U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

74–439 PDF 2013

A REVIEW OF FAA’S EFFORTS TO REDUCE 

COSTS AND ENSURE SAFETY AND 

EFFICIENCY THROUGH REALIGNMENT AND 

FACILITY CONSOLIDATION 

(112–88) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 31, 2012 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota, Vice Chair 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

Hon. J. David Grizzle, Chief Operating Officer, Air Traffic Organization, 

Federal Aviation Administration ........................................................................ 13 

Lou E. Dixon, Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and Evaluation, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ..... 13 

Paul M. Rinaldi, President, National Air Traffic Controllers Association .......... 13 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, of North Carolina .............................................................. 33 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas ................................................................... 35 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. J. David Grizzle .............................................................................................. 37 

Lou E. Dixon ............................................................................................................ 45 

Paul M. Rinaldi ........................................................................................................ 60 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, request to submit the following into the record: 

North Carolina congressional delegation 1 letter to Hon. Ray LaHood, 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, expressing concerns 

about the FAA’s decision to move North Carolina from the Atlanta 

Airports District Office (ADO) to the Memphis ADO, May 25, 2012; 

and Hon. LaHood’s letter in reply addressing the concerns, July 

18, 2012 .................................................................................................. 6 

Letter from Senator Kay R. Hagan to Hon. Ray LaHood, Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, expressing concerns about the 

FAA’s decision to move North Carolina from the Atlanta Airports 

District Office (ADO) to the Memphis ADO, May 14, 2012 ............... 11 

Lou E. Dixon, Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and Evaluation, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

response to question from Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Tennessee ........................................................... 59 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

John W. Crichton, President and Chief Executive Officer, NAV CANADA, 

letter to Hon. John L. Mica, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, and Hon. Thomas E. Petri, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Aviation, June 1, 2012 ......................................................................................... 72 

1 North Carolina congressional delegation signatories of the letter are: Senator Richard Burr, Senator Kay R. Hagan, Rep. Melvin L. Watt, Rep. 

Mike McIntyre, Rep. Howard Coble, Rep. Brad Miller, Rep. Patrick T. 

McHenry, Rep. Larry Kissell, Rep. Walter B. Jones, Rep. Sue Wilkins 

Myrick, and Rep. G.K. Butterfield. 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 74439.001

1t.~. JlnUl1t nf iRtprtl1tutatiutl1 

([ommittre on -m:rallsportation alll:! 3Jnfrastntcture 

jfoUn'i!..1it1ita 

q[;l)airnmll 

,ramm, w, Ct!(>u II, Chi('t o!Sft1ff 

MEMORANDUM 

Wililasbington, jJa(!C 20515 

May 25, 2012 

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Aviation 

j1i£!tjf.3t"\ilball,lHI 

:i~llltil1l! iMtmbtr 

FROM: The Honorable Thomas E. Petri, Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation 

SUBJECT: A Review of FAA's Efforts to Rednce Costs and Ensure Safety and Efficiency 

through Realignment and Facility Consolidation 

PURPOSE 

The Subcommittee on Aviation will receive testimony from witnesses regarding the 

Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) facility consolidation and realignment plans and 

efforts. The Subcommittee will also receive testimony on the need for FAA action given the age 

and condition ofF AA facilities; the state of the Federal budget; the need for cost savings; 

expected facility and infrastructure needs with the implementation ofNextGen; and planning 

requirements included in the recently enacted FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

BACKGROUND 

There are nearly 60,000 National Airspace System (NAS) operational facilities that 

support Air Traffic Control (ATC) and over 500 large buildings that house major ATC 

functions.! This includes 561 marmed air traffic control (ATC) facilities-21 en-route centers 

and 542 terminal radar approach control facilities (terminal facilities). 2 The FAA is responsible 

for operations (Le. controlling traffic) at all 542 terminal facilities. The FAA uses its own staff at 

292 of the facilities and contractors at the 250 contract towers. FAA is responsible for physically 

maintaining or replacing 402 of the 542 facilities. The remaining 140 facilities are the 

'National Airspace System Capital Investment Plan FY 2012-2016, p. 7 (2011). 

> Air Traffic Control Towers (ATeT) are located at the airport and handle all takeoffs, landings, and ground traffic. 

En-Route Traffic Control Centers (En-route centers) handle 'en route' traffic, generally flying on instrument flight 

plans, at high altitudes as they move across the United States. 

Terminal Radar Approach Controls (TRACONs or terminal facilities) control aircraft, typically when they are 

within 40 miles of the airport, or transiting airspace near the airport. 
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 74439.002

responsibility of someone else (Le. an airport authority, local government, private company, 

etc.). Of the 402 facilities that the FAA is responsible for maintaining, the FAA owns 338 and 

has agreements to maintain 64 facilities that are staffed by FAA employees. 

FAA Facility Conditions 

In 2008, the Department of Transportation's Office ofInspector General (DOT OIG) 

reported that while the average facility has an expected useful life of approximately 25 to 30 

years, 59 percent ofF AA facilities were over 30 years 01d.3 As of2012, the average age of an 

en-route center is 49 years. The average age of a terminal facility is 28 years. According to the 

FAA, the estimated cost to replace 402 terminal facilities is $10.6 billion. The estimated annual 

cost to sustain 402 terminal facilities is $99.3 million. 

During its 2008 audit, the DOT OIG observed obvious structural deficiencies and 

maintenance-related issues at several locations. These included water leaks, mold, tower cab 

window condensation, deterioration due to poor design, and general disrepair.4 In 2010, the 

FAA conducted an infrastructure analysis that found that 83 percent of its facilities were in either 

poor or fair condition and that some would not be able to support NextGen and other 

modernization efforts. 

In 2008, the DOT OIG found problems with the FAA's facility maintenance program. 

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.5 Further, the lack of control over funds contributed significantly to the 

deterioration of FAA's facilities and resulted in a deferred maintenance backlog of $240 million, 

which was expected to climb to over $380 million by 2020. 6 

In 2006, the FAA indicated that 33 terminal facilities required replacement. Of the 33 

facility replacements identified in 2006, the FAA indicates that as of today 9 have been replaced, 

14 are currently under construction, and the remaining sites are in analysis to determine the 

appropriate alternative of sustain, modernize, or replace. Currently, 332 facilities require 

renovation or modernization.7 According to the FAA, as of May 2012,320 facilities have 

projects planned or underway. 

NextGen Future Facilities Special Program Management Office (SPMO) 

In 2010, the FAA established the NextGen Future Facilities Special Program 

Management Office (SPMO).8 This office is responsible for planning large-scale facility 

realignments and consolidation, developing requirements for these facilities, conducting relevant 

analyses, and coordinating these efforts with the Agency's other modernization offices. SPMO 

reports directly to the Air Traffic Organization's (ATO's) Chief Operating Officer (COO) and 

3 "FAA's Management and Maintenance of Air Traffic Control Facilities," Report Number: A V -2009-012, 

December 15, 2008. 

4 J.d. at p.2. 

5 J.d. at p. iv. 

6jQ.atp.9. 

7 The list of FAA facilities needing renovation or modernization is a dynamic list that is constantly changing. 

8 FAA National Policy Order 1110.154, "Establishment ofFedera! Aviation Administration Next Generation 

Facilities Special Program Management Office," September 1,2010. 

2 
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 74439.003

FAA Deputy Administrator. According to the 2010 Order, the FAA's goal is to incorporate 

NextGen technologies into air traffic management facility design to provide future services in fitfor-purpose facilities. The objectives and scope of the SPMO are to elicit requirements for future 

facilities from all agency lines of business and the operations community. The SPMO also 

solicits requirements from program partners, stakeholders, customers and users. After capturing 

requirements, the SPMO analyzes and aggregates findings, identifies appropriate technologies 

and capabilities under development, integrates these fmdings into cohesive design plans, and vets 

design plans with senior agency leadership and key partners as appropriate. The SPMO 

evaluates design plans and coordinates with other agency initiatives to identify alternatives for 

new facilities. . 

Since the SPMO was created in 2010, they have developed the large-scale realignment 

and consolidation concept and have had this concept approved by FAA's Joint Resources 

Council (JRC), in November 2010. They have also started detailed planning for the first 

integrated facility at Newark Liberty International Airport (Liberty). 

As of May 2012, the SPMO has been reorganized into the Air Traffic Organization's 

(A TO) Technical Operations group under the Air Traffic Facilities Directorate. According to the 

head of the Directorate, FAA intends to modify the existing SPMO charter to recognize the 

realignment to Technical Operations, re-enforce the agreements with other lines-of-business for 

continued support of the Future Facilities program, and will report all activities up to the ATO 

COO office. The FAA has also reorganized the Terminal and En-Route planning groups to the 

Air Traffic Facilities Directorate. 

REALIGNMENT/CONSOLIDATION AND NEXTGEN: 

Over the years, the FAA has conducted numerous studies indicating the need to realign, 

consolidate and collocate air traffic control facilities as the air traffic control system is 

modernized (NextGen). In his July 2007 testimony before the House Aviation Subcommittee, 

Bruce Johnson, FAA Vite President of Terminal Services, stated, 

"A key element of the FAA's transformation into NextGen is 

consolidation of our facilities. The number and specific locations of many 

existing FAA facilities were determined by the capabilities and limitations 

of 1960's technology. In the subsequent four decades, the available 

technology has vastly improved, rendering the long-existing pattem of 

FAA facilities no longer the best configuration. Without consolidation, the 

FAA is tied to maintaining outdated facilities with outdated technology 

based on outdated 1960's radar boundaries. Further, consolidation lowers 

infrastructure costs, and helps improve safety and efficiency by making 

new technologies available for controllers. These savings and 

improvements mean fewer air traffic delays and lower costs for air 

travelers.,,9 

9 Statement of Bruce Johnson, Vice President of Terminal Services before the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, on FAA's Aging ATC Facilities: Investigating the Need to Improve 

Facilities and Worker Conditions, July 24,2007. 

3 
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 74439.004

According to the Department of Transportation Inspector General Scovel (DOT IG) in 

testimony before the House Aviation Subcommittee on April 21, 2010, "A major factor in both 

capital and operating costs for NextGen is the degree to which the Agency eliminates or 

consolidates FAA facilities."lo The DOT IG pointed out that the "FAA must make critical 

decisions on facility requirements, which in tum will significantly impact the type and number of 

systems needed to support NextGen.,,11 He further indicated that "continued delays in 

developing requirements and in making key program decisions will slow NextGen's progress ... " 

and raise costs significantly. 12 

In 2010, the FAA indicated that the following realigrmJents to support NextGen were in 

process: 

> Dayton to Columbus 

> Reno to Northern California 

> West Palm Beach to Miami 

> Abilene to Dallas Fort-Worth.' 

> Muskegon, Lansing, Grand Rapids to Kalamazoo 

> Mansfield, Youngstown, Toledo, Akron-Canton to Cleveland 

> Champaign to Chicago 

In June 2010, the DOT IG reported that the FAA's business case supporting its proposed 

transfer of terminal facility (or TRACON) services from Boise to Salt Lake City was "flawed 

and lacked transparency", 13 and recommended that the FAA periodically reassess the business 

cases for consolidating air traffic facilities throughout the system.14 The DOT IG's letter stated-

"Facility realigrmJents and consolidations will assume greater importance as FAA 

moves forward with the Next Generation Air Transportation System. Therefore, 

the Agency's processes for estimating the costs and expected benefits of 

realigrmJent efforts will warrant greater oversight. We discussed the results of our 

work with FAA's Chief Operating Officer, and he agreed that it will be important 

to have sound business cases in the future for realigning and consolidating FAA 

facilities." 15 

The FAA cancelled the proposed Boise/Salt Lake City consolidation in 20 I O. 

In late 2010, the FAA and the National Air Traffic Controller Association (NATCA) 

established a work group to re-evaluate terminal facility (or TRACON) realigrmJents. The group 

revipwed the original business cases while also taking into consideration non-quantitative issues 

such as the impact on employees. The work group provided recommendations to either 

10 Statement of The Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III Inspector General U.S. Department of Transportation, before the 

Connnittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, on Challenges in Meeting FAA's 

Long-Term Goals·fur the Next Generation Air Transportation System, page 5, April 21, 2010. 

11 rd. 12 M. 

13 The Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General U.S. Department of Transportation, Letter to the. 

Honorable Mike Crapo, the Honorable Mike Simpson, the Honorable James E. Risch, the Honorable Walt Minnick 

(Jun. 30, 2010) at 2. 

14 rd. at 3. 

15 iii 

4 
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 74439.005

"continue" or "defer" the terminal facility realignments proposed by the FAA and produced 

consensus recommendations. The FAA adopted all recommendations by the work group. 

Therefore, as of May 2012, all further consolidations are on hold, but FAA will move 

forward with plans to maintain or replace aging facilities. According to the FAA, the current 

statuses of the terminal facility realignments identified in 2010 are as follows: 

> Dayton to Columbus Ohio (completed June 2011) 

> Reno to Northern California (completed October 2010) 

> West Palm Beach to Miami (cancelled, plan to build new at Palm Beach 

International) 

> Abilene to DallaslFt. Worth (continue - maybe completed October 2012, but more 

likely next year) 

> Muskegon, Lansing, Grand Rapids to Kalamazoo (deferred/on-hold) 

> Mansfield, Youngstown, Toledo, Akron-Canton to Cleveland (deferred/on-hold) 

> Champaign to Chicago (deferred/on-hold) 

At this time, the FAA is planning to start the realignment/consolidation process in the 

New York City region. Specifically, the FAA is planning to address the long-standing concerns 

about aging air traffic facilities with the stand-up of a new, Integrated Control Facility (ICF) 

servicing New York. The new facility will combine operations from New York ARTCC (ZNY) 

and New York TRACON (N90), and will accommodate employees who perform both highaltitude and low-altitude separation. The new rCF will be extensible to allow for future 

realignments andlor consolidations. According to the FAA, the latest technologies and the new 

service delivery model in this facility will improve coordination of air traffic in heavily-used 

airspace, and will serve as the template for how FAA does business in the future. The F AAls FY 

2013 budget included $95M for the rCF. 

FUTURE FACILITIES INVESTMENT 

The NextGen Future Facility program is responsible for defining FAA's long term 

strategy and approach to facility and service· transformation. 16 The program's charter and 

activities are aligned to the goals of the FAA Reauthorization language in section 804 (see 

description of section 804 below). The FAA recently approved an initial plan to consolidate enroute centers and terminal facilities (TRACONS) over the next two decadesY The future 

facilities program seeks to upgrade and transform air traffic control facilities and sites to make 

them flexible, scalable and maintainable. FY 2013 is the fJIst year the Agency requested funding 

for other than planning purposes. 18 

The FAA estimates that $2.3 billion is needed to construct and equip the four integrated 

facilities plarmed for the first of six segments, but last year's Capital Investment Plan (CIP) only 

provides about $700 million for the projects.19 In order to complete the projects, another $1.6 

billion in funding is needed, with nearly $1 billion of that by FY 2017 (see table below). 

16 Budget Estimates Fiscal Year 2013, p.59. 

17 rd. 18M. 

19 National Airspace System Capital Investment Plan FY 2012-2016 (2011). 
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 74439.006

fY11-fY17 FY18-Beyond Total 

Estimated Facility Construction and $1,556.9 $751.2 $2,308.1 Equipage Costs 

Previous CIP Funding Levels $557.7 $144.1 $701.8 

Difference $999.2 $607.1 $1,606.3 

.. ... Source. InitIal Busmess Case for Next GeneratIon Air TransportatIOn System (NextGen) FacilIties Program 

Segment 1 (November 2011). 

COST SAVINGS/COST AVOIDANCE RESULTING FROM FACILITY REALIGNMENTS 

The FAA has studied advantages of facility realignment, including cost savings and cost 

avoidance. With fewer infrastructure inventories, the FAA would have less to maintain, thereby 

achieving cost savings. Additionally, other cost savings andlor cost avoidances that could result 

from facility realignments include: 

>- A voiding unnecessary investment costs for new buildings by using available space in 

other existing buildings in the FAA inventory; 

>- Realiguing older, smaller facilities into one new facility, thereby achieving more efficient 

use of common space square footage; 

>- Saving on building maintenance and operation costs by reducing space inventory or by 

avoiding the increase of space inventory; 

>- Avoiding unnecessary investment costs for new automation equipment by leveraging 

state of the art automation system capabilities to upgrade facilities which still operate 

with an older Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS); and 

>- Avoiding techuical refreshment costs by managing automation equipment and leveraging 

existing automation capabilities.20 • 

FAA FACILITY MANDATES 

IN THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 

National Facilities Realigmnent and Consolidation Report (Section 804) 

The recently enacted FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 20 12 ("Reform Acn 

includes a provision which requires the Administrator to develop, in conjunction with the Chief 

NextGen Officer and Chief Operating Officer, a National Facilities Realignment and 

Consolidation Report within 120 days of enactment.2! The purpose of this report is to support 

20 Source: F ederal Aviation Administration, August 2010. 

21 P.L. 112.95, Section 804, Consolidation and realignment of FAA services andfaeililies 

6 
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 74439.007

the transition to NextGen and to reduce capitol, operating, maintenance, and administrative costs 

of the FAA without adversely effecting safety. The report must include justifications for each 

recommendation and project costs and savings: The report is to be developed with the 

participation of: 1) representatives of labor organizations representing operations and 

maintenance employees of the air traffic control system; and 2) industry stakeholders. The 

public is to be given 45 days to submit comments on the report. The Administrator must then 

submit the report to Congress within 60 days after the last day of the public cominent period. 

Unless a joint resolution of disapproval is enacted within 30 days of submission of the report to 

Congress, the Administrator is directed to follow the recommendations taken in the report during 

the realignment process. 

FAA facility conditions study (Section 610) 

The Reform Act also requires the U.S. Goverurnent Accountability Office to conduct a 

study of the conditions of a sampling of FAA facilities across the U.S., including towers, centers, 

offices and Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACONs). The study will include 

reports from employees relating to health conditions resulting from exposure to mold, asbestos, 

poor air quality, radiation and facility-related hazards in FAA facilities; conditions of facilities 

that could interfere with employee's ability to perform their duties; the ability of managers and 

supervisors to promptly document and seek remediation for unsafe facility conditions; whether 

employees of the Administration who report facility-related illness are treated appropriately; and 

utilization of scientific remediation techniques to mitigate hazardous conditions. Its findings 

must be submitted to the FAA and Congress. Based on the results of the GAO study, the GAO is 

directed to make recommendations on which facilities are in need of immediate attention, and 

assist the Administration in making programmatic changes so that aging facilities do not 

deteriorate to unsafe levels. The GAO is required to submit its report to Congress within one 

year of enactment. 

SUMMARY 

Despite its understanding of the need to make decisions on facility requirements and to 

move ahead with realignments and consolidations, the FAA has previously met parochial 

political resistance from Congress, and at times, its own workforce. If the FAA is to successfully 

implement NextGen and achieve the expected cost savings, cost avoidances, and safety 

improvements, it must work with labor, industry and other stakeholders to develop clear facility 

requirements and sound business cases; comply with the mandates of the recently enacted 

Reform Act; and move ahead with needed realignments, consolidations, and/or maintenance 

plans in an expedited fashion. 

7 
xi 


Insert offset folio 8 here 74439.008

Witnesses: 

The Honorable David Grizzle 

Chief Operating Officer 

Air Traffic Organization 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Ms. Lou E. Dixon 

Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and Evaluation 

Office of the Inspector General 

u.s. Department of Transportation 

Mr. Paul Rinaldi 

President 

National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

8 
(1) 

A REVIEW OF FAA’S EFFORTS TO REDUCE 

COSTS AND ENSURE SAFETY AND 

EFFICIENCY THROUGH REALIGNMENT AND 

FACILITY CONSOLIDATION 

THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas Petri (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PETRI. The hearing will come to order. 

And as has been noted by the familiar voice of Jimmy Miller, this 

is his last official hearing after many, many years, 36 years on the 

Hill as Air Force liaison and with the Science Committee and then 

with this committee, and he has got a unique arrangement. His 

salary is paid by both parties, so he can call them the way he sees 

them and work for all of us. I think there is no one here who 

doesn’t have a story or two about Jimmy Miller, and he has stories 

about all of us and about a lot of other people who have served in 

the military and in leadership positions in American politics over 

the last 50 years. 

And one story I think I can tell now, which he told me and I 

think it is true, Jimmy has traveled to 170 countries, and he has 

traveled with congressional delegations and military leaders. He 

has had three audiences with the Pope and numerous meetings at 

the Vatican. Well, the Pope has a Jimmy Miller, John Paul did 

anyway, someone who would help organize things and so on and 

so forth, so the two of them became very close friends. And when 

some American Congressman or Senator or other group of people 

from—especially from Washington, wanted a private audience with 

the Pope, and they didn’t really no who this was or if it was worthwhile or not, the guy would call up Jimmy Miller, and he would 

decide if a person got a papal audience. 

So it pays to stay on Jimmy’s good side, especially if you want 

to be right with the Church. 

Anyway, Jimmy, thank you very much for all you have done for 

me and for other members of our committee and for the working 

relationships that you had with the staff and with the people who 

make the Hill what it is. 

And best of wishes for a very happy grandfatherly retirement for 

many, many years. 

2 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield. 

Mr. PETRI. Yes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

I can tell you that that is absolutely a true story about the Pope’s 

right-hand person; Jimmy had a personal contact and a relationship, and I know firsthand because I called on Jimmy personally 

one time to do something for me with the Vatican. And he was able 

to do it in an orderly way and made me and my wife extremely 

happy. 

I have traveled extensively with Jimmy Miller over the years, 

and I can tell you that no one knows as many people, not only on 

Capitol Hill but around the world, than Jimmy Miller does. He has 

done a wonderful job. He is a great service to Members. He always 

puts Members first, and he is the go-to guy. I think that anyone, 

members of this committee today or in the past several years since 

he has been with the T and I committee, any of the witnesses who 

were summoned or volunteered to testify, they would always check 

in with Jimmy Miller to find out what was going on to get advice. 

And we are going to miss him, his service, but I suspect, in fact, 

on another committee of which I serve, I have already talked to 

them about trying to recruit Jimmy Miller as a contract employee 

so that we don’t let him get entirely away from us. 

So, Jimmy, we appreciate all that you have done for us over the 

years. We hope that you do not go too far and that we continue to 

see you and continue to be able to call on you. You have been a 

great friend, and I look forward to continuing our friendship for 

many years after you leave the payroll permanently, but we might 

get you back here part time. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Coble would like to say a few words. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You and the distinguished ranking member have pretty well said 

it. 

Jimmy, as we say in the rural South, you done good. Best wishes 

to you and Godspeed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

The subcommittee today will hear testimony on the Federal Aviation Administration’s effort to plan for and carry out much-needed 

facility realignments and consolidations. I welcome the witnesses 

and look forward to their testimony. 

Five years ago, the subcommittee held a hearing on FAA facility 

conditions, and it certainly was a memorable one. At that hearing, 

the FAA witnesses testified that a key element of its transformation to NextGen air traffic control modernization is consolidation of its facilities. The FAA witness also noted that without consolidation, the FAA is tied to maintaining outdated facilities with 

outdated technology based on outdated 1960s radar boundaries. 

As we all know, NextGen touches every aspect of the agency’s 

mission and currently costs roughly a billion dollars per year. It is 

also a job creator and vitally important to allow the United States 

to compete in the global marketplace. 

At the hearing 5 years ago, the Department of Transportation inspector general pointed out that a major factor in both capital and 

3 

operating costs for NextGen is the degree to which the agency 

eliminates or consolidates FAA facilities. 

Congress agrees with the need for FAA to address its aging, rundown and obsolete facilities while furthering NextGen and making 

smart investments. In fact, in the FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act signed by the President on February 14, Congress included 

Section 804, which requires the FAA to develop a national facilities 

realignment and consolidation report within 120 days of that enactment. In accordance with Section 804, the FAA must work with 

labor and industry to develop a plan to transition to NextGen and 

to reduce capital operating maintenance and administrative costs 

of the FAA without adversely affecting safety. The report is to be 

submitted to Congress, and if Congress does not pass a joints resolution of disapproval, then the FAA must follow the recommendations included in the report, kind of a mini base closing arrangement. 

It has been pointed out to me that the FAA’s facility consolidation and realignment effort has actually been in the works for decades now. Over the years, this effort has resulted in some successes, but overall, very little progress has been achieved in terms 

of addressing the needs of NextGen, the FAA’s aging facilities, 

some of which are well past their useful life and the poor working 

conditions endured by many FAA employees. This hearing is intended to focus attention on this critically important program and 

effort. 

Every one is in agreement that the FAA must plan for the future 

by consolidating, realigning and closing many of the over 400 terminal facilities for which it is responsible. This not only makes 

sense from a budget perspective but also is an absolute necessity 

for NextGen. To this end, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on the status of the FAA’s facility consolidation and realignment plans. 

Specifically, the subcommittee is looking for a clear description 

of the FAA’s implementation timeline and cost estimates, how the 

FAA is working with labor groups and industry stakeholders and, 

finally, the agreed-upon metrics for determining progress. Today’s 

hearing is an opportunity for the FAA to refocus its efforts, seek 

the support of Congress, labor groups and other stakeholders and 

take full advantage of the opportunity provided by Section 804 in 

the FAA Reauthorization Act. 

Before we turn to the witnesses for their statements, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise 

and extend their remarks and include extraneous material for the 

record of this hearing. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Without objection. 

Mr. PETRI. Without objection, so ordered. 

I now recognize Mr. Costello for his opening statement. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

And Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing today. 

As you know, in July of 2007, I chaired an Aviation Subcommittee 

hearing to examine worker conditions at aging FAA facilities. At 

that hearing, the FAA testified that large-scale facility consolidation would be a key element of its plan to replace old facilities and 

transition to NextGen. Further, the FAA stated that consolidation 

4 

would improve safety and efficiency and lower infrastructure costs 

by making new technologies available for controllers. 

Nevertheless, much of what we have heard 5 years ago is still 

true today. Many FAA facilities are outdated and deteriorating. 

The average age for an enroute center is 49 years while the average age of the terminal facility is 28 years. As both the chairman 

and ranking member of this subcommittee, I have supported legislation requiring the FAA to develop a plan for large-scale facility 

consolidation and realignment. I am pleased that the recently enacted FAA reauthorization bill requires the FAA to submit a facility consolidation plan to Congress. 

I look forward to hearing from Mr. Grizzle about the status of 

this plan. 

Additionally, I would continue to urge the FAA management to 

include the input of its workforce in developing consolidation plans 

as the law requires. 

Large-scale consolidations will require the movement of thousands of employees and their families. In many instances, the 

FAA’s management will need to negotiate potentially contentious 

issues with the FAA’s unions. FAA leadership should proactively 

engage the agency’s workforce, build consensus and head off potential pitfalls and delays. Moreover, while consolidation can reduce 

long-term costs, they are expensive to undertake in the near term. 

On any large-scale capital project, the FAA must carefully analyze 

whether the benefits outweigh the costs to the taxpayers. 

In the past, the inspector general has identified consolidation efforts where FAA management made flawed assumptions about cost 

and benefits because the FAA did not effectively include the input 

of its workforce. I firmly believe that when the FAA management 

engages its workforce, it produces a better work product and a 

stronger business case for its actions. 

Mr. Chairman, last year, I warned that if we authorized the capital funding levels that were too low in the FAA bill, we could hamstring facility consolidation efforts. In fact, the FAA estimates that 

its required capital expenditures, including the cost of consolidation, will greatly exceed the funding that Congress provided in the 

FAA bill for the next few years. The IG will testify today that tight 

funding limits in the FAA reauthorization bill have already delayed 

the approval of construction for the first phase of the FAA’s Northeast consolidation plan. 

Looking forward, if the funding levels in our recently enacted 

FAA bill are not adequate, then Congress must provide additional 

funding for the FAA through the appropriation process. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses 

today and look forward to asking some questions about how the 

process is going. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Coble, do you have any opening remarks? 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Mr. Costello for having called 

this hearing. 

And I want to express our gratitude to our guests from the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Air Traffic Controllers for their appearance today. 

5 

We appreciate your testimony and dialogue. 

I will not try to employ too much of the subcommittee’s time this 

morning Mr. Chairman, and I have got two other meetings I am 

going to have to attend, so I will probably be in and out. 

But I do want to comment on a problem that is confronting 

North Carolina’s aviation community. The FAA has recently elected to geobalance North Carolina out of the Atlanta Airport District 

Office over to the Memphis Airport District Office. My North Carolina colleagues and I, Democrats and Republicans alike, from this 

and other bodies, strongly oppose the FAA decision. The utmost respect is due the FAA and its staff. They, after all, make our skies 

safer, more accessible and are responsible for maintaining one of 

our modern transportation’s greatest achievements. 

On the other hand, this ADO dog, in my opinion, just don’t hunt. 

It takes an already proven system and changes it for reasons our 

offices have been unable to determine. In fact, this authorization 

strongly contradicts an Office of Management and Budget directive 

which instructs agencies, and I am paraphrasing, to spend at least 

30 percent less on travel expenses now than in fiscal year 2010 and 

through fiscal year 2016. 

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that there are no representations 

from the FAA here today who are directly affiliated with the GAO 

balancing decision, but I ask unanimous consent to submit a letter 

into the record from the North Carolina congressional delegation 

that has been sent to the FAA in opposition to its decision. 

[The letter follows. The letter in reply from the Secretary of 

Transportation is also included:] 

6 


Insert offset folio 9 here 74439.009

~ongttl)l) of tbt Wntttb ~tattl) 

.1l15bington, 19~ 20510 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.Il. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

May 25,2012 

We write to convey grave concern over the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) decision to 

initiate implementation of a plan that would move NOlih Carolina from the Atlanta Airports District 

Office (ADO) to the Memphis ADO. 

For over 45 years, the Atlanta ADO and the state of North Carolina have enjoyed a robust 

working relationship. In talking with stakeholders, it is very apparent that the North Carolina Department 

of Transportation (NCDOT), the North Carolina AirpOlt Association (NCAA) and the state's 72 airpOlts 

are extremely satisfied with the Atlanta ADO's ability to manage the needs of its patrons. This kind of 

specialized knowledge about the issues facing NC airports only comes with experience and years of 

developing customer service. Any changes to the current system should be properly vetted and made 

transparent given the drastic effects that such a proposal will have on our state. 

The move from Atlanta to Memphis holds major implications with regard to travel time and costs. 

Simple estimations in the geographical difference between trips to Atlanta and trips to Memphis result in 

as much as two times the mileage and time traveled. NCDOT's Division of Aviation works regularly 

with Atlanta-based representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, U.s. Fish and Wildlife, 

National Park Service, FAA Facilities and Air Traffic Control. It is our understanding that these trips 

serve multiple purposes and are deemed extremely efficient. 

FUlthermore, with regard to the travel implications of SUM,\! move, we would like to point out 

that of the nine commercial airports in North Carolina, eight offer non-stop services to Atlanta whereas 

only two currently offer non-stop services to Memphis. We understand that, in most cases, connections 

will have to be made in Atlanta or Charlotte, which will only add to travel time and budgets. 

Charlotte-Douglas is the seventh largest airport in the country, yet NOIih Carolina does not have 

its own ADO. Ofthe nation's thirteen largest airports, only Las Vegas shares this distinction. We would 

strongly suggest the FAA evaluate the effectiveness of moving the Memphis ADO to Charlotte. This 

proposal seems especially suitable given that North Carolina has 25 million enplanements annually while 

Tennessee and Kentucky combined has 15 million enplanements during that same time period. 

While we do not fully understand the reasoning behind the FAA's proposal, we certainly 

appreciate the motive driving these efforts. As a delegation, it is our job to explore innovative ways to 

oversee a more efficient government. However, in light ofthe points laid out above, we would ask that 

the FAA respond (0 the following questions: 
7 


Insert offset folio 10 here 74439.010

I. Trips from some eastern parts of North Carolina to Memphis could exceed 15 hours. Does this 

undermine any suggested rationales for realignment made in the name of efficiency? 

2. Has the FAA considered realigning the Memphis ADO to Charlotte? If so, why was this move 

not acceptable? 

3. We ask that the FAA provides suppolting data on how this plan will benefit the aviation interests 

ofNOlth Carolina. Specifically, how will this move improve efficiency within the state? 

We would appreciate a response to these questions by June 4,2012. Until these concerns can be 

adequately addressed, we join NCDOT, the NCAA, and a majority of North Carolina's 72 airports and 

respectfully request that North Carolina not be moved from Atlanta to Memphis. 

sa 

.... 

Senator Richard Burr 

Sincerely, 

Senator Kay Hagan 
8 


Insert offset folio 11 here 74439.011

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTArtOf\! 

TIle Honorable Howard Coble 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 205 J 5 

Dear Congressman Coble: 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 

July 18; 2012 

Thank you for your letter, cosigned by your congressional colleagues, regarding the realignment 

of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Airports District Offices (ADO). 

In your letter, you expressed concems about how geographic balancing will benefit the aviation 

inter¢sts of North Carolina and improve efficiency within the State. This initiative is designed to 

allow us tO'improve our customer service through standardization, which requires balancing our 

field offiee workload to gain efficiencies and leverage limited resourccs. This was a 

commitment we made to Congress, and it is furtherl'eflectedin section 812 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of20 12 that requires FAA to review each program office with 

the goal ofimproving efficiency, We have a proven traek record ofsuecessfulrealignments in 

FAA's Eastern and Western-Pacific Regions.,in200S and 2006, respectively. We believe North 

Carolina, as well as FAA's other airport sponsors, will benefit from these improvements. 

You also asked if FAA had considered realigning the Memphis ADO to. Charlotte. In developing 

the geographic balancing initiative, we lookc'd at many alternatives, including moving the 

Memphis ADO to another location. We did not specifically consider Charlotte; however, at the 

end of our analysis, we decided we could achieve the necessary efficiencies while still 

maintaining all of our existing offices without requiring staff moves or reducing jobs. 

On May 14, FANs Associate Administl'atol'for Airports,Ms. Christa Fornarotto,met with the 

Norih Carolina Department of Transportation's Director of Aviation, Mr. Richard Walls, -and the 

President of the North Carolina Airports Association, Mr. Don Howard, to officially advise State 

reptesentativesthaLFAA would be mQving forward on the geographic balancing initiative. TIle 

attendees were assured that every rei\spnable efIort would be made for a smooth transition. 

The FAA has offered alternatives to the State and its sponsors to help address concerns regarding 

travel costs. Ms. Fornarotto invited the State and the Association to continue to provide 

suggestions forthe transition, She also encouraged local stakeholders to participate on transition 

teams, which began meeting on June 4. Through careful transition planning, we will ensure that 

all ongoing and prospective projects receive the highest level of service and consideration based 

on merit. 
9 


Insert offset folio 12 here 74439.012

Page 2 

The Honorable Howard Coble 

I am happy to have Ms. Fornarotto brief you on this process. A similar resp 

each cosigner of your letter. If I can provide further information or assis 

call me. 
10 

Mr. COBLE. I would also ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, 

to submit a list of questions to the FAA representatives here today 

and would hope that the chairman and ranking member would give 

consideration to conducting a hearing on this problem some time 

later during the summer. 

I ask unanimous consent to submit a statement on this matter, 

Mr. Chairman, from my fellow North Carolinians, Senator Hagan 

and Representative Butterfield. 

[Please refer to the hearing section entitled, ‘‘Prepared Statements Submitted by Members of Congress’’ for the statement of 

Representative G.K. Butterfield. The letter from Senator Kay R. 

Hagan follows:] 

11 


Insert offset folio 13 here 74439.013

KAY R. HAGAN NOR111 CAROLINA 

iinitrd ~tatts ~rnatr 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary of Transportation 

US Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SW 

Washington DC, 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

May 14, 2012 

D1RKSfN sun_DING 

WAStilNGTON, 0\.-: 1(.'510 

I am writing to express my opposition to the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) 

proposal to move North Carolina from the Atlanta Airports District Office (ADO) to the 

Memphis ADO as part of a national realignment. 

The Atlanta ADO has worked cooperatively and constructively for over 45 years with North 

Carolina's 72 airports, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and the 

North Carolina Airport Association (NCAA), These stakeholders are all highly satisfied with 

their relationship with the Atlanta ADO and have raised significant concerns about the 

impact of the realignment on aviation services in North Carolina. Unfortunately, the lack of 

a transparent public input process prevented stakeholders in North Carolina from raising 

these concerns with the FAA prior to their release of the realignment plan. 

In particular, moving North Carolina from the Atlanta ADO to the Memphis ADO will create 

problems regarding travel. The round trip from North Carolina to Memphis is, on average, 

six hours longer than the round trip from North Carolina to Atlanta. This added length 

makes single day trips more difficult and makes dealing with the FAA greatly more 

inefficient for stakeholders in North Carolina. Airports in North Carolina must also 

coordinate with additional groups in Atlanta regarding flight procedures and navigational 

aids. My understanding is that these functions will remain in Atlanta, making future 

coordination more difficult and costly. 

In addition, there are a number of specialized permitting issues associated with the coastal 

areas of North Carolina. Staff in the Atlanta ADO has developed specialized knowledge of 

these issues and possess other environmental expertise specific to North Carolina. I am 

concerned about the impact the time it will take for the Memphis ADO learn these unique 

permitting issues will have on North Carolina's airports. 
12 


Insert offset folio 14 here 74439.014

I applaud the FAA for working diligently to save taxpayer money. However, J ultimately 

oppose moving North Carolina from the Atlanta ADO to the Memphis ADO because it does 

not support the FAA's goals of improving efficiencies, improving customer service, and 

controlling costs. North Carolina's airports, the NCDOT, and the NCAA share this opinion. 

I appreciate your attention to this matter and urge you to impress upon the FAA the 

importance of North Carolina remaining with the Atlanta ADO. 

~.e~~ Kay R. Hagan 
13 

Mr. COBLE. And I thank the chairman and yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Without objection, your submissions will be made a 

part of the record. 

And as you know, we have had a roundtable discussion with a 

number of the concerned airport officials from North Carolina, and 

if a hearing later in the year seems advisable, we will work with 

you on that. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you for your cooperation, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Any other opening statements? 

If not, we will turn to the distinguished panel, consisting of 

David Grizzle, chief operating officer of the Air Traffic Organization at the FAA; Ms. Lou Dixon, principal assistant inspector general for auditing and evaluation, Office of the Inspector General at 

the Department of Transportation; and Paul Rinaldi, president, 

National Air Traffic Controllers Association. 

Thank you all for being here. We thank you for the effort that 

you and your associates have put into the prepared statements that 

you submitted and invite each of you to do your best to summarize 

them in approximately 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Grizzle. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE J. DAVID GRIZZLE, CHIEF 

OPERATING OFFICER, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; LOU E. DIXON, PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITING AND 

EVALUATION, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND PAUL M. RINALDI, 

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Thank you, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member 

Costello, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me 

to testify before you regarding the consolidation and realignment of 

the Federal Aviation Administration’s facilities. The FAA’s ability 

to meet the future needs of the aviation system, including the full 

implementation of NextGen technologies, fundamentally relies on 

the agency’s ability to optimize our facilities and workforce to serve 

the needs of those who use the National Airspace System. 

I want to say at the outset that we at the FAA view Section 804 

of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 as an invaluable 

opportunity to obtain congressional support to move forward with 

the transformation of our air traffic control facilities infrastructure. 

The provision directs the FAA with input from labor and industry to develop consensus recommendations on a realignment and 

consolidation of FAA services and facilities and to report to Congress on those recommendations. 

The process is collaborative in nature and will require FAA to 

consider insights from several sources. 

While Section 804 applies to the facility consolidation and realignment plans for the entire FAA, the Inspector General’s Office 

has a draft audit evaluating the air traffic organization’s efforts in 

this area. Because of the scope of the ATO, its efforts make up a 

great majority of the agency’s overall plans. The ATO’s facility 

work will form the foundation for proceeding with the implementation of NextGen technologies while—very importantly—maintainVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:50 Jan 04, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\5-31-1~1\74439.TXT JEAN
14 

ing the safety and reliability of the infrastructure upon which we 

must rely until NextGen technologies come on line. 

We agree with the IG’s assertion in the draft audit that FAA has 

not sufficiently developed the metrics necessary to evaluate the 

merits of various consolidation and realignment alternatives. We 

are working hard to determine the appropriate criteria for making 

FAA’s decisions moving forward. 

The criteria we used previously focused primarily on the capital 

cost of bricks and mortar, which was relatively simple to apply but 

failed to address critical operating costs and issues. Contract obligations and their impact on consolidations or realignment proposals, the location specific differences and other operating costs 

make these larger decisions more complex. 

As we work toward developing our criteria and analytic tools, we 

will continue to seek the best information available to us. 

As noted in the IG audit, as recently as 2008, FAA was making 

short-term decisions about how to invest its fiscal resources on facilities based on the immediate need to sustain the operations in 

the NAS. As the facilities aged and required more and more maintenance, it became evidence that short-term facility-specific investments, by themselves, were not a long-term cost-effective method 

of maintaining our critical infrastructure and could not adequately 

support the implementation of NextGen. 

The U.S. airspace is the most complex in the world. It accommodates not only 22 million commercial operations a year but also a 

robust general aviation community as well as military operations. 

This mix represents an extraordinary range of aircraft types, capabilities and missions. For several years, we have recognized the 

need for a more holistic approach to address the combination of 

aging infrastructure and advancing technologies, technologies 

which no longer require that controllers be located near the airspace they are controlling in order to safely separate aircraft. 

Because we can combine controller groups and their airspace, we 

can reduce the number of boundary handoffs and thus the possibility of human error. 

Working with our unions over the past 2 years, we have developed a strategy to address different areas of airspace over the contiguous 48 States. The strategy adopts a segmented approach, 

prioritizing on the basis of need and optimizing opportunity for the 

airspace and facilities in question. 

Our initial focus is on the New York area. Problems that develop 

in this airspace have consequences all across the country. How the 

consolidation or realignment is accomplished in this important area 

is something that is receiving our utmost attention and we expect 

to include a number of proposals affecting this airspace in the plan 

that we submit to Congress. The proposal will include consideration of the existing facilities, their condition, their location, the 

anticipated needs of the region, whether and where new facilities 

should be constructed and how FAA employees would be affected. 

While the FAA’s segmented plan extends out for several decades, 

the plan submitted to Congress pursuant to the legislation will 

only cover the time period into the future for which we have reasonably reliable visibility. 

15 

In conclusion, I want to thank the committee for inviting me to 

testify today and for affording the FAA to chance to take advantage 

of the opportunity offered by Section 804. We look forward to working with Congress, the IG, NATCA, and the industry to achieve the 

best possible outcome for this ongoing process. 

This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Ms. Dixon. 

Ms. DIXON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify this morning on FAA’s air 

traffic facility realignment and consolidation efforts, a key initiative for NextGen. 

My testimony today is based on work we are currently doing at 

the request of this subcommittee. It will focus on FAA’s plan for 

large-scale realignments and consolidations, key challenges for executing the plan, and actions the agency needs to take in the near 

term. 

FAA’s realignment and consolidation plan was formalized last 

November and calls for consolidating enroute centers and 

TRACONs into large, integrated facilities over the next two decades. The plan would divide the National Airspace System into six 

geographic segments that include four to five facilities each. 

Work would begin on a new segment every other year with all 

segments to be completed by 2034. TRACONs and enroute centers 

would be combined into one of two types of facilities—each of which 

could house over 1,200 employees—based on operational requirements, airspace responsibility, and geographic location. FAA plans 

to start with a new integrated facility in the New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia area. 

In our opinion, FAA’s plan represents significant progress since 

our 2008 review when the agency was primarily focused on sustaining the existing infrastructure. However, FAA is in the early 

stages of planning and has delayed a final decision on exactly 

where to build the first facility until next May. The decision also 

involves determining complex operational, logistical, and workforce 

aspects of the consolidation. FAA’s plans for future projects could 

change based on experiences with the first locations. 

Successfully implementing FAA’s consolidation and realignment 

plan and mitigating future risk will require the agency to address 

a number of challenges. First, FAA must align previously approved 

construction projects with its plan. While the agency has suspended 

all but one of its terminal realignment and consolidation projects, 

it is moving ahead with plans to maintain or replace some of its 

older facilities. This work could overlap with projects included in 

its consolidation plan. 

Second, FAA must make key decisions related to automation 

platforms and equipment, airspace redesign, and other technical 

factors. The agency’s modernization plans are based on the current 

facility set up, not consolidated or integrated facilities. 

FAA is just beginning to define the technical requirements for an 

integrated facility, a determination that will impact the agency’s 

future modernization plans and budgets, such as those for ERAM. 

16 

However, FAA has not made changes to its capital investment 

plan, and the full extent of the changes needed will not be known 

until FAA finalizes its consolidation plan. 

Third, FAA must finalize project cost estimates and funding 

sources to construct, staff, and maintain the first integrated facility, a critical element of a long-term effort of this magnitude. 

When the overall plan was approved last November, FAA esti- mated that it needed $2.3 billion to construct and equip the first 

four integrated facilities. Given current budget constraints, FAA is 

considering all sorts of financing sources, such as public-private 

partnerships. 

Finally, FAA must address workforce and community issues. 

Large-scale realignments and consolidations will require relocation 

of thousands of employees and their families. The agency will have 

to negotiate pay, training, moving expenses, and other issues with 

its unions. FAA is working closely with its bargaining units to gain 

consensus on these issues. But formal negotiations have not yet 

begun. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me point out that some of FAA’s 

past facility consolidations did not produce the expected cost savings and operational benefits. As the current consolidation plan 

continues to evolve, we believe that metrics to track efficiencies 

and cost savings will be critical. Measuring the success of early 

sites will be key to determining whether the agency needs to modify its plans and expectations for future efforts. 

By next May, we see four issues that FAA must address in its 

initial decisions: the location of the first integrated facility, the 

final cost estimates for that site, the metrics for measuring the success of the first locations, and the impact that FAA’s large-scale 

plan will have on its other modernization efforts. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy 

to address any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Rinaldi. 

Mr. RINALDI. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Costello, distinguished members of the committee, aviation subcommittee, on behalf of more than 18,000 air traffic controllers and 

aviation professionals represented by NATCA, I would like to 

thank you for inviting me to testify before you on this important 

issue. 

Ranking Member Costello, I am very grateful to testify before 

you one more time. To say that you will be missed after this year 

is a complete understatement. I can’t thank you enough for your 

passion and your pride in doing the right thing for the National 

Airspace System, ensuring the safety and efficiency of the system, 

and I wish you the best in your post-Congress life. 

NACTA’s position on realignments is pretty clear: We support realignments, but only as part of a comprehensive plan with a clear 

objective and quantifiable efficiency gains and a sound business 

case evaluating each proposal. 

The reason to realign FAA facilities would be to enhance operational services, provide continued or improved aviation safety to 

the National Airspace System, support and facilitate the modVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:50 Jan 04, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\5-31-1~1\74439.TXT JEAN
17 

ernization of the National Airspace System, address and mitigate 

concerns raised by stakeholders, and for it to be cost effective. 

Realignment is not an issue that is new to me. As a controller 

back in 1990, I was one of the lead project managers on a building 

called the Potomac Consolidated TRACON project. Back then, we 

looked at taking the approach controls from Washington Dulles, 

Washington National, Baltimore, Richmond and Andrews and putting it into one building. The agency had a business plan. It had 

a sound case. They brought in all the stakeholders involved, and 

it made sense. 

So we, as the union, worked together collaboratively with the 

agency to build a Potomac Consolidated TRACON project, which 

today is a huge success in my opinion. The process was not perfect, 

but at least the stakeholders were involved. 

Let me be clear: NATCA supports facility realignments, but only 

as part of a comprehensive plan with a clear objective and a sound 

business case. To date, unlike the Potomac project, many of the 

FAA’s projects have failed to reach that level of scrutiny. 

Realignment is not the fiscal panacea that some believe it might 

be. In many cases, consolidating radar facilities costs the agency 

more money, not less. The IG in their own testimony has said that 

we have not, in the 1990s, have not reached the operational cost 

and efficiencies, because when you sever TRACONs from the tower, 

you increase personnel, and not taken into account is the increased 

telecommunications cost that goes with it. 

We should not assume that if we are going to realign facilities 

that the NAS is going to have less infrastructure. It actually is 

going to have more, because we are increasing the number of facilities. But there still may be very good reasons to do that. 

The past decade is filled with consolidations done incorrectly: 

Memphis; Orlando; Beaumont, Texas; and Pueblo, Colorado. In Orlando and Memphis, they severed the tower from the TRACON, not 

increasing operational efficiencies at all but increasing personnel 

costs. Orlando itself increased by 11 people. 

In 2009, we established a collaborative joint work group under 

Administrator Randy Babbitt, and we looked at now the agency 

was moving forward with projects of consolidation. Ultimately, the 

group collaboratively studied the planned realignments and recommended to move forward on three. We wanted to stop two because they actually were using flawed business cases. If we are 

working together in collaboration, we can just look at what has to 

be done and move forward in the right way for the taxpayers; for 

the American public and for the flying public. 

We applaud FAA Reauthorization Section 804 that requires to 

have stakeholder involvement. 

The recommendation that NATCA would make is that we sit together; we work on developing a plan in a holistic way for the National Airspace System, that is good for the taxpayer, that is safe, 

efficient, and gives us the ability to modernize the system. I look 

forward to answering your questions, and I thank you for your 

time. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Thank you all for your testimony. 

I do have a couple of questions. 

18 

Mr. Grizzle, could you tell the committee if the agency has adequate authority to transfer funds if, for example, there is a consolidation leading to more efficient use of personnel, do you have the 

authority to carry over the operating cost savings from the closure 

of one facility to assist in the transition costs for a new facility, or 

also the authority to retain proceeds from the sale of facilities that 

are closed down to help offset the costs of constructing new facilities? Is there adequate authority, or is this a problem? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Because the transition from an old facility to a new 

facility occurs over several years, we would be able in the ordinary 

budgeting process to be able to effectuate the transfer of operating 

costs. 

The transfer of capital investment would depend on what the actual ownership is of the facility that is being closed versus the facility that is being owned. 

Mr. PETRI. I understand that you are fairly far along on plans 

for a consolidation or reorganization in the New York region, which 

is a crucial kind of congestion point in the national system at this 

point. 

Could you discuss at all how you are working on that with various private industries, stakeholders and union and other concerned parties? Local governments as well. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Yes. Thank you. As Ms. Dixon and Mr. Rinaldi 

have mentioned, we have developed a long-term segmented facility 

consolidation plan that would ultimately result in substantial facility consolidation in the 48 contiguous States. 

The first segment that we are devoting detailed attention to is 

what we call segment 1, which includes the New York area. We 

have been working with NATCA for a couple of years in two components of that plan, part of it is airspace redesign, and then closely 

related to that is design of a facility. 

We are at the point now where we have a well developed concept 

of the facility, but we are now at the stage where we must begin 

to move to site-specific decisions. We have to decide where the site 

will be located, and that will require significant employee and management input as well as input from local communities, Members 

of Congress and other industry stakeholders. We are just now at 

the process of having our concept sufficiently definitive that we can 

begin that additional, those additional steps of outreach. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

I want to compliment both you and NATCA for your efforts to 

communicate and work through this process, which can be unsettling for employees and individual situations, and in that connection, in my own area, I am familiar with a number of organizations, large companies that have gone through massive changes in 

the way they were operating internally in order to be more competitive and efficient. And while years ago, those changes might 

have been resisted across the board by organized labor, more recently United Auto Workers, for example, and others have supported those efforts because they realize to maintain high-paying 

jobs, they are going to have to increase productivity, and but nonetheless there has been a tension between the national union and 

locals in some cases. 

19 

Could you discuss how you are working that through, Mr. 

Rinaldi, or if that is an issue? I am sure it is to some extent a fact. 

Mr. RINALDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that is an excellent 

question. 

If you go to any facility across the country and you say, well, we 

are going to consolidate you on such-and-such date and you are 

going to move across State boundaries, across the State, across the 

town, obviously, change is a concern for everybody and resistance 

sets in. 

But if you actually go with a comprehensive plan and say this 

is the game plan, we are going to start phasing you in. We are 

going to build the building at this location. Here are the schools. 

Here are the job opportunities for your spouses, and here is the median cost of housing. If you have a comprehensive plan that you actually bring to the employees, I think change is not that resistant, 

and they will have the ability to plan their future as opposed to the 

uncertainty. And I think that is where we have to be better with 

a comprehensive plan to bring to the employees at the local level 

so that we do have that buy-in. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To follow up on your comment, Mr. Rinaldi, what you are saying 

is for a smooth transition, what you have to have is a plan that 

was not developed by just the FAA, it needs to be developed by the 

controllers, by the stakeholders and everyone involved from day 1, 

is that correct? 

Mr. RINALDI. That would be correct, yes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Let me ask you, Ms. Dixon, in the 2010 analysis 

of the Boise consolidation, the IG made recommendations afterwards that the FAA should, in fact, make certain that they have 

direct communication input with the employees, controllers and 

others. 

Tell me what you uncovered in the Boise consolidation that made 

the IG make these recommendations? 

Ms. DIXON. Thank you. 

Congressman Costello, we found that there was a lack of communication. There was also a lack of transparency. The FAA had developed multiple plans over the course of a few years and did not 

continually communicate the changes that they made to those 

plans to the local officials, the local workforce, or to, I think, some 

of the national workforce members. 

In 2005, they had decided that they were going to co-locate the 

Boise and Salt Lake City facilities. Subsequently, in 2009, they decided that they would go for a consolidation, but they didn’t communicate these changes to the workforce and to the local community. So it caused some unnecessary questions and concerns about 

what exactly what was going on. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Let me ask you about the funding levels in the 

reauthorization bill. 

Do you believe that they are adequate to carry out the FAA’s proposed consolidation plan? 

Ms. DIXON. We are aware that FAA has identified some funding 

shortfalls. They do not yet have all of the funding in place that 

20 

they will need to construct even the first segment. However, as I 

mentioned, they are looking at some other alternative financing options, but they have not yet really finalized all the cost estimates. 

So before they can really decide how to fund it or where to obtain 

the funding, they will need to definitize the cost estimates, but it 

will be critical that they continue to communicate exactly how 

much money they will need and when they will need it. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You state in your testimony that the tight funding levels in the authorization bill led to delayed approval of the 

construction of the first phase of the Northeast facility consolidation. Is that an indication of what we are looking at down the road 

in the future? I mean, we are now, we already have a delay because of a lack of funding level for the Northeast consolidation. Is 

that an indication of what we are going to see from here on out? 

Ms. DIXON. Congressman, it is certainly possible that it is an indicator. The funding environment obviously is very tight right now. 

FAA recognizes that, and they are looking at other options, but certainly that is a potential indicator. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Grizzle, you have heard me state in the past 

more times than you like I am sure that if it comes to negotiating 

contracts, if it comes to consolidation, whatever it may be, that my 

opinion is that in order for the best outcome, you have to have 

input from both sides, that the FAA just can’t develop a policy and 

say to the stakeholders, this is the way it is going to be, that there 

has to be input. You know, as you have indicated in your testimony 

and it has been mentioned that Section 804 of the reauthorization 

bill in fact requires the FAA now to engage and develop consensus 

with the stakeholders. 

These recommendations, which you have to report back to Congress as mandated in the bill, are due in mid June, yet in Mr. 

Rinaldi’s testimony, he states that NATCA has not been involved 

in any discussion efforts to produce these recommendations. 

So my question to you is, have you reached out as a result of the 

reauthorization bill or that Congress has mandated a report back 

from the FAA to the Congress as to how you are going to involve 

the stakeholders, the controllers and others? Have you reached out 

to NATCA and other stakeholders to ask for their input? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Sir, I believe that we need more than just input. 

I think that true collaboration is more than simply giving another 

party an opportunity to comment on a plan that has already been 

devised by you. And so we are engaging with NATCA now and with 

our other unions and subsequently with other community stakeholders to have true collaboration, which will involve them in actually compiling the decisions and not simply commenting on a decision that we have already made. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, specifically, tell me, what has the FAA done 

with NATCA and the other union in order to begin the process? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. NATCA has been very involved in the 

conceptualization of the airspace redesign and the design of the 

New York facility, which will be the first implementation of our 

long-term consolidation strategy. We are only now at the point, as 

I said earlier, of beginning to definitize the site-specific decisions 

that apply to that initial implementation. 

21 

Mr. COSTELLO. But my question specifically is not about the New 

York airspace. It is about how you are going to go about with the 

consolidation plan for the entire system and what the procedures 

will be as far as input from and input from all of the stakeholders. 

Have you developed that plan? And if not, when did you intend 

to sit down with the stakeholders since you are to report to Congress in just about 3 weeks? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. The plan that Mr. Rinaldi and I have discussed is 

that we would devise a set of criteria, which would guide our consolidation decisions. That would be a set that we and NATCA 

would agree are the right ones to apply to all of consolidation decisions. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And when you sat down with Mr. Rinaldi, which 

I will ask him to respond as well, how long ago was that? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We discussed this maybe a month ago. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Maybe a month ago. But not before that? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Not—not—the decision, not in terms of devising the 

criteria, that is correct. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Rinaldi, I wonder if you would respond. 

Mr. RINALDI. I would be happy to, sir. Roughly 10 days after that 

very authorization was signed by the President, February 14, 

NATCA sat down and developed a scoping document of what we 

would like to see out of Section 804. And we submitted at a lower 

level where a working group would sit there and work that. It 

seemed to be going nowhere. It was about a month after that we 

had initial conservations, Executive Vice President Gilbert and myself, David Grizzle and Deputy COO Rick Ducharme had a brief 

conversation and said, we need to get moving on this because our 

report is due, and they agreed. Their intent was not to stall by any 

stretch of the imagination. 

We then submitted what we thought would be a good starting 

point that we could work on. And it wasn’t until about a month 

after that when we actually had the conversations that this is a 

good place to start. And Mr. Grizzle is exactly right; we had a conversation in which we talked about really developing real metrics 

of what we are going to measure and how we are going to analyze 

the real cost of doing realignments. And it was probably last week 

or the week before where we set a meeting for June 5 to have our 

first joint meeting to start working on this game plan. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So just so I get this right, when you determined 

that you would sit down, both of you, on June 5, how long ago was 

that? 

Mr. RINALDI. About 10 days ago, I guess, yes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. About the time when this hearing was called, is 

that correct? 

Mr. RINALDI. Pretty close yes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So you knew—the FAA knew they were coming 

in here for this hearing and, it seems to me, said, we better reach 

out because the questions are going to be asked, but they didn’t 

reach out and talk to you before that? 

Mr. RINALDI. We had broad conversations, but as far as putting 

some meat on the bones to develop a report, we had not had those 

conversations. 

22 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I have already taken too much 

time, but I think it is another example of how when this subcommittee provides oversight hearings and holds the FAA’s feet to 

the fire, that they act, and I suspect that a June 5 date would not 

have been set had you not scheduled this hearing today that we 

would have ended up missing the, either not having a report to the 

Congress by the middle of June or having a report without direct 

input in collaboration with not only NATCA but the other union 

and other stakeholders. 

So I would just make that point and again compliment you for 

holding this hearing, and it is another example of when this subcommittee acts, then the FAA acts. And when we do not hold their 

feet to the fire, they go on to other things; when we schedule hearings, they say we had better get our act together and get moving 

on this because the subcommittee is going to be asking us questions. 

Mr. PETRI. So we will be happy to work with you on strategically 

organizing hearings to get all these things moving. 

Mr. LoBiondo, I apologize. Earlier, I note you had a short opening statement, and I didn’t realize that, and anyway the floor is 

yours. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just was going to briefly say that 

I am happy to see the positive results of the workforce and the 

FAA management working together. This is clearly something that 

we have to do, and I know the FAA and many front-line controllers 

are working on dozens of modernization projects at the tech center, 

which is my district. I have a very keen interest in this because 

all of the validation work will come through that tech center. 

And I want to say to the men and women of that tech center, 

a huge thank you for their dedication to excellence and each and 

every day reaching out and going beyond above and beyond the call 

of duty. 

I think their presence is helping to ensure these projects are on 

time and on budget, which are both extremely important as we 

move through this, and I am confident that their continued inclusions will benefit the flying public and the American taxpayer. So 

NextGen is a huge undertaking for the country, and I hope we can 

keep on track, and I appreciate what you have done on this so far 

and certainly thanks to our panel for being here. 

I know, Mr. Grizzle, we have touched on some of these things, 

but I am not sure if we touched on, is there a national facilities 

plan or an FAA organization that is working on an overall national 

facilities plan? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Yes, sir, there is. It is part of the organization within the air traffic organization that is responsible for all facilities decisions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK, and does the FAA have an estimate of what 

calendar year the cost sustaining and maintaining the old facilities 

becomes more expensive than creating the new ones? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We currently expend more on maintaining old facilities than building new ones. 

23 

Mr. LOBIONDO. The other questions that I was going to ask were 

already asked by the previous Members, so, Mr. Chairman, I thank 

you and thank the panel once again. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am a bit puzzled and concerned here. We are going to develop 

a comprehensive, long-term plan, which is going to direct billions 

of dollars of invest, reinvestment, reconfiguration, affect thousands 

of people and their lives, affect the critical airspace. It was mandated by Congress. It is due in 2 weeks. And you were also mandated to work in a cooperative and coordinated fashion with the 

people who actually provide the service, the air traffic controllers 

and other unions involved in maintenance and those sorts of 

things, and yet the first time you are going to sit down and have 

a comprehensive scoping discussion or whatever it is going to be is 

going to be 9 days before the report is due. 

Is there a draft report already done that you are going to present 

to them at that point for comment? Or you are going to write the 

report beginning on the 5th of June and have it done by the 9th? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Sir, as Ms. Dixon has said, these are extremely 

complicated decisions, and our intention is to develop a plan that 

would go out 5 to 8 years. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Is that what it meant when you said—there is 

some bizarre word you used—‘‘reasonably reliable visibility’’ for the 

time period? Is that what you mean? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. It would have been better if you had said 5 to 8 

years, because I really don’t know what ‘‘reasonably reliable visibility’’ meant. OK. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. And so the plan that we intend to submit to Congress will go out to 5 to 8 years, will be definitive 5 to 8 years, and 

we are very much focused on making accurate decisions, even if 

those decisions take longer to make than what we would have 

liked. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Meaning—OK, that means we aren’t going to have 

a comprehensive—you are not going to present a comprehensive 

plan for 5 to 8 years on the 14th because you just said you wanted 

to be accurate and et cetera. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We believe it is very important that the plan that 

we submit to Congress be one that we are confident can be executed based on the input of the union and other stakeholders who 

we involve in the decisionmaking process. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right because we have had some problems in the 

past; it seemed kind of like you were throwing darts at the board 

and deciding you are going to consolidate here and you are going 

to separate here and you are going to do that. And the last time 

you sat down with the employees and talked about this, I actually 

poked a lot of holes in your analysis in your business case. And you 

had some independent reviews that did the same. And then the 

GAO did the same. Have you developed all new criteria since then 

and something that we can, that is transparent that we can understand on how you are moving forward with these decisions? 

24 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We are in the process of developing that decisional 

structure with NATCA. The problem—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Or you are going to be in that process starting on 

the 5th for a report due on the 9th? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. The problem with our prior analyses were that they 

were overwhelmingly capital cost-centric. Decisions that are made 

solely on the basis of relative capital cost can in fact be negative 

NPV decisions because they don’t—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Negative what? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Net present value decisions because they do not accurately consider the disparate costs of operating two different facilities. If we don’t restructure the airspace and change the way we 

actually control that airspace when we move it to a new facility, 

we, in fact, will have done ourselves no benefit from a cost-benefit 

analysis. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I understand that. I have been on this committee 

26 years, and as I have said many times, there is only one agency 

worse at acquisition and other sorts of decisions than the Pentagon, 

and that would be the FAA. 

Now let’s get to it here. Come on. We are going to have something comprehensive 9 days after you sit down for the first time 

with the people you have just identified as the principal potential 

cost factor in this, which is those who actually do the work, versus 

looking at what buildings are leaking or need replacing and those 

sorts of things; you are going to do all this on a 9-day period? Don’t 

you think you need to ask for an extension here? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We are certainly not going to present an incomplete 

plan to Congress. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. I am not concerned about the deadline. I am 

concerned about the process and getting a good plan that is better 

than that the last sort of random plan that didn’t work so well. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We share that concern very much because we cannot make right decisions without including all of the people who 

will be affected by those decisions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, and Mr. Rinaldi, since your organization is 

sort of the major focus of the new concerns of the FAA, which go 

to how it affects labor, labor costs and operating costs, do you feel 

that—I am a bit bemused by this process that you are getting into 

the room and the major discussion is 9 days before the report is 

due. Do you feel they are really committed to work with you on 

this? 

Mr. RINALDI. I believe the higher up leadership at the FAA, 

David Grizzle and Michael Huerta, are absolutely, positively committed to collaboration. Our frustration kind of develops a couple 

levels down, when you actually sit at the table and try to work on 

business cases and try to develop good criteria for how to move forward, and it seems that there are a couple of pieces of paper that 

are always missing from the table. It doesn’t seem to be forthright, 

and you are making decisions without accurate information. 

So my frustration comes at that level, not at the higher level 

with David Grizzle and with Michael Huerta. 

That said, I am concerned with developing a comprehensive plan 

on something that is as complicated as consolidating facilities and 

realigning facilities in the National Airspace System, that 9 days 

25 

is clearly not enough. Given everybody’s busy schedules, certainly 

9 days is, I don’t think, enough, but it is certainly a start. We could 

sit down and look at enhancing the operational services, providing 

improved safety, modernizing these systems, working in state-ofthe-art facilities, addressing the stakeholders’ concerns and really 

looking at the real cost. Because if you take a TRACON from a 

tower and you move it across the country, you are still leaving that 

tower behind that FAA still has to operate, including the cost and 

the personnel. 

So consolidations don’t decrease the spending of the FAA; they 

actually increase it, specifically regarding personnel, and in many 

cases, you are adding buildings to the National Airspace System infrastructure. 

So I have major concerns. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would reflect—I am pleased to 

hear that Mr. Grizzle and others higher up are working cooperatively with NATCA and others who are most knowledgeable about 

many of the concerns. But I am really concerned about pressure 

they might feel, the agency might feel, because of the arbitrary 

deadline. And it is clear to me that between the 5th and the 9th, 

we can’t have something that would be a long-term comprehensive 

work product that addresses all of the deficiencies and the past 

planning efforts and consolidations. And I don’t know whether the 

committee might want to consider somehow addressing that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

In the very detailed pages of the briefing paper that we received 

is this interesting quote from Bruce Johnson, the FAA vice president of terminal services, who testified before this subcommittee almost 5 years ago. He said, ‘‘A key element of the FAA’s transformation into NextGen is consolidation of our facilities. The number and specific locations of many existing FAA facilities were determined by the capabilities and limitations of 1960s technology. In 

the subsequent four decades, the available technology has vastly 

improved, rendering the long-existing pattern of FAA facilities no 

longer the best configuration. Without consolidation, the FAA is 

tied to maintaining outdated facilities and outdated technology 

based on outdated 1960s radar boundaries. Further consolidation 

lowers infrastructure costs and helps improve safety and efficiency 

by making new technologies available for controllers. These savings 

and improvements mean fewer air traffic delays and lower costs for 

air travelers.’’ 

Now that is a very interesting summary given to this subcommittee 5 years ago. However, when I go further, it says, of the 

consolidations identified in 2010, it says, as of May 2012, all further consolidations are on hold. And then it says, two have been 

completed, Dayton to Columbus, Reno to northern California. But 

then it says, West Palm Beach to Miami, canceled. Abilene to Dallas/Fort Worth, continued. And then three others: Muskegon, 

Grand Rapids to Kalamazoo, deferred and on hold. Mansfield, 

Youngstown, Toledo, Akron to Cleveland, deferred and on hold. 

Champaign to Chicago, deferred and on hold. 

26 

It looks, to me and I think almost everyone else, that very little 

progress has been made. And what I am wondering about, Mr. 

Grizzle and Ms. Dixon, if this subcommittee was to hold this same 

type of hearing 5 years from now, would we hear the same type of 

testimony? Do you honestly, deep down inside feel that there would 

be more progress? Or is this just such a difficult, almost impossible 

task that we are not going to get anywhere basically? Because we 

haven’t made much progress in the last 5 years. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. I don’t want to underestimate the difficulty of the 

task. As I have said, if we merely consolidate facilities without restructuring the airspace and altering the cultures of the constituent groups that come into the newly consolidated space, we 

may very well set ourselves back. We will have a larger facility, but 

it will be operating at higher costs than what the disaggregated facilities were previously operated at. 

We have not been able to do as thorough analyses of these consolidations in the past as we need to be able to do. I believe that 

in the next 5 to 8 years, you will, in fact, see progress, but it will 

be progress that is based on decisions that are made individually, 

without a bias in favor or against consolidation of any individual 

facility when we began to evaluate it. 

Mr. DUNCAN. But do you agree with that lengthy quote that I 

read from Mr. Johnson that he said all these good things that consolidation could lead to? Was he exaggerating? Or was he wrong? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Consolidation is certainly a major part of our facility plan going forward. But still, each consolidation decision must 

be made facility by facility because some facilities will only increase our costs by being consolidated into a larger and more expensive facility. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Ms. Dixon. 

Ms. DIXON. Congressman Duncan, we do believe that FAA has 

made a great deal of progress since our 2008 review on this issue 

in developing the plan. However, there are a number of decisions 

that have yet to be made on cost, on location, on workforce, the 

type of equipage, and those kinds of things. And they are very complex decisions, as Mr. Grizzle said. This is also a huge undertaking. 

So it will take a lot. We can’t really say what will happen in 5 

years. But according to the plan, by that time, they should be well 

on their way with segment 1. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me ask you this: In regard—not only to 

consolidations. But in regard to other things as well, does the FAA 

have any type of incentive or bonus-type program for employees 

who come up with ways to reduce cost or save money? 

Ms. DIXON. I am not aware of that, Congressman. We have never 

looked into that issue. So I really can’t say. I would be happy to 

get back to you with an answer. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Mr. Grizzle? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We implemented Department of Transportationwide a facility called Idea Hub which is intended to stimulate costsaving ideas, among other good ideas. And although they are not 

uniformly attached with a bonus, it would not be unlikely that if 

an employee came forward with an innovative cost-saving idea, 

that they would receive a cash award under the existing program 

27 

that we have for awarding performance by employees that is above 

and beyond the call of duty. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I understand that on another thing that the one 

roof/one pay policy has resulted in some pretty ridiculous things 

happening. Is that still the policy of the FAA? Or is it under review 

or being changed in any way? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Our current contract with NATCA provides that all 

controllers working in a particular facility be covered by the pay 

scale that applies to that particular facility. This is one of the reasons that when we consolidate facilities, we must do a more thorough job than we have in the past of actually redesigning the airspace and the way the work is done so that we don’t just increase 

our controller costs by consolidating the airspace in—or the work, 

rather, for the airspace in a higher level facility. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Is it true that that policy has resulted in some controllers receiving much, much higher pay for much less work? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. They work in the same fashion that they did previously, but they are doing the same work in some cases at a higher pay level than what they were in the preconsolidated facility. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Hultgren. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

being here. 

I have a couple of questions. 

Mr. Rinaldi, last week I took a tour of the enroute center in Chicago, which as you know handles all the high-altitude air traffic 

over Illinois and much of the Great Lakes region. I learned a lot 

about ERAM, the new automation platform that is being installed 

at the facility and other enroute facilities across the country. It is 

the En Route Automation Modernization. I was surprised to learn 

that the Chicago center will have the system installed ahead of 

schedule and possibly under budget, due mainly to the high level 

of collaboration between controllers, management, and the facility. 

And as the president of the controllers union, I wonder what your 

thoughts are on that, how it is going, and also to see other ways 

that we could model after this collaboration across the system. 

Mr. RINALDI. Thank you for the question, sir. 

ERAM is a very important project. It is actually—to steal David 

Grizzle’s line—it is the chassis on which we are going to bolt on 

many of the new technologies for NextGen, which is living proof 

that you don’t need to build a new building to do NextGen. You actually can put ERAM into the current buildings. 

Collaboration in a lot of facilities is going very well. In some facilities, not so well, and we are addressing them at the higher level 

and trying to mentor and give them some interest-based collaboration tools so they can work together at the lower level. And we believe—David Grizzle and myself—that once we get the local levels 

working, as we have in the Chicago tower and center and TRACON 

in that area, everyone seems to be working on the same page. It 

is better for everybody. It saves money for the taxpayers; and it 

runs a seamless operation, a safe operation. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yeah. I was really struck with, again, a facility 

that I think they said was 50 years old, the building, and yet cutting edge, a real positive feel as I went in there. I was very imVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:50 Jan 04, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\5-31-1~1\74439.TXT JEAN
28 

pressed just with the work that was going on but also the incredible collaboration between all the parties. I really do think that it 

is a model of how it should be run. 

Mr. Grizzle, I wonder, any potential facility consolidation should 

certainly take into account user and public input. I wondered how 

the FAA will ensure the user community and public have that opportunity to be heard. And I wonder if you could just walk through 

the process for us of how that will happen. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Sure. The reality about collaboration that is frequently missed is that collaboration requires that your planning 

horizon be enlarged. You can’t do collaboration quickly. And collaboration most frequently fails because adequate time for collaborating has not been provided in your process. So as we are working 

through our planning process for doing consolidations, we are making sure that we create this time for collaboration with the different stakeholders that you mentioned. So an important part of 

that will not only be giving them notice of our tentative decision 

but then giving them an opportunity to be able to compile their insights about that decision, to receive them, and then for them to 

hear what our response will be. And so it will elongate the total 

time that it will take us to make these decisions. But again, collaboration takes time. 

Mr. HULTGREN. And I am sure the fact of CRs and kicking FAA 

authorizations down the road 20-some times doesn’t help in that 

predictability of timing. So we have got to do our part up here I 

know as well. 

I have heard some concerns from some stakeholders, Mr. Grizzle, 

that the FAA has conducted partial cost analyses with a bias towards consolidation; thereby casting doubt on the objectivity of the 

FAA’s decision, Boise TRACON consolidation, for example. The inspector general has echoed many of these concerns. Will the FAA 

complete consolidations of this type without a transparent accounting? Or will the transparent accounting be there? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. As I said earlier, we are currently looking at consolidations without a bias in favor or against consolidation. We believe that in many instances, it is exactly the right thing to do for 

the airspace and for the economics; and in other cases, it is not. 

And we intend to look at each decision individually. 

I think more importantly, we are going to do a far more thorough 

job of retrospectively looking at the consolidations that we do complete to assure that they have achieved the objectives we set out 

for them. We are going to see, did we bring them in on schedule? 

Did we bring them in on budget, with particular attention to transition expenses which tells you whether the consolidation you did 

was done cost effectively. Have you achieved the operating costs 

that you expected to achieve? Have you, in fact, produced a more 

efficient airspace? And finally, what is your employee satisfaction? 

Mr. HULTGREN. I see my time has run out. Thank you very 

much. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Lankford. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. I just have a couple of quick questions. Thanks for being here as well. 

29 

Mr. Grizzle, talk to me a little bit about—there is this transition 

point here between sustaining old facilities and new facilities coming online. This is the challenge most people have with an automobile of, how many years do I use this automobile before it collapses, and at what point can I sell it and get a different one? How 

are you guessing that out with some of our facilities right now in 

that transition between older facilities and what it costs to just 

sustain them and keep them up, versus building new? And how do 

we handle that transition? 

Ms. Dixon, I am coming back to you on the idea on that same 

thing as well. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Your analogy I think is perfectly apt. And that is 

the reason that we are approaching these decisions on a facilityby-facility basis. Because in addition to the decision about whether 

you can afford to continue the upkeep of your car, you have got sort 

of the relative cost of operating the old car versus the new car. And 

so we are attempting and we are going to, with each of our consolidation decisions, decide, what will it cost to build a new facility or 

to consolidate into an expanded facility versus the cost of maintaining it? 

Mr. LANKFORD. How is that decision being made? Who is making 

that decision? How is that decision being made? Because obviously 

those are difficult numbers to get your head around. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. They are very difficult. 

The analysis, in terms of the actual computation, will be done by 

members of the FAA staff but in collaboration with a broader union 

group that will in a sense make sure that we are getting all the 

cost elements in. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. Ms. Dixon, obviously those are challenging 

things when you start dealing with transitions on it and people and 

process on that; ideas on how to be able to evaluate that or suggestions that you would make that are beyond even what you have 

written in your report. 

Ms. DIXON. Congressman, we believe strongly that the key will 

be developing good metrics and continually monitoring the successes or challenges as they occur when they are going about these 

consolidations. It will be critical that once they get the first facility 

completed, that they are able to look at a few areas to see whether 

they have achieved the cost savings, for example, and whether they 

have achieved the operational efficiencies that they had wanted to 

get out of this effort, as well as the workforce efficiencies, because 

part of the goal is to get productivity up. So we think that the 

metrics will be critical. 

Mr. LANKFORD. So you are talking about trying to go slow to a 

few facilities initially, get it right, and then advance on at a larger 

scale from there? 

Ms. DIXON. Yes, sir. And that is actually consistent with FAA’s 

plan. Their intent is to build the New York facility first and take 

a close look at all of the things that happened with that construction and to determine whether they need to make changes going 

forward. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. Is there additional legislative authority 

needed in this? As far as shutting down facilities and closing 

down—I know closing down any facility, transferring, changing, 

30 

building becomes a political football in this process. What else is 

needed at this point to be successful? 

Ms. DIXON. I would say the funding is probably critical. 

Mr. LANKFORD. There is an answer I haven’t heard in a long 

time in Congress. 

Ms. DIXON. Well, FAA has indicated that in order to start the 

construction on even the first phase, they need all the funding in 

place. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. 

Ms. DIXON. So it is critical that they get that. But it is also critical that they know how much they need and when they will need 

it. So that is a critical issue for them. But determining all of the 

things that go along with the consolidation are certainly critical to 

that part. They have got to figure out what equipment they want 

to put into the buildings and how many people will go into the 

buildings. A number of decisions like that are going to drive the 

cost. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. Mr. Grizzle, can you make any comment on 

that, any other legislative authority that you know if that is needed? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We have adequate legislative authority. We need 

stability of funding. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. Mr. Rinaldi, would you like to make a comment on that at all? 

Mr. RINALDI. I would like to make a comment just to recognize 

that in certain situations, you are not getting rid of that car. You 

are actually maintaining it and giving it to your child. Because if 

we take the approach control out of Oklahoma City and move it to 

Dallas/Fort Worth—— 

Mr. LANKFORD. Which would be a bad idea. 

Mr. RINALDI. It would be a bad idea. I would agree with you 

there. 

But if we did that, you would still leave a facility, a tower behind 

that had to run the tower operations in the Oklahoma City airport. 

So you would still have to maintain that facility. If it had a leaking 

roof before you did that move, it would still have a leaking roof. 

But in some situations, you are closing facilities. Like in the New 

York project that we are looking at, you would take two buildings— 

New York TRACON and New York Center—merge them into one. 

You would get rid of two buildings and have one building. So in 

certain situations, it makes complete sense; and in others, you are 

keeping that car for your child. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

We were talking about looking at things from the point of view 

of the FAA and its desire to reorganize and looking at things from 

the point of view of the employees affected. And naturally, they are 

concerned about the location of their job and working conditions 

and all the rest. 

Are we also consulting with the customers or the people the system is designed to serve; that is to say, the airlines or the traveling 

public as they experience traveling through the services of various 

airlines who use the system? 

31 

I have been impressed to visit some of these different airline operations and discover that they each have their own air traffic control system, which is nationwide that I guess is usually out of one 

facility or maybe two, where they are in some cases keeping track 

of thousands of flights and many details and loading and unloading—it is amazing—operating weather and compliance with different requirements of the Federal Government, that they can’t be 

outside the gate for more than a half— 

So they may have some lessons on how to—or does it make any 

difference? I mean is the cost structure of the economy affected by 

any of this? Will it make airlines more or less expensive? I mean, 

what I am trying to say is, what we have been talking about is one 

piece of it, but at the end of the day, all this exists to serve the 

American public and the economy. And the industry is sort of a 

proxy for that. And they have a lot of experience. They are knowledgeable customers. So will they be consulted as well? Or are there 

ideas there where we can achieve efficiencies that will serve us all 

well? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. The airlines are principally interested in the design 

of the airspace. That is where their own efficiency is impacted most 

significantly. And in that regard, they are integrally involved in not 

only the large-scale airspace redesigns, like we have completed 

with New York, but in the sort of smaller, more incremental airspace changes that we are making regularly throughout the system. In fact, we can’t even make those design changes without 

their involvement because we frequently need them to run the proposed routes on their simulators. So they are integrally involved in 

the airspace redesigns, which is a part of facility consolidation, and 

they have been for quite a while. They are essential to the process. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Costello at this time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really don’t have any 

other questions. But I would like to say, one, given the fact that 

my understanding is that the NextGen Facility Special Program 

Management Office was established on September 1, 2010, it is disappointing to hear that we do not have a metrics, as Ms. Dixon and 

others pointed out, to determine how we are going to go forward 

with consolidation and determine which facilities, where it makes 

sense to continue to operate versus to consolidate and build new facilities. 

So I would just say that—I have been through the base closure 

process now four times—five times, actually, since I have been in 

Congress. And I have heard the Department of Defense, from the 

Secretary of Defense to others, testify what cost savings that we 

would achieve by consolidating and closing facilities. And more 

times than not, they have proven to be wrong, that we have not 

achieved the savings that the Department of Defense said that we 

would achieve. 

I, like I think all three of you and everyone, realize that consolidation needs to go forward where it makes sense; in other cases, 

where it is not cost effective, and we can continue to operate with 

some of the facilities that we have, we should do that. 

But my main concern here is, one, that whatever action is taken, 

that it is taken place collaboratively between all of the stakeholders 

32 

involved, number one. And number two is that you come up with 

a metric that, in fact, measures the true cost to the taxpayers, 

what makes sense and what doesn’t. And it is pretty obvious to me 

that consolidation is a priority in order to implement NextGen. 

The office was established in September of 2010, and we still do 

not have—with the input of all of the stakeholders—a plan in place 

where we can measure the cost of how we want to go forward. So 

I would just say that I would hope that the FAA, working with the 

stakeholders, can, in fact, begin to develop that plan and a plan 

that measures the true cost of consolidation and not duplicate what 

the Department of Defense did. And that is that they overestimated savings and underestimated cost. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here today and your responses to the questions of 

the members of the committee. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

33 


Insert offset folio 15 here 74439.015

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN G. K. BUTTERFIELD 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON A VIA nON 

HEARING ON "A REVIEW OF THE FAA's EFFORTS TO REDUCE COSTS AND ENSURE SAFETY AND 

EFFICIENCY THROUGH REALIGNMENT AND FACILITY CONSOLIDATION" 

MAY31,2012 

Chainnan Petri and Ranking Member Costello, thank you for the opportunity to submit 

this statement for the record. 

r am deeply disappointed by the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) March 15, 

2012 decision to shift support for North Carolina's airports from the FAA's Atlanta Airport 

District Office (ADO) to the FAA's Memphis ADO. FAA ADOs provide support to states and 

individual airports with funding, compliance, safety, construction, environmental issues, and 

planning. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the North Carolina 

Airports Association (NCAA) are opposed to this plan and have told the FAA that this change 

will increase costs for the state and its airports, while decreasing their level of service. 

Aviation is a fundamental component of North Carolina's history, a key job creator in our 

state's economy, and an important growth sector for our state's future prosperity. North Carolina 

has 72 publicly-owned airports and more than 47 million passengers fly to and from our state 

each year. For more than 45 years, North Carolina has enjoyed a symbiotic working relationship 

with the FAA's Atlanta ADO. In February, the FAA announced it was considering moving 

responsibility for North Carolina's airports to another ADO. The stakeholders that have 

contacted me, including the NCDOT and the NCAA, are pleased with the ability of the state's 

current assigned ADO to manage their needs and believe realignment will result in a degradation 

of service and higher costs. 
34 


Insert offset folio 16 here 74439.016

In response to the FAA's consideration of the realignment proposal, the House 

Subcommittee on Aviation held a roundtable with stakeholders on April 27, 2012. During that 

meeting, Chairman Petri, Aviation Subcommittee Members, Members of the North Carolina 

Delegation, and FAA representatives heard from N CDOT' s Aviation Director Richard WaIls, the 

President of the Board of Directors of the NCAA Don Howard, and other North Carolina 

stakeholders about their opposition to the realignment proposal. According to North Carolinians 

at that meeting, the shift will make it more difficult and expensive for state and airport 

representatives to travel to the FAA regional office. Airport directors from my Congressional 

District may have to travel more than fifteen hours to reach Memphis. Additionally, the shift 

eliminates the opportunity for state and airport representatives to meet simultaneously with their 

FAA Regional office and officials from the other federal agencies located in Atlanta. 

Despite overwhelming public opposition, the FAA intends to move forward with its 

realignment proposal. I urge the FAA to reconsider its decision and fully consider the economic 

and service impacts this realignment would have on the state of North Carolina. 

Thank you very much. 

Very truly yours, 

G. K. Butterfield 

Member of Congress 

2 
35 


Insert offset folio 17 here 74439.017

5E:".'IOR ODlOCR-\T!C Willi' 

CO\nlITTH 0:\ SnENCF, SPACE 

A~lJ TH~H"'OtOGY 

RA'KI'-.;G MDWfR 

('OW>'lIT ncE 0", TRA"iSPORT·\T!O,\ 

R"S(l\'RCl-~ & r/\VIR()"~ju\r 

Sl'BC()\l~lI1T[ 10 ()," A\'IAf!()"-

Sl:BCO\I\llllLF 0' Illl;l!I\A\\ ,\I>.U TR·\,\;<;JI 

CO"'f;RESSIO~.\L HU.('K C<\l'Cl'S 

CJH.IR. 107'" CON{;RFSS 

PL[:ASE RESPONl) H) 

W,\<;Hl\lGf()'i()f'f!('F 

2.J.6X RAYRt'R" BULflJ\lG 

W'\~III"'GTO". DC 20515--1330 

(202) 225,SSS5 

8drLi&$~$~ 

C!:ongrcnn of till' 'ltnitell !Staten 3Dtl1 IHstrirt, iZl'Xi1S 

U\' r ~~\.\ij,,· \ ) 

Statement for the Record !' j . \\ 

Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson' ~ 

House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Thursday, May 31", 2012,10:00 a.m. 

A Review of FAN s Efforts to Reduce Costs and Ensure Safety and Efficiency 

through Realignment and Facility Consolidation 

One of the triumphs of the passage of the FAA Reauthorization bill was that tbe 

NextGen modernization authorized will transform our National Airspace System, 

and through innovation our skies will be safer to travel. 

However, the Department of Transportation's Office ofInspector General 2008 

report noted that while the average facility has an expected useful life of 

approximately 25-30 years, 59% of FAA facilities were over 30 years old. 

In addition, a 20 I 0 analysis conducted by the FAA showed that 83% of its 

facilities were in poor or fair condition, and that some facilities would not be able 

to support NextGen and other modernization efforts. 

This Committee has received testimony over the years on the need to realign and 

consolidate air traffic control facilities as the air traffic control system is 

modernized. It is critical that the agency, working with Congress, determine how 

best to address outdated facilities and the use of outdated technologies. In addition 

to the expense associated with maintaining unnecessary facilities, we must ensure 

that we are deploying the technologies that will best keep air passengers safe. 
36 


Insert offset folio 18 here 74439.018

According to the agency's testimony, consolidation will not only lower 

infrastructure costs, but it will help improve safety and efficiency. 

I thank Chairman Petri and Ranking Member Costello for holding this critical 

hearing, and look forward to the witnesses' testimony on how to best affect the 

realignment necessary to control costs and improve air traffic control safety. 
37 


Insert offset folio 19 here 74439.019

STATEMENT OF J. DAVID GRIZZLE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, 

AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION ON THE CONSOLIDATION AND REALIGNMENT OF 

FAA FACILITIES, MAY 31,2012. 

Chailman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify before you regarding the consolidation 

and realignment of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) facilities. 

The FAA's ability to meet the future needs of the aviation system, including 

the implementation ofNextGen, fundamentally relies on the agency's ability 

to optimize our facilities and workforce, to take advantage of emerging 

technologies and to serve the needs of those using the national airspace 

system (NAS). 

Section 804 Requirements 

I would like to say at the outset that we at the FAA view Sec. 804 of Public 

Law 112-95, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012, as an 

invaluable opportunity to obtain Congressional support to move forward 

with the transformation of the FAA air traffic control facilities infrastructure. 

The provision directs the FAA, with input from labor and industry to 

develop consensus recommendations on the realignment and consolidation 

1 
38 


Insert offset folio 20 here 74439.020

ofF AA services and facilities, and to report to Congress on those 

recommendations within 120 days from the date of enactment. The process 

is collaborative in nature and will require FAA to consider the input from 

several sources, including the Department's Office of the Inspector General 

(IG). 

Inspector General Draft Audit 

While Sec. 804 applies to the facility consolidation and realignment plans 

for the entire agency, the Inspector General's (IG) Office has a draft audit 

evaluating the Air Traffic Organization's (ATO) efforts in this area. These 

efforts will form the foundation for proceeding with the implementation of 

NextGen technologies, while maintaining the safety and reliability of the 

infrastructure upon which we must rely until NextGen technologies come 

on-line. The FAA has not yet had an opportunity formally to provide 

official input to the IG's findings. Nevertheless, we agree with the IG's 

assertions in the draft audit that FAA has not sufficiently developed the 

metrics necessary to quantify the merits of various alternatives with respect 

to consolidation and realignment. We are working hard to determine the 

appropriate criteria for making FAA's decisions moving forward. The 

criteria we used previously focused primarily on capital costs of brick and 

mortar, which was relatively simple to apply, but failed to address critical 

2 
39 


Insert offset folio 21 here 74439.021

operating costs and issues. Contract obligations and their impact on 

consolidations or realignment proposals, and location-specific differences in 

other operating costs make these larger decisions more complex. As we 

work toward developing our criteria and analytic tools, we will continue to 

seek the best information available to us. 

The FAA currently operates 542 facilities, including air traffic control 

centers, TRACONs, and airport towers. Of these, 292 are staffed by FAA 

employees and 250 are contract towers. FAA is responsible for the 

maintenance and/or replacement of 402 of these facilities, many of which 

are quite old. As noted in the IG audit, as recently as 2008, FAA was 

making short term decisions about how to invest its fiscal resources on 

facilities based primarily on the immediate need to sustain the operations in 

the NAS. As the facilities aged and required more and more maintenance, it 

became evident that short term, facility-specific investments were not a 

long-tenn, cost-effective method of maintaining our critical infrastructure 

and could not adequately support the implementation of Next Gen. 

3 
40 


Insert offset folio 22 here 74439.022

Framework 

The U.S. airspace is the most complex in the world. It accommodates, not 

only 22 million commercial operations a year, but also a robust general 

aviation community, as well as military operations. This mix represents an 

extraordinary range of aircraft types, capabilities, and missions. For several 

years, we have recognized the need for a more holistic approach to address 

the combination of aging infrastructure and advancing technologiestechnologies which no longer require that controllers be located near the 

airspace they are controlling in order to safely separate aircraft. Because we 

can combine controller groups and their airspace, we can reduce the number 

of boundary hand-offs and, thus, the possibility of human error. Working 

with our unions over the past two years, we have developed a strategy to 

address different areas of airspace over the contiguous 48 states. The 

strategy adopts a segmented approach, prioritizing on the basis of need and 

optimization opportunity for the airspace and facilities in question. 

Initial Efforts 

Our initial focus is on the New York area, which is encompassed in Segment 

One of the FAA's Capital Investment Plan. Problems that develop in this 

airspace have consequences across the country. We are currently engaged in 

4 
41 


Insert offset folio 23 here 74439.023

a collaborative process to address the future in New York with our unions 

and facility management playing a central role. We need their input and 

acceptance in order to proceed effectively. There are 49 facilities to be 

considered in Segment One. How their consolidation or realignment is 

accomplished is something that is receiving our utmost attention and we 

expect to deal with a number of them in the proposal that we submit to 

Congress. Also, as required by law, we will solicit input from industry 

stakeholders and impacted communities to achieve a proposal with all 

perspectives having been considered. While obtaining and considering the 

views of a broad range of affected entities will take some time, it will result 

in a better product. The proposal will include consideration of the existing 

facilities, their condition, their location, the anticipated needs of the region, 

whether and where new facilities should be constructed and how FAA 

employees would be impacted. The cost of different alternative approaches 

will also need to be considered including, the tradeoff between capital costs 

and long-term operating costs. 

Going Forward 

Similarly, as we look beyond replacing the New York facilities, we 

anticipate our process to make consolidation and realignment decisions will 

5 
42 


Insert offset folio 24 here 74439.024

be adjusted based on lessons learned, changing demands on the system and 

emerging technologies. Consequently, while FAA's segmented plan extends 

out for several decades, the plan submitted to Congress pursuant to the 

legislation will only cover the time period into the future for which we have 

reasonably reliable visibility. As a result, the plan will go out about 5-8 

years. 

We all recognize the importance of meeting tomorrow's demands as quickly 

as possible while continuing to ensure the safety ofthe air transportation 

system. With respect to consolidation, realignment, and transforming to 

NextGen, FAA appreciates the opportunity Sec. 804 affords us to make 

difficult decisions with the support of Congress. We think the segmented 

approach ATO has developed strikes the right balance allowing us to make 

challenging decisions as quickly as possible. We agree with the IG 

determination that there is more work to be done to quantifY and justifY 

difficult decisions. We expect this ongoing process to be ever more refined 

as we progress. 

6 
43 


Insert offset folio 25 here 74439.025

Coordination with FAA Partners 

With respect to the broader Sec. 804 directive, ATO has the largest role to 

play, given its size and the changing mission we must support as we 

transition to NextGen. However, I want to assure you that other FAA 

organizations, led by the Shared Services Regions and Center Organization, 

are working together to ensure the FAA's approach to consolidation, 

particularly in administrative space around the country which will contribute 

to the goal of the provision. Each affected offices/lines of business have 

plans to meet with appropriate union representatives to develop a target plan 

that can be used as a platform to begin to include aviation stakeholders and 

impacted communities as required by the law. 

Until the passage of the most recent authorization, there was no requirement 

for a single agency-wide consolidated plan. Consequently, the different 

needs and goals of each organization within the FAA were treated separately 

and included different time frames. All of these different goals and 

timeframes must be coordinated and consolidated into a single proposal for 

Congressional consideration. We believe this process will be complicated, 

but certainly worth doing, so we are up for the challenge of meeting the 

7 
44 


Insert offset folio 26 here 74439.026

Congressional mandate. I can state with certainty that the agency's work is 

underway and advancing. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, I want to again thank the Committee for inviting me to testify 

today and for affording the FAA the chance to take advantage of the 

opportunity offered by Sec. 804. I also appreciate the IG audit that confirms 

the complexities of our mandate and the work we must do to make the most 

effective decisions. I would also like to thank our National Air Traffic 

Controllers Association (NATCA) partners for their collaboration in 

recognizing the need for significant change and to support the future of 

aviation. We look forward to working with Congress, the IG, NATCA and 

the industry to achieve the best possible outcome for this ongoing process. 

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

8 
45 


Insert offset folio 27 here 74439.027

Before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

United States House of Representatives 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 

10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday 

May 31. 2012 

CC-2012-02! 

Progress and Challenges 

With FAA's Facility 

Consolidation Effort 

Statement of 

Lou E. Dixon 

Principal Assistant Inspector General 

for Auditing and Evaluation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 
46 


Insert offset folio 28 here 74439.028

Mr. Chainnan and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) 

air traffic facility realignment and consolidation effort, a key initiative for the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). FAA operates thousands of 

manned and unmanned air traffic control facilities that rely on ground-based 

technology, including 21 en route centers and 540 Terminal Radar Approach Control 

(TRACON) facilities and air traffic control towers-many of which have outlived 

their useful life and cannot take advantage of new technologies. This aging 

infrastructure, along with the development of NextGen, prompted FAA to establish 

the NextGen Future Facilities Special Program Management Office (SPMO). Last 

year, SPMO developed a plan to realign and consolidate the Agency's air traffic 

facility network that could fundamentally change the way FAA operates the National 

Airspace System (NAS) and significantly impact FAA's modernization efforts and air 

traffic workforce. 

At the request of this Subcommittee, we initiated an audit to review FAA's 

realignment and consolidation activities and identify any associated challenges. My 

testimony today is based on this ongoing work and will focus on (1) FAA's plan for 

large-scale realignments and consolidations of its air traffic facility network, (2) key 

challenges that FAA faces in executing its plan, and (3) actions the Agency can take 

in the near term to successfully consolidate its facilities. 

IN SUMMARY 

FAA's realignment and consolidation plan, which it fonnalized last November, calls 

for consolidating en route centers and TRACONs into large, integrated facilities over 

the next 2 decades, beginning with a new integrated facility for managing airspace in 

the New YorklNew Jersey/Philadelphia metropolitan areas. However, FAA is early in 

its planning and has delayed making a final decision until next May on where to build 

the first facility. Regardless, FAA will still need to align consolidation plans with 

ongoing construction projects, make technical decisions that could significantly alter 

the cost and schedules for other modernization programs, finalize project cost 

estimates, and address associated workforce and community issues. Although FAA's 

consolidation plans are evolving, a number of near-term actions could better position 

the Agency for success. These actions include incorporating lessons learned from 

prior consolidation efforts, developing metrics to identify and track anticipated 

benefits, and determining how best to keep Congress and other stakeholders informed 

as the effort progresses. 
47 


Insert offset folio 29 here 74439.029

BACKGROUND 

According to FAA, the average age for an en route center is 49 years, while the 

average age of a TRACON is 28 years. I In 2008, we reported that 59 percent of FAA 

facilities were over 30 years old and identified structural deficiencies and 

maintenance-related issues at many facilities. 2 Consistent with our observations, FAA 

reported in 201 0 that 83 percent of its facilities were in either poor or fair condition 

and that the infrastructure at some facilities would not support NextGen and other 

modernization initiatives. 

Sustaining the existing air traffic control system requires the Agency to spend a 

significant portion of its capital budget to replace and maintain these aging facilities 

and related infrastructure. In fiscal year 2012, FAA plans to spend $104 million to 

replace or improve TRACONs and air traffic control towers, $47 million to maintain 

en route centers, and $78 million to sustain electrical power systems. 

On September I, 2010, the FAA Administrator took an important step towards 

replacing this aging infrastructure by establishing the NextGen Future Facilities 

SPMO. 3 SPMO is responsible for planning large-scale facility realignments and 

consolidations, developing requirements for these facilities, conducting relevant 

analyses, and coordinating these efforts with the Agency's other modernization 

programs. 

FAA'S REALIGNMENT AND CONSOLIDATION PLAN FOCUSES ON 

LARGE-SCALE EFFORTS 

FAA plans to realign and consolidate its en route centers and TRACONs into large, 

integrated facilities over the next 2 decades, beginning with facilities managing the 

New York/New JerseyfPhiladelphia airspace. While these initial plans were approved 

last November, FAA has yet to make several key operational and logistical decisions 

regarding the first facility, including where to build it. Moreover, FAA has delayed a 

final approval for constructing the first site until next May, which will impact FAA's 

consolidation schedule for other locations. 

FAA Has Initial Approval for Integrating Facilities in the Northeast 

FAA's long-term plan, approved by its Joint Resources Council (JRC) in November 

2011, represents considerable progress since our 2008 review, when the Agency's 

focus was primarily on the short term and on sustaining the existing infrastructure. 

The plan would divide the NAS into six geographic segments within the contiguous 

I En route centers guide airplanes flying at high altitudes through large sections of airspace. while TRACONs guide aircraft 

as they approach or leave airspace within 40 miles of an airport. 

, OIG Report No. AV-2009-0l2. "FAA's Management and Maintenance of Air Traffic Control Facilities," 

December 15,2008. OIG correspondence and reports are available on our Web site at http://www.oig.dol.govl. 

3 FAA National Policy Order 1110.154, "Establishment of Federal Aviation Administration Next Generation Facilities 

Special Program Management Office," September I. 2010. 

2 
48 


Insert offset folio 30 here 74439.030

United States. Under the current plan, work on a new segment would begin every 

other year, with four to five facilities per segment, and all segments would be 

completed by 2034. Within each segment, TRACONs and en route centers would be 

combined into I of 2 types of facilities--each of which could house over 

1,200 employees-based on operational requirements, airspace responsibility, and 

geographic location (see attachment I): 

• Integrated Control Facilities-which would provide expanded terminal airspace 

functions by combining TRACON operations with some en route center 

operations . 

• High-Altitude Control Facilities ("High-Ops")-which would control high-altitude 

airspace currently monitored by en route centers, with some facilities monitoring 

oceanic air traffic. 

As part of the initial approval of the overall plan, JRC also approved plans to realign 

and consolidate facilities starting in the Northeast. This segment will consolidate 

45 TRACONs and 4 en route centers stretching from Chicago to New England, New 

York, and Philadelphia into 4 integrated facilities (see table 1). The plan, with an 

initial estimated life-cycle cost of $2.3 billion,4 calls for the four integrated facilities 

to be built with operations transferred from the individual TRACONs by 2023. JRC 

also allowed SPMO to move forward with a final investment analysis for the first 

facility-the Liberty Integrated Control-which includes airspace over the New York, 

New Jersey, and Philadelphia metropolitan areas. 

FAA expects these integrated facilities will maximize operations and realize the 

benefits of airspace redesign initiatives, eliminate artificial airspace boundaries caused 

by the current air traffic facility network, and improve internal operations. It also 

anticipates that the new buildings will reduce the number of facilities requiring new 

equipment or upgrades, avoid the cost of maintaining aging facilities, and facilitate 

NextGen capabilities. 

4 This estimate is adjusted for inflation, calculated over a 40·year life-cycle. and includes costs associated with the 

planning, construction, and equipage of the facilities. It does not include airspace redesign implementation, moving 

personnel via a permanent change of station, program management, and other indirect costs. 

3 
49 


Insert offset folio 31 here 74439.031

Table 1. Proposed Northeast Integrated Facilities 

Proposed Integrated 

Facility 

Liberty Integrated 

Control Facility 

Lincoln Integrated 

Control Facility 

Current Facilities and Airspace To Be Transferred 

• TRACONs within the New York Center's airspace, including the New 

York and Philadelphia TRACONs 

• Airspace at or below 30,000 feet from the New York Center 

• TRACONs within the Chicago Center's airspace, including the Chicago 

and Milwaukee TRACONs 

• Airspace at or below 30,000 feet from the Chicago Center 

Northeast Integrated • TRACONs within the Boston Center's airspace 

Control and High-Ops • Airspace at or below 30,000 feet from the Boston Center. 

Facility • The facility will be co-located with operations from the New York and 

Boston Centers that control airspace at or above 31,000 feet, along with 

oceanic operations. 

Great Lakes • TRACONs within the Cleveland Center's airspace, including the 

Integrated Control Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Detroit TRACONs 

and High-Ops Facility • Airspace at or below 30,000 feet from the Cleveland Center. 

Source: FAA 

• The facility will be co-located with operations from the Chicago and 

Cleveland Centers that control airspace at or above 31,000 feet. 

Note: The names of the facilities are notional and do not indicate where FAA plans to build these facilities. 

Attachment 2 lists TRACONs and en route centers that could be transferred to each of the four integrated 

facilities. 

FAA's Decisions Regarding the First Site Have Been Delayed 

FAA has pushed its decision to approve construction for the first facility from 

November 2012 to May 2013. This is primarily due to delays in selecting a site for the 

facility and tight funding limits called for in its recently passed reauthorization. FAA 

officials noted that the delay will affect FAA's schedule for consolidating other 

locations within the first segment, though the impact has not yet been determined. 

FAA's decision involves determining complex operational, logistical, and workforce 

aspects of the consolidation, including the following: 

• the facility's airspace boundaries and total operating positions 

• the size of the building 

• the total number of controllers, technicians, and other employees working at the 

facility 

• the automation and other equipment to be installed 

• transition schedules for existing facilities to move to the new building 

• workforce-related issues 

4 
50 


Insert offset folio 32 here 74439.032

FAA officials stated that plans for future projects could change based on experiences 

with the first locations. These adjustments may include changing the number and size 

of integrated facilities built or constructing two buildings on one site to allow for 

differences in operations. 

FAA FACES KEY TECHNICAL, FINANCIAL, AND WORKFORCE 

CHALLENGES IN EXECUTING ITS PLAN 

Successfully implementing FAA's plans for large-scale realignments and 

consolidations-and avoiding future risks-will require the Agency to address a 

number of challenges. These include aligning approved construction projects with its 

consolidation plan; making key decisions related to automation platforms, airspace 

redesign efforts, and other technical factors; finalizing project cost estimates and 

funding sources; and addressing associated workforce and community issues. 

Approved TRACON Construction Projects Have Not Been Aligned With 

FAA's Large-Scale Plan 

While FAA's large-scale plans prompted the Agency to halt all realignment and 

consolidation activities except one small TRACON consolidation,5 the Agency is 

moving ahead with plans to maintain or replace some of its aging terminal facilities 

and has not aligned some of these construction projects with its consolidation efforts. 

FAA has cancelled plans for consolidating the West Palm Beach TRACON functions 

into the Miami TRACON and has deferred previously approved TRACON 

consolidations in Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois until further decisions are made.6 FAA 

also has no plans to consolidate any of its en route centers but will focus on sustaining 

these facilities while it analyzes future consolidations. 

However, FAA is moving ahead with plans to construct two new TRACONs in 

Cleveland, OH, and Kalamazoo, Ml, which were approved for construction before 

FAA approved the large-scale plan. These new facilities overlap with the plans for the 

Lincoln NE, and Great Lakes integrated facilities and may not be needed if FAA 

decides to consolidate those TRACONs' functions into larger, integrated facilities. 

FAA officials are aware of the potential overlap and expect to make a decision on 

whether to consolidate the two TRACONs into integrated facilities at a later date. 

FAA also recently reorganized the SPMO and other Air Traffic Organization facility 

planning groups under its Air Traffic Control Facilities Directorate. FAA expects this 

5 The Abilene. TX, TRACON functions could be transferred to the DallaslFt. Worth TRACON as early as this October but 

more likely sometime next year. 

6 The planned consolidations included combining the Cleveland, Youngstown, Mansfield, Toledo, Akron. and Toledo, OH, 

TRACON functions to a new TRACON in Cleveland; combining the Muskegon, Lansing. Grand Rapids, and Kalamazoo. 

MI, TRACON functions into a new TRACON in Kalamazoo; and transferring the Champaign, IL, TRACON functions to 

the Chicago TRACON. 

5 
51 


Insert offset folio 33 here 74439.033

reorganization will enable it to better coordinate its large-scale efforts with its other 

facility construction and modernization efforts. 

Technical Decisions for the First Integrated Facility Will Impact the 

Current Modernization Plan 

FAA's modernization plans are based on the current facility set-up for en route 

centers and TRACONs-not consolidated or integrated facilities. According to FAA, 

the Agency is in the early stages of defining the technical requirements for an 

integrated facility and making decisions about major acquisitions. These decisions 

will impact the Agency's future modernization plans and budgets, including NextGen 

(see table 2). For example, the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) 

program is currently being deployed to 20 en route centers, including locations in the 

Northeast where the first integrated facilities could be built. However, FAA has not 

made changes in its Capital Investment Plan, and the full extent of the changes will 

not be known until FAA solidifies its plans for the integrated facilities. 

Table 2. Key Modernization Programs Impacted by Large-Scale 

Consolidations 

Program 

ERAM 

Terminal Automation 

Modernization and 

Replacement (T AMR) 

NAS Voice System 

(NVS) 

Federal 

Telecommunication 

Infrastructure (FTI) 

Description 

Replace and significantly enhance existing hardware 

and software at the 20 FAA Centers that manage highaltitude air traffic. ERAM is FAA's key platform for 

NextGen to process flight data across the NAS. 

Modernize or replace the displays and processors 

controllers rely on to manage traffic in the Vicinity of 

airports at over 150 operational Sites. 

Control data and voice communications paths that 

support both terminal and en route operations, along 

with new NextGen activities. FAA is planning to finalize 

NVS cost, schedule, and performance parameters by 

August 2012. 

Route data for all of the NextGen programs and FAA 

initiatives. Without FTI, NVS will be unable to complete 

its mission as a networked back-up voice 

communications system. 

Source: OIG analysis, based on FAA data 

Estimated 

Cost 

$2.1 billion 

Over $1 billion 

from 2012 to 

2018 

$120 million 

from 2012 to 

2016 

$2.4 billion 

These decisions also require coordination among FAA's various modernization 

programs from a technical, cost, and schedule standpoint. FAA has begun 

coordinating these efforts, which includes developing "Portfolio Level Agreements" 

that define the roles, responsibilities, and critical interdependencies needed to support 

the transition to integrated facilities, some of which have already been signed. This is 

a key watch item for Congress given that the integrated facility plan will require cost 

and schedule changes to several major acquisitions. 

6 
52 


Insert offset folio 34 here 74439.034

FAA's Initial Business Case Does Not Include Key Assumptions Needed 

To Estimate Costs and Identify Funding Sources 

FAA has not finalized the estimated costs to construct, staff, and maintain the first 

four integrated facilities-a critical element of a long-term effort of this magnitude. 

As shown in table 3, FAA's initial business case estimated that it will spend 

$1.8 billion from fiscal years 2011 through 2017 and a total of $5.3 billion to 

construct and maintain the four Northeast facilities over a 40-year life cycle.? 

Table 3. Initial Cost Estimates for Planned Northeast Facilities 

($ in Millions) 

Type of Costs Fiscal Years Fiscal Year Total 

2011 Through 2018 and 

2017 Beyond 

Facility Construction and Equipment Costs $1,556.9 $751.2 $2,308.1 

Airspace Redesign, Modernization, $160.2 $2,424.2 $2,584.4 

Sustainment, and Other Indirect Costs 

Permanent Change of Station Costs $35.8 $303.4 $339.1 

Program PC&B Costs $29.8 $42.1 $71.9 

Total $1,782.7 $3,520.8 $5,303.5 

Source: OIG, based on FAA data. Figures may not add up due to rounding. 

However, FAA's initial business case does not include key assumptions to fully 

estimate the projected costs of integrated facilities. For example, the initial business 

case is site neutral, assumes no reduction in controller staffing, and does not consider 

the cost differences of different metropolitan areas when calculating projected costs. 

FAA anticipates that a more detailed cost and benefit analysis for the first integrated 

facility will be completed before the investment decision next May. 

Another challenge is determining how to pay for the projects in a tight budget 

environment. When the overall plan was approved last November, FAA estimated 

that $2.3 billion was needed to construct and equip the first four integrated facilities.s 

However, with the funding limits called for in FAA's reauthorization, FAA officials 

indicated that it is considering alternative financing sources and other acquisition 

strategies to pay for the projects. These include partnerships with local and other 

government agencies, public-private partnerships, and using the proposed Federal 

infrastructure bank. 

7 This estimate is adjusted for inflation and includes costs for building construction and equipment acquisition; airspace 

redesign implementation, facility modernization and sustainment. equipment refresh, and other indirect costs; movement 

of personnel via permanent change of station costs; and the personnel salary and benefit (PC&B) costs for Agency staff 

tasked with overseeing the four projects. 

, In its fiscal year 2013 budget request. FAA is requesting $225 million for fiscal year 2012 and $95 million to plan and 

build the Liberty Integrated Control Facility. 

7 
53 


Insert offset folio 35 here 74439.035

The Impact of Large-Scale Realignments and Consolidations on FAA's 

Air Traffic Control Workforce Further Complicates FAA's Plan 

The success of FAA's plans also depends on how it addresses significant workforce 

issues. Large-scale realignments and consolidations will require the movement of 

thousands of employees and their families. Facility consolidations will also require 

FAA to collectively bargain with its unions. Several potentially contentious issues 

will be subject to negotiation, such as pay, employee bidding, training, and moving 

expenses. FAA will be furtber challenged to ensure tbat future agreements are cost 

effective and do not present opportunities for waste or abuse. FAA is working closely 

witb its bargaining units to gain consensus regarding tbese issues, tbough formal 

negotiations have yet to begin. 

While national leadership of tbe National Air Traffic Controllers Association has 

expressed support for tbe integrated facility concept, tbere may be opposition from 

employees at local facilities. During our visits to tbe New York Center and New York 

TRACON, FAA and union officials indicated tbat they would oppose plans to build 

an integrated facility outside of Long Island. They stated tbat many employees would 

be unlikely to move from tbe area due to tbeir connections to tbe area and tbeir 

spouses' jobs. In addition, FAA management from tbe New York TRACON estimates 

tbat approximately 30 percent of its controller workforce is eligible to retire, and, if 

forced to move to a facility outside of Long Island, many may opt to retire instead. 

Addressing Economic and Infrastructure Impacts on Local Communities 

Could Create Roadblocks 

Realigning and consolidating air traffic facilities will likely have significant 

economic, infrastructure, and lifestyle impacts on local communities gaining and 

losing facilities as it involves moving potentially hundreds of employees across state 

lines. These impacts would be similar to those seen during tbe Department of 

Defense's (DOD) Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission activities. A 

2009 study contracted by DOD on tbe impact tbat BRAC activities had on local 

communities in Maryland found tbat tbe changes increased demands on local 

hospitals, police and fire services, and schools and called for plans to address 

transportation concerns, such as increased traffic on local and state highways.9 

These impacts may create roadblocks to FAA's consolidation and realignment efforts. 

As FAA is aware witb past consolidations, communities losing their facilities have 

taken steps to delay or prevent tbe moves, often based on information obtained from 

impacted employees and local officials. For example, during tbe Palm Springs to 

Soutbern California TRACON consolidation in 2007, local communities expressed 

concerns whetber tbe Soutbern California TRACON had adequate staffing levels to 

9 "APG Regional Workforce Analysis: Chesapeake Security & Security Corridor," New Economies Strategies and AKRF, 

Final Report, December 2009. 

8 
54 


Insert offset folio 36 here 74439.036

accommodate an additional 220,000 air traffic operations that were being transferred. 

These concerns led to the consolidation being delayed by 1 month as local 

representatives raised these issues with FAA. 

LEARNING FROM PAST EFFORTS AND ESTABLISHING METRICS 

AND OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS WILL BETTER POSITION FAA 

FOR SUCCESS 

Some of FAA's past facility consolidations did not produce expected cost savings and 

operational benefits. As FAA's current consolidation plan continues to evolve, FAA 

can take a number of actions that could help it avoid previous pitfalls and better 

position it for success over the long term. These include developing metrics for 

measuring the success of its initial consolidations and providing Congress and other 

stakeholders updated information regarding its efforts and the impacts on FAA's other 

modernization efforts. 

Incorporating Past Lessons Into the Current Plan and Developing 

Metrics Could Help FAA Mitigate Future Risks 

FAA's last major consolidation effort occurred in the 1990s, when the Agency built a 

series of TRACONs in major metropolitan areas to consolidate and improve air traffic 

operations. In 2004, FAA completed a study that compared projected costs, schedules, 

and operational efficiencies of the Atlanta, Northern California, and Potomac 

Consolidated TRACONs to actual results. 10 The study, along with our interviews with 

facility personnel, showed that (1) the costs of these consolidations were higher than 

originally estimated, (2) facility openings were delayed, and (3) operational 

efficiencies were not achieved (see table 4). 

10 "Evaluation of Large Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities Consolidation Benefits;" Report # 2003-23; Original 

Report Date December 31. 2003; Revised April 2004. 

9 
55 


Insert offset folio 37 here 74439.037

Table 4. Cost Increases, Schedule Delays, and Other Impacts of 

Past Large-Scale Consolidation Efforts 

Cost Increases Schedule Delays 

Atlanta Consolidated TRACON 

Operations and 

maintenance costs were 

53 percent higher than 

estimated, mostly due to 

negotiated controller pay 

increases. 

9 months due to the 

unavailability of the 

Standard Terminal 

Automation Replacement 

System (STARS) 

Northern California Consolidated TRACON 

Construction costs were 

45 percent higher than 

originally estimated. ATC 

staffing costs were 

28 percent higher due to 

controlier pay increases. 

22 months due to the 

unavailability of STARS 

and two budget cuts 

during project 

construction. 

Potomac TRACON (Baltimore-Washington DC) 

Construction and equipage 

costs were 46 percent 

higher than estimated due 

to the subsequent inclusion 

of the Richmond TRACON 

into the new facility and a 

change in automation 

systems. Staffing costs 

were 24 percent above 

budget. 

Source: FAA 

7 months due to the 

inclusion of the Richmond 

TRACON, requiring an 

increase to the size of the 

building, and the 

unavailability of STARS. 

Other Impacts 

Operational efficiencies were not achieved because 

(1) controllers transferred from smalier facilities were 

unable to certify at the consolidated facility and (2) a 

decision to change the configuration of a proposed 

runway at Atlanta Hartsfield Airport delayed the 

runway's completion and invalidated user benefit 

assumptions made during the original cost-benefit 

analysis. 

Due to the delay in opening the TRACON, 

controllers received negotiated pay increases well 

before actually transferring to the new site and 

caused FAA to incur close to $400,000 in reverse 

commute costs for six controllers who transferred to 

the new TRACON early and had to commute back to 

their old facility to work. 

While the consolidation improved operational 

coordination within the facility, it did not result in 

extensive airspace redesign, staff reductions, or 

equalized work between operating sectors. Facility 

management noted a loss of about 25 percent olthe 

originally antiCipated user benefits. The 

consolidation also resulted in controllers monitoring 

the Richmond-area airspace, a slower and less 

complex sector, earning the same pay as controllers 

monitoring bUSier, more complex airspace. 

Incorporating lessons from its previous efforts in the current consolidation plan would 

help FAA achieve a successful outcome-especially since it is facing similar 

challenges. For example, decisions regarding what automation or equipment will be 

installed or how ongoing modernization projects will be affected could delay 

construction of the first integrated site; this occurred at the Northern California 

Consolidated TRACON due to the unavailability of an automation system, 

Developing metrics that measure whether expected operational efficiencies and 

potential cost savings from the first integrated facility are actually achieved could 

further help FAA mitigate future risks. Considering that FAA's large-scale plans span 

a period of 20 years in six segments, measuring the success of early realignments and 

consolidations will be critical to determine whether the Agency needs to modify plans 

and expectations for future efforts. 

10 
56 


Insert offset folio 38 here 74439.038

Informing Stakeholders of Cost and Schedule Changes and Risks Would 

Further Position FAA for Success 

As key partners in the Nation's air traffic facility realignment and consolidation, it is 

critical that FAA provide Congress and other stakeholders with timely, detailed 

information regarding plans and plan changes, the risks associated with individual 

sites and the overall plan, and the impact that large-scale realignment and 

consolidations will have on FAA's other modernization efforts. Such information will 

allow Congress and the aviation community to determine whether FAA's efforts are 

on track or if changes to the plan are needed-particularly while FAA is still early in 

its planning. 

Some key watch items for this Subcommittee in the near term are (1 ) FAA's decision 

on where to build the first integrated facility, (2) final cost estimates for the first 

facility, (3) FAA's metrics for measuring the success of its first facility, and (4) the 

impact that FAA's large-scale plans will have on its other modernization efforts. 

CONCLUSION 

FAA's efforts to modernize the NAS are critical for meeting the anticipated demand 

for air travel. The extent to which FAA realigns and consolidates the Nation's air 

traffic control facilities will be an important and complex component of these efforts. 

FAA's plans for large-scale integrated facilities represent significant steps on the path 

to achieving greater operational efficiencies. However, successfully implementing this 

plan will require the Agency to address significant challenges and make difficult 

decisions regarding the cost, schedule, and technical capabilities required for the 

effort. As FAA's plan evolves, addressing these issues early, including learning from 

prior consolidation efforts, will better position the Agency to achieve airspace and 

operational efficiencies, potential cost savings, and the benefits from NextGen. 

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to address any questions from the 

Chairman or Members of the Subcommittee at this time. 

11 
57 


Insert offset folio 39 here 74439.039

ATTACHMENT 1. FAA'S SIX AIRSPACE SEGMENTS FOR 

REALIGNING AND CONSOLIDATING AIR TRAFFIC FACILITIES 

Source: SPMO 

Segment 1: Chicago through New England, New York, and Philadelphia 

Segment 2: BaltimorefWashington, DC to Atlanta and S1. Louis 

Segment 3: West Coast from California and Oregon to the Arizona Border 

Segment 4: Southern Atlantic Region Including the Eastern Carolinas, Georgia 

(South of Atlanta) Through Florida 

Segment 5: Gulf Coast Including Louisiana and Texas, Extending Through 

Arkansas 

Segment 6: Midwest and Rocky Mountains Extending through Washington 

State 

12 
58 


Insert offset folio 40 here 74439.040

ATTACHMENT 2. PLANNED SEGMENT 1 INTEGRATED FACILITIES 

Component Facilities Radar ATC Certified Technicians Other Total 

Positions Positions Controllers Staff FTEs 

Liberty Integrated Control Facility 

New York En Route Center (partial); 86 169 625 156 57 838 

New York, Philadelphia, Allentown, 

Wilkes-Barre, Binghamton, Elmira, 

Harrisburg, and Reading TRACONs 

Lincoln Integrated Control Facility 

Chicago En Route Center (partial); 99 174 730 208 42 980 

Chicago, Milwaukee, Kalamazoo, Fort 

Wayne, Grand Rapids, Muskegon, 

South Bend, Waterloo, Cedar Rapids, 

Champaign, Quad City, Madison, 

and Rockford TRACONs 

Great Lakes Integrated Control and High Ops Facility 

Cleveland and Chicago En Route 123 241 920 224 139 1,283 

Centers (partial); Detroit, Cleveland, 

Flint, Lansing, Saginaw, Mansfield, 

Toledo, Buffalo, Akron-Canton, 

Clarksburg, Erie, Pittsburgh, 

Rochester, and Youngstown 

TRACONs 

Northeast Integrated Control and High Ops Facility 

Boston and New York En Route 88 201 716 244 67 1,027 

Centers (partial); Boston, Albany, 

Cape, Yankee, Bangor, Burlington, 

Providence, Portland, and Syracuse 

TRACONs 

Source: FAA 

Note: The names of the facilities are notional and do not indicate where FAA plans to build these 

facilities. 

13 
59 


Insert offset folio 41 here 74439.041

Congressman John Duncan 

House Committee on Transportations and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Questions for the Record - May 31, 2012 Hearing 

FAA Employee Programs lor Cost Savings (For DOT IG) 

Question: Is the Ot1ice of Inspector General aware of any bonus programs available to 

FAA employees for ideas that result in cost savings for the Agency? 

DOT OIG Response: 

No, we are not aware of any bonus programs available to FAA employees speci fically for 

suggesting cost savings measures. The Department does have IdeaHub program, which 

allows employees to submit ideas that could improve the effectiveness and et1iciency of 

transportation programs. 

1 
60 


Insert offset folio 42 here 74439.042

Nationa! Air Traffic Controllers Association 

AFL-CIO 

Testimony of 

Paul M. Rinaldi, President 

National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

Before the House Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

May 31, 2012 

"A Review of FAA's Efforts to Reduce Costs and Ensure Safety and 

Efficiency Through Realignment and Consolidation" 

1325 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 12021628·5451 12021 628·5767 FAX WWWJlatca.org -c> 
61 


Insert offset folio 43 here 74439.043

INTRODUCTION 

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) is the exclusive representative of 

over 15,200 air traffic controllers serving the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the 

Department of Defense (DOD) and the private sector. In addition, NATCA represents FAA's 

Alaska flight service specialists and approximately 1,200 FAA engineers, 600 traffic 

management coordinators, 500 aircraft certification professionals, agency operational support 

staff, regional personnel from FAA's logistics, budget, finance and computer specialist 

divisions, as well as agency occupational health specialists, nurses and medical program 

specialists. 

All NATCA members are dedicated to ensuring that our National Airspace System (NAS) is 

the safest and most efficient in the world. In order to maintain that safety and efficiency, our 

aviation safety professionals work to improve safety procedures, modernize the NAS, and 

promote new technology. We have professional controllers involved in nearly every 

modernization and NextGen-related program the FAA is currently working on. Controller 

skills are put to work every day as they handle an impressive volume of flights - air traffic 

controllers monitor takeoff and landing for more than 70,000 flights each day, safely moving 

nearly two million passengers through our skies daily. Air traffic controllers handle these 

flights in the busiest and most complex air space in the world with roughly 5,000 planes in the 

sky at any given moment. 

With the size and complexity of our airspace in mind, NATCA is committed to a collaborative 

relationship with the FAA. From the onset, it is important to recognize that the current FAA 

leadership has made a similar commitment, understanding that fostering cooperation between 

management and the frontline workforce is imperative throughout the process of the planning, 

development and implementation of safety and technology programs for the NAS. 

One of these key programs is the realignment offacilities and services, which is defined as the 

consolidation, severing, or reorganization of FAA facilities and services. This may include the 

relocation of functions, services, or personnel positions, the discontinuation or severance of 

existing facility functions or services, or the combination of facilities. 

2 
62 


Insert offset folio 44 here 74439.044

REALIGNMENTS AND CONSOLIDA nON 

It is NATCA's position that realignments should be implemented only when the realignment 

will enhance operational services, provide continued or improved safety, support and facilitate 

modernization of the NAS, address and mitigate concerns raised by stakeholders, and is costeffective. While realignment may playa role in modernizing facilities with NextGen 

capabilities, realignments and automation upgrades are two separate issues. Realignments 

should always be driven by safety, efficiency, and infrastructure needs, while technology 

developments drive automation improvements (automation systems can be housed in any type 

of building whether they have been realigned or not). 

To be clear, NATCA supports facility realignments, but only as part of a comprehensive plan 

with a clear objective, quantifiable efficiency gains, and a sound business case evaluating each 

proposal. To date, the majority of the FAA's business cases have not stood up to that scrutiny. 

For example, in June 2010, the Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOT IG) 

review of the proposed transfer of the Boise TRACON to the Salt Lake City TRACON found 

that projected cost savings and efficiency gains in the proposal could not be realized. The 

DOT IG ultimately determined that the FAA business case was "flawed, lacked transparency, 

and did not reflect changes in key assumptions or include up-to-date facility-level 

information." Similarly, an independent third party review of the proposed realignment in 

Abilene, Texas revealed the Agency's data was also flawed, and that the anticipated cost 

savings would most likely not be achieved. 

NATCA is a proponent of a holistic and strategic approach to realignments that examines the 

entire system and the operational efficiency of existing and planned airspace. Once that plan 

exists, the FAA and stakeholders must look at each proposal individually to make sure there is 

a solid business case for the realignment. Again, realignments must be part of a 

comprehensive plan and must be accomplished without compromising safety, efficiency or 

reducing services, and all realignments must be data-driven and not based on supposition or 

ideology. 

The parties have worked collaboratively on some aspects of realignment such as severing 

TRACON services from a Tower when the TRACON is being considered for consolidation. 

However, in other cases such as Orlando International Airport and Memphis International 

Airport, the Agency has simply unilaterally severed Tower and TRACON services creating 

3 
63 


Insert offset folio 45 here 74439.045

two facilities in the place of one. In those cases, the Agency has not provided any quantifiable 

data to support such actions and NA TCA was not involved in a collaborative manner prior to 

that decision. While NATCA is willing to consider all data, we believe the unilateral 

severance of tower and TRACON services provides no benefit to the NAS and that there are 

more viable alternatives to this action such as the structures now being used in Miami, 

Charlotte and Philadelphia. 

Impact of FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012: Since passage of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of2012 (H.R. 658), NATCA leadership has, on a regular 

basis, asked the Agency about its plans for realignment, specifically about the report 

mandated by section 804 of the new law. This report is due June 14,2012, a date quickly 

approaching. NA TCA' s position has been that frontline workforce input is critical, and we. 

wanted to ensure NATCA's inclusion from the early drafting of that report. As the end of May 

approached, we had not seen any progress on the congressionally mandated report, and we 

had not been included in any discussions or efforts to produce that report. Since the 

Committee's announcement of this hearing, there has been some movement: The FAA 

advised NATCA leadership on May 24th that it would convene a stakeholders meeting on June 

5th to discuss plans for realignment. NA TCA believes collaborative pre-decisional meetings 

such as this are a vital component of a comprehensive plan with a clear objective, quantifiable 

efficiency gains, and a sound business case that evaluates each proposed realignment. 

NATCA will continue advocating to be actively included as the FAA moves forward on 

fulfilling its congressional mandates. 

LESSONS LEARNED FROM PAST REALIGNMENTS 

The May 2012 DOT IG draft report found that the FAA's efforts to consolidate as well as 

sever (or split) towers from TRACONS have not produced the stated objectives. 

NATCA's findings support that statement. Interviews with facility personnel and anecdotal 

evidence show us that the costs of these consolidations were higher than originally estimated. 

This may be due to the fact that more personnel are required to staff a severed tower and 

TRACON than a combined facility. In addition, telecommunication costs associated with 

realignments often exceed the projected savings. These factors, combined with the fact that 

4 
64 


Insert offset folio 46 here 74439.046

stated operational efficiency objectives are often not achieved, lead to the conclusion that 

realignments are not inherently beneficial to the NAS. 

The following are a few detailed examples from past realignments that must be addressed in 

the business case for any future realignment proposals: 

Telecommunication Costs: The FAA must consider the significant costs of 

transferring data from one location to another. Federal Tele-Communications 

Infrastructure. (FTI), the program used for transferring radar and telephone data, is a 

driving cost factor in both severing and consolidating facilities. The cost of connecting 

new facilities so they can continue to communicate seamlessly from separate locations 

increases as the facilities increase in distance. These costs increase again as the radar 

services from more towers are consolidated to a single TRACON. In other words, a 

tower located one mile from its TRACON only sends data from radar feeds one mile. 

A TRACON two hundred miles away must send the radar data two hundred miles, 

process the data, and send it back to the tower via redundant lines. This means data 

must be sent four hundred times as far, which is considerably more expensive. 

Assets Left Behind: The FAA should not assume that realigning facilities will 

automatically reduce the size of the NAS. When severing functions from combined 

facilities, the FAA is actually expanding the NAS because they are creating new 

facilities with new positions to be filled. Likewise, consolidations may add facilities to 

the NAS as well- a consolidation or realignment that severs a TRACON from a tower 

will always leave a stranded asset (the tower) that needs to be supported, maintained, 

and staffed. Traditional consolidations like these are not like BRAC closings. They 

only affect the TRACON (the radar function) of the facility, however a control tower 

remains behind as an FAA asset requiring maintenance and staffing. If that tower was 

leaking water or structurally unsound, it will continue to be leaking water and 

structurally unsound even after automation equipment is removed. As far as 

replacement costs are concerned, the presence of a TRACON has virtually no bearing 

on how much a new tower costs. This can negate perceived cost savings (according to 

our data collected during the short term realignment workgroup, cost savings are 

nominal). 

5 
65 


Insert offset folio 47 here 74439.047

Employment Costs: The FAA has failed to properly calculate the employment and 

personnel costs associated with realignments. For example, in Orlando, FL (MCO) and 

Memphis, TN (MEM) where the FAA severed the tower from TRACON, the total cost 

exceeded FAA estimates. Specifically, the resulting salaries of increased management 

and staff resulted in more than $1 million per year increase beyond the cost of the 

combined facilities. 

Reduced Services: At Pueblo CO, (PUB), Palm Springs, CA (PSP) and Beaumont, 

TX (BPT), where the towers have been severed from the TRACONs, anecdotal 

evidence suggests that services were reduced, particularly to the General Aviation 

community. NATCA is not aware of any evaluation that calculated the postrealignment costs, efficiency gains or services provided. 

• Increased Square Footage Costs: At Abilene (ABI), Boise, ID (BOI) and West Palm 

Beach, FL (PBI), new facilities were constructed as part of the planned consolidation. 

While the FAA intended to reduce costs, the new facilities were actually greater in 

square footage than the facilities they replaced, leaving more square footage to 

maintain despite the removal of the TRACON. At Abilene, the new facility is larger 

post-consolidation than pre-consolidation, even without a TRACON (note: Abilene 

has not yet been completed. Controllers have moved into the tower and base building, 

but they only have a temporary TRACON to work out of. This old mobile unit is not 

compatible with new technology (STARS). Instead of facilitating modernization, the 

move has actually delayed modernization). As previously stated, the presence of a 

TRACON has virtually no bearing on how much a new air traffic control tower costs. 

Loss of Training Facilities: Consolidations and severing of combined facilities also 

reduce the training grounds for new controllers in the terminal environment. The more 

consolidations the FAA completes, the fewer small- to medium-size facilities will 

exist for controllers to learn and train before they move on to more complex facilities. 

Eliminating those small- and medium-size facilities is like eliminating the minor 

league system in Major League baseball. While we are not suggesting that the FAA 

should forego realigning any small facilities for the sake of new controllers, it should 

be another factor it considers. 

6 
66 


Insert offset folio 48 here 74439.048

Efficiency Costs: Controller cohesion is one potential cost during consolidations 

controllers no longer working in the same building simply interact differently. 

Through personal experience, we know there's an effect from severing TRACON 

functions from combined facilities, but a quantified study of that effect has never been 

conducted. Generally speaking, NATCA believes that combined TRACON/towers 

operate most efficiently because controllers are trained in both arenas, and are 

answering to managers within their own facility. Ultimately, it is NA TCA' s position 

that facilities that are combined seem to function more efficiently than those that are 

not. 

• Metrics and Follow-Up: Past realignment efforts have not produced quantifiable 

benefits to the NAS. In many of these cases, the FAA has not offered post-action 

follow-up financial data to suggest that they achieved any of the cost-savings or 

efficiencies that were touted as a reason for those realignments. It is NATCA's 

position that the FAA always must conduct a post-consolidation analysis to measure 

the success of these realignments. The DOT IG noted that these metrics are absent 

from planned realignments. Unfortunately, the FAA does not currently maintain 

established metrics to determine the success or failure of recent FAA realignments. 

These endeavors are often controversial in the local community as well as with 

Congress, and the issues of concern have not been revisited to determine their success 

or failure. The FAA must conduct a transparent and quantifiable post-realignment 

analysis as well as produce a real business case for each proposed realignment or 

consolidation. 

In the past, the FAA unilaterally identified and implemented realignments. Those actions did 

not produce its stated objectives. Moving forward, stakeholders must be involved in each 

decision to realign facilities under a comprehensive plan. Stakeholders can offer their 

expertise in, among other things, data analysis, which mayor may not lead to the conclusion 

that realignment is the correct way to proceed, but will always lead to the best outcome for the 

flying public and the American taxpayer. 

7 
67 


Insert offset folio 49 here 74439.049

FAA-NATCA Workgroup: From 2009 to 2010, a collaborative FAA-NATCA workgroup 

was formed to jointly analyze eight facility consolidations that were in the "execution phase." 

The short-term realignment workgroup developed an agreed-upon process for jointly 

evaluating realignments. This process included a quantifiable analysis process with scoring 

for financials, staffing costs and even non-quantifiable "other considerations", such as the 

remaining building life cycle, exposure to natural disasters, and facility expandability. Of the 

eight facilities analyzed: 

• The realignment plans for three (Reno, NV, Dayton, OH and Abilene, TX) were 

recommended to move forward. 

The plans for consolidation of two facilities (Boise, ID and West Palm Beach, FL) 

were cancelled. 

The remaining three projects (Northern OH, Northern MI and Champaign, IL) were 

held in abeyance. 

The Boise (BOI) and West Palm Beach (PBI) realignments did not go forward after a careful 

review of the data failed to support realignment. Both proposals were evaluated first by the 

FAA, then jointly by the FAA and NATCA. The collaborative review of all associated data 

resulted in a different conclusion than the review without NATCA's collaboration. In fact, 

NATCA assessed data that the FAA had not considered. The 2010 DOT IO report confirmed 

that the FAA's initial analysis was flawed and lacked supporting data. Because this 

Workgroup's collaborative evaluation of the data identified the flaws and lack of supporting 

data, the FAA did not go forward with Boise or West Palm Beach realignments. 

Abilene (ABI) is another example of the Workgroup's effort at positive collaboration. When 

the collaborative Workgroup evaluated ABI data, calculated financial and other considerations 

that are not quantifiable such as local input, they found a reasonable case for consolidation. 

However, due to NATCA's continued concern about a lack of credible business case, we 

repeatedly asked the FAA for an independent review. That independent report determined that 

the original data was flawed, and not cost effective. Ultimately, the FAA indicated that it 

intends to proceed on the Abilene realignment despite that independent analysis. 

8 
68 


Insert offset folio 50 here 74439.050

The work of the joint Workgroup demonstrates that realignment efforts can be successful 

when stakeholders are involved and a well-designed business case is used with measurable 

goals. 

Additionally, as the group reviewed the data, it became clear that the desire to combine or 

consolidate numerous buildings into one does not automatically mean that improvements will 

be made to the system or that money will be saved. While NATCA can support realignments 

where the business case supports it, the review process revealed that fewer facilities, simply 

for the sake of wanting to consolidate, is not always better or more efficient. 

CURRENT FAA EFFORTS - THE FUTURE FACILITIES PROGRAM: 

The FAA's stated goal for the Future Facilities Program was to develop a comprehensive plan 

for realignment. The program was originally initiated as a Special Program Management 

Office (SPMO) and began work on a segmented plan that was to be data-driven and 

operations-driven. 

In November 2010, NATCA representatives began participating in the Future Facilities 

Program. Under the SPMO, NATCA representatives received and provided input. The 

Program gained traction and put together several alternatives the Agency could consider in a 

comprehensive manner. However, in the fall of 20 11, the FAA reorganized the Air Traffic 

Organization (A TO) and the Future Facilities Program was moved into the Tech Ops 

Organization of the ATO. Unfortunately, at that point the Future Facilities Program began to 

lose focus and direction. 

Ultimately the Future Facilities plan, as originally developed, was rejected for political and 

financial reasons. The original plan would have taken a segmented approach to realignment, 

creating a multi-year process costing hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Instead, the 

program was directed to abandon the segmented process and narrow their scope to only New 

York facilities (with plans for a new facility to be built in New York State), leaving the FAA 

without the desired comprehensive plan for addressing realignments moving forward. 

9 
69 


Insert offset folio 51 here 74439.051

• Integrated Control Facility (ICF): The concept put forth by the Future Facilities 

Program called for the design and construction of an entirely new type of air traffic 

control facility - an Integrated Control Facility (ICF). ICF was intended to be the 

NextGen facility of the future, housing elements of En Route as well as Terminal 

Airspace in a blended operation. Not surprisingly, the construction of a facility of this 

scale would require coordination with multiple offices and lines of business within the 

agency NextGen, En Route, Terminal, TAMR, Voiceswitch, ERAM, etc. To 

construct such a facility, the Agency needs one individual to oversee the project with 

the authority to direct work from other offices and lines of business. Without someone 

in that position, with that level of authority, the project is set up for delays, cost 

overruns, sub-optimization, and the possibility of outright failure. While the Future 

Facilities Program does have a program director, that individual has no authority to 

compel work from other agency offices or lines of business. This lack of authority puts 

the Future Facilities program injeopardy. 

• Transparency of Future Facilities Program: Another primary goal of the Future 

Facilities Program was to provide transparency and information for all affected 

employees in order to notify them years in advance of any potential realignment that 

might affect said employees. In an effort to provide that transparency, the program 

provided a joint NA TCAIF AA briefing to all affected facilities within the first 

segment of the Future Facilities plan on September 15,2011 in Philadelphia. During 

that briefing representatives of NA TCA and management were provided details of the 

plan and asked for input and feedback. It was the stated intent of the Program to 

establish some means of providing continuous, up to date information for the 

employees. Yet every attempt by the Future Facilities Program to create such a 

communications vehicle has been halted by the FAA and ATO. To date, the Future 

Facilities Program has not been able to pursue a venue for providing information to the 

affected employees. 

• Engaging with Local Workforce: While NATCA leadership has tried to take a 

collaborative approach on realignment, the FAA's lack ofa comprehensive plan has 

10 
70 


Insert offset folio 52 here 74439.052

made it difficult for NATCA to work with, or engage locals on the issue. Recently, 

Agency leadership asked NATCA to collaboratively work on a survey for the New 

York facility the Future Facilities Program is designing. Surveying the workforce is an 

essential component in the development of the New York facility, and we applaud the 

Agency for keeping their commitment to actively involve the workforce in this 

monumental project. 

Additionally, the DOT I G has correctly noted that NATCA leadership is working in 

good faith with the FAA on the realignment issue. At the same time, the DOT IG notes 

that local membership does not support the collaborative efforts ofNATCA National, 

regarding the proposed NY Integrated Facility realignment. NATCA believes that the 

direct dealing with the NATCA members by the DOT IG was improper. It is important 

to note that NATCA National has not signed off on any plan when it comes to the ICF. 

As a matter of fact, it was only until recently that NATCA representatives on this 

project were bound under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), which prohibited 

NA TCA from discussing specifics of the project - particularly concerning location. 

We find it unfair that the IG approached NATCA members and broached the subject 

of a combined facility and possible relocation without properly providing them with 

any prior infonnation, explanation or status of the project. 

At this time, NA TCA is concerned that the FAA lacks a comprehensive, consistent plan with 

repeatable processes moving forward after the New York facility is built. The Agency cannot 

continue to make patchwork changes to the NAS. The FAA needs a comprehensive plan for 

addressing realignments within the NAS, whether it is under a revised version of the Future 

Facilities Program or using some other process. The FAA must work with NATCA to develop 

an appropriate, comprehensive strategy moving forward. 

CONCLUSION 

NATCA is committed to collaboratively working with the FAA to ensure the safety and 

efficiency of the NAS. While it is important to recognize that the current FAA leadership has 

11 
71 


Insert offset folio 53 here 74439.053

made a commitment to collaborative effort in the planning, development and implementation 

of safety and technology programs, and NATCA has seen the FAA make progress in 

numerous areas, the following are specific items where NATCA would recommend more 

movement: 

• The FAA must develop, with the inclusion of its frontline workforce and other 

affected stakeholders, a comprehensive, strategic approach to realignments in the 

NAS. 

• The FAA must develop a holistic and strategic approach to realignments that examines 

the entire system and the operational efficiency of existing and planned airspace. The 

NAS cannot be altered as a patchwork of systems that are built independently. 

Whether it is through the congressionally mandated report or revamping the Future 

Facilities Program, NATCA stands ready to collaboratively work with the FAA on 

maintaining and improving the efficiency of the airspace system. 

• Once that plan exists, the FAA and stakeholders must look at each proposal 

individually to make sure there is a solid business case for realignment. Lessons 

learned from past realignments need to be taken into consideration. 

• FAA must establish transparent metrics to determine the success or failure of 

realignments. The Agency must consistently conduct post-consolidation business 

analysis using repeatable metrics, and publicly report the outcome of these analyses. 

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee to provide our input on 

realignment and consolidations. We also welcome opportunities to work with the FAA in a 

collaborative manner to help fulfill the promises ofNextGen and properly address issues to 

enhance the safety and efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS). 

12 
72 


Insert offset folio 54 here 74439.054

Doc. RefiRe!. : FMP No. FMP 2012-158 

The Honorable John Mica 

Chairman 

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

2187 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Tom Petri 

Chairman 

House Aviation Subcommittee 

2462 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairmen Mica and Petri: 

Direct LinelLigne directe: (613) 563-7000 

June 1, 2012 

Thank you very much for your continuing interest in NAV CANADA. I regret that I was unable to travel to 

Washington to testify at the Subcommittee's May 31 hearing. In lieu of oral testimony, I hope this letter 

describing the NAV CANADA experience with realignment and facility consolidation will be useful to you 

and Subcommittee members. 

First, I would like to provide a brief summary of our organization. NAV CANADA is a private-sector, nonshare capital corporation, financed through publicly issued debt, that owns and operates Canada's civil 

air navigation service (ANS). Marking over 15 years as Canada's Civil ANS provider, NAV CANADA 

provides air traffic control, flight information, weather briefings, aeronautical information services, airport 

advisory services and electronic aids to navigation. Revenues are derived from NAV CANADA service 

charges applicable to the airlines and the owners/operators of aircraft, and from technology sales. 

The Company is responsible for the provision of services to some 40,000-plus customers in over 18 

million square kilometres of airspace. We operate 42 air traffic control towers, seven area control centres, 

57 flight service stations, eight flight information centres, 51 community aerodrome radio stations and 34 

maintenance centres. (See attached facility map.) The Company provides service to some 12 million air 

traffic movements per year, making it the second largest ANS provider in the world after the FAA. 

Our first priority is safety, and in this area we are among the leaders in our field. Our safety performance 

is depicted in the second attachment to this letter, which shows continuous improvement in the rate of 

IFRIIFR losses of separation per 100,000 aircraft movements over time, from over one per 100,000 in 

2002 to below. 75 at the end of 2011. 

Since we began operating the system in 1996 - following its purchase from the Canadian government -

we have invested $1,7 billion under the umbrella of a continuous improvement and modernization 

program. That process has resulted in a significant expansion of air traffic surveillance especially in 

Canada's North (see attached map); the upgrading of infrastructure such as towers and area control 

centres; the replacement of key navigational aids and telecommunications facilities; and the 

implementation of world-leading air traffic management systems. 

This modernization effort, especially in the air traffic management side of the business, has provided a 

technology platform from which we have successfully marketed air traffic management solutions around 

the world under the NAVCANatm brand. To date, our NAVCANatm solutions have been implemented in 

Australia, Denmark, Dubai, Hong Kong, the Netherland Antilles, the UK, and Sheppard Air Force Base in 

the U.S. 

77 Metcalfe Street. Ottawa, Ontano, Canada K1P 516 

Telephone: (613) 563·7873 Facsimile. (613) 563·3487 

77, rue Metcalfe. Ottawa (OntariO) Canada K1 P 516 

Telephone: (613) 563-7873 Tel!t!copieu(: (613) 563-3487 

...12 
73 


Insert offset folio 55 here 74439.055

The Honorable John Mica and The Honorable Tom Petri June 1, 2012 

While NAV CANADA has focused a great deal of effort on modernization, we have also significantly 

enhanced service delivery stemming from the implementation of new procedures, systems and 

technologies. Today there are minimal delays related to the Canadian ANS, and our customers are 

reaping significant savings from more efficient flight operations, measured in avoided fuel bum and 

greenhouse gas emissions (see attached graphs). 

In lockstep with all of these improvements, NAV CANADA has consistently and aggressively managed 

system costs including those related to facility duplication, the main subject of this Subcommittee hearing. 

Over our first 15 years of operating the Canadian ANS, we addressed this challenge in three distinct 

phases: one, re-baselining the system from 1996 - 2001; two, mitigating the impact of the aviation 

industry downturn and other negative events that followed the 9/11 attacks; and finally, managing ongoing 

cost challenges in a slow-growth environment while continuing to modernize, roughly from 2008 to the 

present 

Re-baselining 

When the ANS was transferred to NAV CANADA in 1996, our first order of business was to demonstrate 

our ability to operate a safe and stable system, while determining the focus of our transformation efforts. 

By the end of our first year, it was clear that our major priorities were to enhance safety, improve service 

and invest in the core operation, while reducing the substantial administrative overhead we had inherited 

from government. 

As a result, decisions were made to proceed with the closure of four out of six regional administrative 

offices in a three-year period. This was combined with de-layering of our management ranks and a 

centralization of all business functions, with the Company's regions focusing on their role as operating 

theatres. The two remaining regional offices have since been gradually phased out, with the consolidation 

of our management into Head Office and in our seven Area Control Centres across the country. 

Our public consultations were limited to informing key stakeholders of our intentions, as there was no 

impact on service delivery stemming from Ihese changes. A great deal of effort was spent communicating 

with employees throughout this process, providing extensive transitional support and generous departure 

packages. 

Needless to say, these changes yielded non-operational cost savings for the Company in the tens of 

millions, and accounted for the bulk of our savings as we reduced our headcount from 6,300 to 

approximately 5,500. More importantly and consistent with our safety first commitment, none of these 

staff reductions involved air traffic controllers. In fact, we actually increased the number of licensed 

controllers as we dealt with a historical shortage that had been inherited when we purchased the system. 

Level of Service Changes 

While we proceeded with dispatch on the administrative side of the business, our approach to changing 

the level of service has from the start been governed by specific requirements in the Civil Air Navigation 

Services Commercialization Act, including requirements for public consultation and for review of the 

proposals by the safety regulator, Transport Canada. 

Based on the requirements of the Act, and of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, the Company 

undertakes Aeronautical Studies to identify and evaluate level of service options, including service 

increases or decreases or the introduction or termination of services. They also involve further in-depth 

analysis of safety and operational efficiency issues as well as extensive consultation with customers and 

stakeholders. (These are explained in detail in the attached Backgrounder.) 

Aeronautical Studies consider all relevant factors, including traffic volume, mix and distribution, weather, 

airport role, airport and airspace configuration, surface activity and the efficiency requirements of 

operators using the service. The scope of studies can range from minor adjustments to airspace 

boundaries to an examination of the impacts of replacing an airport control service with another form of 

service, introducing a new service, or terminating a service completely. 

77 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K 1 P 516 

Telephone: (613) 563·7873 Facsimile: (613) 563-3487 

77, rue Metcalfe, Ottawa (Ontario) Canada K1P 5L6 

H!lE!phone: (613) 563-7873 TeJecopieur: (613) 563·3487 

...13 
74 


Insert offset folio 56 here 74439.056

The Honorable John Mica and The Honorable Tom Petri June 1, 2012 

Northern Services Review 

In our early restructuring period, the Company conducted a comprehensive review of northern services 

using this Aeronautical Study methodology - in late 1997. The purpose was to determine if NAV 

CANADA service delivery was in line with the requirements of its northern customers. 

Through extensive consultations with some 700 northern individuals, aviation companies and other 

organizations, numerous issues related to the delivery of air navigation services and concems about 

change were identified. These issues focused on weather information, communications coverage and 

service quality. 

The main recollJmendations of the study were the centralization of Flight Information Services into three 

facilities - this was later reduced to two facilities; installation of 13 additional Remote Communications 

Outlets (RCOs); conversion of six Aerodrome Advisory Service sites to Community Aerodrome Radio 

Stations (CARS); and improvements to aviation weather observation and reporting, including installation 

of new Automated Weather Observation Systems and Limited Weather Information Systems, as well as 

expansion of the hours of human weather reporting. 

The Flight Information Centre Project 

Following the Northern Services Review, the Company made a decision to consolidate the provision of 

flight information services (weather, flight planning, pilot briefings, and flight information en-route) into six 

Flight Information Centres or FICs, geographically located across Southern Canada based on service 

area requirements. The six locations were Kamloops, BC; Edmonton AB; Winnipeg, MB; London, Ontario; 

Quebec City, QB; and Halifax, NS. 

Consultations related to this project were extensive, and included ernployee briefings and meetings, plus 

discussions with customers and stakeholders in the affected areas. These were undertaken in many 

cases even though there was technically no change in the level of service, just a change in the location 

from which it would be provided. Nevertheless, this proactive approach helped to mitigate negative 

reactions and build trust, aSSisting in the successful completion of the project. 

Level of Service Review 2004 

As a result of the aviation crisis caused by 9/11, and following two Level of Service conferences in 2003, 

NAV CANADA completed national, regional and site-level consultation on proposals for level of service 

changes that affected over 130 airports across the country. All of the proposed changes had the goal of 

matching service with the safety and efficiency requirements of NAV CANADA's customers. 

The Service Review resulted in the closure of Contract Weather Offices, the closure or reduction in hours 

of operation of Flight Service Stations and changes to the provision of Rernote Aerodrome Advisory 

Service as well as decommissioning of ground based navigation aids and LF airways. 

Focus since 2008 

When the Company was well past its initial re-baselining period, and traffic growth had returned to pre9111 levels, senior management implernented a new strategy to limit the growth in headcount, through a 

seven-year headcount freeze with the emphasis on headcount reductions where consistent with safety 

and custorner efficiency. This strategy affected all groups in the Company 

At the same time, the progress we had been making on modernization began to achieve dividends for us, 

especially with the national rollout of the Canadian Automated Air Traffic System (CAATS) - our 

backbone flight data processor now fully functional on a national basis. This milestone, combined with the 

rollout of other systems such as the revitalized Gander Automated Air Traffic System-PIus (GAATS+) for 

oceanic air traffic control, has allowed us to further reduce costs due to the automation of manual 

functions across the system. 

Further progress has also been achieved through initiatives such as decentralization of our operational 

training, ongoing limits on discretionary spending, a flexible approach to staffing based on custorner 

demand, and a culture of cost performance throughout the business, with headcount now at 

approximately 4,800. 

77 Metcalfe Street. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1P 5L6 

Telephone: (613) 563-7873 Facsimile' (613) 563--3487 

77, rue Metcalfe, Ottawa (Ontario) Canada K1P 516 

Telephone: (613) 563~7a73 Teiecopieur: (613) 563·3487 

. . .14 
75 


Insert offset folio 57 here 74439.057

The Honorable John Mica and The Honorable Tom Petri June 1, 2012 

Summary 

In summary, cost control has been a continuing priority, consistent with safety and customer service, and 

this is reflected in the level of our service charges (see final graph in this package). Despite having to 

raise rates in the post-9/ll environment to make up for the shortfall in traffic and revenues in 2002-2004, 

the Company has now gone eight years in a row with no increase - and in fact we reduced charges on 

two occasions over that time. 

In terms of our facilities, since privatization in 1996, we have: 

eliminated regional administrative offices; 

reduced the number of control towers from 44 to 42; 

reduced the total number of flight service stations from 83 to 54; 

consolidated flight information services in Southern Canada to six Flight Information Centres; 

consolidated flight information services in Northern Canada to two Flight Information Centres; 

expanded the use of automated weather observation systems and weather cameras, reducing the 

need for contract weather offices; and 

continually reduced the number of ground based navigational aids as the use of satellite navigation 

has expanded. 

Facility streamlining of the kind being reviewed by this Subcommittee - involving consolidation of 

TRACON units into ARTCCs, for instance - was NOT a major focus for NAV CANADA because much of 

this work had been done before 1996. The only exceptions to this were the consolidations of the two 

remaining standalone Terminal Control Units (roughly equivalent to a TRACON) from Calgary to the 

Edmonton Area Control Centre and from Ottawa to the Montreal Area Control Centre. 

We did study the possibility of consolidating area control centers but did not proceed as there was no 

business case. The cost of relocating personnel and expanding plant and equipment at a host center did 

not have a realistic pay back period. 

Our experience with the consolidations we did do was that the emphasis of consultation and 

communications had to be directed to employees. Customers and stakeholders were less of an issue as 

the level of service was unaffected in each case. In fact, our experience over 15 years has demonstrated 

to us that quite often the most critical impact with changes such as these is on our people. We have 

leamed never to underestimate the impact of moving employees and their families to distant locations, 

with all of disruption that entails with regard to living arrangements, housing, schooling, spousal 

employment and many other factors. We do it when necessary and when a strong business case exists. 

I hope the Subcommittee finds our experience with facility consolidation and realignment to be instructive. 

If I can elaborate further or provide additional information, I would be pleased to do so. 

JWC/jm 

77 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa, OntariO, Canada K1P 5L6 

Telephone: (613) 563·7873 Facsimile: (613) 563.-3487 

Sincerely, 

~":::: President and Chief Executive Officer 

NAVCANADA 

77, rue Metcalfe, Ottawa (OntariO) Canada K1P 516 

Telephone: (613) 563-7873 Tehkopjeur: {613) 563·3487 
76 


Insert offset folio 58 here 74439.058

Insert offset folio 59 here 74439.059

Rate of IFRlIFR losses of separation 

per 100,000 aircraft movements (5 year moving average) 

1.050 

1.000 

0.950 0.900 0.850 0.800 0.750 

0.700 0.650 

0.600 

!: Ci !: f!'R Ci !: f!'R Ci !: !: f!'R Ci !: f!',,"'rJ',' f!'R Ci !: f!'R Ci !: r! if rJ!: r! if rJ 
78 


Insert offset folio 60 here 74439.060
79 


Insert offset folio 61 here 74439.061

(SJeq) paAes UJna lan~ 10 avo 10 SUO!ll!W 

0 

'" g '" '" '" '" g '" g g g '" '" '" ci q q '" ~ ~ i ~ q 

;;; '" .s >- oo N ;;; .;. '" '" .. '" '" '" '" 

oto~ 

6~0~ 

S~O~ 

UO. 

9~OZ 

S~O~ 

v~O~ 

< £~OZ 

~~OZ 

HO. 

O~OZ 

600~ 

sao. 

Loo. 

900Z 

soo. 

voo. 

£00. 

zoo. 

;oo~ 

000. 

666. 

S66, 

L6S. 

0 '" '" '" '" '" 0 0 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" iii '" '" '" iii '" '" '" '" '" '" '" on N 15 '" ~ ~ ;;! ;: .... N N N N 

(au,,) paP!OAV sauuol 000 
80 

Insert offset folio 62 here 74439.062

81 


Insert offset folio 63 here 74439.063

BACKGROUNDER 

Reviewing levels of Service in the Air Navigation System 

NAV CANADA's mandate is to provide safe, efficient and cost effective air navigation 

services. To meet that mandate, the company regularly evaluates the services it provides 

and determines how best to meet changing industry requirements. 

Periodic internal reviews examine operational and safety issues and customer needs to 

help to define whether a formal change proposal is required. When an internal review 

demonstrates that a material change in the level of service may be appropriate, an Aeronautical Study is initiated. 

NAV CANADA conducts Aeronautical Studies to identify and evaluate level of service options, including service increases or decreases or the introduction or termination of services. They involve further in-depth analysis of safety and operational efficiency issues as 

well as extensive consultation with customers and stakeholders. 

Aeronautical Studies take place every year. They consider all relevant factors, including 

traffic volume, mix and distribution, weather, airport role, airport and airspace configuration, surface activity and the efficiency requirements of operators using the service. The 

scope of studies can range from minor adjustments to airspace boundaries to an examination of the impacts of replacing an airport control service with another form of service, 

introducing a new service, or terminating a service completely. 

The Aeronautical Study framework conforms to the internationally accepted Canadian 

Standards Association Standard Q850: Risk Management-Guidelines for Decision-makers. It is a comprehensive framework that involves full consullation with those affected 

by changes to air navigation services. In accordance with the framework, NAV CANADA 

makes every effort to ensure full stakeholder participation in these studies. It is important 

for the company to fully understand all potential effects of a proposed change on those 

who use the services. 

Consultation with stakeholders formally occurs following the preliminary analysis phase 

- when issues and impacts of a proposed service change are reviewed. However stakeholders may share their views and concerns at any time during a study. Consultation 

helps confirm or disprove assumptions made during the preliminary analysis and validates customer issues. The service proposal can then be altered if warranted. 

Official notices are mailed out to identified stakeholders advising them of aeronautical 

studies. Notices may also be obtained from NAV CANADA through the "Announcements" 

section of NAV CANADA's web site found on the Internet at www.navcanada.ca 
82 


Insert offset folio 64 here 74439.064

The Aeronautical Study process provides a systematic methodology for analyzing complex issues using a risk management approach. Risk analysis includes the identification 

of exposures to risk, and the identification and evaluation of alternative strategies for 

reducing or eliminating losses. Perception and communications issues that affect risk 

decisions are also fully assessed. 

Once an Aeronautical Study is completed, it is forwarded to NAV CANADA senior management and the Board of Directors for approval. 

Additionally, NAV CANADA is regulated by the federal government in terms of safety. The 

Minister of Transport reviews NAV CANADA's Aeronautical Studies as per section 806.02 

(2) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, to assess "whether the risk to aviation safety 

would be unacceptably increased by a proposed termination or reduction in the level of 

air navigation service", 

Upon completion of an Aeronautical Study, notices of any change in service are published 

on the company's Internet site. Notices of material reductions in service are also published in regional newspapers. 
83 


Insert offset folio 65 here 74439.065

NA 

0850 RISK MANAGEMENT DECISION PROCESS 
Æ 


Insert offset folio 66 here 74439.066

NAV CANA A 

HISTORY OF NAV CANADA RATE CHANGES(1) 

VERSUS CONSUMER PRICE INDEX(2) 

.. -_

95 90 

__ ____ 

1. AVERAGE CHANGES SINCE CHARGES WERE FULLY IMPLEMENTED ON MARCH 1,1999 

2. CONSUMER PRICE INDEX - GROWTH ASSUMED TO BE 2.0 PER CENT FOR 2012