Air Traffic Control
Impact of Revised Personnel Relocation Policies Is Uncertain Gao ID: GAO-03-141 October 31, 2002In fiscal year 2001, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) spent more than $15 million to move air traffic controllers and their managers to new permanent duty locations. FAA classifies the funds that it spends for these moves as permanent change of station (PCS) benefits. In 1998, as part of a broader effort to reform its personnel policies, FAA changed its policies on PCS benefits. Instead of fully reimbursing the costs of all PCS moves and prohibiting unfunded PCS moves, as it once did, FAA now determines the amount of PCS benefits to be offered on a position-by-position basis and allows employees and managers to move at their own expense. Under its new polices, FAA can fully reimburse the costs of a move if it determines that he move is in the interest of the government, or it can offer partial fixed relocation benefits if it determines that the agency will derive some benefit from the move. FAA's policies on eligibility for PCS benefits are the same for air traffic controllers and their managers, but the amounts of the benefits vary. According to these policies, eligibility depends on a determining official's decision about how critical a position is and/or whether FAA will benefit from the move. Air traffic controllers have been less likely than air traffic managers to be offered PCS benefits when they move between facilities. Between fiscal year 1999 and 2001, Air Traffic Services funded 16 percent of moves involving a promotion and 6 percent of lateral moves between field facilities for controllers, compared with 38 percent of promotional moves and 34 percent of lateral moves for managers. According to FAA officials, PCS costs have decreased and FAA's ability to quickly fill vacant controller positions has improved since the new PCS policies took effect.
GAO-03-141, Air Traffic Control: Impact of Revised Personnel Relocation Policies Is Uncertain
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-141
entitled 'Air Traffic Control: Impact of Revised Personnel Relocation
Policies Is Uncertain' which was released on November 12, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
October 2002:
Air traffic control:
Impact of Revised Personnel Relocation Policies Is Uncertain:
Air Traffic Control:
GAO-03-141:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Eligibility Policies Are the Same for Air Traffic Controllers and
Managers, but Funding Policies Differ:
Air Traffic Controllers Were Less Likely than Managers to Receive
Funding for PCS Moves:
Possible Impacts of FAA‘s New PCS Policies:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Details on GAO‘s Data Analyses:
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: Funding of Managers‘ and Controllers‘ PCS Moves for
Promotions between Field Facilities, Fiscal Years 1999-2001:
Figure 2: Funding of Managers‘ and Controllers‘ PCS Lateral Moves
between Field Facilities, Fiscal Years 1999-2001:
Figure 3: Air Traffic Services Annual PCS Costs, Fiscal Years 1996-
2001:
Abbreviations:
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:
NATCA: National Air Traffic Controllers Association:
PCS: Permanent Change of Station:
Letter:
October 31, 2002:
The Honorable John L. Mica
Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In fiscal year 2001, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) spent
more than $15 million to move air traffic controllers (who are
responsible for controlling the takeoff, landing, and ground movement
of planes) and their managers (who oversee and administer the air
traffic control program) to new permanent duty locations. FAA
classifies the funds that it spends for these moves as permanent change
of station (PCS) benefits. In 1998, as part of a broader effort to
reform its personnel policies, FAA changed its policies on PCS
benefits. Instead of fully reimbursing the costs of all PCS moves and
prohibiting unfunded PCS moves, as it once did, FAA now determines the
amount of PCS benefits to be offered on a position-by-position basis.
Under its new policies, FAA can fully reimburse the costs of a move if
it determines that the move is in the interest of the government, or it
can offer partial (fixed) relocation benefits if it determines that the
agency will derive some benefit from the move. Under the new policy,
employees and managers can now also move at their own expense. We
examined the impact of these changes in PCS policies on FAA‘s Air
Traffic Services organization as part of our ongoing work for you on
the impact of FAA‘s 1996 personnel reforms. As agreed with your office,
we researched three questions:
* How do FAA‘s policies on eligibility for, and the amount of, PCS
benefits differ for air traffic controllers and their managers?
* How did the likelihood of being offered PCS benefits differ for
controllers and managers?
* What has been the impact of PCS policies on Air Traffic Services‘
annual PCS costs and its ability to staff vacant positions?
To address these questions, we obtained and analyzed information on
trends since fiscal year 1996 in PCS policies and funding for air
traffic controllers and air traffic managers. We also analyzed data on
the type of funding for, and purpose of, controllers‘ and managers‘ PCS
moves between field offices from 1999 through 2001. We also examined
available information regarding moves other than those between field
offices. See appendix I for details about our data analyses. We also
met with representatives of Air Traffic Services and FAA‘s Conference
Managers Association to discuss the impact of FAA‘s PCS policies. We
conducted our review from March 2002 through August 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
FAA‘s policies on eligibility for PCS benefits are the same for air
traffic controllers and their managers, but the amounts of the benefits
vary. According to these policies, eligibility depends on a determining
official‘s decision about how critical a position is and/or whether FAA
will benefit from the move. Depending on this determination, FAA may
fully reimburse the costs of a move, offer a fixed amount of relocation
benefits, or provide no relocation benefits. Under a memorandum of
understanding between the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
(NATCA) and FAA, controllers can receive a larger fixed relocation
payment than managers. For all moves where fixed relocation payments
are provided to controllers, they receive a payment of $27,000, whereas
the amounts of the fixed relocation payments for managers and other
nonunion employees are determined on a case-by-case basis up to
$25,000. The average fixed relocation payment for managers‘ moves
between field offices (based on FAA estimates) was about $19,500 from
1999 through 2001.
Air traffic controllers have been less likely than air traffic managers
to be offered PCS benefits when they move between facilities. Our
analysis of data on moves between field facilities in fiscal years 1999
through 2001 (comprising 1,639 of 2,107, or almost 80 percent of all
Air Traffic PCS moves) showed that Air Traffic Services funded 16
percent of moves involving a promotion (123 of 774) and 6 percent of
lateral moves between field facilities for controllers (14 of 250),
compared with 38 percent of promotional moves (34 of 90) and 34 percent
of lateral moves (14 of 41) for managers. For other moves (for example,
from regional offices to field facilities or headquarters to regional
offices), Air Traffic Services funded 9 percent for controllers (25 of
275 moves), compared with 47 percent for managers (91 of 193 moves).
Although controllers make up about 77 percent of the combined
workforce, they are to get 65 percent of available Air Traffic PCS
funding according to a February 2000 Memorandum of Understanding
between FAA and NATCA. Air Traffic Services officials said that the
relatively small number of managers who moved, combined with the fixed
allotment of total PCS funding, led to the difference between managers
and controllers in the likelihood for PCS funding.
According to FAA officials, PCS costs have decreased and FAA‘s ability
to quickly fill vacant controller positions has improved since the new
PCS policies took effect. Data show that Air Traffic Services‘ PCS
annual costs decreased in 1998 when FAA began implementing its new PCS
policies--for example, from $31.8 million in fiscal year 1997 to $17.5
million in fiscal year 1998[Footnote 1]--but FAA does not have the data
to determine to what extent the annual decreases are attributable to
the new PCS policies. Lacking the requisite data, FAA has attributed
the reduction to decreases in the agency‘s budget rather than to the
new PCS policies. Air Traffic Services‘ officials have attributed
improvements in FAA‘s ability to quickly fill vacant controller
positions at field facilities to broader flexibilities provided by the
new PCS policies, but again, they lacked the data to support their
views. On the other hand, FAA‘s Conference Managers Association has
expressed concern that the changes in PCS policies may result in
unintended consequences in filling vacant positions. Specifically, the
Association has suggested that these changes may reduce the pool of
applicants (because fewer applicants may be willing to fund part or all
of their moves), thereby, potentially affecting the qualifications and
diversity of applicants for promotions. Moreover, according to the
Association, PCS benefits paid to fill comparable positions could vary
from year to year with changes in budget funding levels. However, the
Association said that there were no data to determine whether these
negative effects have occurred. Air Traffic Services officials said
they were reviewing the concerns identified by the Association and
planned to comment in the near future. Officials from FAA‘s Office of
Human Resources said they had agencywide plans to begin collecting
information on the time to fill positions and survey new recruits on,
among other things, the reasons they applied for the position into
which they were hired. This information could help FAA determine the
effects of its new PCS policies. Our ongoing work examines the extent
to which FAA has gathered data to determine the impact of its personnel
reform.
Background:
FAA currently employs almost 20,000 employees to operate and manage the
nation‘s air traffic control system.[Footnote 2] Most of these
employees (about 15,250) are air traffic control specialists, or
controllers, who are responsible for controlling the takeoff, landing,
and ground movement of planes and are assigned to field
facilities.[Footnote 3] (NATCA represents these controllers.) In
addition, about 4,500 managers, supervisors, and staff specialists
within FAA‘s Air Traffic Services work to oversee and administer the
air traffic control program. (About 3,900 of these 4,500 managers,
supervisors, and specialists work in the various field facilities
around the country and the other 600 provide management, direction, and
oversight, as well as overall support, of the air traffic control
system at headquarters and regional locations.) For this report, we
focused our analysis on these two groups in FAA‘s occupational job
series 2152, which we refer to as controllers and managers,
respectively.
In 1994, Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to undertake
a study of management, regulatory, and legislative reforms that would
enable FAA to provide better air traffic control services.[Footnote 4]
FAA‘s resulting 1995 report to Congress stated that existing federal
personnel rules and procedures limited FAA‘s ability to attract and
retain qualified staff at key facilities or to reassign employees in
response to changing needs. The report also stated that exemption from
federal personnel regulations would provide FAA with the flexibility to
hire, reward, and relocate employees to better manage the air traffic
control system.[Footnote 5] On November 15, 1995, Congress directed the
FAA Administrator to develop and implement a new personnel management
system to provide greater flexibility in the hiring, training,
compensation, and location of personnel. The 1996 Department of
Transportation Appropriations Act exempted FAA from most provisions of
title 5 of the United States Code and other federal personnel
laws.[Footnote 6] On April 1, 1996, FAA introduced a set of new
personnel policies and procedures that included, among other things,
personnel reforms for locating its workforce more effectively.
Controllers and managers may make PCS moves for promotions,[Footnote 7]
downgrades,[Footnote 8] or lateral transfers. To be eligible for
promotion within the controller or manager ranks or from controller to
manager, individuals may be required to make a PCS move. For example,
promotion for a controller may require making a PCS move to a higher-
level facility (i.e., one with higher levels of operational
complexity).[Footnote 9] Promotion for a manager may require gaining
greater experience with more complex and diverse air traffic
operations. This may involve a PCS move to a regional office or FAA
headquarters for policy and management experience.[Footnote 10] To be
eligible for promotion from controller to manager, an individual may
have to move to a lower-level facility where supervisory positions are
available, to a regional office, or to FAA headquarters. Downgrades and
lateral transfers are generally made for personal reasons but may also
benefit the government.
Under title 5 rules, federal agencies may elect to pay for the expenses
of transportation of immediate family and of household goods and
personal effects to and from the assignment location for a PCS move
when it is in the interest of the federal government.[Footnote 11]
According to FAA Air Traffic Services and Human Resources officials,
FAA historically interpreted title 5 rules as a requirement to fully
reimburse all PCS moves, since FAA considered all such moves to be in
the interest of the government. As part of its personnel reform, FAA
delegated the authority to determine eligibility for and the amount of
PCS benefits to each line of business[Footnote 12] and provided three
PCS funding options: (1) full PCS reimbursement, (2) fixed relocation
payments, and (3) unfunded moves. If the move is determined to be in
the interest of the government, FAA will fully reimburse the individual
for costs associated with the move.[Footnote 13] According to FAA, the
average agencywide PCS cost for fully reimbursed PCS moves in fiscal
year 2001 was about $54,000 (based on a sample of 100 fully funded PCS
moves in that fiscal year.):
Under its personnel reform, FAA may offer a fixed relocation payment if
it determines that the agency will derive some benefit from a move,
even though the move is not in the interest of the government.[Footnote
14] For example, Air Traffic Services may offer a fixed relocation
payment as a recruitment tool, when necessary, to attract enough
qualified candidates for a position.[Footnote 15]
If a move is not in the interest of the government and FAA does not
determine that it will derive some benefit from the move, there is no
basis for offering PCS funding. However, as a result of FAA‘s personnel
reforms, employees may choose to make unfunded moves at their own
expense for personal reasons, to gain experience needed for
professional advancement, or for promotion. Before 1996, when FAA‘s
policy did not allow unfunded moves, many vacancies went unfilled for
lack of PCS funds, according to FAA‘s Personnel Reform Executive
Committee Task Force Report. The intent of the change in policy was to
(1) improve employee morale by allowing willing employees to relocate
and (2) allow FAA to relocate more employees without increasing the PCS
budget. In February 2000, FAA signed a memorandum of understanding with
NATCA that allowed FAA to offer controllers unfunded PCS moves to
higher-level facilities.[Footnote 16] These moves to higher-level
facilities are considered promotions because controllers‘ pay increases
with the level of the facility.
Eligibility Policies Are the Same for Air Traffic Controllers and
Managers, but Funding Policies Differ:
FAA‘s policies on eligibility for PCS reimbursement, created as a
result of FAA‘s 1996 personnel reform and implemented for air traffic
controllers in the agency‘s February 2000 memorandum of understanding
with NATCA, do not differentiate between air traffic controllers and
managers. However, the amount of the fixed relocation payment that Air
Traffic Services may offer controllers and managers for PCS moves does
differ. The February 2000 memorandum of understanding established a
fixed relocation payment of $27,000 for controllers as a result of
negotiations between FAA management and NATCA. This amount is set for
all fixed relocation payments provided to controllers. Conversely, the
amounts of fixed relocation payments for air traffic control managers
are determined on a case-by-case basis up to a maximum of $25,000. The
average PCS fixed relocation payment for managers‘ moves between field
offices during fiscal years 1999 through 2001 (based on FAA estimates)
was about $19,500.[Footnote 17]
Air Traffic Controllers Were Less Likely than Managers to Receive
Funding for PCS Moves:
Air traffic controllers were less likely than air traffic managers to
receive funding for their moving expenses when moving between
facilities. According to Air Traffic Services data, controllers and
managers made 1,466 and 173 PCS moves, respectively, between field
facilities from fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2001; these moves
comprise 78 percent of all 2,107 Air Traffic PCS moves.[Footnote 18]
About half of those moves (864) were for promotions. As shown in figure
1, 84 percent of controllers‘ PCS moves between field facilities for
promotions (651 of 774) were unfunded during fiscal years 1999 through
2001, while 62 percent of managers‘ PCS moves for promotions (56 of 90)
were unfunded.
Figure 1: Funding of Managers‘ and Controllers‘ PCS Moves for
Promotions between Field Facilities, Fiscal Years 1999-2001:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO‘s analysis of data provided by FAA.
[End of figure]
Similarly, controllers were less likely than managers to receive
funding for lateral moves. From fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year
2001, controllers and managers made 291 PCS moves for lateral
assignment between field facilities. As shown in figure 2, 94 percent
of controllers‘ lateral moves (236 of 250) were unfunded, compared with
66 percent of managers‘ lateral moves (27 of 41).
Figure 2: Funding of Managers‘ and Controllers‘ PCS Lateral Moves
between Field Facilities, Fiscal Years 1999-2001:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO‘s analysis of data provided by FAA.
[End of figure]
Data were not available on the type of funding alternatives used for
other PCS moves (from headquarters to the field, for example, and from
regional offices to headquarters). However, data on whether any type of
funding was provided for these other moves indicated that 91 percent of
those by controllers were unfunded during fiscal years 1999 through
2001 (250 of 275), compared with 53 percent of those by managers (102
of 193).
According to the February 2000 memorandum of understanding between FAA
and NATCA, 65 percent of PCS funding is to be allocated to controllers
and 35 percent to the rest of air traffic staff. Thus, while they
account for 77 percent of the combined workforce, controllers get a
smaller proportion--65 percent--of air traffic PCS funding. FAA
officials said that this resulted in a higher percentage of managers
who received funding for PCS moves.
Although managers were more likely than controllers to receive funding
for PCS moves for promotion in the field, they were less likely to make
PCS moves between field locations for promotions. From fiscal year 1999
through fiscal year 2001, about 2 percent of the total population of
managers (4,490) made promotional moves between field facilities,
compared with about 5 percent of the controller workforce (15,248).
Lateral and downgrade moves between field facilities during the same
period accounted for less than 3 percent of managers‘ and controllers‘
respective workforces. For other PCS moves (between headquarters,
regional offices, and field facilities), managers (4 percent) were more
likely to make moves than controllers (2 percent).
Possible Impacts of FAA‘s New PCS Policies:
Although FAA officials said that PCS costs have decreased and FAA‘s
ability to quickly fill vacant controller positions has improved since
the new PCS policies took effect, they did not have the data to
determine to what extent the annual decreases or improvement in the
agency‘s ability to fill vacancies in field facilities are attributable
to the new PCS policies implemented in 1998. For example, from fiscal
year 1997, Air Traffic Services‘ PCS costs decreased from $31.8 million
to $17.5 million in fiscal year 1998 (see fig. 3).[Footnote 19] FAA has
attributed these decreases to reductions in its budget rather than to
the new PCS policies providing fixed relocation payments for PCS moves
and allowing staff to pay for their own moves. However, officials noted
that they lacked data to support this determination. FAA officials also
said that the new PCS policies have improved their ability to fill
controller vacancies in field facilities, but again, they lacked data
to support their views. Officials from FAA‘s Office of Human Resources
said they had agencywide plans to begin collecting information on the
time to fill positions and survey new recruits on, among other things,
the reasons they applied for the position into which they were hired.
This information should help FAA determine the impacts of its PCS
policies.
Figure 3: Air Traffic Services Annual PCS Costs, Fiscal Years 1996-
2001:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Amounts adjusted for inflation to constant 2001 dollars.
Source: GAO‘s presentation of data provided by FAA.
[End of figure]
FAA also lacks data to respond to questions raised by the FAA
Conference Managers Association about the potential impacts of FAA‘s
new PCS policies.[Footnote 20] In the Association‘s view, the change
from the determination that a promotional opportunity is in the best
interest of the government (under title 5 rules) to a determination
based on general criteria by each of the lines of business that only
some promotional opportunities are in the best interest of the
government (under rules revised as a part of personnel reform) made the
decision-making process too subjective. In March 2002,[Footnote 21]
Association representatives expressed concern about the potential for
unintended effects of the change in FAA‘s PCS policy including a
reduction in the number of qualified applicants that could weaken FAA‘s
leadership and a reduction in the diversity of potential applicant
pools that could result in discrimination in filling positions. The
Association also said that a disparate provision of PCS benefits due to
funding concerns could have a negative impact on morale.
According to the managers association, some qualified managers may be
reluctant to bid on opportunities for promotion because of the cost of
partially or fully funding their own PCS moves. (As was shown in fig.
1, almost two-thirds of these moves for managers are unfunded.) The
Association was concerned that, because not all qualified potential
applicants may apply for promotions, less qualified managers may bid on
and be selected for promotion opportunities because they are willing to
make the financial commitment to pay for some or all of the costs
associated with a PCS move. The Association believes this outcome could
weaken the quality of FAA‘s leadership.
Another Association concern is that selecting officials may be unable
to determine whether the pool of candidates who bid on unfunded PCS or
fixed-funded PCS positions is representative of FAA managers.
Specifically, the Association has suggested that this pool of
candidates may not be as diverse as the pool of candidates who would
bid on a position with a fully reimbursed PCS move. As a result, the
Association believes the new PCS policies may inadvertently lead to
discrimination.
Finally, Association officials expressed concern that FAA‘s
implementation of the variable PCS policy would be affected by
fluctuations in FAA‘s budget. In their view, the effect of using PCS
funding to create an incentive for filling hard-to-staff positions (as
is done under the new policies) rather than to fully reimburse all PCS
moves (as was done under title 5 rules) was to reduce the funding for
PCS moves. With less PCS funding available, the officials said
managers‘ decisions to fund PCS moves could be more sensitive to
current funding issues than to operational staffing needs. As a result,
the Association said comparable positions could be filled in different
budget years at the same location using different levels of PCS
benefits. Thus, two managers could receive disparate PCS benefits for
essentially the same type of move.
The Association acknowledged that there were no data that showed these
unintended effects had occurred. Likewise, without information such as
the qualifications of employees and managers who applied for promotions
before and after the change in policies, the qualifications of those
who did not apply, and the funding for comparable positions over time,
we could not determine whether the potential unintended effects
identified by the Association had occurred. Air Traffic Services
officials said they were still reviewing the concerns and planned to
comment in the near future.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a copy of the draft report to Department of Transportation
and FAA officials who agreed with the contents of the report and
provided a technical clarification regarding our description of the
allocation of PCS funding under the 2000 Memorandum of Agreement
between FAA and NATCA. They did not provide written comments on the
report.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 10 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to interested congressional committees and to the Honorable Norman Y.
Mineta, Secretary of Transportation; the Honorable Marion Blakely,
Administrator, FAA; and the Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.,
Director, Office of Management and Budget. We also will make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report or would like
to discuss it further, I can be reached at (202) 512-2834. Key
contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix II.
Sincerely yours,
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.
Director, Physical Infrastructure:
Signed by Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Details on GAO‘s Data Analyses:
We obtained and analyzed data on trends in funding for permanent change
of station (PCS) moves in the Federal Aviation Administration‘s (FAA‘s)
Air Traffic Services line of business (the FAA line of business for air
traffic controllers and air traffic managers) since fiscal year 1996
and analyzed data on the type of funding (fully funded, fixed payments,
or unfunded) and purpose (promotion, lateral transfer, or downgrade) of
controllers‘ and managers‘ PCS moves between field offices from 1999
through 2001, the only years for which these data were available. The
PCS moves between field offices account for about 80 percent of all Air
Traffic PCS moves. The only information available for other moves (for
example, between headquarters and field offices or between regional
offices and headquarters) was the total number of moves and whether
they were funded or unfunded.
To assess the reliability of the data, we (1) discussed the data
collection methods with responsible agency staff and (2) reviewed the
information for reasonableness. We did not independently verify these
data.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. (202) 512-2834:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Elizabeth Eisenstadt,
Michele Fejfar, David Hooper, Chris Keisling, and E. Jerry Seigler made
key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Adjusted for inflation to constant 2001 dollars.
[2] The Office of Personnel Management classifies civilian air traffic
controllers in FAA as occupational series 2152--civilian air traffic
controller. In addition to these employees, there are about 2,800
flight service station controllers who do not directly control or
separate air traffic but provide pilot briefings, weather reports and
emergency services to pilots before and during flights.
[3] Field facilities include FAA towers, terminal radar approach
controls, and en route centers.
[4] Pub. L. No. 103-260, 108 Stat. 698 (1994).
[5] See Federal Aviation Administration, Background Paper: Personnel
Management Reform for the Federal Aviation Administration, (Washington,
D.C.: August 1995).
[6] Congress did not exempt FAA from provisions of title 5 pertaining
to veterans‘ preference; antidiscrimination; retirement, unemployment
and insurance coverage; and limitations on the right to strike.
[7] FAA defines promotion as the movement of an employee to a higher
grade or pay band.
[8] FAA defines a downgrade as a reduction in grade or pay level, which
may be either voluntary (through assignment to a different position at
a lower grade or pay level) or involuntary (through reclassification or
reevaluation of the duties and responsibilities of a position).
[9] FAA‘s pay system for air traffic controllers classifies each air
traffic control facility into air traffic control grades with
corresponding pay bands based on numerous factors, including the level
of air traffic and complexity of operations at each location. Under
this pay system, increasing levels of pay are associated with
increasing levels of air traffic and more complex operations.
[10] Federal Aviation Personnel Manual Letter 330-4, SUBJ: Merit
Promotion Program, Appendix 9, ’Air Traffic Competitive Career
Progression Plan,“ effective October 1, 1985.
[11] 5 U.S.C. sec. 5724a.
[12] FAA is organized along five lines of business: Airports,
Commercial Space Transportation, Research & Acquisition, Regulation &
Certification, and Air Traffic Services.
[13] Reimbursable expenses include those related to the employee‘s home
sale and purchase, travel, and shipment of household goods and may
include those for house hunting trips, subsistence in temporary
quarters, and transportation of a privately owned vehicle;
reimbursements are taxable.
[14] Employees receiving fixed relocation payments do not have to
account for moving expenses and must pay income taxes on the fixed
amount received.
[15] According to Air Traffic Services policy, determining officials
state on the vacancy announcement the type of PCS benefits--full
reimbursement or fixed relocation--to be offered.
[16] The February 2000 memorandum of understanding was a supplemental,
midterm agreement to FAA‘s 1998 contract with NATCA.
[17] Based on estimated costs submitted by FAA regions for all 41
reported fixed relocation payment PCS moves between field facilities
from fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2001. Estimates in the
database were not updated to reflect actual costs.
[18] Data on the funding alternatives for PCS moves were available only
for moves between field facilities for fiscal years 1999 through 2001.
[19] Adjusted for inflation to constant 2001 dollars.
[20] The Association represents about 1,700 FAA managers and
supervisors.
[21] Federal Aviation Administration Conference Managers Association,
Legislative Briefing Book, 107th Congress, Second Session, March 2002.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
