1



# U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Section 804 Collaborative Workgroup



# FAA National Facilities Realignment and

Consolidation Report

Year 1

, Part 1 Recommendations

Response to U.S. Congress

FAA Reauthorization Bill

Public Law 112

- 095

Section 804

Draft Date: M ARCH 11

, 20152



### Table of Contents

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 3

Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3

Report Scope

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4

Section 804 Collaborative Workgroup

................................ ................................ ........................... 5

Administrator ’s Recommendations

................................ ................................ ................................ 6

Recommendation #1: Realign Cape TRACON (K90) Operations to Boston Consolidated TRACON (A90)

. 7

Approach

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 7

Background

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 7

Recommendation

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 7

Administrator ’ s Justification

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 8

Projected Costs and Savings

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8

Proposed Timing for Implementation

................................ ................................ ..................... 9

Recommendation #2: Maintain ABI TRACON in a TRACAB Configuration

........................ 10

Approach

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 10

Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 10

Recommendation

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10

Administrator’s Justification

................................ ................................ ................................ . 10

Projected Costs and Savings

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 11

Proposed Timing for Implementation

................................ ................................ ................... 12

Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13

Federal Register Publication

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 133



## Executive Summary

The Federal Aviation Adminis tration (FAA) formed a collaborative workgroup of representatives

from the FAA and National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) and the Professional

Aviation Safety S pecialists (PASS) Labor Unions to develop a comprehensive process to analyze

different realignment and consolidation scenarios. Incorporating input from stakeholders, the

workgroup evaluated the following scenarios for potential realignmen ts and consolidations:

1. The Cape (K90) Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facilit y for realignment to

Providence (PVD) Tow er / TRACON or to Boston (A90) Consolidated TRACON

2. The Abilene (ABI) TRACON operation for potential realignment to Lubbock (LBB)

Tower / TRACON, Midland (MAF) Tower / TRACON, Oklahoma City (OKC) Tower /

TRACON, Dallas

- Fort Worth (D10) TRACON, or the modification of ABI to

accommodate a permanent TRACON operation

Upon conducting analysis and applying the agreed

- upon pr ocess, the workgroup recommends

realigning K90 operations to A90

. Pursuant to Section 804 of the statute, realignment to A90 would

provide the greatest financial savings to the FAA and would accelerate transition to NextGen

enabling automation for the K90 airspace, w ithout adversely affecting safety.

The FAA, NATCA and PASS collaboratively recommend maintaining ABI as a combined tower

TRACON facility in a Terminal Radar Approach in Tower Cab ( TRACAB ) configuration.

Pursuant to Section 804 statute, this alternative ma y facilitate transition to NextGen for ABI

operation with the lowest life cycle cost impact to the FAA.



## Introduction

Section 804 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112

- 95) requires the

FAA to develop a plan for realigning and con solidating facilities in an effort to support the

transition to NextGe n and reduce capital costs where such cost reductions can be implemented

without adversely affecting safety. In order to address Section 804 requirements, the FAA formed

a collaborative workgroup of FAA, NATCA, and PASS representatives who developed a

compreh ensive process that incorporates input from industry stakeholders. The workgroup

produced and shared its initial realignment recommendations for the first two TRACON facilities

with t he FAA Administrator

.

The FAA is focused on addressing a number of com peting priorities. To respond to continuously

changing requirements and effectively manage the Nation ’ s critical infrastructure, the FAA

developed the first Facilities Realignment and C onsolidation R eport. The FAA is publishing this

report in the Federal Register for 45 days for public comment.4

The collaborative process takes into account the following factors and criteria when prioritizing

facilities for realignment analysis:

• NextGen readiness

• Terminal Automation program schedule

• Operational and airspace factors

• Existing facility conditions and workforce needs

• Industry stakeholder input

• Costs and benefits associated with each potential realignment alternative

The FAA continua lly improves its facility realignment analysis processes by collaborating with

Labor Unions and industry stakeholders in conducting the analysis and developing its

recommendations.



## Report Scope

This report comprises the analyses of two realignment scenar ios studied by the collaborative

workgroup during the first part of the first year of analysis, pursuant to Section 804 requirement s

.

The recommendations for the rema ining realignment scenarios are still in the evaluation process

and will be submitted in a separate report.

The FAA Section 804 process and approach serves as the platform for analyzing air traffic control

(ATC) facilities for potential realignments. The FAA is focusing on TRACON facilities first, as

they comprise the majority of non

- tower ATC facilities in the National Airs pace System (NAS).

In the future, the process may be adapted to include realignment analysis of the FAA ’ s larger

operational facilities, however at this time the FAA does not have the necessary funds or planning

capacity to consider these facilities for realignments or consolidations.

The recommendations contained in this report were developed by the Secti on 804 c ollaborative

workgroup, which was chartered by the FAA Administrator and acted a s the designee in

conducting in

- d epth analysis. In compliance with Section 804 statutory requirement s

, the

recommendations were developed in coordination with the FAA ’ s Chief NextGen Officer and the

Chief Operating Officer of the Air Traffic Operation ( ATO )

.5



## Section 804 Collaborative Workgroup

The Section 804 collaborative w orkgroup was established in Se ptember 2013. C omprised of FAA

and Labor Unio n representatives from NATCA and PASS, t he workgroup developed a process

and criteria for evaluating existing TRACON ATC facilities and capt uring both recommendations

as well as next steps. The guiding principles defined by the workgroup will continue to support

the FAA ’ s goal of developing operationally

- viable scenarios for realignments and consolidations.

Additionally, the Section 804 collab orative workgroup coordinated with the FAA Terminal

Automation Modernization and Replacement (TAMR) program and provides these and other

stakeholders with regular updates on its progress and project schedules.

The FAA has taken a holistic approach to reali gnment analysis by including Labor Unions and

Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in developing both the process and recommendations for facility

realignments.

The collaborative w orkgroup has developed a repeatable and defensible process to meet Section

804 req uirements.

In 2014, the collaborative w orkgroup initiated activities to

• Evaluate existing TRACON facilities inventory and prioritize for annual analysis

• Develop an initial set of realignment scenarios and develop a set of alternatives for each

scenario

• C ollect facility and operational data, and document system requirements

• Document facility, equipment, infrastructure, operational and safety data

• Capture qualitative workforce considerations, including training, transition, facility, and

potential workforc e impacts of potential realignments

• Consider potential impacts on operations, airspace modifications, route/fixes changes,

arrival/departure procedures, intra/inter

- facility coordination, and pilot community

interaction

• Collect and consider industry stake holder inputs

• Document and quantify benefits & cost of potential realignments

• Develop a recommendation for each realignment scenario6

The four

- step process developed by the Section 804 collaborative w orkgroup is outlined in Figure

1 below.

Figure 1: Section 804 High

- Level Overview



### Air Traffic Facilities Realignment Analysis

The four

- ste p process to develop potential t erminal facility realignment scenarios is executed by a

col laborative group and is overseen by FAA and Labor Union leadership. The responsibilities of

each group are clearly defined, with intended outcomes and decisions outlined prior to initiation

of the work.

The FAA ensured that realignment and consolidation recommendations de velo ped as a result of

this effort provide one or more of the following outcomes:

• Facilitate transition to NextGen

• Enable operational improvements

• Improve facility conditions

• Maintain or improve operational safety and ensure service resilience

• Prioriti ze current and future investments

• Engage employees and key stakeholders in pre

- decisional assessments



## Administrator ’s Recom mendations

The following sections provide the detail, rationale

, and explanation of recommendations

developed by the FAA in collaboration with Labor Unions.7

Per Section 804 statutory requirement s

, the FAA is providing the details for each recommendation

and the justification that supports the decision

.



### Recommendation #1: Realign Cape TRACON (K90) Operations to Boston

Consolidated TRACON (A90)

Approach

The Section 804 collaborative workgroup, with input from stakehol ders, evaluated the Cape (K90)

TRACON facili ty for realignment to Providence (PVD) Tow er / TRACON or to B oston (A90)

Consolidated TRACON. PVD and A90 facilities were identified as NextGen

- ready realignment

candidates, and compared with the base case of sustaining and m aintaining K90 operations at the

current location.

In accordance with Section 804 statutory requirement s

, the K90 realignment alternatives were

developed with the focus on supporting the transition to NextGen and reducing capital costs,

without adversely affecting safety. The alternatives were evaluated against a legacy or reference

case, representing what the FAA would do in the absence of any realignment.

To evaluate the alternatives, the workgroup conducted site surveys at K90, PVD, and A90; held

sessions with facility management and Labor Union representatives; and assessed airspace,

eq uipment, facility, operational, and safety factors for each alternative. The following aspects of

each alternative in the K90 scenario were evaluated: equipment limitations, transition and

integration complexity, safety and operational impacts, physical in frastructure, and qualitative and

quantitative workforce considerations. The findings were fully documented and served as the basis

for subsequent business case analysis.



### Background

The K90 facility was constructed in 1949 and is 65 years old as of Decembe r 2014. It is a single

story concrete masonry unit building owned by the Department of Defense (DOD) and maintained

and operated by the FAA. The facility is located in Falmouth, MA, on the Joint Base Cape Cod,

formerly known as Otis Air National Guard Base

.

The TRACON building has visible breaches in structural integrity and the utility infrastructure is

degraded. The equipment rooms at K90 have asbestos floor tiles, requiring abatement when new

racks need to be installed.

K90 is scheduled to receive the NextGen

- enabling STARS ELITE capability in 2017.



### Recommendation

Upon conducting analysis and applying the agreed

- upon process, the workgroup recommends

realigning K90 to A90. Pursuant to Section 804 of the statute, realignment to A90 would provide8

financ ial benefit to the Agency and would accelerate transition to NextGen

- enabling automation

for the K90 airspace, without adversely affecting safety.

The justification and the summary of analysis are presented in the sections below.



### Administrator ’ s Justific ation

A90 is a NextGen

- ready facility built to current design and safety standards, with ample space and

existing capacity to accommodate K90 operations. K90 and A90 have contiguous airspace, and

the currently existing complexity between K90 and A90 air tr affic ca n be reduced by merging the

airspace between the se two facilities. W ith airspace redesign, operational benefits such as

reductions in boundary coordin ation could improve airspace inefficiencies

. In addition, A90

operates a traffic management unit ( TMU) that tracks air traffic flows, which is beneficial to the

region and could further improve K90 operations. Full integration of operations, including the

Manchester sector at A90, may result in additional staffing efficiencies.

Alternatively, realign ment of K90 to PVD would require additional physical construction and

facility modification, as well as the acquisition of additional STARS equipment. If realigned to

PVD, K90 controllers would need to receive Tower training at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma

City (OKC)

, fur t her increasing the costs of this alternative.

The K90 workforce, including management and Labor, indicated support of the potential

realignment of K90 to A90. Workforce impact considerations, future staffing, and training

requirements we re captured, then documente d in detail by the Section 804 collaborative

w orkgroup

.



### Projected Costs and Savings

The business case is a product of the assumptions and data identified by the facilities and

external stakeholders during the collaborative proces s. The K90 business case indicates that both

realignment alternatives provide a positive return

- on

- investment, though the business case for the

realignment of K90 into A90 is better than the case for the realignment of K90 into PVD. The

upfront investment costs are greater in the PVD realignment option than the A90 option because

three additional STARS workstations must be acquired at PVD. However, for both cases, the

upfront costs are offset by the cost of reconstructing K90 in the Legacy Case.

It is important to note the business case analysis is highly sensitive to the assumptions made when

estimating controller and technician salaries. The potential for staffing scheduling efficiencies is

slightly greater at A90 than PVD because it has more ai r traffic positions and a larger controller

pool

. However, overall personnel costs increase in both realignment options because controllers

transitioning from K90 are upgraded to ATC level 8 at PVD and ATC level 11 at A90. Other minor

differences in costs are related to modernization and sustainment, technical refresh, and training,

but they are not major cost differentiators. Figure 2 below provides additional details on the K90

business case.9 Figure 2: K90 Business Case

Alternatives

Legacy:

Mod / Sustain K90 Realign

K90 to PVD Realign

K90 to A90

Cost Summary (Risk Adjusted, Then

- Year $K)

Investment F&E Total $37,276 $11,893 $6,224

Indirect F&E Total $463,765 $467,023 $464,524

O&M Total $1,199,019 $1,203,946 $1,215,496

Economic Analysis Summary (Risk Adjusted, Present Value $K)

Realignment Costs $48,514 $50,183

Cost Savings/Avoidance $55,889 $61,541

Net Present Value (NPV) $7,374.5 $11,357.6

B/C Ratio 1.152 1.226



### Proposed Timing for Implementation

The implementation of the FAA ’ s recommendation for K90 is subject to existing Labor and FAA

contracts, policies, and regulations, including the current requirement for a 12

- month notification

to the workforce, as well as funding and resource availability. If not disapproved by Congress, and

upon project initiation, the FAA estimates an approximate one

- year implementation period, which

is the timeframe between project initiation and operational handoff. The FAA currently plans to

notify the workforce in 2015

, begin implementation in 2016

, and conduct operational handoff in

2017

.10



### Recommendation #2: Maintain ABI TRACON in a TRACAB Configuration

Approach

The Section 804 collaborative workgroup, with input from stakeholders

, evaluated the Abilene

(ABI) TRACON operation for potential realignment to Lubbock (LBB) Tower / TRACON,

Midland (MAF) Tower / TRACON, Oklahoma City (OKC) Tower / TRACON, Dallas

- Fort Worth

(D10) TRACON, or modification of ABI to accommodate a permanent TRACON operation.

Potential receiver si tes were identified based on existing NextGen

- enabling capabilities,

proximity, and airspace considerations.



### Background

Currently, the new ABI Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) base building is occupied by non

air traffic personnel and lacks operational space. The ABI workforce operates radar from either a

mobile trailer unit located near the base building, or from a dis play in the ATCT.

To evaluate each realignment alternative the Section 804 workgroup conducted site surveys at the

ABI, LBB, MAF, OKC and D10 TRACONs. Discussions were held with facility management,

Labor Union representatives, and external stakeholders. The workgroup evaluated potential

airspace and operational impacts, physical infrastructure, equipment, safety factors, workforce

considerations, and transition and integration complexity. During Step 2 of the process, the D10

facility was eliminated f

rom consideration as the addition of ABI operations would aggravate the

current staffing and training challenges already present at D10. This could add strain to the

operation and result in safety implications. The decision to remove the D10 facility was made

collaboratively through discussions with the management and workforce of both ABI and D10

facilities.

The remaining realignment alternatives were compared to accommodating the ABI TRACON

operation at its current location, by either adding a new TRACON win g or collocating the

TRACON operation with the ABI ATCT operation.



### Recommendation

After collecting qualitative and quantitative data and conducting analysis using the collaboratively

agreed

- upon process, the workgroup recommends maintaining ABI as a comb ined tower

TRACON facility in a TRACAB configuration. Pursuant to the Section 804 statute, this alternative

may facilitate transition to NextGen for the ABI operation with the lowest life cycle cost impact

to the FAA. The justification, analysis, and proje cted timeline for implementation are presented

below.



### Administrator’s Justification

The operational benefits and efficiencies typically projected for realignments are not present for

any al ternatives in the ABI scenario given that the potential receiving facilities are geographically11

distant and all but one do not have contiguous airspace with AB I. The workgroup noted that

representatives from Dyess Air Force Base (DYS), a major ABI stakeholder

, voiced concerns

regarding the potential for negative impacts to their operations if ABI TRACON operations were

realigned to a geographically distant facility. The perceived loss of local knowledge is a critical

point of concern for DYS and other external stakeholders. Representatives from DYS provided a

detailed pe rspective of the ir strong and collaborative relationship with ABI. The ABI and DYS

controllers interact regularly, and the DYS trainees spend a considerable amount of time at the

ABI TRACON for familiarization purposes.

The ABI workforce, including both m anagement and Labor, indicated support of the potential

maintenance of the ABI TRACAB. Additional workforce impact considerations, future staffing,

training requirements, and the concerns of representatives from DYS were captured, documented,

and considere d by the Section 804 workgroup in its decision

- making.

The recommended option is expected to achieve the objectives of Section 804 while minimizing

disruption to the current system and the workforce.



### Projected Costs and Savings

The business case is a product of the assumptions and data identified by the facilities and external

stakeholders during the collaborative process. The ABI realignment business case analysis

indicates that all realignment alternatives provide a positive re turn

- on

- investment and a positive

business case in comparison to the alternative of adding a new TRACON wing at ABI.

However, t he business case for the ABI TRACAB alternative i s significantly better than the other s

.

While the TRACAB option would incur high er upfront costs to acquire STARS NextGen

- enabling

equipment and set up th e TRACON operation in the ATCT, the FAA would avoid costs associated

with facility level increases, transition activities, and Permanent Change of Station ( PCS )

. Figure

3 below provi des additional details on the ABI business case

.12 Figure 3: ABI Business Case

Alternatives

Legacy:

Construct

ABI

TRACON

Wing ABI

TRACAB Realign

ABI to LBB Realign

ABI to

MAF Realign

ABI to

OKC

Cost Summary (Risk Adjusted, Then

- Year $K)

Investment F&E

Total $10,945 $4,402 $2,907 $3,261 $3,398

Indirect F&E Total $315,345 $314,631 $311,826 $312,105 $312,105

O&M Total $974,386 $974,197 $978,366 $981,645 $986,636

Economic Analysis Summary (Risk Adjusted, Present Value $K)

Realignment Costs $4,104 $17,680 $19,541 $19,294

Cost

Savings/Avoidance $11,007 $24,529 $23,553 $19,937

Net Present Value

(NPV) $6,903.6 $6,848.5 $4,012.3 $643.2

B/C Ratio 2.682 1.387 1.205 1.033



### Proposed Timing for Implementation

The implementation of facility realignments and staff moves are subject to current Labor and FAA

contracts, policies, and regulations, including the current requirement for a 12

- month advance

notification to the workforce. The FAA currently plans to notify the workforce of the

recommendation in 2015, initiate project implementation in 2016, and install STARS ELITE in

2018. Implementation of the recommended alternative and installation of the NextGen

- enabling

STARS ELITE automation platform is contingent on funding and resource availability.13



## Conclusion

The realignment recommendations outlined in the Year 1 Part 1 report are the result of a

collaborative process that involved a multi

- disciplinary team of FAA headquarters, field, finance,

Labor, and leader ship participants. This repeatable and defensible process is a stable foundation

for all future realignment analyses and recommendations which will come in future reports. The

process aims to maximize operational

, administrative, and maintenance efficienc ies and deliver

the highest value to stakeholders. Through continuous analysis and assessment of facilities through

this process

, the FAA supports its goal of ensuring s afe and secure operations across the nation.

The FAA ’ s success in conducting realignment analysis, continuing to develop realignment

recommendations, and implement ing t hose realignments is contingent upon stable multi

- year

funding and continued collaboration with key stakeholders and Labor Unions.



## Federal Register Publication

T he FAA is submitting the National Facilities Realignment and Consolidation Report

- Year 1 Part

1 Recommendations to the Federal Register for public review and comment. This report can be

viewed on the Federal Register docket and on the FAA website. After the 45

- day public comment

period and the 60

- day comment review period, the FAA will submit the final report to Congress,

with the collected public comments.