SUA Process Overview FAA JO

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Emergency COA Process Presented to: UAS All Users TELCON
Advertisements

Ron Bass, J.D., AICP, Senior Regulatory Specialist Jones & Stokes Common NEPA Mistakes and How to Avoid Them January 17, 2008 Oregon Department of Transportation.
Presented to: By: Date: Federal Aviation Administration Approval Process Overview Cranes or Other Objects United Parcel Service Mike Manis, Support Specialist,
SAFETEA-LU Efficient Environmental Review Process (Section 6002) Kelly Dunlap.
Introduction to EIS/EA Managing the Environmental & Project Development Process Presented by the Ohio Dept. of Transportation.
Summary of NEPA and SEPA Coastal Engineering and Land Use Issues in North Carolina Greenville, NC January 13, 2009 Sean M. Sullivan.
Agency Drafts Statement of Scope Governor Approves (2) No Agency Drafts: Special Report for rules impacting housing Fiscal Estimate.
Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing Program FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
Civilian Agency Acquisition Council Ralph De Stefano Director Contract Policy Division Civilian Agency Acquisition Council.
29 Palms Airspace Expansion & Mid Air Collision Avoidance Briefing.
Hershey Conference March 2008 Federal Aviation Administration 0 Hershey Conference March 2008 Federal Aviation Administration 0 Conducting Studies For.
Presented to: Association of California Airports By: Peter F. Ciesla, Environmental Protection Specialist Date: September 21, 2006 Federal Aviation Administration.
Airport Planning. errata Traditional forecasting techniques are still in play, but are considered archaic. US airlines are focused on international travel.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Utah Field Office.
ACCIDENT REVIEW PROCESS. OBJECTIVES After completing this lesson the participants will be able to: Understand the role of an Accident Review Board/Board.
Engineer Circular Requests to Alter USACE Projects
Office of Business Development Training
Safeguarding Animal Health 1 Proposed BSE Comprehensive Rule: A New Approach to BSE Rulemaking Dr. Christopher Robinson Assistant Director, NCIE BSE Comprehensive.
Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of Policy & Planning.
L O N G B E A C H, C A. Ryk Dunkelberg Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Roles Of Sponsor, Consultant and FAA During NEPA Process L O N G B E.
IS-700.A: National Incident Management System, An Introduction
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING Charles J. Randel, 1 III, Howard O. Clark, Jr., 2 Darren P. Newman, 2 and Thomas P. Dixon 3 1 Randel Wildlife Consulting,
Module 22 STEPS 11, 12, 13 & 14 Washington Level and Administration Review Processes Module 22 STEPS 11, 12, 13 & 14 Washington Level and Administration.
Module 19 STEP 9 Completion of the Feasibility Study Module 19 STEP 9 Completion of the Feasibility Study Civil Works Orientation Course - FY 11.
Compliance with the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement and Steps Toward Developing Good Regulatory Practices Bryan O’Byrne Trade Compliance Center.
Presented to: By: Date: Federal Aviation Administration Making Good Decisions in the Environmental Review Process 2012 Pacific Aviation Directors Workshop.
Technical Regulations – U.S. Procedures and Practices U.S.-Brazil Commercial Dialogue Digital Video Conference Series August 22, 2006 Mary Saunders Chief,
I Larry Heil, FHWA October 15, 2003 Environmental Streamlining.
Focus Points Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Overview ALP Guidance
1 Deborah Dalton, Elena Gonzalez, and Patrick Field EPA, DOI, CBI Overview - Negotiated Rulemaking.
CHAPTER 3 SCOPING AND AGENCY COORDINATION. Scoping - the procedure for determining the appropriate level of study of a proposed project/activity - process.
Summary of Rulemaking in California for the Forensic Alcohol Laboratories Regulation Review Committee Cathy L. Ruebusch, RN, MSN Office of Regulations.
Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 2 Background The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires Federal agencies to— –Consider the.
Part 73 Special Use Airspace Subpart A General Special Use Airspace Defined dimensions –Vertical limits defined by designated altitude floors and.
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
U N I T E D S T A T E S D E P A R T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N A T I O N A L O C E A N I C A N D A T M O S P H E R I C A D M I N I S T R A T I O N State.
Programmatic Regulations PDT Workshop COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN April 18, 2002.
Party Process The Party Process The Safety Board investigates more than 2,000 aviation accidents and incidents a year and about 500 rail, highway, marine.
Module 20 STEP 10 Division Engineer’s Transmittal Letter
SVDM ConOps 18 May 2010 Federal Aviation Administration 0 0 Space Vehicle Debris Threat Management ConOps Presentation to COMSTAC Space Transportation.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission The Pre-Filing Process IRWA/AI January 13-14, 2009 IRWA/AI.
Linking Planning & NEPA Overview Mitch Batuzich FHWA Texas Division FHWA Texas Division April 17, 2007.
U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Part 190 NPRM: Administrative Procedures - 1 -
Class C Proposal unveiled June 22, 2010 Graphic downloaded from FAA NOTE … What was depicted on the original graphic in the Public Comment.
Streamlining NEPA for Reusable Launch Vehicles Federal Aviation Administration Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation May 2004.
Revisions to Primacy State Underground Injection Control Programs Primacy State Implementation of the New Class V Rule.
Farnborough Airspace Change Proposal Briefing to FACC 26 th November 2014 TAG Farnborough Airport.
Streamlining NEPA for Reusable Launch Vehicles Federal Aviation Administration Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation October 2004.
VFR COASTAL WAYPOINT PROJECT ASO-530/AMTI. Objective (Purpose of VFR Waypoints (Advantages (Intended Use of VFR Waypoints (VFR Coastal Waypoint Project.
Environmental Assessment in British Columbia Forum of Federations Conference September 14, 2009.
NRC Environmental Reviews for Uranium Recovery Applicants and Licensees James Park (301)
1 Waste Discharge Authorization Application - British Columbia WG6 Application Process WG Document Review presented by Helga Harlander October x, 2008.
Rulemaking by APHIS. What is a rule and when must APHIS conduct rulemaking? Under U.S. law, a rule is any requirement of general applicability and future.
Special Meeting on Procedures for Information Exchange November 7, 2007 Geneva Session 1 Anne Meininger United States USA WTO TBT Enquiry Point.
Texas Department of Transportation Corpus Christi District U.S. 181 Harbor Bridge Project Environmental Documentation and Schematic Development Public.
Public Consultation Session: Consultation and Transparency Requirements for Offshore Petroleum Activities Francesca Astolfi A/g General Manager, Offshore.
Presented By: FAA, ATO, Western Service Center Date: March 7, 2016 Federal Aviation Administration FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa.
Environmental Review for Grant Projects Montana Coal Board December 2014.
MRERP Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan and Environmental Impact Statement One River ▪ One Vision A Component of the Missouri River Recovery Program.
EIAScreening6(Gajaseni, 2007)1 II. Scoping. EIAScreening6(Gajaseni, 2007)2 Scoping Definition: is a process of interaction between the interested public,
Required Documentation: Determination and Overview (EPTM Chapter 3)
Alternative Alignments Public Meeting
ACA Conference - September 2017
Airport Planning.
Code Governance Review UNC Modification Proposals
Contract Compliance Training
The Rulemaking Process
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Class C Proposal unveiled June 22, 2010
Environmental Requirements and planning grants
Presentation transcript:

SUA Process Overview FAA JO 7400.2 Clark Desing, Manager, Operations Support Group Western Service Center Pacific Aviation Directors Workshop May 2009

Airspace: Pre-Action Considerations (Proponent) Use of existing area Modification or sub-division of areas Shared-use Avoid airways/jet routes, major terminal areas, and high volume VFR routes Define your requirements

Airspace: Defining Requirements (Proponent) List Activities (who, what) Number and type aircraft Types of activities/mission Altitudes Type weapons Chart of firing points, impact areas, firing fans and safety buffers Chart of proposed location (where, why) Days/times of use (when)

Two Processes Work in Concert FAA 7400.2, Appendix 4 SUA/ATCAA Conceptual Design Aeronautical Impact Environmental Impact * Informal Coordination Process * Formal Aeronautical Proposal * Aeronautical Study * Final Determination * Category Exclusions (CATX) * Environmental Assessment (EA) * Environmental Impact Study (EIS) Must Match at the End

Airspace: Pre-coordination DoD/FAA Informal Coordination Process Mandatory Most important step in the process Who Proponent with the affected ATC facility Proponent presents a draft airspace concept with requirements Is it operationally feasible?

Airspace: Feasibility Review Informal Coordination Process Done by ATC facility, Assistance provided by an OSG ATREP Determines feasibility Evaluates potential impact on facility operations Looks for ways to reduce affect to the NAS Expect changes Review can be lengthy Helps prepare the formal proposal Not to be considered as FAA endorsement or approval

Submission of Formal Aeronautical Proposal and Environmental Formal Process Stage Begins Proponent sends airspace proposal to FAA Service Center (Operations Support Group) through the appropriate Military Representative. Version found to be feasible by ATC facility Include all requirements listed in FAAO 7400.2 para. 21-3-3 Include ATCAA’s Include environmental analysis if complete

Environmental Documentation (Proponent and OSG) Assess the airspace found to be feasible by ATC facility. Assessment must meet FAA requirements (Cooperating Agency Agreement) Contact the OSG Environmental Specialist for FAA process and requirements prior to submitting airspace proposal Don’t let Environmental Impact Statement or Assessment get too far ahead of airspace proposal Environmental and aeronautical process must end concurrently

Initial Service Area Action (OSG) Aeronautical Study (*) User Groups Informal Airspace Meetings Rule/Non-Rule Making Process Public Comments (*) Formal Overview of Feasibility 9 9

Aeronautical Study Content (ATC Facility/OSG) What affect would this new airspace have on: IFR and VFR Terminal Operations Impact on public use and charted private airports (airports with FAA Form 5010 on file) Impact on IFR En Route Operations Impact on VFR Operations, Routes, and Flyways Impact on other pending proposals. Cumulative Aeronautical Impact Associated ATCAA Alternatives ATC Facility Assessment ATC services Recommendation (s) for FAA action on the proposal 10 10

Aeronautical Study Findings (OSG) The service area office will: Coordinate the study findings with the proponent to explore possible options to reduce aeronautical impact

User Groups (OSG) Comprised of varied aviation interests such as: Airlines, general and business aviation, airports, etc Proposal may be submitted to a user group for technical assistance WSC OSG requirement Should be presented jointly by FAA and proponent User groups provide FAA and proponent with other user perspectives Can be effective in helping identify potential problems not already discovered or considered 12 12

Informal Airspace Meetings (All) “It is the policy of the FAA to hold, if at all practicable, informal airspace meetings to inform the affected users of planned airspace changes. The purpose is to gather facts and information relevant to the planned rulemaking or non-rulemaking action being studied. These are held in advance of the rulemaking/non-rulemaking action.”

Rulemaking (OSG and HQ) Changes Federal Law by prohibiting or restricting public access Process for regulatory SUA (Restricted and Prohibited areas) FAA notice to public that FAA is considering Regulatory airspace action Gather pubic comments Process has no provision for waivers or “shortcuts” 14 14

Non-Rulemaking (OSG and HQ) Process for non-regulatory SUA (Warning Area/MOA/CFA/Alert): FAA notice to public that FAA is considering Non-Regulatory airspace action Gather public comments

Public Comments (All) Who can comment Anybody; not restricted to only users of the NAS 16 16

Final Service Area Actions (OSG) Safety Risk Management Document Business Case Service Area Concurrence/Recommendation Environmental Documentation (Final) Final package to FAA Airspace and Rules

Final Environmental Documentation (OSG and Proponent) Proponent matches final environmental document with proposed airspace parameters. Times of use, lateral and vertical dimensions, types and numbers of operations, supersonic flight, etc. Proponent signs, EA/FONSI or EIS/ROD and submits to Service Center Service Center reviews for compliance stated above Service Area Environmental Specialist prepares final draft FAA determinations

Final Package Contents (OSG) Service Area: Legal description Graphic depiction, sectional Proponents airspace proposal Aeronautical comments with resolution Proponents final environmental document Synopsis of FAA environmental issues (draft) Aeronautical study Summary of minutes informal airspace meetings Summary of user group meetings SRMD Business Case Inter-agency memo’s, FS, Airports, ATC facilities Director’s recommendations/endorsement

FAA Headquarters Action Warning/Danger Area Proposal to State Department Airspace Office reviews, forwards draft final rule or non-rule to Environmental Office with supporting documents Environmental Office prepares and forwards final FAA FONSI/ROD to Chief Counsel Chief Counsel completes sufficiency review and sends comments back to Environmental Office Environmental Office signs decision document and forwards back to Airspace Office

FAA HQ Action Airspace Office makes final airspace determination Publishes Final Rule, Non-Rule, charts action Letter of Rejection Then begins the process of implementing the change to the National Airspace System (NAS), if appropriate.

Summary Maximize existing SUA (shared use) Define requirements and outline environmental issues * ATC facility feasibility review (Informal Coordination) * Submit formal airspace proposal and environ. analysis * Aeronautical impact * Public and user group comments * SRMD and Business Case * Final proposal and matching environmental documents * FAA HQ final review, approval, charting or disapproval Implementation, if appropriate Typically 3-5 years to completion (*) Potential for change exists