BACKGROUND

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regularly updates its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants, classifying areas that do not meet these standards as nonattainment areas. Such designations require states to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that estimate future emissions and outline necessary control measures. The Clean Air Act (CAA) mandates that federally approved projects demonstrate conformity with the applicable SIP, known as General Conformity. Projects exceeding the minimums thresholds must undergo a General Conformity Determination, highlighting the need for accurate emissions inventories in SIPs.

Since the release of ACRP Report 84: Guidebook for Preparing Airport Emissions Inventories for State Implementation Plans (2013), the EPA has lowered the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5. This has resulted in an increased number of nonattainment areas, subjecting airport improvement projects to greater scrutiny. As airport operations are projected to grow, it is crucial that SIPs accurately account for the resulting emissions, particularly for projects like new runways and terminals.

Research is needed to update ACRP Report 84: Guidebook for Preparing Airport Emissions Inventories for State Implementation Plans and for airport operators,  inside and outside attainment areas, who are more frequently conducting inventories for reasons beyond SIP, such as voluntary commitments, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting, and state and local initiatives.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to develop a guide for US airports on how to develop emissions inventories for purposes beyond federal actions, while building on and updating ACRP Report 84: Guidebook for Preparing Airport Emissions Inventories for State Implementation Plans.

The guide should include at a minimum, the following:

• A discussion of the various drivers on why an airport may develop an emissions inventory such as federal, state, local requirements (including the nonattainment status of a region), and voluntary commitments;
• An overview of the types of pollutant emissions that may be quantified, including criteria pollutants within nonattainment areas and attainment areas, hazardous air pollutants, and greenhouse gasses;
• A list of applicable tools and a discussion on how airports can use them to complete emissions inventories;
• A discussion of different approaches based on the relative orders of complexity and how to choose between them based on suitability;
• A discussion of how emissions inventories for nonattainment areas can integrate into a SIP and help airports meet general conformity requirements; and
• A discussion of SIP coordination strategies and best practices.

RESEARCH PLAN

The ACRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are asked to provide a detailed research plan for accomplishing the project objective. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and subaward time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meeting the research objective. The work proposed must be divided into tasks and proposers must describe the work proposed in detail.

The research plan shall include at a minimum, the appropriate interim deliverables for ACRP review and approval, that include:

• A summary of relevant research, including ACRP publications, emissions inventory tools (including data needs), and other relevant guidance such as the FAA Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook;
• A gap analysis of ACRP Report 84: Guidebook for Preparing Airport Emissions Inventories for State Implementation Plans, along with a discussion of gaps relative to the broadened research objective;
• A summary of changes in issues such as policies, regulations, and industry practices; and
• An interim report to include research results to date, analysis of results, next steps, an annotated outline for the guide, and potential follow-on research ideas to be developed into problem statements.

Note: For each research idea approved by the project panel, the research team will use the ACRP problem statement process (https://trb.org/ACRP/problemstatements.aspx) to develop and submit a problem statement on behalf of the project panel.  The development and submission of problem statements should occur as soon as possible, considering the ACRP problem statement annual submission deadline of early April.

The research plan should also include, at a minimum, checkpoints with the ACRP panel including:

• A kick-off web meeting to be held within 1 month of the Notice to Proceed;
• A web meeting to discuss summary; and
• One face-to-face interim deliverable review meeting, as well as web-enabled teleconferences tied to the panel review and ACRP approval of other interim deliverables deemed appropriate.

The final deliverables will include: 

• The guide; 
• Research Team’s Final Report documenting all research steps, results, and analysis;
• The Summary of Key Findings (see Special Note M); 
• The Further Recommended Research Memo (see Special Note N); and 
• A technical memo titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note L). 

Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, there should be 3 months for ACRP review and comments and for subawardee preparation of the final deliverables. For budgeting purposes, proposers should assume that ACRP will provide access to web-enabled teleconference services. ACRP will pay panel members’ travel costs for the face-to-face interim meeting. Proposers should assume that the meeting will be held in Washington, DC.

SPECIAL NOTES

A. Proposers should include their initial thoughts for how to build on and update ACRP Report 84: Guidebook for Preparing Airport Emissions Inventories for State Implementation Plans.

B. Proposer should provide initial thoughts on whether the appendices of ACRP Report 84 need to be updated, relative to the budget provided. The project panel does not expect an update to the Airport Emissions Estimator Tool. 

C. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs were revised in May 2024. Please take note of the new and revised text which is highlighted in yellow.

D. Proposals must be submitted as a single PDF file with a maximum file size of 10 MB. The PDF must be formatted for standard 8 ½” X 11” paper, and the entire proposal must not exceed 60 pages (according to the page count displayed in the PDF). Proposals that do not meet these requirements will be rejected. For other requirements, refer to chapter V of the instructions.

E. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs have been modified to include a revised policy and instructions for disclosing Investigator Conflict of Interest. For more information, refer to chapter IV of the instructions. A detailed definition and examples can be found in the CRP Conflict of Interest Policy for Subawardees. The proposer recommended by the project panel will be required to submit an Investigator Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form as a prerequisite for subaward negotiations. 

F. Proposals will be rejected if any of the proposed research team members work for organizations represented on the project panel. The panel roster for this project can be found at https://www.mytrb.org/OnlineDirectory/Committee/Details/7171. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.

G. Proprietary Products - If any proprietary products are to be used or tested in the project, please refer to Item 6 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals.

H. Proposals are evaluated by the ACRP staff and project panels consisting of individuals collectively knowledgeable in the problem area. The project panel will recommend their first choice proposal considering the following factors: (1) the proposer's demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the proposed research approach and experiment design; (3) the experience, qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related problem area; (4) the plan for ensuring application of results; (5) how the proposer approaches inclusion and diversity in the composition of their team and research approach, including participation by certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; and, if relevant, (6) the adequacy of the facilities. A recommendation by the project panel is not a guarantee of a subaward. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS - the contracting authority for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) will conduct an internal due diligence review and risk assessment of the panel’s recommended proposal before subaward negotiations continue.  

Note: The proposer's approach to inclusion and diversity as well as participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises should be incorporated in Item 11 of the proposal.

I. Copyrights - All data, written materials, computer software, graphic and photographic images, and other information prepared under the subaward and the copyrights therein shall be owned by the National Academy of Sciences. The subawardee and lower-tier subawardees will be able to publish this material for non-commercial purposes, for internal use, or to further academic research or studies with permission from TRB Cooperative Research Programs. The subawardee and lower-tier subawardees will not be allowed to sell the project material without prior approval by the National Academy of Sciences. By signing a subaward with the National Academy of Sciences, subawardees accept legal responsibility for any copyright infringement that may exist in work done for TRB. Subawardees are therefore responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions for use of copyrighted material in TRB's Cooperative Research Programs publications. For guidance on TRB's policies on using copyrighted material please consult Section 5.4, "Use of Copyrighted Material," in the Procedural Manual for Subawardees.

J. The text of the final deliverable is expected to be publication ready when it is submitted. It is strongly recommended that the research team include the expertise of a technical editor as early in the project timeline as possible. See Appendix F of the Procedural Manual for Subawardees Conducting Research in the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Program for technical editing standards expected in final deliverables.

K. Proposals should include a task-by-task breakdown of labor hours for each staff member as shown in Figure 4 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals. Proposals also should include a breakdown of all costs (e.g., wages, indirect costs, travel, materials, and total) for each task using Figures 5 and 6 in the brochure. Please note that TRB Cooperative Research Program subawards (selected proposers are considered subawardees to the National Academy of Sciences, the parent organization of TRB) must comply with 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. These requirements include a provision that proposers without a "federally" Negotiated Indirect Costs Rate Agreement (NICRA) shall be subject to a maximum allowable indirect rate of 15% of Modified Total Direct Costs. Modified Total Direct Costs include all salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each lower-tier subaward. Modified Total Direct Costs exclude equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each lower-tier subaward in excess of $25,000.

L. The required technical memorandum titled, “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” should provide: (a) recommended tactics to facilitate implementation; (b) possible institutions/partners and their potential implementation role; (c) potential impediments to successful implementation; (d) metrics to measure extent of product use and benefit; (e) related FAA guidance; and (f) appendices as needed. An annotated template for the memorandum is found here: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/ACRP_Implementation_TechMemo_Template_2019.pdf.

M. The Summary of Key Findings will be a stand-alone document. It should: (a) convey the most pertinent and applicable results of the project’s research; (b) be geared toward the airport industry practitioner while minimizing technical language; (c) present results using text and graphics as appropriate; and (d) encourage readers to explore the primary project deliverables. The Summary of Key Findings should be limited to no more than 4 pages.

N. The Further Recommended Research Memo will be a stand-alone document.  It will include the prioritized list of and discussion of the follow-on research ideas from the interim report and meeting and the resulting problem statements.

O. All budget information should be suitable for printing on 8½″ x 11″ paper. If a budget page cannot fit on a single 8½″ x 11″ page, it should be split over multiple pages. Proposers must use the Excel templates provided in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs. 

P. The National Academies have an ethical and legal obligation to provide proper attribution whenever material from other sources is included in its reports, online postings, and other publications and products. TRB will review all Cooperative Research Programs draft final deliverables using the software iThenticate for potential plagiarism. If plagiarized text appears in the draft final deliverable, the research team will be required to make revisions and the opportunity to submit future proposals may be affected.