Western-Pacific Region Airports Program Western-Pacific Region Association of California Airports Arlene Draper and Brian Armstrong September 16, 2009

FAA Update FY 2009 Stats FY 2009 Program New Metrics & Watch Items

FY-09 AIP Projects Funded (California) Amount: $242M (FY09 to Date) $267M (FY08)

FY-09 ARRA Project Funded (California) Amount: $73M (to Date)

FY-09 AIP Program (by State & to Date)

Accomplishments - Trend

AIP Performance Metrics We are focused on fiscal accountability. Focused on timely conversion of Airport & Airway Trust Fund resources into airport improvements (safety, capacity and efficiency). Previously we relied solely on “output”-type metrics to evaluate AIP performance: Percentage of grants based on bids Timely programming of grants Grant closeout within four years of appropriation Minimize inventory of open grants Ensure no grant inactive for 18 months These are all important policies, and will continue in force. But…

AIP Performance Metrics (cont’d) We now have the ability to monitor rates of actual drawdown: By grant By sponsor By state By ADO By region Nationally Because drawdown rates should mirror project implementation, this metric provides a far more useful indicator of how swiftly the funds are being converted to useful infrastructure.

AIP Performance Metrics (cont’d) The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established outlay rates or “liquidation goals” for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds: By end of year in which appropriated, disburse 18% of funds By end of 1st year after appropriation, disburse 60% By end of 2nd year after appropriation, disburse 81% By end of 3rd year after appropriation, disburse 91% By end of 4th year after appropriation, disburse 96% After the 4th year, all funds should be fully disbursed and the grants closed. (This is the source of the requirement that grants four years and older be closed.) Note, we generally use “grant year” as a proxy for “appropriation year.” There are minor differentiations when we get into multi-year grants, amendments and recovered funds, but generally this holds true.

Target Expenditure of AIP Grant Funds This slide shows the same information graphically.

Not included in new performance metric Tracking Progress 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10/1 10/31 11/30 12/31 1/31 2/28 3/31 4/30 5/31 6/30 7/31 8/31 9/30 Not included in new performance metric OMB target for year of approp. – 82% OMB target for 1st year – 40% OMB target for 2nd year – 19% OMB target for 3rd year – 9% This slide illustrates how we’ll be monitoring progress during the year. [CLICK] This shows the OMB goals again by year-end, for each set of appropriated funds. [CLICK] These heavy, solid lines reflect how we need to progress towards those goals, interpolated on a straight-line basis over the course of the year. [CLICK] Note that we excluded the actual year of appropriation from the goal, because the program starts later in some years than others. Therefore, the metric is based on the first year after appropriation, and beyond. Each month, we will take a snapshot of how much money is still sitting in the U.S. Treasury, and compare that against where we should be. [CLICK] This shows how AGL is actually doing this year with one-year-old funds… we’re doing well, because this line shows that we’ve been well below the target level of funds remaining in the Treasury. [CLICK] Same with two-year-old funds… [CLICK] …and three-year-old funds. The fourth and fifth years are similar, but we’ve eliminated them from this graphic for clarity. Although the goal will be based on the total of all appropriated funds, in order to achieve the goals we will have the ability to drill down to see how individual grant funds are being used. And, we’ll be analyzing progress not just nationally but also by region and state.

Benefits of the New Metric Significantly better indicator of actual conversion of Trust Fund resources into useful aviation infrastructure. Money assigned to a project but sitting in the Trust Fund isn’t helping the system. Helps articulate why the underlying policies are in place (e.g., why grants must be closed after four years). Allows us to ask the right questions (e.g., why isn’t a project being implemented as swiftly as expected?) Allows us to identify where resources are being used most effectively, and to make better decisions about where to focus future resources. Helps communicate AIP performance to decision-makers to improve program competitiveness during challenging budgeting periods.

Three Questions We Know You’ll Want to Ask Does this mean the other goals go away? No! We will continue to have based on bids, closeout, inactive grant goals. So, we just need to draw down our grants faster? No! The rate of drawdown should never be greater than actual progress on the grant. What should sponsors and their consultants do differently? Sponsors and consultants should recognize that this will become an area of greater scrutiny, and recognize that the FAA will be focusing more on projects that are ready to move swiftly into implementation.

Improper Payments Improper payments are any payment that: Should not have been made; or Was made in an incorrect amount under statutory, contractual, administrative, or other legally applicable requirements. Improper payments are any payment that: Improper payments Include any payment made to an ineligible recipient or for an ineligible service: Duplicate payments; Payments for services not received; Payments for an incorrect amount; Payments without sufficient documentation in sponsor files.

Improper Payments Sponsors must not draw down grant funding for the full value of a construction invoice unless the sponsor has already paid the contractor for the 10% retainage. Draw downs should only be for actual eligible expenditures. There is heightened Office of Inspector General and Congressional oversight in this area – everyone wants to ensure funds are only used for eligible expenses. We also encourage those still requesting manual payments to switch to the electronic system. You get your payments much quicker with the electronic system.

Fiscal Year 2010 Program Level of funding and program is unclear until the AIP is reauthorized. We are focusing more on proper planning before project is included in FAA’s AIP program and/or AIP provided. Project Timing and Justification Established. Environmental Complete. Airspace is filed/complete (7460 or 7480). Airport Layout Plan Current and Depicts Project. Design complete or nearly complete. The advertisement and bid opening date established. Expect strict adherence to the May 1 application and AIP carryover declaration deadline.

Construction Safety What is the purpose of a Construction Safety Plan? To assist the airport in avoiding or managing situations associated with construction, that could compromise airfield safety To minimize disruption of normal aircraft operations To carefully plan, schedule, and coordinate construction activities

Construction Safety When is a Construction Safety Plan required? For all construction at an airport certificated under 14 CFR Part 139 (FAR 139) For all airport construction projects which are funded under AIP or PFC programs Recommended for all other airports. Construction Safety Plans must: Address applicable issues identified in Advisory Circular 150/5370-2E Operational Safety On Airports During Construction 2. Must be accepted by FAA

Contact Information George Aiken Manager, Safety and Standards (310) 725-3620 Robin Hunt, Manager San Francisco Airports District Office (650) 867-2778 x600 Brian Armstrong, Manager Los Angeles Airports District Office (310) 725-3608 Ron Simpson, Manager Honolulu Airports District Office (808) 541-1232

Questions?