM) NAS-wide information web that will connect FAA systems with other\n agencies, and airspace users.\n\nData Communications Will provide 2-way data communication between controllers, automation,\n(DataComm) and flight crews; enhance air traffic control message generation.\n\nNAS Voice System (NVS) Will provide a new air traffic control infrastructure with network-capable\n switches that control NVS data and voice communication paths.\n\nNextGen Network Will serve as the infrastructure core of NextGen aviation weather support\nEnabled Weather (NNEW) services and provide access to a NAS-wide common weather picture.\n\nCollaborative Air Traffic Will provide operational enhancements to the existing Traffic Flow\nManagement Management System (TFMS) infrastructure. TFMS or traffic management\nTechnologies (CATM-T) system mission is to balance air traffic demand with system capacity to\n ensure the maximum efficient utilization of the NAS.\n\nSource: FAA\xe2\x80\x99s NextGen Implementation Plan\nNote: See exhibit B for details on each program\xe2\x80\x99s description and current status with regard to\nimplementation, expected benefits, and current cost estimates.\n\nFAA capital investment programs generally follow the acquisition lifecycle set\nforth in the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s Acquisition Management System (AMS), which establishes\n\n1\n ERAM is intended to provide improved flight data processing, communications, and display capabilities for air\n traffic controllers at FAA\xe2\x80\x99s high altitude en-route centers.\n\x0c 4\n\n\npolicy and guidance for all aspects of FAA\xe2\x80\x99s acquisition process (see appendix A).\nAccording to FAA\xe2\x80\x99s AMS policy, capital investment programs are generally\nbaselined at the final investment decision milestone, when the Joint Resources\nCouncil (JRC) 2 approves the cost and schedule parameters, the specific\nperformance requirements, and expected benefits that a program will accomplish.\nThe Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) use acquisition\nbaselines to track progress with FAA\xe2\x80\x99s major investments. According to OMB,\nprogram baselines act as a guide throughout the life of an acquisition to\n(1) provide a basis for measuring performance, (2) identify who is accountable for\ndeliverables, (3) describe the implementation approach and interdependencies, and\n(4) identify key decision points.\n\nFAA HAS NOT FULLY BASELINED THE TOTAL COST,\nSCHEDULE, OR PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR\nNEXTGEN TRANSFORMATIONAL PROGRAMS\nFAA has yet to establish baselines for the total program cost, schedule, or\nperformance requirements for any of the six NextGen transformational programs.\nInstead, FAA adopted a segmented approach for development and\nimplementation. FAA has only approved cost and schedules for the initial\nsegments of three transformational programs\xe2\x80\x94ADS-B, SWIM, and CATM-T.\nCost estimates for the initial segments of the three programs total $2.1 billion, and\nscheduled completion for the three extends through 2016. FAA plans to approve\nthe baselines for the initial segments of the remaining transformational\nprograms\xe2\x80\x94DataComm, NNEW, and NVS\xe2\x80\x94by 2013 (see table 2 below). Until\nFAA formally establishes baselines for a total program, decision makers and\nairspace users will not have complete information about how much these programs\nwill ultimately cost, how long it will take to complete them, or what capabilities\nthey will ultimately deliver.\n\n\n\n\n2\n The JRC is FAA\xe2\x80\x99s investment review board. The JRC makes corporate-level resource decisions, including\n authorization and funding for new investment programs.\n\x0c 5\n\n\nTable 2. Status of NextGen Transformational Programs Baseline\n Total Segments Implementation of\n Baseline\n Program Baselined Initial Segment(s)\n Program Currently Year\n Baselined Baselined Costs Timeframe(Start -\n Planned Actual/Plan\n (Y/N) ($ in Millions) End)\n a\n ADS-B N 4 2 $1,711.3 2007 2007 - 2014\n SWIM N 3 1 $263.3 2009 2009 - 2015\n b\n CATM-T N 3 2 $162.5 2008 2008 - 2016\n DataComm N 2 -- TBD 2012 TBD\n NNEW N 2 -- TBD 2013 TBD\n NVS N 2 -- TBD 2012 TBD\n Total $2,137.1\n\nSource: OIG analysis of FAA transformational programs data.\na\n In 2007, FAA initially approved approximately $1.68 billion in baseline costs for ADS-B. In March\n 2011, the baseline increased by about $30 million, including $13.6 million for the Colorado Wide Area\n Multilateration (WAM) Phase 2 program.\nb\n Number of CATM-T segments excludes CATM-T Work Package 1 because FAA did not identify it as\n transformational.\n\nFAA Has Not Determined the Total Cost To Develop and Implement\nthe Transformational Programs\nThe total costs to implement the six transformational programs remain uncertain\nbecause FAA has only approved funding for the initial segments of some\nprograms, but has not established baselines for any of the programs\xe2\x80\x99 segments\nthrough their end-state. Over the next 5 years, FAA plans to invest more than\n$2 billion to develop and implement these programs (see table 3). However,\ncurrent planning estimates suggest the six programs in their entirety could cost as\nmuch as $6.4 billion combined.\n\nTable 3. Transformational Programs Spending Plan, FY 2012 to FY 2016\n(Dollars in Millions)\n Proposed Spending by Fiscal Year Total\n Program 2012 (Enacted) 2013 2014 2015 2016 FY12-16\n ADS-B $289 $273 $276 $159 $158 $1,155\n DataComm $143 $143 $120 $161 $135 $702\n SWIM $66 $33 $28 $59 $62 $248\n CATM-T $42 $34 $29 $3 $16 $124\n NVS $9 $10 $30 $30 $30 $109\n NNEW $0 $24 $25 $10 $10 $69\n Total $549 $517 $508 $422 $411 $2,407\n\nSource: FAA\xe2\x80\x99s NAS Capital Investment Plan & FAA\xe2\x80\x99s Enacted FY 2012 Budget\n\x0c 6\n\n\nADS-B\xe2\x80\x94FAA has estimated it will cost about $4 billion to implement the ADS-B\nprogram. So far, however, FAA has only approved $1.7 billion for the first two\nsegments to fund completion of the nationwide deployment of the ground\ninfrastructure. Through FY 2011, FAA has allocated $890 million for the ADS-B\nprogram. FAA plans to baseline at least two more ADS-B segments that are\ncurrently estimated to cost about $2.3 billion combined.\n\nSWIM\xe2\x80\x94As we reported in June 2011, 3 FAA plans to implement SWIM in three\nsegments, but has only approved funding for the first segment. However, costs for\nthe first segment have already increased by about $100 million (from $164 million\nto $263 million), and FAA currently plans to spend $263 million to develop and\nimplement SWIM services on seven FAA air traffic management systems. FAA\nhas not determined the cost estimates for completing the remaining two segments,\nbut in response to our 2011 report recommendations, FAA indicated it was\nplanning to baseline Segment 2 costs by September 2012, and Segment 3 costs by\nSeptember 2014.\n\nCATM-T\xe2\x80\x94Through CATM-T, FAA currently plans to implement improvements\nin its traffic flow management infrastructure in a series of three separate work\npackages. To date, FAA has approved $162.5 million for two of the planned three\npackages. Through FY 2011, FAA has allocated $54 million for the CATM-T\nprogram. FAA has yet to approve the cost estimate for completing the remaining\nwork package.\n\nDataComm, NNEW, NVS\xe2\x80\x94FAA has not established baselines for DataComm,\nNNEW, nor NVS. However, the Agency has invested approximately $326 million\nthrough FY 2011 to support acquisition planning activities in preparation for the\nDataComm and NVS final investment decisions scheduled in 2012 and the NNEW\ndecision scheduled for 2013. FAA has provided the DataComm program with\nmost of the funds\xe2\x80\x94approximately $217 million\xe2\x80\x94to support program planning\nand design efforts, including system engineering and integration work as well as\nsome software prototyping. FAA currently plans to spend an estimated $1.4 billion\nto implement DataComm but previously reported the program could cost as much\nas $3 billion in total.\n\nSchedules for Implementing the NextGen Transformational Programs\nRemain Uncertain\nFinal implementation schedules for each of the NextGen transformational\nprograms remain uncertain because FAA has not fully defined program\nrequirements. Instead, FAA established baselines for the initial segments of three\n\n3\n OIG Report No. AV-2011-131, \xe2\x80\x9cFAA\xe2\x80\x99s Approach to SWIM Has Led To Cost and Schedule Uncertainty and No\n Clear Path for Achieving NextGen Goals,\xe2\x80\x9d June 15, 2011. OIG reports are available on our Web site at\n http://www.oig.dot.gov/.\n\x0c 7\n\n\nof the programs (ADS-B, SWIM, and CATM-T). While FAA is proceeding with\nimplementation of the first segments, a number of challenges remain to meet the\ncurrent schedule. For example:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ADS-B\xe2\x80\x94FAA plans to complete the first two ADS-B segments by 2014, yet\n it has not determined when the more advanced ADS-B applications in the\n future segments 4\xe2\x80\x94those most sought by users\xe2\x80\x94will be implemented. FAA\xe2\x80\x99s\n schedule may also be impacted by its ability to identify and mitigate risks\n associated with displaying ADS-B information for controllers on FAA\xe2\x80\x99s\n automation platforms, such as ERAM. FAA plans to complete this effort\n between 2011 and 2015. However, airspace users are not required to equip\n with ADS-B Out 5 avionics until 2020. Moreover, ADS-B\xe2\x80\x99s initial capabilities\n will be limited. ADS-B Out will initially only provide surveillance\n information that replicates existing domestic radar coverage.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 SWIM\xe2\x80\x94FAA\xe2\x80\x99s current plan for completing Segment 1 of the SWIM\n program in 2015 represents a 2-year delay from the original estimated\n FY 2013 completion date. Further slippages in SWIM\xe2\x80\x99s schedule may occur\n because FAA recently decided to re-plan when SWIM services using ERAM\n will be implemented, if at all. Because SWIM implementation depends\n heavily on ERAM but ERAM is now projected to experience a 4-year delay,\n the Agency is developing a new plan to minimize dependence on ERAM.\n However, FAA does not intend to decide on this new plan until September\n 2012.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 CATM-T\xe2\x80\x94FAA\xe2\x80\x99s plans to use CATM-T to provide incremental software\n enhancements to the Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS). 6 However,\n according to CATM-T officials, FAA\xe2\x80\x99s plans may be delayed due to software\n development issues. Additionally, other programs, such as ERAM and\n SWIM, may not deliver expected capabilities or meet schedule requirements,\n which will cause a ripple effect on CATM-T\xe2\x80\x99s schedule and expected\n improvements.\n\nFAA has delayed making the final investment decisions and baselining the costs\nand schedule parameters for the three remaining transformational programs\xe2\x80\x94\nDataComm, NVS, and NNEW\xe2\x80\x94by nearly 3 years. These final investment\ndecisions are now scheduled for 2012 and 2013. Consequently, approval of their\n\n\n4\n Advanced ADS-B applications or ADS-B \xe2\x80\x9cIn\xe2\x80\x9d provides benefits such as enhancing capacity at congested airports\n under all weather conditions, and enables air to air applications that could change current air traffic control concepts.\n5\n ADS-B \xe2\x80\x9cOut\xe2\x80\x9d allows aircraft to broadcast position and other flight data to ground systems for en route, terminal, and\n surface operations.\n6\n TFMS or traffic management system mission is to balance air traffic demand with system capacity to ensure the\n maximum efficient utilization of the NAS.\n\x0c 8\n\n\ninitial segments has been delayed primarily because FAA has revised the\nacquisition strategies for each of the programs. For example:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 DataComm\xe2\x80\x94FAA revised its initial plans for DataComm. FAA is now\n planning to implement the program in two rather than three segments.\n Segment 1 will address tower services and upgrades to support data\n communications in the high-altitude environment, and Segment 2 will\n address terminal environment enhancements and DataComm\xe2\x80\x99s advanced\n capabilities. However, the timeline for each segment\xe2\x80\x99s final investment\n decision has been further delayed. FAA initially estimated a final investment\n decision milestone for the first segment in FY 2010. The Agency now\n intends to split Segment 1 implementation into two phases with separate final\n investment decisions for each phase. FAA plans to complete the final\n investment decision and approve cost and schedule estimates for the first\n phase of Segment 1 in May 2012. However, FAA has not identified a\n timeframe for completing the final investment decision for the second phase\n of Segment 1, which had originally been scheduled for July 2013. In\n addition, FAA\xe2\x80\x99s schedule remains fluid for Segment 2, which addresses\n terminal environment enhancements and DataComm\xe2\x80\x99s advanced capabilities.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 NVS\xe2\x80\x94FAA has delayed the NVS program\xe2\x80\x99s initial investment decision by\n more than 1 year, and the final investment decision for Segment 1 has slipped\n more than 2 years, from December 2009 to August 2012. NVS program\n officials stated that the program will have at least two segments with the\n possibility of a third segment. Currently, program officials are estimating a\n final investment decision for the second segment in 2017. They also\n indicated additional schedule challenges are likely since FAA must develop a\n new voice switch to support both terminal and en route operations, along\n with new NextGen activities (i.e., Unmanned Aircraft Systems(UAS)) before\n it can implement the NVS program.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 NNEW\xe2\x80\x94The NNEW program planning documents now indicate that the\n program is scheduled for a final investment decision in September 2013\xe2\x80\x94a\n delay of more than 3 years. The NNEW program office intends to implement\n the program in two segments. The program office completed the early\n planning phase (i.e., the Concept and Requirements Definition phase) in\n December 2010\xe2\x80\x94almost 8 months after the originally planned April 2010\n final investment decision.\n\nPerformance Requirements for NextGen Transformational Programs\nHave Not Been Finalized and Continue To Evolve\nFAA has not finalized the performance requirements for any of the six NextGen\ntransformational programs through their end-state. Specifically:\n\x0c 9\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ADS-B\xe2\x80\x94As we noted in our October 2010 report, 7 realizing the full range of\n ADS-B benefits will depend on finalizing performance requirements for\n ADS-B In, which will display traffic information in the cockpit. However,\n FAA has not fully defined its ADS-B In requirements to certify the type of\n cockpit display needed to achieve those benefits. In FY 2010, FAA\n established an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to conduct research\n and analysis of advanced ADS-B In applications. In September 2011, the\n ARC reported 8 to FAA that there is no near-term business case for ADS-B In\n and that further development and analysis is needed. The ARC recommended\n that FAA continue to use flight trials to validate operations and associated\n benefits.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 SWIM\xe2\x80\x94FAA recently decided to re-plan SWIM\xe2\x80\x99s ERAM requirements,\n which will impact requirements for five of the seven systems that were\n expected to use ERAM to support their capabilities. FAA acknowledges that\n requirements will not be finalized by programs implementing SWIM until\n just prior to the start of software development. This lack of defined\n requirements for Segment 1 has left SWIM with no clear end-state.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 DataComm\xe2\x80\x94FAA has not formally established performance requirements\n for DataComm. However, FAA is proposing to accelerate the initial delivery\n of DataComm services to air traffic control towers based on\n recommendations from a joint industry/government task force report 9 by\n relying on equipment already installed on aircraft. The second segment of the\n program will require a more robust data link to accommodate the exchange\n of critical flight information between aircraft and FAA ground automation\n systems. FAA is developing standards for this new data link capability, 10 but\n they are not expected to be complete until 2015.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 NVS\xe2\x80\x94FAA revised NVS requirements from just replacing aging technology\n to developing a new capability that will replace the current voice switch\n system with a new network. This network, which will support a phased\n implementation, will consolidate the current system\xe2\x80\x99s functions and allow for\n an improved, flexible voice transmission between controllers.\n\n\n\n7\n OIG Report No. AV-2011-002, \xe2\x80\x9cFAA Faces Significant Risks in Implementing ADS-B Program and Realizing\n Benefits,\xe2\x80\x9d October 12, 2010.\n8\n A report from the ADS-B In Aviation Rulemaking Committee to the FAA, \xe2\x80\x9cRecommendations to Define a Strategy\n for Incorporating ADS-B In Technologies into the NAS,\xe2\x80\x9d September 30, 2011.\n9\n RTCA, \xe2\x80\x9cNextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force Report,\xe2\x80\x9d September 9, 2009.\n10\n The Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN) was developed through the International Civil Aviation\n Organization (ICAO) to provide a more universally capable and reliable ATC data communications system. The\n version called ATN Baseline 2 will be needed for full participation in NextGen in continental U.S. airspace. The\n standards for this version are under development and are being harmonized internationally.\n\x0c 10\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 CATM-T\xe2\x80\x94FAA\xe2\x80\x99s requirements for CATM-T\xe2\x80\x99s end-state remain fluid. FAA\n plans to propose work packages every 3 to 5 years to provide new or updated\n TFM system capabilities. In 2005, FAA approved CATM-T work\n package 1 11and implemented it between 2006 and 2010. In August 2008,\n FAA stated CATM-T work package 2 would consist of software\n enhancements to introduce seven capabilities. However, by September 2008,\n FAA decided that work package 2 would only include four of the seven\n proposed capabilities, and is expected to be complete by 2014.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 NNEW\xe2\x80\x94FAA is in the process of developing NNEW program\n requirements. In December 2010, FAA approved the NNEW program to\n enter the initial investment analysis phase. In this phase, the NNEW program\n office is evaluating alternative solutions to satisfying the mission need to\n present the JRC with realistic options to satisfy strategic and performance\n goals by September 2013.\n\nFAA HAS MADE LIMITED PROGRESS IMPLEMENTING NEXTGEN\nTRANSFORMATIONAL PROGRAMS AND ACHIEVING NEXTGEN\nGOALS AND BENEFITS\nWhile FAA is making some progress implementing the transformational\nprograms, it is uncertain when the programs will start delivering benefits, such as\nenhanced capacity and reduced operating costs. This is largely because FAA has\nnot baselined or fully defined requirements for any of the transformational\nprograms through their end-state. For example, FAA is providing limited\ncapabilities with ADS-B capacity enhancement in the Gulf of Mexico but has not\ndefined when it will deliver NAS-wide NextGen benefits, particularly at congested\nairports. Moreover, airspace users remain skeptical about FAA\xe2\x80\x99s ability to deliver\nADS-B and are concerned about investing to equip aircraft. With SWIM, FAA has\ndeployed two prototype systems to provide SWIM-weather services for selected\nairline operators. FAA also states that other SWIM capabilities have been\ndeveloped but yet to be deployed. However, according to FAA, the key initial\ncapabilities for seamlessly exchanging SWIM information between FAA\xe2\x80\x99s\nautomation platforms are being re-planned, as FAA recently decided to develop a\nstrategy to minimize SWIM\xe2\x80\x99s considerable dependence on ERAM. In light of\nthese new planned changes to SWIM\xe2\x80\x99s capabilities, FAA may face difficulties\nwith completing SWIM implementation by 2015.\n\nAs shown in table 4, the transformational programs are needed to help implement\nsix specific operational improvements tied to key NextGen goals. However,\nFAA\xe2\x80\x99s planning documents only reflect two possible implementation points\xe2\x80\x94\n\n11\n FAA did not identify CATM-T work package 1 as transformational; only later work packages including work\n packages 2, 3, and 4 were identified as transformational.\n\x0c 11\n\n\n earliest and latest\xe2\x80\x94for the initial operational capability (IOC), and these can vary\n by as much as 6 years.\n Table 4. Examples of Transformational Programs Supporting NextGen Goals and\n Capabilities With Proposed Implementation Dates\n\n Operational Improvements IOC\n Expected\n Expected to Achieve Programs Capability Earliest -\n Benefits\n NextGen Goals Latest\n Improved\n Delegated\n Initiate Trajectory Based ADS-B, efficiency and\n1 responsibility for in- 2013 - 2018\n Operations DataComm increased\n trail separation\n capacity\n Enhanced safety\n due to avoided\n Increase Flexibility in the ADS-B, Enhanced surface\n2 read back / hear 2014 - 2018\n Terminal Environment DataComm traffic operations\n back, operational\n errors\n Full surface traffic\n management with Enhanced\n 2018 - 2024\n conformance surface safety\n monitoring\n Increase Arrival/Departures at ADS-B,\n3\n High Density Airports DataComm\n Efficient metroplex\n Decreased fuel\n merging and\n burn, emissions, 2020 - 2024\n spacing aircraft-to-\n and noise\n aircraft separation\n\n CATM-T, Improved\n Initial improved\n4 Reduced Weather Impact NNEW, weather 2013 - 2018\n weather information\n SWIM observations\n\n ADS-B, Increased airport\n DataComm, Remotely staffed capacity in low\n5 Transform Facilities 2018 - 2020\n NVS, tower services visibility and night\n SWIM conditions\n\n ADS-B, Provide full flight\n Improve Collaborative Air CATM-T, plan constraint Increased user-\n6 2013 - 2018\n Traffic Management NNEW, evaluation with preferred routing\n SWIM feedback\n\n Source: OIG Analysis of FAA\xe2\x80\x99s Planning Documents (NextGen Implementation Plan, NAS Enterprise\n Architect, and Capital Investment Plan).\n\n Due to this lack of clarity on whether and when these programs will deliver\n benefits, airspace users remain skeptical about FAA\xe2\x80\x99s ability to deliver the\n technologies and are concerned about investing to equip aircraft. Without\n widespread equipage, however, FAA will be unable to begin markedly increasing\n safety and capacity or saving time and fuel through NextGen technologies. For\n example, aircraft will need advanced avionics to achieve these benefits through\n ADS-B and DataComm during nearly every phase of flight.\n\n Users\xe2\x80\x99 concerns and a lack of clearly defined benefits have triggered debate\n among industry and FAA about whether to use equipage incentives, such as grants\n\x0c 12\n\n\nor loan guarantees, since users are not likely to voluntarily equip. For example,\nusers may be unwilling to fully commit up front to all ADS-B avionics. FAA\npublished a rule in May 2010 mandating users to equip for ADS-B Out, which\nbroadcasts position information from planes to ground systems. However, the\nmost significant benefits rely on ADS-B In, which will display that information in\nthe cockpit. 12 FAA expects that once users have invested in ADS-B Out, they will\nthen voluntarily equip to realize the additional capabilities of ADS-B In. To\ndemonstrate ADS-B benefits to users, FAA now has agreements with several U.S.\nairlines and is paying for new equipment. For example, FAA established an\nagreement with a major carrier in which FAA will pay $4.2 million for ADS-B\nOut avionics; in turn, the airline will equip as many as 35 aircraft over the next\n2 years. This will enable the ADS-B-equipped aircraft to fly two major routes off\nthe East Coast where traditional radar coverage is unavailable. The air carrier will\npay for the aircraft downtime cost associated with installing ADS-B avionics and\nthe necessary training for dispatchers and flight crews. However, it remains to be\nseen whether this incentive agreement will be effective and whether it will\nencourage other users to equip with ADS-B avionics.\n\nLikewise, industry is concerned about FAA\xe2\x80\x99s commitment to delivering\nDataComm and a timely return on investment, in part due to similar failed NAS\nacquisition efforts in the past. 13 To mitigate these concerns, FAA\xe2\x80\x99s DataComm\nprogram office has proposed a three-prong strategy that includes financial\nincentives, improved service for equipped aircraft, 14 and regulatory action if\nnecessary.\n\nFAA FACES OTHER IMPLEMENTATION RISKS WITH THE\nTRANSFORMATIONAL PROGRAMS\nFAA faces a number of other risks to the effective implementation of the\ntransformational programs. Specifically, FAA has not completed an integrated\nmaster schedule to better manage and coordinate how their capabilities\xe2\x80\x94many of\nwhich are interdependent\xe2\x80\x94will be implemented. FAA has not fully addressed\nrisks associated with complex technological interdependencies with other enabling\nprograms such as ERAM and the FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) 15\nprogram.\n\n\n\n12\n \xe2\x80\x9cAutomatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) Out Performance Requirements To Support Air Traffic\n Control (ATC) Service; Final Rule,\xe2\x80\x9d 75 Federal Register 30160-30195 (May 28, 2010)(amending 14 C.F.R. Part 91).\n13\n These failed efforts include the Microwave Landing System (MLS) and the Controller-Pilot Data Link\n Communications Program (CPDLC). FAA cancelled the MLS in the 1990s because of industry concerns and\n opposition; in 2003, it cancelled the CPDLC due to uncertain benefits, technical problems, and cost growth issues.\n14\n Commonly referred to as \xe2\x80\x9cbest equipped, best served.\xe2\x80\x9d\n15\n The FTI network provides the voice, data, and video communications that support operations and mission support\n functions at more than 4,000 FAA and Department of Defense (DoD) facilities nationwide.\n\x0c 13\n\n\nFAA Lacks an Integrated Master Schedule To Help Mitigate Risks in\nImplementing NextGen\xe2\x80\x99s Transformational Programs\nFAA has not developed an integrated master schedule for implementing the\ntransformational programs. Therefore, it will be difficult to fully address\noperational, technical, and programmatic challenges associated with implementing\nthe transformational programs\xe2\x80\x99 capabilities because of their complex\ninterdependencies. For example, NVS will provide a backup to DataComm. In\naddition, NNEW will use SWIM messaging capability to disseminate weather data\nto FAA and airspace users. According to FAA officials, FAA\xe2\x80\x99s planned integrated\nmaster schedule will provide decision makers with more information to assess the\ntransformational program\xe2\x80\x99s progress and make necessary trade-offs between cost,\nschedule, and performance requirements.\n\nWhile FAA recognizes the need to coordinate key activities and manage them in\nan integrated fashion, efforts thus far have been ineffective. Unlike FAA\xe2\x80\x99s\nprevious modernization paradigm, which focused on individual programs,\nNextGen is extremely complex because systems may be (1) in various stages of\ndevelopment and maturity, (2) interdependent, and (3) implemented over various\ntimeframes. FAA created the NextGen Integration and Implementation program\noffice as a first step to managing integration complexities associated with all its\nNextGen efforts. However, to date, FAA is experiencing difficulties in\ncoordinating between the transformational program offices and the NextGen\nIntegration and Implementation program office. For example:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The NVS program experienced a 2-year delay in its investment decisions due\n to a lack of coordination with the NextGen Integration and Implementation\n program office. According to NVS program officials, the Agency initially\n focused on simply replacing the current aging voice switch system. However,\n the NVS program office completely revised NVS program requirements\n when FAA\xe2\x80\x99s NextGen Integration and Implementation program office\n required NVS capabilities to be expanded to support future NextGen\n operations. For example, FAA revised NVS acquisition strategy to provide\n controllers with the flexibility and capability to select the channels needed to\n communicate with pilots, other controllers, and other facilities.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 DataComm program officials stated that the program is behind in its original\n development schedule because of delays associated with ERAM. For\n example, due to a lack of coordination between the two programs, in October\n 2010, FAA had to revise DataComm\xe2\x80\x99s previously approved acquisition\n strategy to mitigate schedule risks to aligning the program with ERAM\n requirements.\n\x0c 14\n\n\nAccording to an official from FAA\xe2\x80\x99s NextGen Integration and Implementation\nprogram office, the Agency realizes that its NextGen Implementation Plan did not\nprovide sufficient detail on integrating and implementing NextGen capabilities\ninto the NAS. To address this issue, the program office developed the first of a\ntwo-part NextGen Segment Implementation Plan (NSIP). This plan is designed to\nprovide additional insight into the development and integration of mid-term 16\ncapabilities, while facilitating lower-level program offices\xe2\x80\x99 planning. As stated in\nthe NSIP, the NextGen Integration and Implementation program office plans to\ncoordinate key activities and monitor implementation of NextGen capabilities\nthrough an integrated master schedule. FAA officials indicated that the Agency\nhas started building schedules for pre-implementation activities. However, the full\nintegrated master schedule with timelines for transformational program activities\nthat include completion dates is critical for supporting these assessments and\ndecisions.\n\nFAA Has Not Fully Developed Mitigation Strategies for Interfacing\nNextGen Transformational Programs With FAA\xe2\x80\x99s Automation\nPlatforms\nA major roadblock for NextGen is FAA\xe2\x80\x99s continued problems with automation\nprograms (i.e., computers and displays for controllers). FAA has not fully\ndeveloped mitigation strategies for risks associated with interfacing the\ntransformational programs with FAA air traffic automation platforms such as\nAdvanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures (ATOP), 17 Terminal Automation\nModernization and Replacement (TAMR), 18 and ERAM. FAA\xe2\x80\x99s ability to ensure\ncontrollers have access to the transformational programs\xe2\x80\x99 capabilities will be key\nto delivering NextGen goals.\n\nA particular concern is integrating and aligning NextGen programs with ERAM.\nIn particular, there are critical interdependencies between ERAM and three\ntransformational programs\xe2\x80\x94ADS-B, DataComm, and SWIM. In June 2011, FAA\nformally rebaselined the ERAM program and expects to complete ERAM in\n2014\xe2\x80\x94a projected 4-year schedule slip. The Agency forecasts that ERAM will be\n$330 million over its approved baseline by the end of FY 2014. As shown in\ntable 5, FAA is planning to dedicate more than $500 million to specifically\nintegrate and align ADS-B, DataComm, and SWIM programs with ERAM.\n\n\n\n\n16\n Mid-term encompasses the present to calendar year 2018.\n17\n ATOP is being used to control air traffic at all three oceanic sites: the Oakland, CA, New York, NY, and Anchorage,\n AK, Air Route Traffic Control centers.\n18\n TAMR is a capital program that employs a phased approach to modernizing the air traffic control systems that\n controllers use at, or near, the nation\xe2\x80\x99s major airports.\n\x0c 15\n\n\nTable 5. ERAM Interdependencies and the NextGen Transformational Programs\n\n Program Description of ERAM Interdependency\n\n FAA plans to provide the ERAM program as much as $74 million to display ADS-B\n ADS-B\n data for use by controllers in the high-altitude environment.\n\n FAA plans to provide the ERAM program as much as $400 million to develop an\n DataComm interface that provides controller-pilot message processing and displays\n information to controllers in the en route centers.\n\n FAA plans to provide the ERAM program with as much as $40 million (for SWIM\n Segment 1 only) to modernize and enhance its flight data processing and external\n SWIM\n interfaces with terminal air traffic control and the Traffic Flow Management\n systems.\n\n Source: FAA program officials and support documentation for ADS-B, DataComm, and SWIM.\n\nFAA has delayed deploying ADS-B capabilities on ERAM and now plans to fully\nincorporate ADS-B in an ERAM software release that is expected to be completed\nby June 2012. We are currently conducting a separate audit on FAA\xe2\x80\x99s\nimplementation of ERAM and plan to issue a report later this year. 19\n\nNextGen Transformational Programs\xe2\x80\x99 Reliance on FTI Poses More\nRisks to Implementation\nFAA faces further risks for implementing the transformational programs due to\ntheir reliance on the FTI program. FTI is a major contributing system to NextGen\nand will be pivotal to the successful implementation of several transformational\nprograms. However, as we previously reported, 20 an FTI outage raised questions\nand concerns about the integrity of the FTI network\xe2\x80\x99s design and its ability to\nsupport NextGen initiatives. For example, ADS-B program officials have decided\nagainst using the FTI network to provide its telecommunications services due to\nconcerns about network reliability and security.\n\nOfficials from other transformational program offices\xe2\x80\x94NVS, SWIM, and\nDataComm\xe2\x80\x94identified FTI as key to the success of these programs. However,\nFTI\xe2\x80\x99s ability to support the programs remains uncertain and introduces program\nrisk. For example:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 NVS\xe2\x80\x94The NVS program depends on FTI to provide network connectivity to\n route voice communications for controllers along with radio transmitters and\n receivers. NVS program officials identified FTI as a significant program risk\n because it may not be capable of supporting NVS requirements for air-to-\n ground communications. According to NVS program officials, if that is the\n\n19\n OIG Audit Announcement, \xe2\x80\x9cProgress and Problems Implementing the En Route Automation Modernization Program\n Federal Aviation Administration,\xe2\x80\x9d September 14, 2010.\n20\n OIG Correspondence No. CC-2010-012, \xe2\x80\x9cOIG Review of FTI November 2009 Outage,\xe2\x80\x9d June 17, 2010.\n\x0c 16\n\n\n case, the NVS architecture may need to be redesigned, which will impact the\n program\xe2\x80\x99s cost, schedule, benefits, and performance. Additionally, NVS\n program officials expressed concern that the current FTI system does not\n have enough security, which could leave the NVS program vulnerable to\n hacking or other security breaches. According to NVS program officials,\n these concerns are being addressed through ongoing annual assessments.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 SWIM\xe2\x80\x94SWIM program staff also raised security concerns about using FTI\n for information exchange. SWIM will use FTI to provide secure\n communications between NAS operational systems and external users by\n performing tasks such as security and virus checks on files transferred to\n FAA. Web service-enabled networks such as FTI are more vulnerable to\n internal and external attacks. Thus, SWIM\xe2\x80\x99s reliance on FTI\xe2\x80\x99s current\n technology could expose FAA and system users to security risks that could\n compromise existing network-based internal controls.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 DataComm\xe2\x80\x94According to DataComm program officials, FTI was identified\n as a potential risk because the system may not be capable of supporting its\n ground-to-ground communications requirements.\n\nAccording to FAA\xe2\x80\x99s FTI program officials, the Agency is taking steps to ensure\nthe FTI network can support NextGen initiatives. For example, officials maintain\nthat the current FTI network and supporting security infrastructure is capable of\nmeeting all ADS-B requirements. Moreover, the FTI program office is currently\nworking with DataComm, SWIM, NNEW, and NVS program offices to address\nany concerns that their respective program officials have with using FTI services.\nFinally, FTI program officials point out that as a risk mitigation strategy, they are\nrequired to test system interfaces with FTI for any programs using FTI services in\norder to verify network interoperability and security controls prior to going\noperational. It will be imperative that FTI program officials remain vigilant as they\nbegin implementing these services on the FTI network.\n\nCONCLUSION\nFAA\xe2\x80\x99s NextGen transformational programs are critical to its overall plans to\nmodernize the NAS and fundamentally change the way air traffic is managed.\nImplementing the transformational programs is a complex undertaking involving\nmultiple programs and many players. FAA must change its approach from\ntraditionally overseeing independent programs to recognizing and effectively\nmanaging the interdependencies between various programs and players. Moreover,\nto successfully introduce new capabilities needed to realize benefits, FAA must\ncut across multiple lines of business and ensure that it synchronizes and prioritizes\nits acquisition investments. Until FAA establishes clear requirements and an\neffective plan for integrating its complex interrelated NextGen efforts, FAA will\n\x0c 17\n\n\nrun the risk of not delivering the multiple benefits of NextGen and will be unable\nto ensure that it is efficiently using taxpayer dollars.\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS\nWe recommend that FAA:\n\n1. Develop and set milestones for baselining each segment of the\n transformational programs through their end-state and identify the\n capabilities and benefits that will be delivered for each segment.\n\n2. Define and finalize the transformational programs\xe2\x80\x99 NextGen requirements.\n\n3. Synchronize program requirements between the Transformational Program\n Offices and NextGen Integration and Implementation Program Office to\n ensure Agency NextGen goals are aligned with the transformational\n programs\xe2\x80\x99 plans and to avoid schedule delays.\n\n4. Establish an integrated master schedule framework, policy, and standard\n operating procedures that include the Segment Implementation Plan and the\n transformational programs, and a timeline for maturing this capability.\n\nAGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\nRESPONSE\nWe provided a draft of this report to FAA on February 2, 2012, and received its\nresponse on March 22, 2012. FAA\xe2\x80\x99s response is included in its entirety as an\nappendix to this report. FAA concurred with three of our four recommendations,\nand partially concurred with the remaining recommendation. Based on FAA\xe2\x80\x99s\nresponse, we consider recommendations 2, 3, and 4 resolved but open pending\ncompletion of planned actions. However, we are concerned that FAA\xe2\x80\x99s response\ndid not meet the intent of recommendation 1, as detailed below.\n\nFor recommendation 1, FAA partially concurred and proposed actions that are\nresponsive, in part, to the intent of the recommendation. However, in its response,\nthe Agency states that it has already developed planning milestones for the\ntransformational programs\xe2\x80\x99 baseline decisions in its Enterprise Architecture. FAA\nalso states that the Enterprise Architecture is reflected in its Capital Investment\nPlan. While these planning documents provide some visibility into FAA\xe2\x80\x99s plans,\nthere is no clear link between the segments of the transformational programs and\nwhen their respective benefits and capabilities for enhancing capacity and\nreducing delays will be delivered. This is one reason why there is so much\nuncertainty among airspace users about NextGen. To help FAA set expectations\nand better manage the NextGen portfolio, we are requesting that the Agency\n\x0c 18\n\n\nprovide milestones for baselining each segment of the transformational programs,\nand to outline the capabilities and benefits/operational improvements these\nsegments will provide. Accordingly, we consider recommendation 1 open and\nunresolved pending receipt of this information.\n\nACTIONS REQUIRED\nFAA\xe2\x80\x99s planned actions for recommendations 2, 3, and 4 are responsive and we\nconsider these recommendations resolved but open pending completion of the\nplanned actions. For recommendation 1, we request that FAA provide information\non the transformational programs\xe2\x80\x99 milestones for baselining the planned segments\nand when expected benefits and capabilities will be delivered. In accordance with\nDepartment of Transportation Order 8000.1C, we request that FAA provide this\ninformation within 30 calendar days.\n\nWe appreciate the courtesies and cooperation of FAA representatives during this\naudit. If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202)\n366-0500 or Kevin Dorsey, Program Director, at (202) 366-1518.\n\n\n #\n\ncc: Pierre McLeod, AAE-100\n Martin Gertel, M-100\n\x0c 19\n\n\nEXHIBIT A. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\nAt the request of the Chairmen of the House Committee on Transportation and\nInfrastructure and the House Subcommittee on Aviation, we examined FAA\xe2\x80\x99s\nplans for implementing the NextGen transformational programs. Specifically, our\nobjectives were to (1) determine the status of the programs\xe2\x80\x99 cost, schedule, and\nperformance baselines, (2) assess FAA\xe2\x80\x99s progress in implementing these\nprograms, and (3) identify the risks to achieving NextGen goals.\n\nTo determine the status of the programs\xe2\x80\x99 cost, schedule, and performance\nbaselines, as well as FAA\xe2\x80\x99s progress in implementing these programs and\nidentifying risk to achieving NextGen goals, we interviewed FAA officials and\nanalyzed various planning and funding documents for each of the six\ntransformational programs. We met with key program officials for each individual\nprogram, as well as NextGen officials from the NextGen Integration and\nImplementation Office. We performed analyses of the National Airspace System\n(NAS) Capital Investment Plan (CIP), NAS Enterprise Architecture, FAA\xe2\x80\x99s\nNextGen Implementation Plan, and FAA\xe2\x80\x99s President\xe2\x80\x99s Budget Submissions. We\nanalyzed the NAS CIP to determine whether the programs have been baselined,\ntheir proposed spending plans, and related NextGen goals. We analyzed the NAS\nEnterprise Architecture because it defines the operational and technical framework\nfor the transformational programs and the transition strategy for moving from the\ncurrent to the target architecture. The NextGen Implementation Plan provides an\noverview of FAA\xe2\x80\x99s ongoing transition to NextGen and lays out the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s\nvision for the Next Generation Air Transportation System, now and into the mid-\nterm. We also analyzed the President\xe2\x80\x99s Budget Submissions to determine funding\nrequests and benefits, and verify prior year appropriations.\n\nWe submitted and analyzed the results of detailed questionnaires sent to these four\nprogram offices (DataComm, CATM-T, NNEW, and NVS) to determine the\ncurrent status of each program. In addition, we leveraged information obtained\nfrom prior OIG reviews of both ADS-B and SWIM and obtained updated\ninformation from the two program offices as necessary to address our objectives.\n\nWe conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted Government\nauditing standards as prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States.\nThose standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,\nappropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and\nconclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained\nprovides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\nobjectives. The audit was conducted between November 2009 and January 2012.\n\n\n\n\nExhibit A. Objecti ves, Scope, and Methodology\n\x0c 20\n\n\n EXHIBIT B. TRANSFORMATIONAL PROGRAMS\n Total Program\n Program Description Next Gen Benefits Status and Risks to Implement\n Costs Estimates\nADS-B\n\nADS-B is a satellite-based \xe2\x80\xa2 Provide more precise surveillance Progress is being made with ADS-B--FAA reports that 275 of the $4.0 Billion\nsurveillance technology that information in high altitude airspace 800 planned ground stations have been deployed and system is\n ($1.7 Billion\ncombines the use of satellites, that will allow for reduced aircraft in use at 5 key sites. Also, FAA has published a final rule\n Baselined for\naircraft avionics, and ground-based separation. (e.g., Gulf of Mexico mandating that airspace users equip with ADS-B avionics by\n Segments 1 & 2)\nsystems to provide more accurate where radar coverage is not 2020. Key risks include:\ninformation about aircraft location available).\nfor pilots and air traffic controllers. \xe2\x80\xa2 User\xe2\x80\x99s willingness to equip and FAA\xe2\x80\x99s ability to define and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Enhance surface traffic management implement requirements for ADS-B In advanced capabilities.\n by reducing taxi times and enhancing\n \xe2\x80\xa2 FAA has identified risks with integrating ADS-B to FAA\n safety by providing real-time traffic\n automation platforms in both the terminal and en route\n picture accessible by airlines,\n environment.\n controllers and equipped operators.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Radio Spectrum Interference, particularly in congested\n \xe2\x80\xa2 When \xe2\x80\x9cADS-B In\xe2\x80\x9d information is\n airspace on the East Coast.\n displayed in the cockpit, it can\n enhance pilots\xe2\x80\x99 situation awareness,\n assist in spacing and merging, and\n lead to delegated and ultimately self\n separation for pilots.\n\nSWIM\n\nSWIM will provide for a more agile \xe2\x80\xa2 Reducing the number and types of FAA has and continues to face challenges in developing and To Be\nexchange of information through a NAS interfaces and systems to implementing SWIM. Determined\nsecure, NAS-wide information web reduce FAA costs.\nthat will connect FAA systems with \xe2\x80\xa2 FAA has increased the cost estimate of segment 1 by more ($263 Million\nother agencies, and airspace \xe2\x80\xa2 All parties--FAA, airlines, and than $100 million and has delayed its implementation by two Baselined for\n airports--will be privy to same years through 2015. We attributed the cost increases and Segment 1)\nusers.\n information giving users the ability to delays to an overly decentralized approach in which the SWIM\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Standard interfaces for FAA make real time decisions and program office has had limited ability to define requirements\n systems to increase improving use of existing capacity. and coordinate activities among the FAA program offices. (FAA will\n interoperability. \xe2\x80\xa2 The decentralized approach is not bad in and of itself, but Baseline\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Standard data message set to creates risks for deploying SWIM nationwide. The lack of an Segment 2 in\n improve data integrity. overarching, centralized perspective hinders FAA\xe2\x80\x99s ability to 2012)\n focus on SWIM end-state transition issues, alignment with\n NextGen goals, and data integrity and security issues.\n\n\n\n Exhibit B. Tr ansfor mational Programs\n\x0c 21\n\n\n Total Program\n Program Description Next Gen Benefits Status and Risks to Implement\n Costs Estimates\nDataComm\n\nDataComm will provide 2-way data \xe2\x80\xa2 Improve capacity by providing routine Cost, schedule, and performance parameters for DataComm To Be\ncommunication between and strategic information to the flight have not been formally established. DataComm plans to split its Determined\ncontrollers, automation, and flight crew, and automating some routine final investment decision and obtain separate approvals for the\n $1.4 Billion\ncrews; enhance air traffic control tasks for both pilots and controllers. ground network and tower automation (May 2012) and the En-\nmessage generation. route services in a subsequent final investment decision. Industry (Cost and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Improve safety by replacing some is skeptical of FAA\xe2\x80\x99s ability to implement the program because Schedule Not\nSegment 1 of DataComm will rely voice communications between pilots the Agency abandoned previous efforts. Risks include: Formally\non the FANS-1A avionics package and controllers with data messages, Baselined)\noriginally designed for the Oceanic thereby eliminating multiple \xe2\x80\xa2 User Equipage - If users do not equip in significant numbers,\nenvironment. FAA notes that opportunities for errors. then projected benefits in will not be achieved.\nSegment 2 may require more\nrobust data link capability given \xe2\x80\xa2 Boost controller productivity\xe2\x80\x94FAA \xe2\x80\xa2 Major risks focus on integrating DataComm with FAA\xe2\x80\x99s\nexpected requirements and studies suggest using datalink automation systems including:\n communications for routine\nexpanded use of the system. \xe2\x80\xa2 ERAM - Continued problems with ERAM will impact the\n messages can enable controllers to\n implementation of DataComm in the high-altitude\n manage 30% more aircraft.\n environment.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Terminal Radar Control enhancements (TRACON) - If the\n integration of the TRACON Automation platform and the\n DataComm services is not met then there will be delays\n introducing Data Communication services (benefits) in the\n terminal environment.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Tower enhancements - If the Tower Data Link Service\n automation enhancements are delayed, then the\n DataComm deployment of Tower Services and the\n benefits will be delayed.\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit B. Tr ansfor mational Programs\n\x0c 22\n\n\n\n\n Total Program\n Program Description Next Gen Benefits Status and Risks to Implement\n Costs Estimates\nNAS Voice Switch (NVS)\n\nNVS is a new air traffic control \xe2\x80\xa2 Use a network-enabled system of NVS is still in the planning phase. A final investment decision is To Be\ninfrastructure that will provide switches to connect the not planned until August 2012. Primary Risks to NVS include: Determined\nnetwork-capable switches and communication lines between pilots,\ncontrol data and voice \xe2\x80\xa2 Obsolescence Date Impact - If the obsolescence date of the $253.8 Million\n controllers and facilities. Replace\n current voice switch system is earlier than expected then the Estimated for\ncommunication paths. obsolete hardware and software;\n program may incur increased cost and accelerated schedule Seg. 1\n provide an architecture that supports\n to compensate.\n future growth. (Cost and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) is the system Schedule Not\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Replacement of the 13 different voice Formally\n through which FAA will route data and information for all of\n switching systems (in both the Baselined)\n the NextGen Transformational programs. Without FTI, NVS\n terminal and en route environments)\n will be unable to complete its mission as a networked backup\n is expected to reduce maintenance\n voice communications system.\n and parts inventory costs.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Coordination with NextGen - The NVS program office initially\n planned to simply replace the current aging voice switch\n system. However, after coordination with the NextGen\n Program Office, NVS program officials realized that the voices\n switches they were planning to acquire would need additional\n capability and as a result the program has been delayed.\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit B. Tr ansfor mational Programs\n\x0c 23\n\n Total Program\n Program Description Next Gen Benefits Status and Risks to Implement\n Costs Estimates\nNextGen Network Enabled Weather (NNEW)\n\nNNEW is expected to serve as the \xe2\x80\xa2 Improve collaboration between FAA It remains uncertain when improvised weather information can To Be\ninfrastructure core of NextGen and airlines by having common be introduced and benefits realized. FAA is currently planning to Determined\naviation weather support services access to virtual weather database. deploy an initial operating capability in 2016.\n $275.0 Million\nand provide access to a NAS-wide \xe2\x80\xa2 NextGen 4-D Weather Cube Information Management\ncommon weather picture. NNEW \xe2\x80\xa2 Enable access to standard weather Estimated for\n data by all NextGen users by Process is not fully defined and FAA has not completed all Seg. 1\nwill enable integration of weather the system engineering and performance analysis to\ninformation into decision support establishing a 4-D Weather Cube\xe2\x80\x94a (Cost and\n virtual database intended to provide determine if requirements can be met.\nsystems for controllers and air Schedule Not\ntraffic managers. common, universal access to aviation \xe2\x80\xa2 NNEW\xe2\x80\x99s reliance/dependence on the SWIM and FAA\xe2\x80\x99s FTI Formally\n weather data including data that will programs. Baselined)\n be designated as the \xe2\x80\x9cSingle\n Authoritative Source\xe2\x80\x9d.\n\nCollaborative Air Traffic Management Technologies (CATM-T)\n\nIn FY 2010, Collaborative Air Traffic \xe2\x80\xa2 The primary objective of CATM-T is Work is underway to develop new software capabilities for TFM To Be\nManagement Technologies (CATM- to further enhance the modernized and incrementally implement them through 2016. FAA has yet to Determined\nT) was declared a NextGen TFM System and continue the be set a date for the final investment decision for the remaining\nTransformational Program that deployment of new capabilities in planned CATM-T Work Package. Risks include: $162.5 Million\nprovides software enhancements to support of Collaborative Decision Baselined for\nthe existing Traffic Flow \xe2\x80\xa2 Software Development - Due to complexity of algorithms, initial two phases.\n Making (CDM) between FAA and\nManagement (TFM) system. potential risk that developed algorithms will not meet desired\n airlines.\n results and transfer into useful operational software.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 CATM-T provides new functions and \xe2\x80\xa2 Program Dependencies - Risk other programs ERAM, SWIM,\n enhanced capabilities to the TFM and TFMS may not deliver expected capabilities or meet\n system via software releases to schedule requirements. Delay in TFMS would ripple delay\n improve NAS traffic flow prediction into CATM-T.\n and overall system capacity.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Realization of Full Benefits - May not occur.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Contract Management - According to FAA program officials,\n there is risk that the contractor may fail to provide products\n on time and with the desired quality.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 User Acceptance - Risk that users may resist additional\n capabilities, delaying implementation and incurring\n unplanned costs. Users may not use capabilities to their full\n potential and benefits will not be realized.\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit B. Tr ansfor mational Programs\n\x0c 24\n\n\nEXHIBIT C. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT\n\n Name Title\n\n Matthew Hampton Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Aviation and\n Special Program Audits\n\n Kevin Dorsey Program Director\n\n Lillian Slodkowski Project Manager\n\n Arthur Shantz Technical Advisor\n\n Melissa Pyron Senior Auditor\n\n Kimberly Leading Senior Auditor\n\n Kiesha Henson Auditor\n\n Jennifer Hoffman Analyst\n\n Andrea Nossaman Writer-Editor\n\n Audre Azuolas Writer-Editor\n\n\n\n\nExhibit C. Major Contributors to This Report\n\x0c 25\n\n\nAPPENDIX A. FAA\xe2\x80\x99S ACQUISTION LIFECYCLE\n\n\n\n\nAppendix A. F AA\'s Acquisition Lifec ycle\n\x0c 26\n\nAPPENDIX B. AGENCY COMMENTS\n\n\n Federal Aviation\n Administration\n\nMemorandum\nDate:\nTo: Jeffrey B. Guzzetti, Assistant Inspector General for Aviation and Special Program\n Audits\nFrom: H. Clayton Foushee, Director, Office of Audit and Evaluation, AAE-1\nSubject: Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General (OIG) Formal Draft Audit\n Report: Status of Transformational Programs and Risks to Achieving NextGen Goals\n\n\n\nThe Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) represents a fundamental redesign of\nthe air transportation system. This initiative is the largest and most complicated acquisition the\nFAA has taken in a generation. The six \xe2\x80\x9cTransformational\xe2\x80\x9d programs--Automatic Dependent\nSurveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), System Wide Information Management (SWIM), Data\nCommunications (Data Comm), NextGen Network Enabled Weather (NNEW), NAS Voice\nSwitch (NVS), and Collaborative Air Traffic Management Technologies (CATM-T)--represent\ncore capabilities necessary to support future NextGen operational improvements. Because of the\nsize and complexity of these acquisitions, the FAA has chosen to pursue a segmented approach\nto implementing these programs. Three of these investments (ADS-B, CATM-T, and SWIM)\nare baselined programs and are in the investment process for their second segments. All have\ndependencies with other systems and the use of segmentation reduces the overall implementation\nfootprint by allowing integrated schedules for delivery.\n\nThe FAA understands that managing the development of these systems and their integration into\nthe current NAS infrastructure is complex and requires enterprise engineering, planning, and\nprogram management. Last year, the FAA conducted an examination of its enterprise activities\nas part of its Foundations for Success agency review. In response to the issues identified by that\nactivity, the FAA has made three changes to its delivery of NextGen:\n 1. Elevated the NextGen Organization and emphasized its role from operational change\n objectives through the delivery of capabilities;\n 2. Established a Program Management Organization within the Air Traffic Organization\n to strengthen program management and to improve the ability to integrate and\n coordinate between investment programs; and\n\n\n\n\nAppendix B. Agency Comment s\n\x0c 27\n\n 3. Developed an \xe2\x80\x9cIdeas to In-Service\xe2\x80\x9d process (I2I) to complement the Acquisition\n Management System and establish more formal enterprise controls on the process of\n moving from concept and operational requirements to investment and implementation.\n This process has been approved by the NextGen Management Board and is already in\n implementation within the agency.\n\nThe agency has had an Enterprise Architecture (EA) with both Service and Infrastructure\nRoadmaps laying out the operational and investment path. It has a system engineering process\nthat takes concept and operations requirements into system requirements and investments. I2I is\na response to lessons learned and strengthens the enterprise traceability, cross organizational\ncommitment and integration of investments required to better manage the long term delivery of\nthese programs.\n\nI2I mitigates risks associated with segmentation. Treating each segment in isolation can lead to\nmismatches at integration. I2I provides the unifying process to assure an increment delivery is\ndirectly related to a capability delivery.\n\nRecommendation 1: Develop and set milestones for when the Agency will baseline each\nsegment of the transformational programs through their end-state and identify what capabilities\nand benefits will be delivered for each segment.\n\nFAA Response: Concur in part. The FAA has developed planning milestones for the\ntransformational programs\xe2\x80\x99 baseline decisions in the EA. An EA establishes a most likely path\nfor implementation. Since it extends beyond a decade, levels of planning are commensurate with\nthe maturity of the investment. The EA outlines the evolution of the NAS, including the\ntransformational programs. For near-term investments, the detail provided in the EA is of higher\nfidelity, since it reflects the baseline decision made at the final investment. Beyond the ten-year\nhorizon, the plan provides an affordable estimate for these outyears, along with projected\nmilestones, schedules and costs, based upon engineering judgment for the long-term investments.\n\nIn between the baselined investments and the long term plans are the operational capabilities that\nhave completed service analysis and are entering the formal investment process. These\ninvestments address validated shortfalls but the schedules are subject to both dependencies on\nthe current and future schedule of legacy programs, as well as affordability. More refined cost\nestimates derived through the investment process or changes in budget guidance may require\nchanges to the planning milestones. Technical dependencies and the schedules of systems for\nwhich integration is required may also change the enterprise level schedule. The NextGen\nSegment Implementation Plan (NSIP) aligns NextGen improvements, increments, and\ncapabilities to programs, and where appropriate, an allocation is made to program baselines such\nas work packages and their anticipated schedule of implementation.\n\nThe NAS EA is both a planning and investment document. It supports annual budget\ndevelopment and is part of the agency\xe2\x80\x99s Acquisition Management System. It is subject to annual\nreviews, updates and approval by the Joint Resource Council, and is usually published by\nFebruary each year. The annual review and update coincides with the budget cycle with final\nadjustments and approval coinciding with the annual budget submission. The EA\xe2\x80\x99s five-year\nplan for the FAA\xe2\x80\x99s capital investment is also reflected in the Capital Investment Plan, which is\ndelivered annually to Congress as part of that submission. Baselined programs are also subject\n\nAppendix B. Agency Comment s\n\x0c 28\n\nto additional review and reporting as part of the AMS and the programs status as well as\ninterdependencies reflected in the annual EA update.\n\nFinally, with respect to the end-state, this recommendation presupposes that the transformational\nprograms are "end-state" programs. In fact, they are interrelated building blocks upon which the\nFAA will continue to grow, in order to meet the changing demands of all aviation users, as well\nas allow for evolving technology. For example, ADS-B is being purchased as a service, instead\nof the FAA purchasing and installing the infrastructure itself, in large part because technology is\nquickly evolving. Through a service-based contracting approach, ADS-B capabilities can more\nrapidly evolve to meet future service needs of the users of the air traffic control system.\n\nRecommendation 2: Define and finalize the transformational programs\xe2\x80\x99 NextGen\nrequirements.\n\nFAA Response: Concur. The FAA understands the need to define and finalize the\ntransformational programs\xe2\x80\x99 NextGen requirements. In the NextGen concept of operations, the\nFAA has defined what our long-term goals are for each of the transformational programs. The\nspecific products needed to meet these goals are developed in a segmented approach. This\nsegmented approach provides a framework to develop practical and workable system\nrequirements for each phase of the transformational program, adjust for budgetary realities, and\nultimately make wise investments. With each segment, the FAA moves incrementally forward\nin providing expanded capabilities and performance, for the aircraft, the operator, and the\ncontroller.\n\nEach segment starts with detailed operational requirements (the "what is it that we need to\nimprove or sustain service?") that are developed into well-defined system requirements (the\n"what do we need to purchase as infrastructure to achieve that service?"). Once the FAA has\ndeveloped those system requirements, the agency can move forward with a baseline investment\ndecision. As the agency moves to final investment and implementing one segment, the detailed\nservice analysis on the next segment is being performed to assure decisions in each segment are\naligned. This segmented approach does not change the concepts and goals that were originally\ndetermined, but it does permit flexibility in the face of technological and budgetary realities.\nRather than leading to requirements creep, it supports requirements reality by enabling more\ninformed decisions.\n\nThis approach allows the FAA to define the overall approach and benefits for the\ntransformational program, leaving the more detailed system engineering to the finalized\nallocation and system requirements that are part of the investment process. This is important\nbecause these transformational programs require not only a near term investment into their core\nfunctionality as a new system, but also rely heavily on investing in our existing automation\ninfrastructure and the other transformational programs. For example, both the ADS-B and\nDataComm program investments in operational capabilities include modifications and\nenhancements to En Route Automation Modernization and Terminal Automation\nModernization/Replacement.\n\nThis segmented approach is in keeping with the lessons the FAA learned in trying to field a\nturnkey system to replace the existing NAS in the early 1990s, and is also in keeping with\nGovernment-wide experience with large, complex investment acquisitions stretching out over\n\nAppendix B. Agency Comment s\n\x0c 29\n\nlong horizons. The agency believes this segmented approach is prudent to achieve both near\nterm successes and reduce risk over the long term.\n\nNSIP 5.0, which includes the Bravo segment of 2015-2020, will be completed and approved\nsecond quarter of FY13 concurrent with the FY14 budget submission. NSIP Bravo contains\noperational objectives and system allocations through 2020. This includes the next segments of\nthe transformational programs as well as the allocations to future release of our foundational\nautomation systems such as ERAM, Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS), and Time-\nBased Flow Management System (TBFM). These allocations provide the basis for moving these\nnext segments through investment analysis to implementation.\n\nRecommendation 3: Synchronize program requirements between the Transformational\nProgram Offices and NextGen Integration and Implementation Program Office to ensure Agency\nNextGen goals are aligned with the transformational programs\' plans and to avoid schedule\ndelays.\n\nFAA Response: Concur. The FAA recognizes the value in strengthening program\nsynchronization and alignment, and has already taken steps in that direction. The FAA\xe2\x80\x99s\nFoundation for Success project identified key areas for improvement surrounding governance,\nprocess, capabilities, and culture, and effected organizational changes to improve the strategic\ndirection of NextGen and improve program management in the Air Traffic Organization.\n\nAs part of this effort, the FAA is instituting a new, evolving, Idea to In-Service (I2I) process to\ncompliment FAA\xe2\x80\x99s existing Acquisition Management System. The philosophy underlying the\ndevelopment of this new process is to provide the necessary structure and governance to address\nchanges to NAS policy, procedures, programs and systems in a more coordinated manner.\n\nIn addition, the FAA established the NextGen Segment Implementation Plan (NSIP) to ensure\nthat all programs and capabilities are implemented in a coordinated manner, and that\ninterdependencies amongst systems and capabilities are recognized. Segment Alpha, which\ncovers the years 2011-2015, has been published and a planned Segment Bravo, which will cover\nthe years 2016-2018, is being completed. The NSIP identifies all of the planned system and\nprocedural changes scheduled for the next five years; identifies their interdependencies; and\ntracks their implementation. This planning effort, together with the development of an\nIntegrated Master Schedule (IMS), will also strengthen program synchronization and alignment.\n\nRecommendation 4: Establish an integrated, master schedule framework, policy and standard\noperating procedures that include the segment Implementation Plan and the transformational\nprograms and a timeline for maturing this capability.\n\nFAA Response: Concur. In December 2011, the FAA\xe2\x80\x99s NextGen Management Board approved\nversion 4.0 of the NextGen Segment Implementation Plan (NSIP) \xe2\x80\x93 Segment Alpha. The NSIP\nis the integrated program plan for implementation of the segment which includes NextGen\nactivities through 2015. Currently, work is underway on Segment Bravo which will extend the\nNSIP through 2018 and will include all NextGen Operational Improvements, increments, and\nintegrated schedule information for NextGen implementation. The initial draft of NSIP Bravo\n(version 5.0) is expected to be completed by December 31, 2012.\n\n\nAppendix B. Agency Comment s\n\x0c 30\n\nThe NextGen IMS is a tool designed to capture and track progress of schedule activities for the\ntwelve NSIP Portfolios. The NSIP Portfolios include:\n\n - Collaborative Air Traffic Mgmt. - On-Demand NAS Information\n - Improved Surface Operations - Separation Management\n - Time-Based Flow Management - Common Services\n - Improved Multiple Runway Ops - Environment and Energy\n - Imp Approaches and Low-Vis Ops - System Safety Management\n - Performance Based Operations - Policy\n\nAdditionally the IMS captures Pre-Implementation (solution set) activities which provide\ninformation on the progress of development work planned for Segment Bravo and beyond. This\nyear, the IMS will be expanded to show dependencies in Segment Alpha between Operational\nImprovement increments and programs, and following completion of Segment Bravo, the IMS\nwill be expanded to show dependencies through 2018.\n\nThe NAS Lifecycle Integration Office conducts quarterly Portfolio Management Reviews with\nPortfolio Team members to review progress and update the IMS. Additionally, Investment\nPortfolio Leaders work closely with NSIP Increment owners and program leads to update the\nIMS. NSIP progress is presented to the NextGen Management Board with reports provided in\nFebruary, April, June and August of each Fiscal Year. The NSIP and IMS serve as the primary\nEnterprise Management tools to manage the integration and sequencing of NextGen initiatives.\n\n\n\n\nAppendix B. Agency Comment s\n\x0c'


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 19.11.2013
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 309/50
 DECYZJA NR 5/2013 KOMITETU AMBASADORÓW AKP-UE
 z dnia 7 listopada 2013 r.
 w sprawie statutu Centrum Technicznego ds. Współpracy w dziedzinie Rolnictwa i Obszarów Wiejskich
 (2013/667/UE)
 KOMITET AMBASADORÓW AKP-UE,
 uwzględniając Umowę o partnerstwie między członkami grupy państw Afryki, Karaibów i Pacyfiku, z jednej strony, a Wspólnotą Europejską i jej państwami członkowskimi, z drugiej strony, podpisaną w Kotonu dnia 23 czerwca 2000 r. (1), zmienioną po raz pierwszy w Luksemburgu dnia 25 czerwca 2005 r. (2) i zmienioną po raz drugi w Wagadugu dnia 22 czerwca 2010 r. (3) (zwaną dalej „umową AKP-UE”), w szczególności art. 3 ust. 5 i art. 3 ust. 6 załącznika III do tej umowy,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 W ramach drugiego przeglądu umowy AKP-UE zmieniono załącznik III do tej umowy w celu weryfikacji zadań powierzonych Centrum Technicznemu ds. Współpracy w dziedzinie Rolnictwa i Obszarów Wiejskich, a także w celu wyjaśnienia i wzmocnienia systemu zarządzania tym organem, w szczególności w zakresie nadzoru sprawowanego przez Komitet Ambasadorów oraz obowiązków zarządu.
 (2)
 Decyzja nr 2/2010 Rady Ministrów AKP-UE z dnia 21 czerwca 2010 r. (4) przewiduje tymczasowe stosowanie drugiej zmiany umowy AKP-UE, począwszy od dnia 31 października 2010 r.
 (3)
 Należy zatem wprowadzić odpowiednie zmiany w statucie Centrum Technicznego ds. Współpracy w dziedzinie Rolnictwa i Obszarów Wiejskich (zwanego dalej „Centrum”).
 (4)
 Zgodnie z art. 3 ust. 5 załącznika III do umowy AKP-UE Komitet Ambasadorów określa statut Centrum. Komitet Ambasadorów powinien zatem przyjąć decyzję w tym celu,
 STANOWI, CO NASTĘPUJE:
 Artykuł
 Niniejszym przyjmuje się statut Centrum Technicznego ds. Współpracy w dziedzinie Rolnictwa i Obszarów Wiejskich załączony do niniejszej decyzji.
 Unia Europejska oraz państwa AKP są zobowiązane, każde z nich w zakresie, który go dotyczy, do podjęcia działań niezbędnych do wykonania niniejszej decyzji.
 Niniejsza decyzja wchodzi w życie z dniem jej przyjęcia.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 7 listopada 2013 r.
 W imieniu Komitetu Ambasadorów AKP-UE
 R. KAROBLIS
 Przewodniczący
 (1) Dz.U. L 317 z 15.12.2000, s. 3.
 (2) Umowa zmieniająca Umowę o partnerstwie między członkami grupy państw Afryki, Karaibów i Pacyfiku, z jednej strony, a Wspólnotą Europejską i jej państwami członkowskimi, z drugiej strony, podpisaną w Kotonu dnia 23 czerwca 2000 r. (Dz.U. L 209 z 11.8.2005, s. 27).
 (3) Umowa zmieniająca po raz drugi Umowę o partnerstwie między członkami grupy państw Afryki, Karaibów i Pacyfiku, z jednej strony, a Wspólnotą Europejską i jej państwami członkowskimi, z drugiej strony, podpisaną w Kotonu dnia 23 czerwca 2000 r., zmienioną po raz pierwszy w Luksemburgu dnia 25 czerwca 2005 r. (Dz.U. L 287 z 4.11.2010, s. 3).
 (4) Decyzja nr 2/2010 Rady Ministrów AKP-UE z dnia 21 czerwca 2010 r. w sprawie środków przejściowych mających zastosowanie od dnia podpisania do dnia wejścia w życie Umowy zmieniającej po raz drugi Umowę o partnerstwie między członkami grupy państw Afryki, Karaibów i Pacyfiku, z jednej strony, a Wspólnotą Europejską i jej państwami członkowskimi, z drugiej strony, podpisaną w Kotonu dnia 23 czerwca 2000 r., zmienioną po raz pierwszy w Luksemburgu dnia 25 czerwca 2005 r. (Dz.U. L 287 z 4.11.2010, s. 68).
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 STATUT CENTRUM TECHNICZNEGO DS. WSPÓŁPRACY W DZIEDZINIE ROLNICTWA I OBSZARÓW WIEJSKICH
 Artykuł 1
 Przedmiot
 1. Centrum Techniczne ds. Współpracy w dziedzinie Rolnictwa i Obszarów Wiejskich (zwane dalej „Centrum”), w rozumieniu załącznika III do Umowy o partnerstwie między członkami grupy państw Afryki, Karaibów i Pacyfiku, z jednej strony, a Wspólnotą Europejską i jej państwami członkowskimi, z drugiej strony (1), zmienionej po raz pierwszy w Luksemburgu dnia 25 czerwca 2005 r. (2) i zmienionej po raz drugi w Wagadugu dnia 22 czerwca 2010 r. (3) (zwanej dalej „umową AKP-UE”), jest organem technicznym wspólnym dla państw AKP i UE. Centrum posiada osobowość prawną i we wszystkich państwach będących stronami umowy AKP-UE posiada zdolność prawną i zdolność do czynności prawnych o najszerszym zakresie przyznanym przez ustawodawstwa krajowe tego rodzaju osobom prawnym.
 2. Pracownicy Centrum korzystają z przywilejów, immunitetów i udogodnień przewidzianych w art. 1 akapit drugi Protokołu 2 w sprawie przywilejów i immunitetów do umowy AKP-UE oraz tych, o których mowa w deklaracjach VI i VII załączonych do umowy AKP-UE.
 3. Centrum jest podmiotem nienastawionym na zysk.
 4. Siedziba Centrum znajduje się tymczasowo w Wageningen w Niderlandach, z oddziałem lokalnym w Brukseli.
 Artykuł 2
 Zasady i cele
 1. Centrum działa zgodnie z postanowieniami i celami umowy AKP-UE. Realizuje cele określone w art. 3 załącznika III do umowy AKP-UE pod nadzorem Komitetu Ambasadorów.
 2. Centrum szczegółowo określa swoje cele w ogólnym dokumencie strategicznym.
 3. Centrum wykonuje swoją działalność w ścisłej współpracy z instytucjami i innymi organami, o których mowa w umowie AKP-UE oraz w załączonych do niej deklaracjach. Centrum może w razie potrzeby odwoływać się do instytucji regionalnych i międzynarodowych, w szczególności do tych, które znajdują się w Unii Europejskiej lub państwach AKP i które zajmują się sprawami związanymi z rozwojem rolnictwa i obszarów wiejskich.
 Artykuł 3
 Finansowanie
 1. Budżet Centrum jest finansowany zgodnie z zasadami ustanowionymi w umowie AKP-UE w odniesieniu do współpracy finansowej na rzecz rozwoju.
 2. Budżet Centrum może obejmować dodatkowe środki pochodzące od innych stron, służące osiągnięciu celów określonych w umowie AKP-UE i realizacji dokumentu strategicznego opracowanego przez Centrum.
 Artykuł 4
 Komitet Ambasadorów
 1. Zgodnie z art. 3 ust. 5 załącznika III do umowy AKP-UE Komitet Ambasadorów jest organem nadzorczym Centrum. Powołuje on członków zarządu oraz, na wniosek zarządu, dyrektora Centrum. Komitet Ambasadorów monitoruje ogólną strategię Centrum i nadzoruje prace zarządu.
 2. Komitet Ambasadorów udziela dyrektorowi absolutorium z wykonania budżetu. W celu udzielenia absolutorium Komitet Ambasadorów otrzymuje zalecenie od zarządu, wydane na podstawie analizy rocznego sprawozdania finansowego oraz opinii audytora, wraz z odpowiedziami udzielonymi przez dyrektora.
 3. Komitet Ambasadorów może w dowolnym momencie dokonać przeglądu i zmienić decyzje podjęte przez Centrum. Komitet Ambasadorów otrzymuje regularne informacje od zarządu oraz – na swój wniosek – również od dyrektora Centrum.
 Artykuł 5
 Zarząd
 1. Zarząd powoływany jest w celu wspierania, monitorowania i kontroli technicznych, administracyjnych i finansowych aspektów wszystkich działań Centrum.
 2. W skład zarządu wchodzi sześciu członków wybranych na zasadzie parytetu: troje obywateli krajów AKP oraz troje obywateli Unii Europejskiej, którzy są wybierani przez strony umowy AKP-UE i powoływani przez Komitet Ambasadorów na podstawie swoich kwalifikacji zawodowych w dziedzinie rolnictwa i rozwoju obszarów wiejskich lub polityki informacyjnej i komunikacyjnej, nauki, zarządzania i technologii.
 3. W celu zapewnienia ciągłości operacyjnej zarządu Komitet Ambasadorów stara się nie zastępować wszystkich członków zarządu w tym samym roku kalendarzowym.
 4. Członkowie zarządu powoływani są na okres do pięciu lat przez Komitet Ambasadorów zgodnie z procedurami ustalonymi przez Komitet i podlegają oni śródokresowemu przeglądowi.
 5. Zarząd zbiera się na posiedzeniach zwyczajnych trzy razy w roku. Zarząd może również zwoływać posiedzenia nadzwyczajne każdorazowo, gdy wymagają tego wykonywane zadania, na wniosek Komitetu Ambasadorów, na wniosek przewodniczącego zarządu lub na wniosek dyrektora. Centrum pełni rolę sekretariatu zarządu.
 6. Członkowie zarządu wykonują swoje zadania w sposób niezależny, nie mogą zwracać się o instrukcje do osób trzecich ani ich od nich przyjmować, a także działają wyłącznie w interesie Centrum. Stanowiska członka zarządu nie można łączyć z jakąkolwiek inną działalnością wynagradzaną przez Centrum.
 7. Członkowie zarządu wybierają spośród siebie przewodniczącego i wiceprzewodniczącego na okres nieprzekraczający pięciu lat, zgodnie z przepisami określonymi w regulaminie. Stanowisko przewodniczącego obejmuje obywatel strony (AKP lub UE) innej niż ta, której obywatel pełni funkcję dyrektora Centrum. Stanowisko wiceprzewodniczącego obejmuje obywatel strony innej niż ta, której obywatel pełni funkcję przewodniczącego.
 8. W posiedzeniach zarządu uczestniczą obserwatorzy z Komisji Europejskiej, Sekretariatu Generalnego Rady Unii Europejskiej oraz Sekretariatu państw AKP.
 9. Zarząd może zwrócić się do innych członków kierownictwa i personelu Centrum lub do ekspertów zewnętrznych o poradę w określonych sprawach.
 10. Zarząd podejmuje decyzje zwykłą większością głosów członków obecnych lub reprezentowanych, zgodnie z regulaminem. Każdemu członkowi zarządu przysługuje jeden głos. W przypadku nierozstrzygniętego głosowania decydujący głos ma przewodniczący.
 11. Z każdego posiedzenia sporządzany jest protokół. Obrady zarządu są poufne.
 12. Zarząd przyjmuje swój regulamin i przekazuje go do wiadomości Komitetu Ambasadorów.
 Artykuł 6
 Zadania zarządu
 1. Zarząd ściśle monitoruje i nadzoruje działalność Centrum. Zarząd odpowiada przed Komitetem Ambasadorów.
 2. Zarząd:
 a)
 określa projekt regulaminu finansowego zgodnie z zasadami Europejskiego Funduszu Rozwoju (EFR) i niniejszym statutem oraz przedkłada go Komitetowi Ambasadorów do zatwierdzenia;
 b)
 określa i zatwierdza regulamin pracowniczy i zasady funkcjonowania Centrum zgodnie z zasadami EFR i niniejszym statutem oraz przekazuje je do wiadomości Komitetu Ambasadorów;
 c)
 nadzoruje działalność Centrum i zapewnia właściwą realizację misji powierzonej Centrum i właściwe wdrażanie zasad;
 d)
 przyjmuje roczne i wieloletnie programy prac oraz budżet Centrum i przekazuje je do wiadomości Komitetu Ambasadorów;
 e)
 przekazuje do wiadomości Komitetu Ambasadorów okresowe sprawozdania i oceny działań Centrum;
 f)
 przyjmuje ogólny dokument strategiczny Centrum i przekazuje go do wiadomości Komitetu Ambasadorów;
 g)
 zatwierdza strukturę organizacyjną, politykę kadrową i schemat organizacyjny Centrum;
 h)
 corocznie ocenia pracę i plan pracy dyrektora oraz przekazuje sprawozdanie na ten temat Komitetowi Ambasadorów;
 i)
 zatwierdza nabór nowych członków personelu oraz odnawianie, przedłużanie lub rozwiązywanie umów z dotychczasowymi członkami personelu;
 j)
 zatwierdza roczne sprawozdanie finansowe sporządzone na podstawie analizy audytu;
 k)
 przekazuje roczne sprawozdania finansowe i sprawozdanie z audytu, wraz z zaleceniem, do wiadomości Komitetu Ambasadorów, z myślą o udzieleniu dyrektorowi absolutorium w odniesieniu do wykonania budżetu;
 l)
 zatwierdza roczne sprawozdania i przekazuje je Komitetowi Ambasadorów, aby mógł zweryfikować, czy działania Centrum są zgodne z celami określonymi w umowie AKP-UE oraz z ogólnym dokumentem strategicznym Centrum;
 m)
 zgłasza Komitetowi Ambasadorów kandydatury osób na stanowisko dyrektora Centrum;
 n)
 w razie konieczności proponuje, w należycie uzasadnionym wniosku, po wyczerpaniu wszystkich środków pojednawczych i zaradczych oraz z poszanowaniem prawa do bycia wysłuchanym, aby Komitet Ambasadorów odwołał dyrektora;
 o)
 proponuje Komitetowi Ambasadorów przedłużenie sprawowania urzędu przez dyrektora na drugą i ostatnią kadencję na podstawie dokładnej analizy jego pracy w pierwszej kadencji;
 p)
 przedstawia Komitetowi Ambasadorów sprawozdanie na temat wszelkich istotnych kwestii pojawiających się podczas wykonywania zadań; oraz
 q)
 przedstawia Komitetowi Ambasadorów sprawozdania dotyczące środków podjętych w świetle uwag i zaleceń Komitetu Ambasadorów, towarzyszących jego decyzji w sprawie udzielenia absolutorium.
 3. Zarząd wybiera w drodze konkurencyjnej procedury przetargowej, w której złożono przynajmniej trzy oferty, firmę audytorską na okres trzech lat. Firma taka musi być członkiem organu nadzoru o międzynarodowej renomie. Wybrani audytorzy sprawdzają, czy roczne sprawozdania finansowe zostały sporządzone prawidłowo i zgodnie z międzynarodowymi standardami rachunkowości oraz przedstawiają prawdziwy i wierny obraz sytuacji finansowej Centrum. Audytorzy przekazują również uwagi dotyczące należytego zarządzania finansami Centrum.
 4. Zarząd zaleca Komitetowi Ambasadorów udzielenie dyrektorowi absolutorium budżetowego w odniesieniu do wykonania budżetu po dokonaniu audytu rocznego sprawozdania finansowego Centrum.
 Artykuł 7
 Dyrektor
 1. Centrum kieruje dyrektor powołany przez Komitet Ambasadorów na wniosek zarządu na okres nieprzekraczający pięciu lat. Akt powołania dyrektora podpisują współprzewodniczący Komitetu Ambasadorów. W następstwie zalecenia zarządu i na podstawie wyjątkowych osiagnięć Komitet Ambasadorów może w wyjątkowych okolicznościach powtórnie powołać dyrektora na maksymalny okres pięciu lat. Nie jest możliwe przedłużenie poza ten okres. Zatwierdzenie drugiej i ostatniej kadencji dokonuje się na podstawie wnikliwej oceny przeprowadzonej w oparciu o wymierne kryteria dotyczące pracy, przedłożonej przez zarząd Komitetowi Ambasadorów.
 2. Dyrektor odpowiada za reprezentację prawną i instytucjonalną Centrum oraz wykonanie uprawnień i zadań Centrum.
 3. Dyrektor jest odpowiedzialny za przedłożenie zarządowi do zatwierdzenia:
 a)
 ogólnego dokumentu strategicznego Centrum;
 b)
 rocznych i wieloletnich programów działania/programów prac;
 c)
 rocznego budżetu Centrum;
 d)
 sprawozdań rocznych, sprawozdań okresowych i ocen;
 e)
 struktury organizacyjnej, polityki kadrowej oraz schematu organizacyjnego Centrum; oraz
 f)
 informacji o naborze nowych członków personelu oraz odnawianiu, przedłużaniu lub rozwiązywaniu umów z dotychczasowymi członkami personelu.
 4. Dyrektor jest odpowiedzialny za organizację i bieżące zarządzanie Centrum. Dyrektor informuje zarząd o wszelkich środkach wykonawczych do zasad funkcjonowania Centrum.
 5. Dyrektor informuje zarząd o wszelkich istotnych kwestiach pojawiających się podczas wykonywania jego zadań oraz, w razie konieczności, informuje o tym Komitet Ambasadorów.
 6. Dyrektor przedstawia roczny plan zarządzania pracą i sprawozdanie z osiągnięć do oceny zarządowi, który następnie przekazuje je Komitetowi Ambasadorów.
 7. Dyrektor jest odpowiedzialny za przedkładanie zarządowi rocznego sprawozdania finansowego do zatwierdzenia oraz przekazanie go Komitetowi Ambasadorów.
 8. Dyrektor podejmuje wszystkie odpowiednie działania w celu wdrożenia uwag i zaleceń Komitetu Ambasadorów, towarzyszących decyzji w sprawie udzielenia absolutorium w odniesieniu do wykonania budżetu.
 (1) Dz.U. L 317 z 15.12.2000, s. 3.
 (2) Umowa zmieniająca Umowę o partnerstwie między członkami grupy państw Afryki, Karaibów i Pacyfiku, z jednej strony, a Wspólnotą Europejską i jej państwami członkowskimi, z drugiej strony, podpisaną w Kotonu dnia 23 czerwca 2000 r. (Dz.U. L 209 z 11.8.2005, s. 27).
 (3) Umowa zmieniająca po raz drugi Umowę o partnerstwie między członkami grupy państw Afryki, Karaibów i Pacyfiku, z jednej strony, a Wspólnotą Europejską i jej państwami członkowskimi, z drugiej strony, podpisaną w Kotonu dnia 23 czerwca 2000 r., zmienioną po raz pierwszy w Luksemburgu dnia 25 czerwca 2005 r. (Dz.U. L 287 z 4.11.2010, s. 3).


text:
 31.10.2013
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 291/59
 DECYZJA WSPÓLNEGO KOMITETU EOG
 NR 93/2013
 z dnia 3 maja 2013 r.
 zmieniająca załącznik XIII (Transport) do Porozumienia EOG
 WSPÓLNY KOMITET EOG,
 uwzględniając Porozumienie o Europejskim Obszarze Gospodarczym (zwane dalej „Porozumieniem EOG”), w szczególności jego art. 98,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 W Porozumieniu EOG należy uwzględnić rozporządzenie wykonawcze Komisji (UE) nr 1206/2011 z dnia 22 listopada 2011 r. ustanawiające wymogi dotyczące identyfikacji statków powietrznych do celów dozorowania w jednolitej europejskiej przestrzeni powietrznej (1).
 (2)
 Należy zatem odpowiednio zmienić załącznik XIII do Porozumienia EOG,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZĄ DECYZJĘ:
 Artykuł 1
 Po pkt 66wi (rozporządzenie Komisji (UE) nr 255/2010) w załączniku XIII do Porozumienia EOG dodaje się punkt w brzmieniu:
 „66wj.
 32011 R 1206: rozporządzenie wykonawcze Komisji (UE) nr 1206/2011 z dnia 22 listopada 2011 r. ustanawiające wymogi dotyczące identyfikacji statków powietrznych do celów dozorowania w jednolitej europejskiej przestrzeni powietrznej (Dz.U. L 305 z 23.11.2011, s. 23).”.
 Artykuł 2
 Teksty rozporządzenia wykonawczego (UE) nr 1206/2011 w języku islandzkim i norweskim, które zostaną opublikowane w Suplemencie EOG do Dziennika Urzędowego Unii Europejskiej, są autentyczne.
 Artykuł 3
 Niniejsza decyzja wchodzi w życie z dniem 4 maja 2013 r., pod warunkiem że Wspólny Komitet EOG otrzyma wszystkie notyfikacje przewidziane w art. 103 ust. 1 Porozumienia EOG (2), lub w dniu wejścia w życie decyzji Wspólnego Komitetu EOG nr .../... z dnia ... (3) [włączającej do Porozumienia rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1070/2009], w zależności od tego, co nastąpi później.
 Artykuł 4
 Niniejsza decyzja zostaje opublikowana w sekcji EOG oraz w Suplemencie EOG do Dziennika Urzędowego Unii Europejskiej.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 3 maja 2013 r.
 W imieniu Wspólnego Komitetu EOG
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 Przewodniczący
 (1) Dz.U. L 305 z 23.11.2011, s. 23.
 (2) Nie wskazano wymogów konstytucyjnych.
 (3) Dotychczas nieopublikowana w Dzienniku Urzędowym.