FAA’S MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF 

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Report Number: AV-2009-012 

Date Issued: December 15, 2008 
U.S. Department of 

Memorandum

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Office of Inspector General 

Subject: ACTION: FAA’s Management and Maintenance 

of Air Traffic Control Facilities 

Date: December 15, 2008 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Report Number AV-2009-012 

From: David A. Dobbs 

Principal Assistant Inspector General 

 for Auditing and Evaluation 

Reply to 

Attn. of: JA-1 

To: Acting FAA Administrator 

This report presents the results of our audit of the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA) management and maintenance of air traffic control 

facilities. The President has designated the National Airspace System (NAS) as a 

critical component for maintaining the security of the Nation, and FAA has 

invested billions of dollars in new equipment for handling increasingly higher 

levels of air traffic in more complex airspace. However, the facilities that house 

those systems are aging and showing signs of deteriorating physical conditions. 

As FAA begins implementing plans for the Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen), which is targeted for completion in 2025, it will be critical to 

determine the type and number of facilities that will be needed to support the 

envisioned architecture. It will be equally important to identify and fund the 

maintenance needs of the existing infrastructure necessary to support the NAS 

until NextGen is in place. 

We conducted this audit at the request of the Chairman of the House Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, who expressed concerns about the overall 

state of FAA facilities. The objectives of our audit were to determine if FAA has 

(1) developed and implemented a comprehensive strategy to effectively manage 

the replacement, repair, and modernization of its air traffic control facilities and 

(2) allocated sufficient funds to carry out those activities. 

During this audit, we visited 12 air traffic control terminal facilities, 2 en route 

centers, 1 FAA service area, and FAA Headquarters. Exhibit A details our audit 

scope and methodology. Exhibit B lists the specific organizations and facilities 

i
we visited during the audit. We conducted this program audit in compliance with 

generally accepted Government Auditing Standards as prescribed by the 

Comptroller General of the United States. 

BACKGROUND 

FAA operates and maintains a vast network of facilities, radars, and 

communication networks to manage air traffic. FAA has three categories of air 

traffic control facilities, which are managed by three different service units within 

the Air Traffic Organization (ATO). 

• Terminal Facilities: These facilities manage traffic in the vicinity of an airport. 

They consist of air traffic control towers (ATCT) and terminal radar approach 

control facilities (TRACON) and are managed by the Vice President of Terminal 

Services. Terminal Services is responsible for 397 facilities.1

• En Route Facilities: These facilities manage high-altitude traffic. They consist 

of air route traffic control centers (ARTCC) and are managed by the Vice 

President of En Route and Oceanic Services. En Route and Oceanic Services is 

responsible for 21 ARTCCs, as well as the San Juan and Guam Combined 

Center Radar Approach Controls (CERAP). 

• Unstaffed Infrastructure Sustainment Facilities: These facilities consist of 

unmanned buildings and broadcast towers and are managed by the Vice 

President of Technical Operations. Technical Operations maintains over 

23,000 facilities. However, we limited our review to staffed FAA air traffic 

control facilities. 

In total, FAA has full or partial responsibility for 420 staffed air traffic control 

facilities. FAA separates its management and maintenance responsibilities into 

three distinct categories: sustainment, replacement, and recurring. 

• Sustainment refers to planned maintenance activities, such as completely 

replacing air conditioning systems or roofs at existing buildings. This is separate 

from modernization, which refers to large, costly projects, such as constructing 

additional wings to existing buildings or consolidating TRACON facilities. 

• Replacement refers to building new facilities to replace existing ones. Both 

sustainment and replacement projects are capital expenses and are funded from 

FAA’s Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account. 

 

1

 These include both FAA- and contractor-operated facilities. 

ii
• Recurring maintenance refers to day-to-day maintenance needs, such as 

plumbing, electrical, and cosmetic repairs. Recurring maintenance needs are 

routine expenses and are funded from FAA’s Operations account. 

FAA spends about $300 million annually on its en route, terminal, and unmanned 

facilities, or about 11 percent of its capital budget. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

Many of FAA’s air traffic control facilities have exceeded their useful lives, and 

their physical condition continues to deteriorate. Most of the challenges FAA is 

encountering are a direct result of the decentralized, reactive approach FAA 

formerly used to maintain its facilities. After FAA created the ATO in 2004, it 

developed and implemented a process to better manage the replacement and 

sustainment of its existing air traffic control facilities. This process uses a more 

standardized approach for selecting and prioritizing projects. However, FAA still 

does not have adequate controls in place to ensure that its routine facility 

maintenance needs are sufficiently funded. 

More importantly, FAA’s newly developed processes for its capital maintenance 

needs are only short-term solutions that focus on sustaining the existing air traffic 

control infrastructure. This is because FAA has not made key decisions on facility 

consolidations and infrastructure needs related to NextGen. Until FAA makes 

those key, strategic decisions, it will be unable to define its long-term funding 

needs for the management and maintenance of its air traffic control facilities. 

Many FAA air traffic control facilities have exceeded their useful lives, and 

their physical condition continues to deteriorate. While the average facility has 

an expected useful life of approximately 25 to 30 years, 59 percent of FAA 

facilities (249 of 420) are over 30 years old. The table below shows the average 

age of FAA’s facilities by facility type. 

Table. Average Age of FAA Facilities 

Type of Facilities Average Age 

ATCTs 29 years 

TRACONs 26 years 

ARTCCs 43 years 

Source: FAA 

During our site visits to various air traffic control facilities, we observed obvious 

structural deficiencies and maintenance-related issues at several locations. These 

included water leaks, mold, tower cab window condensation, deterioration due to 

iii
poor design, and general disrepair. While the deficiencies we observed posed no 

immediate risk to the operations of the NAS, they could affect operations in the 

long term if they are not addressed. 

FAA is encountering maintenance problems due to its previous, decentralized 

approach to facility maintenance and its practice of paying for recurring 

maintenance with residual, year-end funds. Prior to the creation of the ATO, 

FAA’s nine regions exercised significant autonomy in selecting which 

maintenance projects to prioritize. This decentralized process made it difficult for 

FAA Headquarters to accurately gauge Agency-wide requirements and ensure that 

the work that was most needed nationally was the work actually being done. 

In addition, FAA does not have a structured process in place to ensure that its 

recurring facility maintenance needs are sufficiently funded. According to FAA, it 

does not have a line-item budget for recurring maintenance. Instead, FAA relies 

on year-end, residual funds for recurring maintenance needs. As a result, FAA 

does not know how much Operations funding will be available for recurring 

maintenance projects until close to the end of each fiscal year. This is when FAA 

determines how much money will be available due to employee attrition (i.e., 

employees leave the Agency, which results in lower than expected salary costs). 

Once a residual amount is estimated, the money is distributed to individual 

facilities. Facility managers then have until September 30 to obligate the money. 

This practice has hindered efforts to prioritize maintenance. Recurring 

maintenance needs, such as plumbing and electric repair, often went unfunded as 

scarce Operations funds were used almost entirely for budget items such as 

employee salaries and benefits. Further, the rush to get the money obligated 

before it expires is particularly problematic when the planned projects require 

letting a contract, which can be a lengthy process and could lead to contracts that 

are not cost effective. This lack of control over funds has contributed significantly 

to the deterioration of FAA’s facilities and has resulted in a deferred maintenance 

backlog of $240 million, which is expected to climb to over $380 million by 2020. 

FAA Terminal Services is developing a process to reserve Operations funds for 

recurring maintenance needs. This process involves using facility assessments it 

has performed on a sample of Terminal facilities and then estimating recurring 

maintenance costs by facility type and extrapolating those estimates across the 

total number of Terminal facilities. Terminal Services plans to begin using the 

new process for the fiscal year (FY) 2010 budget. 

In our opinion, this process represents a significant improvement over the prior 

practice of funding recurring maintenance needs using residual, year-end funds. 

FAA needs to ensure the process is implemented and followed in both Terminal 

iv
and En Route Service Units to eliminate the current backlog of deferred 

maintenance. 

FAA has recently implemented processes to better manage sustainment and 

replacement maintenance. FAA has historically focused on addressing 

maintenance problems as they arose, but it is beginning to move toward a 

proactive approach that merges facility-level priorities with better national 

oversight. We have seen the most improvement with the Terminal Services unit. 

For example, Terminal Services now provides a structured process that requires 

managers to analyze each facility for potential modernization and replacement 

using similar metrics, such as standardized cost estimates. In October 2006, 

Terminal Services also eliminated the ability of its Service Areas to “reprogram” 

F&E funds without Headquarters approval. 

In contrast, En Route Services only focuses on sustaining its existing facilities, not 

replacement. En Route Services needs to consider developing a replacement plan 

since its sustainment projects are not planned for completion until 2022, which 

means most of its facilities will be approximately 60 years old. Since NextGen is 

slated for completion in 2025, we note that a replacement plan must be carefully 

aligned with NextGen efforts. 

Both the Terminal Services and En Route plans, however, are managed at the 

national level and provide more uniformity in prioritizing maintenance projects 

than the decentralized regional approach FAA previously used. This more defined 

structure allows FAA to estimate its capital funding (F&E) for sustainment and 

replacement needs with greater precision. 

While FAA’s newly developed processes are significant improvements, they 

are only short-term solutions until NextGen requirements have been defined. 

Because FAA has not made key decisions on facility consolidations and 

infrastructure needs related to NextGen, its new processes focus only on sustaining 

the existing air traffic control system. To ensure it has a system of facilities wellequipped for the long term, FAA will need to pursue several actions with regard to 

NextGen. 

As we recommended2

 earlier this year, FAA needs to (1) conduct a gap analysis of 

the current NAS and future NextGen capabilities, (2) set expectations and 

establish NextGen funding priorities, and (3) develop an interim architecture for 

what can be accomplished by 2015. In conjunction with these actions, FAA needs 

 

2

 OIG Testimony Number CC-2008-043, “FAA’s Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request: Key Issues Facing the Agency,” 

February 7, 2008, and OIG Report Number AV-2008-049, “Air Traffic Control Modernization: FAA Faces 

Challenges in Managing Ongoing Projects, Sustaining Existing Facilities, and Introducing New Capabilities,” 

April 14, 2008. 

v
to determine what type of facilities will be needed (i.e., Terminal versus En Route 

or a hybrid of the two), how many will be needed, and where they should be 

located to achieve optimum performance in support of NextGen. FAA also needs 

to determine the facility connectivity and information sharing requirements among 

those facilities since they will likely be key elements and potential cost drivers for 

future facility architecture. 

A key aspect of the transition to NextGen will be consolidating and realigning air 

traffic control facilities. FAA points out that flexible ground communication 

networks do not require facilities to be near the traffic they manage. FAA often 

cites its aging facilities and the related expense of maintaining such a large 

number of facilities to justify consolidating the air traffic control system into a 

smaller number of facilities. However, there are technical and security 

prerequisites for major consolidation such as implementing new “voice switching” 

technology to allow for more flexible communication and enhanced automation. 

FAA’s reauthorization proposal called for a “Realignment and Consolidation of 

Aviation Facilities Commission” to conduct an independent review and make 

recommendations to the President. The House and Senate reauthorization 

proposals (H.R. 2881 and S. 1300) also recognized the issue of consolidation and 

the need for further examination. 

FAA requested $17 million in FY 2009 to examine various alternatives for 

revamping its facilities. FAA should ensure that this analysis clearly addresses the 

technological and security prerequisites as well as key cost drivers, benefits, and 

logistical concerns associated with consolidations so decision makers in Congress 

and the Administration will know what can be reasonably accomplished. This is a 

critical action item because until key, strategic decisions are made regarding 

consolidations, FAA will be unable to define its long-term funding requirements 

for the management and maintenance of its air traffic control facilities. 

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

Our recommendations focus on the actions FAA needs to take to maintain its 

existing air traffic control facilities and effectively transition to NextGen. They 

include (1) determining what types of facilities will be needed, how many 

facilities will be needed, and where they should be located to effectively support 

NextGen; (2) identifying target dates for realigning or consolidating facilities; and 

(3) establishing realistic funding requirements for maintaining existing sites until 

those dates. Our complete recommendations are listed on page 13. 

vi
vii

SUMMARY OF AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL RESPONSE 

We provided FAA with our draft report on September 16, 2008. We received 

FAA’s response on November 12, 2008. FAA concurred with our 

recommendations and provided planned actions and appropriate target completion 

dates for each recommendation. For example, FAA plans to issue an Enterprise 

Architecture to identify a segmented approach to deploying NextGen facilities by 

January 2009. FAA also plans to issue a final Investment Analysis that identifies 

the types, numbers, and locations of NextGen facilities by 2011. 

FAA’s comments and our response are fully discussed on page 14. FAA’s entire 

response is included in the appendix to this report. FAA’s planned actions are 

fully responsive to our recommendations, and we consider each recommendation 

resolved but open pending completion of the planned actions. We appreciate the 

courtesies and cooperation of FAA representatives during this audit. If you have 

any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 366-1427 or 

Daniel Raville, Program Director, at (202) 366-1405. 

# 

cc: FAA Deputy Administrator 

 FAA Chief of Staff 

 Anthony Williams, ABU-100 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

FINDINGS .............................................................................................. 1

Many of FAA’s Air Traffic Control Facilities Have 

Exceeded Their Useful Lives, and Their Physical 

Condition Continues To Deteriorate.................................................. 1

Many of the Problems FAA Is Encountering Are a Direct 

Result of the Decentralized and Reactive Approach It 

Formerly Used To Maintain Facilities................................................ 5

FAA Has Developed and Implemented a Process To 

Better Manage the Sustainment and Replacement of Its 

Air Traffic Control Facilities ............................................................... 6

FAA Still Needs an Effective Process for Funding 

Recurring Facility Maintenance........................................................ 9

FAA’s Newly Developed Processes Are Only a ShortTerm Solution Until Key Decisions About NextGen Are 

Made ............................................................................................... 10

RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................ 13

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR 

GENERAL RESPONSE....................................................................... 14

EXHIBIT A. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ..................................... 15

EXHIBIT B. ACTIVITIES VISITED OR CONTACTED........................ 17

EXHIBIT C. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS 

REPORT .............................................................................................. 18

APPENDIX. AGENCY COMMENTS................................................... 19
1

FINDINGS 

Many of FAA’s air traffic control facilities have exceeded their useful lives, and 

their physical condition continues to deteriorate. In some cases, facilities 

deteriorated so badly that they required urgent and repeated actions. It is 

important to note, however, that the maintenance issues we observed pose no 

immediate risk to the operations of the NAS. 

Most of the problems FAA is encountering are a direct result of the decentralized, 

reactive approach it formerly used to maintain its facilities. After FAA created the 

ATO, it developed and implemented a process to better manage the replacement 

and sustainment of its existing air traffic control facilities. This process uses a 

more standardized approach for selecting and prioritizing projects. 

However, FAA still does not have adequate controls in place to ensure that the 

Agency’s routine facility maintenance needs are sufficiently funded. Although 

FAA has a structured process for estimating its funding requirements for its capital 

(F&E) account (used to fund facility replacements and large improvement 

projects), the same process does not exist for the Agency’s Operations account 

(used to fund recurring facility maintenance). As result, FAA has a backlog of 

over $240 million in deferred maintenance. 

More importantly, FAA’s newly developed processes for its capital maintenance 

needs are only short-term solutions that focus on sustaining the existing air traffic 

control infrastructure. This is because FAA has not made key decisions on facility 

consolidations and infrastructure needs related to NextGen. Until FAA makes 

those key, strategic decisions, it will be unable to define its long-term funding 

needs for the management and maintenance of its air traffic control facilities. 

Many of FAA’s Air Traffic Control Facilities Have Exceeded Their 

Useful Lives, and Their Physical Condition Continues To Deteriorate 

While the average facility has an expected useful life of approximately 25 to 

30 years, many FAA facilities are significantly older. As of May 2007, the 

Agency had either full or partial responsibility for repair and maintenance of 

420 facilities. Of these facilities, 249, or approximately 59 percent, were over 

30 years old. Specifically, 138 were 31 to 40 years old, 96 were over 41 to 

50 years old, and 15 were over 50 years old. Figure 1 on page 2 provides an 

analysis of the age of all 420 facilities. 

Findings 
2

Figure 1. Number of Facilities by Age 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

15

94

136

68 60

47

11-20 

years old

21-30 

years old

Up to 10 

years old

31-40 

years old

41-50 

years old

Over 50 

years old

Source: FAA 

We visited air traffic control facilities in Washington, DC; Chicago, Illinois; and 

Fort Lauderdale and Pensacola, Florida. During these visits, we observed obvious 

structural deficiencies and maintenance-related issues. Several of the facilities 

suffered damage due to water leaks; outdated heating, ventilating, and air 

conditioning (HVAC) systems; and poor facility design. We also observed lineof-sight issues that developed because the airport had been expanded after the 

tower was built, which made the height of the tower inadequate for controllers to 

see the entire airfield. The following are examples of the maintenance issues we 

observed at the visited locations. 

Water Leaks: Some of the facilities were experiencing water damage problems, 

generally with water entering the building via the buildings’ roofs through 

improperly sealed windows or leaky pipes. For example, at the Midway ATCT in 

Chicago, water leaks ruined three offices in the base building. According to tower 

management, the water leaks were caused by a lack of insulation in the tower, 

humidity, and the frigid winter weather in Chicago. Additionally, several pipe 

leaks at the Washington Center have caused damage to the facility’s ceiling (see

figure 2).

Figure 2. Damage to Ceiling at Washington Center 

Due to Leaky Pipes 

Source: OIG 

Findings 
3

Outdated HVAC Systems: We also found problems due to outdated HVAC 

systems. Faulty HVAC systems can result in condensation forming on the tower 

cab windows, which makes it difficult for air traffic controllers to clearly see the 

airfield. Condensation problems were evident at Andrews Air Force Base, 

Chicago Midway, Milwaukee, and Chicago O’Hare. Figure 3 shows condensation 

on tower cab windows at Andrews Air Force Base.

Figure 3. Condensation on Tower Windows at Andrews ATCT 

Hinders Air Traffic Controllers’ View of the Airfield 

Source: Andrews ATCT Management 

Poor Design: We also found problems that resulted from improper facility 

design. That is, facilities were constructed without consideration for differences in 

regional climates. For example, several facilities we visited in the Chicago area 

had been designed using specifications for facilities on the West Coast. As a 

result, these facilities were experiencing problems with roofing that could not 

withstand Chicago winters and buildings that did not have enough insulation. For 

instance, both the tower cab and the base building at the Chicago O’Hare ATCT 

have had roof replacements. According to FAA managers, the roofs were 

expected to last 20 years; however, they only lasted 10 years. FAA incurred over 

$370,000 in costs to replace both roofs. 

The Chicago O’Hare tower cab also suffered from a lack of insulation, which 

caused condensation just above the ceiling to freeze in the winter. As a result, 

water dripped from the ceiling into the tower cab. To mitigate the effects of the 

water, a hose was attached to the ceiling to drain the water from the ceiling into a 

bucket. While this was a temporary solution, a final solution to the problem was 

not implemented until after our visit to the facility. In the end, insulation was 

sprayed on the ceiling to alleviate the problem. Figure 4 on page 4 shows the 

makeshift solution used at Chicago O’Hare. 

Findings 
4

Figure 4. Temporary Fix at Chicago O’Hare Tower Cab To Drain 

Water From the Ceiling 

 Source: Chicago O’Hare ATCT Management 

Another example of improper facility design is the Fort Lauderdale Executive 

Airport ATCT. The ATCT was built with siding that is unsuitable for the South 

Florida climate, which is often threatened with hurricanes. During a 2005 

hurricane, the siding was blown off of the building. As a result, water entered the 

tower and caused significant damage, with repairs totaling $156,000. 

Line-of-Sight Issues: It is important to note that the maintenance issues we 

observed did not impact the safe operations at the facilities we visited. However, 

we did identify line-of-sight issues at air traffic control towers due to inadequate 

tower height, which could impact safety. Inadequate tower height was mainly an 

issue at older towers, such as the Baltimore-Washington International ATCT 

(commissioned in 1960) and the Rockford ATCT in Illinois (commissioned in 

1958). 

The airports in these locations have expanded since the towers were built. As a 

result of the expansions, there are areas of the airfield where controllers have 

obstructed views. According to FAA managers at Baltimore-Washington 

International ATCT, a new tower is tentatively scheduled to be commissioned in 

FY 2015; however, FAA has already pushed back the planned replacement date 

for this tower. In the case of Rockford, controllers do not have ground radar as a 

back-up to compensate for the inefficient view of the airfield. In these instances, 

FAA has made operational changes to compensate for the line-of-sight issues. 

Findings 
5

The Rockford ATCT is particularly vulnerable to blind spots as the airport layout 

has changed significantly over the years. Yet, the facility is not included in FAA’s 

current replacement schedule, which runs through FY 2015. While FAA is not 

primarily responsible for the existence of these line-of-sight issues, they did 

contribute to a 2005 operational error at the Rockford ATCT. In this case, the 

ground controller could not see an airplane on the runway due to the low height 

and location of the ATCT. Figure 5 shows the ATCT at the Rockford 

International Airport. 

Figure 5. Rockford ATCT 

Source: OIG 

The problems that we observed during our site visits are similar to concerns raised 

by the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA). NATCA 

conducted a survey of controllers at 224 air traffic control facilities in July 2007. 

The survey identified three main areas of concern related to improper facility 

maintenance: mold and other contaminants, external leaks, and building 

ventilation/temperature controls. 

Many of the Problems FAA Is Encountering Are a Direct Result of the 

Decentralized and Reactive Approach It Formerly Used To Maintain 

Facilities 

Over the years, facility maintenance has been neglected as FAA took a reactive 

rather than proactive approach to sustaining its air traffic control facilities. For 

example, managers at several FAA facilities stated that FAA was only focusing on 

emergency repairs and fixing problems as they arose. 

Prior to the creation of the ATO in 2004, the process of prioritizing maintenance 

projects at Terminal Services facilities was highly decentralized. FAA gave its 

nine regional offices a substantial amount of autonomy in selecting, prioritizing, 

Findings 
6

and funding projects. For example, on an annual basis, each of the nine regions 

was required to perform a “data call” and request the facilities in their respective 

regions to submit projects, repair, or improvements needed at their facilities. After 

receiving the submissions, the regions would prioritize the projects (without any 

specific guidance from FAA Headquarters) and send the prioritized list to FAA 

Headquarters. FAA Headquarters would then distribute funding to the regions 

based on the prioritized lists. 

This decentralized process resulted in several problems. First, there was a lack of 

consistent information flow to Headquarters, making it difficult for FAA to 

accurately gauge its Agency-wide requirements. Second, resources were not 

always utilized efficiently; because the regions used their own prioritization 

methods, there was no way for Headquarters to validate that the work that was 

most needed nationally was actually the work being completed. 

Finally, the regions were granted flexibility to reprogram funds to projects, which 

may not have been the projects that were initially submitted to Headquarters. As a 

result, FAA Headquarters was not always aware of which projects had been 

funded and completed and which projects still remained incomplete. This 

uncertainty made it difficult for FAA Headquarters managers to plan for future 

projects and accurately estimate their needs. 

FAA Has Developed and Implemented a Process To Better Manage 

the Sustainment and Replacement of Its Air Traffic Control Facilities 

FAA has developed a new process to better manage the sustainment and 

replacement of its existing air traffic control facilities. Terminal Services has 

processes in place for both sustainment and replacement, while En Route and 

Oceanic Services focuses solely on sustaining its existing facilities. 

Improved Terminal Sustainment Process: According to FAA Terminal 

Services officials, after FAA created the ATO, Terminal Services began using a 

combination of tools to better manage the sustainment of its facilities. First, 

Terminal Services utilizes an Agency-wide tool known as the Needs Assessment 

Program (NAP) to capture the projects that need to be accomplished at each of its 

facilities. Terminal facility sustainment projects are entered by individual 

facilities into NAP. 

Once entered into the NAP system, the projects are prioritized and grouped into 

categories, such as safety, HVAC, electrical, plumbing, or waterproofing. Next, 

projects are prioritized within each category based on their urgency and impact. 

Each Service Area3

 submits its prioritized list of projects to FAA Headquarters. 

 

3

 As part of the creation of the ATO, FAA consolidated its nine regions into three large Service Areas. 

Findings 
7

FAA Headquarters then merges the lists together and validates the need for the 

projects. The new merged list then becomes FAA’s nationwide sustainment 

requirements for its Terminal facilities. 

In our opinion, this sustainment process provides a uniform prioritization and 

validation guidance to all three Service Areas and adds the structure and control 

that the process was lacking in the past. 

Life-Cycle Assessments: FAA Terminal Services has also begun conducting lifecycle assessments at its facilities. These assessments identify and summarize 

backlogged maintenance items and establish a plan for future facility maintenance. 

In short, the plan created by the life-cycle assessment should become a “users 

manual” for the facility and help managers plan preventative maintenance in 

advance, rather than just fixing problems as they arise. 

FAA began conducting life-cycle assessments in 1999 and has performed 98 to 

date. In our opinion, these assessments should allow Terminal Services to better 

plan and budget for its sustainment and repair needs. Lastly, in an effort to gain 

control over the sustainment of its facilities, Terminal Services eliminated the 

ability of its Service Areas to reprogram funds without Headquarters approval. On 

October 1, 2006, FAA issued guidance with strict procedures for reprogramming 

F&E funds. 

Improved Terminal Replacement Process: In FY 2006, Terminal Services also 

implemented its Structured Facility Planning Process to better control 

requirements for replacing its facilities. This planning process also helps Terminal 

Services to determine which facilities to replace and what those facilities for 

sustainment until they are replaced. 

Once possible facility replacements are identified, Terminal Services managers 

validate the need for a new facility, as it may cost less to modernize or refurbish 

the facility rather than replace it. However, if the facility does need to be replaced, 

managers develop a cost estimate for replacing it, solicit bids from contractors, 

select a contractor to perform the work, and subsequently award the contract. This 

process takes approximately 24 to 36 months. 

According to FAA, over the next 7 years (FY 2009 through FY 2015), the Agency 

plans to replace 29 of the 397 Terminal facilities that it owns or operates. In our 

opinion, FAA’s new structured facility planning process will give the Agency a 

better basis for which to make decisions regarding when and where to replace 

aging facilities. 

In contrast to Terminal Services, which has almost 400 facilities with multiple 

designs, En Route and Oceanic Services has 21 standardized ARTCCs and 

Findings 
8

2 CERAPs. The common design of these facilities allows for standard projects 

that can be performed at each facility and makes it easier to project future 

maintenance requirements. En Route Services continues to focus only on the 

sustainment of its facilities. 

En Route Sustainment Process: The current sustainment plan for En Route 

Services was developed in 2001. The bulk of program funds (approximately 60 to 

75 percent of total project funding) goes toward 13 standardized modernization 

projects. These projects are being completed at all 21 ARTCCs nationwide. Of 

these 13 projects, 9 projects have been completed at all En Route facilities (which 

focused on supporting new or upgraded air traffic control equipment). The 

remaining modernization projects are scheduled to be completed by 2022. 

However, by that time, the facilities managed by En Route services will be 

approximately 60 years old. 

Like Terminal Services, En Route Services has also conducted life-cycle 

assessments at all 21 of its En Route Centers. In addition, it uses the same 

industry recognized rating system as Terminal Services to measure the amount of 

deferred maintenance that needs to be completed against the overall replacement 

value of the facility. Any score below 90 percent indicates that a facility needs 

attention. 

In the En Route Services FY 2006 evaluation, 9 of the 21 ARTCCs scored below 

90 percent, and no facility scored above 95 percent, which indicates a facility is 

considered to be in “good” condition. This means that nearly half (9 of 21) 

ARTCCs are in poor condition and in need of attention. However, En Route 

Services does not expect to complete its current sustainment efforts for these 

facilities until 2022, and FAA currently has no formal plan to replace them. 

Given that its facilities will be approximately 60 years old by the time all 

13 sustainment projects are completed, En Route Services should consider 

developing a replacement plan for its facilities. According to En Route Services 

managers, the replacement of its facilities is being discussed in conjunction with 

NextGen; however, until FAA makes key decisions regarding NextGen, En Route 

Services will continue to focus on sustainment. 

Findings 
9

FAA Still Needs an Effective Process for Funding Recurring 

Facility Maintenance 

FAA does not have adequate controls in place to ensure that its recurring facility 

maintenance needs are sufficiently funded. While it has an extensive process in 

place to determine funding needs for major improvement projects (i.e., 

sustainment and replacement) from its F&E account, there is no similar process in 

place for recurring maintenance needs, which are funded from its Operations 

account. This lack of controls over funds for recurring maintenance has 

contributed significantly to the deterioration of FAA’s facilities and resulted in a 

deferred maintenance backlog of $240 million. Managers from both Terminal 

Services and En Route project that the backlog will increase at current funding 

levels. Based on their estimates, FAA could be facing a deferred maintenance 

backlog of over $380 million by FY 2020 if current funding levels continue. 

According to Terminal Services managers, FAA does not know how much 

Operations funding will be available to pay for recurring maintenance projects 

until close to the end of each fiscal year. This is when FAA determines how much 

money will be available due to employee attrition (i.e., employees leave the 

Agency, which results in lower than expected salary costs). 

Once a residual amount is estimated, the money is distributed to individual 

facilities. Facility managers then have until September 30 to obligate the money. 

This rush to get the money obligated proves to be problematic when the planned 

project requires letting a contract, which can be a very lengthy process. 

Additionally, the rush to obligate the money before it expires may also lead to the 

facility entering into a contract that is not in the best interest of the Government 

(i.e., the facility may not be able to negotiate a contract that is cost effective). 

Further, funding for recurring maintenance must compete with other needs that are 

funded out of the Agency’s Operations account, such as employees’ salaries and 

benefits, which always take priority. As we have reported since 1999, FAA faces 

a significant risk that increases in operations costs may “crowd out” other critical 

Agency functions. For example, we have found several instances since 1999 in 

which FAA had to use F&E funds to finance many operations-related activities, 

including salaries, employee relocations, and new system maintenance. As a 

result, it now appears that other line items within the Operations account (such as 

facility maintenance) are being crowded out. 

In an effort to provide a more uniform distribution of excess operations funding, 

Terminal Services has begun monitoring attrition three times a year and 

distributing excess funding at these times. Although this new process may give 

facilities more time to obligate funding and make better choices on where to spend 

Findings 
10

the money, it still does not address the issue of establishing a designated amount 

(within the Operations account) to fund recurring maintenance. 

A lack of dedicated funding has led to delays in completing recurring maintenance 

and small repair projects. At most of the facilities we visited, managers stated that 

inadequate funding was a factor in the condition of their facilities and was likely to 

lead to larger problems in the future. 

Terminal Services is developing a process that will allow it to budget for recurring 

maintenance in advance out of the Operations account. This process uses facility 

life-cycle assessments to establish budget requirements for facility maintenance 

and repair. Terminal Services takes the facility assessments it has performed (on a 

sample of Terminal facilities) and breaks them down by facility type. 

The costs identified in each facility assessment (including a one-time remediation 

cost to bring the facility up to the appropriate standard and to perform the 

maintenance and repair backlog) are then averaged and extrapolated across the 

total number of Terminal Services facilities. The resulting number is the amount 

that Terminal Services would like designated from the Operations account for 

recurring maintenance. Terminal Services plans to use this process to formulate 

its budgetary requirements for FY 2010. 

In our opinion, this process is a significant improvement over the former method 

FAA used for funding recurring maintenance, which essentially entailed waiting 

until year-end to see if residual funds would be available for maintenance needs. 

FAA needs to ensure the process is implemented and followed in both Terminal 

and En Route Services to eliminate the backlog of deferred maintenance and 

ensure that existing facility maintenance needs are met until requirements for 

NextGen are clearly defined. FAA must also ensure that there are sufficient 

resources dedicated to support this new process. 

FAA’s Newly Developed Processes Are Only a Short-Term Solution 

Until Key Decisions About NextGen Are Made 

While these new processes are significant improvements, it is important to 

recognize that they are only short-term solutions. FAA’s new processes focus 

only on sustaining the existing air traffic control system because FAA has not 

made key decisions regarding facility consolidations and NextGen infrastructure 

needs. Until FAA makes those key, strategic decisions, it will be unable to define 

its long-term funding needs for the management and maintenance of its air traffic 

control facilities. This is a multibillion-dollar undertaking planned for completion 

in 2025 that will dominate FAA’s capital account for years to come. 

Findings 
11

The system is based on satellite navigation and control, digital non-voice 

communication, and advanced networking. Flight crews will have increased 

control over their flight trajectories, and ground controllers will become traffic 

flow managers. As we recommended in our April 2008 report on air traffic 

control modernization, FAA needs to pursue the following actions now in order to 

transition to NextGen. 

• Conduct a gap analysis of the current NAS and future NextGen 

capabilities. FAA’s NextGen architecture does not detail how FAA will 

transition from the present NAS and the future NextGen architectures, which 

will have considerably different capabilities and performance parameters. 

Until FAA completes a gap analysis, it will not be able to determine 

(1) technical requirements that translate into reliable cost and schedule 

estimates for major acquisitions and (2) what type of facility (i.e., Terminal 

versus En Route or a hybrid of the two) will be needed, how many of these 

facilities will be needed, and where to locate them to effectively support 

NextGen. 

• Set expectations and establish NextGen funding priorities. At this point, it 

is difficult for decision makers and FAA to determine what to invest in first or 

what can be accelerated with regard to NextGen. FAA needs to better 

understand costs and benefits and then identify the high priority improvements 

and reflect those priorities in budget requests. A key issue will be identifying 

target dates for realigning existing facilities and establishing realistic funding 

requirements for maintaining sites from now until the targeted dates. 

• Develop an interim architecture for what can be accomplished by 2015.

Because of the significant differences between the present system and the 

NextGen architecture and concept of operations, FAA should develop an 

interim architecture for the 2015 timeframe. This would help FAA to 

determine reasonable goals, establish priorities, fully identify adjustments to 

existing projects, refine requirements for new systems, and understand 

complex transition issues. As part of this architecture, FAA needs to 

determine if the existing facilities managed by Terminal and En Route 

Services will be sufficient to support NextGen through 2015. 

A key aspect of these decisions will be the extent to which FAA consolidates or 

realigns its air traffic control facilities as a result of modern information sharing 

technology. FAA points out that flexible ground communication networks do not 

require facilities to be near the traffic they manage. FAA often cites its aging 

facilities and the related expense of maintaining such a large number of facilities 

to justify consolidating the air traffic control system into a smaller number of 

facilities. However, there are technical and security prerequisites for major 

Findings 
12

Findings 

consolidation. These include new “voice switching” technology to allow for more 

flexible communication and enhanced automation as well as associated costs, 

benefits, and logistical concerns that need to be fully analyzed. FAA also needs to 

determine the facility connectivity and information sharing requirements among 

those facilities since they will likely be key elements and potential cost drivers for 

future facility architecture. 

Because of the controversial nature of the related staffing implications, some have 

advocated a base closure commission to help FAA and Congress make decisions 

on FAA facilities. FAA’s reauthorization proposal called for a “Realignment and 

Consolidation of Aviation Facilities Commission” to conduct an independent 

review and make recommendations to the President. 

The House and Senate reauthorization proposals (H.R. 2881 and S. 1300) also 

recognized the issue of consolidation and the need for further examination. While 

there are some technical prerequisites, how to best realign or consolidate FAA 

facilities is a policy issue for Congress. 

FAA requested $17 million in FY 2009 to examine various alternatives for 

revamping its facilities. FAA should ensure that this analysis clearly addresses the 

technological and security prerequisites as well as the costs, benefits, and 

logistical concerns associated with consolidations so decision makers in Congress 

and the Administration will know what can be reasonably accomplished. This is a 

critical action item because until key strategic decisions are made regarding 

consolidations, FAA will be unable to define its long-term funding requirements 

for the management and maintenance of its air traffic control facilities. 
13

RECOMMENDATIONS 

FAA faces significant challenges in maintaining facilities that are essential to 

manage air traffic throughout the United States. A key cost driver for NextGen is 

to what extent FAA can realign and consolidate its facilities. We recognize this is 

a complex, controversial matter and ultimately a policy call for Congress. 

Nevertheless, the transition to NextGen represents an opportunity to examine how 

FAA can use technology to realign and consolidate facilities and reduce 

equipment without degrading safety, security, or the level of air traffic services to 

a wide range of airspace users. We are making recommendations to improve how 

FAA manages its facilities in the short and long term. 

We recommend the following actions to FAA: 

1. Ensure that the newly developed process for budgeting recurring 

maintenance (out of the Operations account) is implemented as designed and 

develop appropriate procedures for ensuring compliance within both

Terminal and En Route Services to (a) eliminate the current backlog of 

deferred maintenance and (b) make certain that existing facility maintenance 

needs are met until NextGen is in place. 

2. Identify target dates for realigning or consolidating facilities and establish 

realistic funding requirements for maintaining existing sites from now until 

the targeted consolidation dates. 

3. Determine what types of facilities (i.e., Terminal versus En Route or a hybrid 

of the two) will be needed, how many of these facilities will be needed, and 

where they should be located to effectively support NextGen. 

4. Ensure the planned 2009 analysis of various alternatives for revamping its 

facilities clearly addresses the technological and security prerequisites of 

consolidations as well as the associated costs, benefits, and logistical 

concerns. 

Recommendations 
14

Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Response 

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

RESPONSE 

We provided FAA with our draft report on September 16, 2008. We received 

FAA’s comments on November 12, 2008. FAA concurred with our 

recommendations and provided planned actions and appropriate target completion 

dates for each recommendation. FAA also submitted minor, editorial revisions, 

which we incorporated as appropriate. FAA’s response is summarized below and 

included in its entirety in the appendix to this report. 

Recommendation 1: FAA concurred and stated that it is developing a more 

diligent process to assess needs, set priorities, and coordinate plans associated with 

budgeting recurring maintenance needs from the Operations account across all 

services. FAA plans to implement the process by the end of FY 2010. 

Recommendation 2: FAA concurred and stated that it will develop an Enterprise 

Architecture to provide a segmented approach to deploying NextGen facilities. 

FAA plans to have the initial roadmap available in January 2009. 

Recommendation 3: FAA concurred and stated that it is developing an 

investment analysis to determine the range of NextGen facilities to be completed 

by February 2009. FAA plans to have a final investment decision by 2011. 

Recommendation 4: FAA concurred and stated that technological and security 

prerequisites along with costs, benefits, and logistical concerns will be included in 

its investment analysis. 

FAA’s planned actions are fully responsive to our recommendations, and we 

consider each recommendation resolved but open pending completion of the 

planned actions. 
15

EXHIBIT A. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted 

Government Auditing Standards prescribed by the Comptroller General of the 

United States. As required by those standards, we obtained evidence that we 

believe provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. We used the following scope and methodology in conducting 

this review. 

We conducted this audit between June 2007 and March 2008. The review included 

site visits to 12 Terminal Services facilities (ATCT/TRACON), 2 En Route 

Services facilities (ARTCC), 1 Service Area, FAA Headquarters, the National Air 

Traffic Controllers Association, and the General Services Administration’s Public 

Building Services. 

To determine if FAA has developed and implemented a comprehensive strategy to 

effectively manage the replacement, repair, and modernization of its air traffic 

control facilities, we interviewed officials from FAA Headquarters (ATOTerminal-Planning and Execution, ATO-En Route and Oceanic Services-Facilities 

Management and Unstaffed Infrastructure Office) and obtained, reviewed, and 

analyzed facility planning documentation. 

We also conducted site visits and interviewed FAA Air Traffic Control Managers 

from En Route and Terminal facilities in Washington, DC; and Chicago, Illinois; 

and Pensacola and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. These locations were judgmentally 

selected by the audit team, and therefore the selection of these locations was not 

based on any type of statistical sampling. 

Finally, to obtain FAA Service Area officials’ perspectives and additional 

evidence regarding the Agency’s plan to manage the replacement, repair, and 

modernization of its facilities, we interviewed the Eastern En Route Director and 

the Technical Operations Director during our site visit of the Eastern Service Area 

in Atlanta, Georgia. 

To determine if FAA has allocated sufficient funds to effectively manage the 

replacement, repair, and modernization of its air traffic control facilities, we 

obtained and reviewed budget data for both the Terminal and En Route lines of 

business from FAA’s Headquarters in Washington, DC. 

We also analyzed facility planning documents and budget data and interviewed 

FAA Headquarters officials (ATO-Terminal-Planning, Execution and Finance and 

ATO-En Route and Oceanic Services-Facilities Management) to determine if FAA 

has identified the cost of the Agency’s modernization and replacement needs. 

Exhibit A. Scope and Methodology
16

We met with the NATCA President and Vice President to identify conditions at 

specific air traffic control facilities that are causing disruptions in operations and 

unhealthy working conditions for employees and conducted site visits at selected 

locations to verify alleged conditions. 

We also interviewed officials from the General Services Administration’s Public 

Building Services to determine if the criteria FAA uses to evaluate the physical 

condition of its air traffic control facilities are based on industry best practices or 

internally developed policies and procedures. 

 

Exhibit A. Scope and Methodology
17

EXHIBIT B. ACTIVITIES VISITED OR CONTACTED 

During this audit, we interviewed FAA Air Traffic Control Managers and NATCA 

representatives and visited the following En Route and Terminal Services 

facilities: 

Terminal Facilities (Air Traffic Control Tower [ATCT] and TRACON) 

• Baltimore (BWI) ATCT 

• Washington Reagan (DCA) ATCT 

• Andrews Air Force Base (ADW) ATCT 

• Chicago O’Hare (ORD) ATCT 

• Midway (MDW) ATCT 

• Rockford (RFD) ATCT/TRACON 

• DuPage (DPA) ATCT 

• Milwaukee (MKE) ATCT/TRACON 

• Chicago TRACON (C90) 

• Pensacola (PNS) ATCT 

• Pensacola TRACON (P49) 

• Fort Lauderdale Executive (FXE) ATCT 

En Route Facilities (Air Route Traffic Control Centers, or ARTCC) 

• Washington (ZDC) ARTCC 

• Chicago (ZAU) ARTCC 

FAA Service Area 

• Eastern Service Area-Atlanta

Third Parties 

• National Air Traffic Controllers Association, Washington, DC 

• General Services Administration’s Public Building Services, Washington, DC 

Exhibit B. Activities Visited or Contacted
18

Exhibit C. Major Contributors to This Report

EXHIBIT C. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT 

Name Title 

Daniel Raville Program Director 

Angela McCallister Project Manager 

Marshall Jackson Project Manager 

Christopher Frank Senior Auditor 

Kevan Moniri Analyst 

Doneliya Deneva Auditor 

Andrea Nossaman Writer-Editor 
19

APPENDIX. AGENCY COMMENTS 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Memorandum 

Date: November 7, 2008 

To: Lou E. Dixon, Assistant Inspector General for Aviation and Special Program Audits 

From: Ramesh K. Punwani, Assistant Administrator for Financial Services/CFO

Prepared by: Anthony Williams, x79000 

Subject: OIG Draft Report: FAA’s Management and Maintenance of Air Traffic Control 

Facilities 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject draft report. The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) concurs with all the recommendations contained in the report. The planned action for 

addressing each recommendation is as follows: 

OIG Recommendation 1: Ensure that the newly developed process for budgeting recurring 

maintenance (out of the operations account) is implemented as designed and develop procedures for 

ensuring compliance within both Terminal and En Route Services to (a) eliminate the current backlog 

of deferred maintenance and (b) make certain that the existing facility maintenance needs are met 

until NextGen is in place. 

FAA Response: Concur. The FAA acknowledges the recommendation and has accepted the charge 

to budget recurring maintenance out of the operations account. We are further developing a more 

diligent process to assess needs, set priorities for remediation, and coordinate implementation plans 

within and across services. This will be implemented by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2010. 

OIG Recommendation 2: Identify target dates for realigning or consolidating facilities and establish 

realistic funding requirements for maintaining existing sites from now until the targeted consolidation 

dates. 

FAA Response: Concur. The NAS Enterprise Architecture (EA) Facility Infrastructure Roadmaps 

provide a segmented approach to the deployment of NextGen Facilities. The FY 2009 roadmaps are 

currently under formal revision and will be available in January 2009. The EA provides major 

acquisition milestones as well as a relational framework 10 other NextGen programs. In the near 

term, the FAA will continue to realign facilities within its authority and in accordance with best 

business practices. The FAA will continue to strengthen sustainment and modernization processes to 

ensure that projects are identified, prioritized, and budgeted for as facilities are replaced, realigned or 

consolidated. 

Appendix. Agency Comments 
20

Appendix. Agency Comments 

OIG Recommendation 3: Determine what types of facilities (i.e., Terminal versus En Route or a 

hybrid of the two) will be needed, how many of these facilities will be needed, and where they 

should be located to effectively support NextGen. 

FAA Response: Concur. The range of alternatives for the NextGen Facilities Project is under 

development. This effort is currently in the Concept and Requirements Definition phase of the 

Acquisition Management System. We are planning for a February 2009 Investment Analysis 

Readiness Decision. The subsequent Investment Analysis will determine the types, number and 

location of NextGen Facilities. A Final Investment Decision is planned for 2011. 

OIG Recommendation 4: Ensure the planned 2009 analysis of various alternatives for revamping 

its facilities clearly addresses the technological and security prerequisites of consolidations as well as 

the associated costs, benefits, and logistical concerns. 

FAA Response: Concur. Technological and security prerequisites along with costs, benefits and 

logistical concerns are integral to the Investment Analysis process. The Investment Analysis process 

is scheduled for completion in 2011. 
The following pages contain textual versions of the graphs and charts included in this 

document. These pages were not in the original document but have been added here to 

accommodate assistive technology. 
FAA’s Management and Maintenance of Air Traffic Control Facilities 

Section 508 Compliant Presentation 

Table. Average Age of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Facilities 

The average age of FAA’s air traffic control towers is 29 years. 

The average age of FAA’s terminal radar approach control facilities is 26 years. 

The average age of FAA’s air route traffic control centers is 43 years. 

Source: FAA 

Figure 1. Number of Facilities by Age 

FAA has 47 facilities that are up to 10 years old. 

FAA has 60 facilities that are 11 to 20 years old. 

FAA has 68 facilities that are 21 to 30 years old. 

FAA has 136 facilities that are 31 to 40 years old. 

FAA has 94 facilities that are 41 to 50 years old. 

FAA has 15 facilities that are over 50 years old. 

Source: FAA 

Figure 2. Damage to Ceiling at Washington Center Due to Leaky Pipes 

Photograph showing staining and damage to ceiling tiles caused by water leaks. 

Source: Office of Inspector General 

Figure 3. Condensation on Tower Windows at Andrews Air Traffic Control 

Tower Hinders Air Traffic Controllers’ View of the Airfield 

Photograph showing clouded viewing glass due to condensation at the Andrews air 

traffic control tower. 

Source: Andrews Air Traffic Control Tower Management 
Figure 4. Temporary Fix at Chicago O’Hare Tower Cab To Drain Water From 

the Ceiling 

Photograph showing hose was attached to the ceiling to drain the water from the 

ceiling into a bucket to mitigate effects of water dripping from the ceiling into the 

tower cab at Chicago O’Hare. 

Source: Chicago O’Hare Air Traffic Control Tower Management 

Figure 5. Rockford Air Traffic Control Tower 

Photograph showing an outside view of the air traffic control tower at the Rockford 

International Airport. 

Source: Office of Inspector General