Developing Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures, often called performance-based navigation procedures, with significant benefits is one way to leverage existing technology in the near term and provide immediate benefits to industry, but developing these procedures expeditiously will be a challenge for FAA. According to the Task Force, developing RNAV and RNP procedures could be a key part of relieving current congestion and delays at major metropolitan airports. Benefits of RNAV and RNP can also include reduced fuel usage, reduced carbon emissions, reduced noise, shorter flights, fewer delays, less congestion, and improved safety. For example, Southwest Airlines demonstration flights show that RNP can reduce fuel burn and carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 6 percent per flight. In 2008, Alaska Airlines estimated that it used RNP procedures 12,308 times and saved 1.5 million gallons of fuel, thereby reducing carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 17,000 metric tons and operating costs by $17 million. Even greater benefits can be realized when the procedures are part of a comprehensive airspace redesign that includes more efficient flight paths, and are not simply overlays of historical aircraft flight paths. Deriving benefits from RNAV and RNP technology depends less on equipping aircraft with the technology required to fly these procedures, than on developing procedures with significant benefits in a timely manner. MITRE Corporation, which collects and retains data on equipage levels for the existing fleet, estimates that for aircraft in commercial operations in 2009, equipage rates are more than 90 percent for RNAV, more than 60 percent for RNP, and more than 40 percent for RNP equipment that allows for higher levels of precision. These figures indicate that the equipment necessary to take advantage of RNAV and RNP technology is already substantially deployed. However, comparatively few procedures have been developed for airlines to use the equipment. Since 2004 FAA has published 305 RNAV procedures, 206 RNAV routes, and 192 RNP approaches, but much remains to be done (see table 1). FAA believes that it can annually develop about 50 RNAV and RNP procedures, 50 RNAV routes, and 50 RNP approaches. At this pace of development, a simple calculation suggests that it would require decades to complete the thousands of procedures currently targeted for development. The Task Force report suggests that FAA and industry create joint teams to focus on performance-based navigations issues at certain locations and to prioritize procedures for development at these locations. Such an effort would likely lead to changes in FAA’s current development targets. Nonetheless, accelerating the development of procedures would require a shift in FAA’s resources, or additional human resources and expertise. In addition to FAA, numerous companies have expertise and experience to develop procedures and are doing this work for air navigation service providers around the world. FAA recognizes the potential benefits of involving these private companies and has taken steps to use them more. FAA recently authorized one such company, Naverus, which has a long history of expertise in procedure development, to validate public and private flight procedures that the company has developed for the U.S. market. This authorization will allow the company to validate performance-based navigation flight procedures from beginning to end. While private sector development may be one way to accelerate procedure development, issues related to FAA’s capacity to approve these procedures remain, according to some stakeholders. In addition, questions such as who can use the procedures and how oversight of third-party developers is to be provided must also be resolved. While FAA tracks the number of navigation procedures completed, stakeholders have told us that developing procedures with significant benefits is more important than developing a specific number of procedures. For example, according to Southwest Airlines, FAA has developed 69 RNP procedures for the routes it flies, 6 which they view as useful to the airline because of the resulting reduction in flight miles or emissions. Some stakeholders have suggested that FAA use other metrics that better capture benefits to industry from advanced procedures, such as fuel savings, time savings, or mileage savings, which could lead to more of a focus on the development of procedures that maximize these benefits. The Task Force report identified the establishment of performance metrics as an important part of following up on and tracking the implementation its recommendations, and we have ongoing work for this committee reviewing FAA’s performance metrics related to this and other aspects of NextGen development. As FAA develops new procedures to make more efficient use of airspace in congested metropolitan areas, it will be challenged to complete the necessary environmental reviews quickly and address local concerns about the development of new procedures and airspace redesign. Anytime an airspace redesign or a new procedure changes the noise footprint around an airport, an environmental review is initiated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under NEPA, varying levels of environmental review must be completed depending on the extent to which FAA deems its actions to have a significant environmental impact. There are three possible levels: 1. Categorical exclusion determination. Under a categorical exclusion, an undertaking may be excluded from a detailed environmental review if it meets certain criteria and a federal agency has previously determined that the undertaking will have no significant environmental impact. 2. Environmental assessment/finding of no significant impact (EA/FONSI). A federal agency prepares a written environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether or not a federal undertaking would significantly affect the environment. If the answer is no, the agency issues a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). 3. Environmental impact statement (EIS). If the agency determines while preparing the EA that the environmental consequences of a proposed federal undertaking may be significant, an EIS is prepared. An EIS is a more detailed evaluation of the proposed action and alternatives. The more extensive the analysis required, the longer the process can take. A full EIS can take several years to complete. EAs and categorical exclusions, by contrast, take less time and resources to complete. Because NEPA does not allow consideration of the net impact of an action such as the introduction of new procedures or broader airspace redesign—which may increase noise in some areas but increase capacity at an airport and reduce noise and emissions overall—these actions can often result in extensive and time-consuming reviews. FAA is exploring situations in which it might be more appropriate to use a categorical exclusion or an EA instead of an EIS. The 2009 FAA reauthorization legislation includes language that may expedite the environmental review process. For example, the legislative proposal would allow airport operators to use grant funds for environmental reviews of proposals to implement flight procedures. The proposal would also allow project sponsors to provide FAA with funds to hire additional staff as necessary to expedite completion of the environmental review necessary to implement flight procedures. According to stakeholders and Task Force members, and as we have previously reported, FAA faces organizational and cultural challenges in implementing NextGen operational capabilities. FAA has traditionally developed and acquired new systems through its acquisition process. However, most NextGen technologies and capabilities, such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), rely on components in the aircraft, on the ground, and in space for their use. They also require controllers and pilots to be trained and flight procedures to be developed in order to maximize their benefits. Different offices within FAA— including its Aircraft Certification Service, Flight Standards Service, and Air Traffic Organization (ATO), among others—are responsible for ensuring the completion of all the activities required to maximize the use of a technology or capability. While FAA has recently made organizational changes to address integration issues, several stakeholders told us, and our previous and ongoing work suggests, that FAA’s structure and culture continues to hamper its ability to ensure that all the actions necessary to maximize use of a technology or capability in the national airspace system are completed efficiently. For example, stakeholders identified coordination and integration as particular challenges to implementing operational capabilities in the surface operations area identified by the Task Force. Implementing capabilities in this area will require greater coordination among offices within ATO, airport operators, pilots, and controllers, among others. While many of the operational improvements identified by the Task Force align with FAA’s current plans, a senior FAA official indicated that in several instances, FAA may need to adjust its plans, budgets, and priorities as it decides how it will respond to the Task Force’s recommendations. According to this senior FAA official, potential budgetary changes are already being identified, and a comprehensive analysis of what additional changes to existing plans would be necessary to respond to the recommendations is underway. Until this analysis is completed, it is difficult to know exactly what changes FAA would need to make to implement the Task Force’s recommendations. In some cases, the Task Force’s recommendations, if accepted and fully implemented, will require altering the course of initiatives that are already underway or programs that are being implemented. For example, a recommendation to expand surveillance of airspace around certain general aviation airports may require an increase in the scope of the current ADS-B program, which does not cover those areas. In addition, recommendations to expand information sharing to improve surface situational awareness and traffic management could affect the current plans for FAA programs such as System-Wide Information Management (SWIM), according to one stakeholder. Responding to the Task Force’s recommendations will require a willingness to change and reprioritize current plans and programs. Inefficiencies in FAA’s certification, operational approval, and procedure design processes constitute another challenge to delivering near-term benefits to stakeholders, instilling confidence in FAA plans, and investing in new equipment. Our prior work has identified this issue and concluded that the time required to complete such activities will have to be balanced against the need to ensure reliability and safety of procedures and systems before they are used in the national airspace system. Stakeholders, including airlines and general aviation groups, including one that represents avionics manufacturers, as well as the Task Force, have said that these processes take too long and impose costs on industry that discourage the stakeholders from investing in NextGen aircraft equipment.