Aviation Finance
Implementation of General Aviation Entitlement Grants Gao ID: GAO-03-347 February 11, 2003In 2000, Congress created general aviation entitlement grants to provide funding up to $150,000 per fiscal year to individual general aviation airports. These grants fund capital improvements and repair projects. GAO was asked to (1) assess the amount of funding airports used, (2) identify the types of projects undertaken, and (3) convey suggestions made by interested parties to improve the grants in preparation for the reauthorization of the legislation in 2003.
By the end of fiscal year 2002, most fiscal year 2001 general aviation entitlement grant funds had been accepted by the airports to which they were apportioned. However, less than half of the fiscal year 2002 entitlement grant funds had been accepted by those airports at the end of fiscal year 2002. The remaining portions of unused entitlement funds for the 2 fiscal years were carried over to use in the following years--up to 3 years. In both fiscal years, the percentage of entitlement grant funds accepted varied widely by state. Larger general aviation airports accepted a greater percentage of their entitlement grants than small airports for both fiscal years. In fiscal 2001, general aviation airports used these funds primarily to undertake landing area construction projects--runways, taxiways, and aprons. In addition, the airports used the funds to undertake pavement maintenance; airfield lighting, weather observation systems, and navigational aids; and planning projects. These four categories constituted over 75 percent of all projects undertaken with these funds. While most state aviation officials, selected airport managers, and FAA officials we spoke with indicated these entitlement grants were useful, they also suggested some changes. The most common concerned the amount of funding. Several state aviation officials and some selected airport managers indicated that the $150,000 annual maximum amount per airport was not adequate to complete projects. However, state officials expressed concerns that increasing the entitlement amount could hinder the states' ability to address their own aviation priorities because any increase would proportionately decrease the states' apportionments. The majority of the selected airport managers indicated that, without these grants, their airports would have been unable to undertake the projects. Other suggestions concerned increasing the amount of time to use the grants, broadening the categories of eligible projects, and using an alternative to FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airports Systems as the basis for funding eligible projects.
GAO-03-347, Aviation Finance: Implementation of General Aviation Entitlement Grants
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-347
entitled 'Aviation Finance: Implementation of General Aviation
Entitlement Grants' which was released on February 11, 2003.
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 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives:
February 2003:
Aviation Finance:
Implementation of General Aviation Entitlement Grants:
GAO-03-347:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-347, a report to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, House of Representatives:
February 2003:
Aviation Finance:
Implementation of General Aviation Entitlement Grants:
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 2000, Congress created general aviation entitlement grants to
provide
funding up to $150,000 per fiscal year to individual general aviation
airports. These grants fund capital improvements and repair projects.
GAO
was asked to (1) assess the amount of funding airports used, (2)
identify
the types of projects undertaken, and (3) convey suggestions made by
interested parties to improve the grants in preparation for the
reauthorization of the legislation
in 2003.
What GAO Found:
By the end of fiscal year 2002, most fiscal year 2001 general aviation
entitlement grant funds had been accepted by the airports to which they
were apportioned. However, less than half of the fiscal year 2002
entitlement grant funds had been accepted by those airports at the end
of
fiscal year 2002. The remaining portions of unused entitlement funds
for
the 2 fiscal years were carried over to use in the following years--up
to
3 years. In both fiscal years, the percentage of entitlement grant
funds
accepted varied widely by state. Larger general aviation airports
accepted
a greater percentage of their entitlement grants than small airports
for
both fiscal years.
In fiscal 2001, general aviation airports used these funds primarily to
undertake landing area construction projects–runways, taxiways, and
aprons.
In addition, the airports used the funds to undertake pavement
maintenance;
airfield lighting, weather observation systems, and navigational aids;
and
planning projects. These four categories constituted over 75 percent of
all
projects undertaken with these funds.
While most state aviation officials, selected airport managers, and FAA
officials we spoke with indicated these entitlement grants were useful,
they also suggested some changes. The most common concerned the amount
of
funding. Several state aviation officials and some selected airport
managers
indicated that the $150,000 annual maximum amount per airport was not
adequate to complete projects. However, state officials expressed
concerns
that increasing the entitlement amount could hinder the states‘ ability
to
address their own aviation priorities because any increase would
proportionately decrease the states‘ apportionments. The majority of
the
selected airport managers indicated that, without these grants, their
airports
would have been unable to undertake the projects. Other suggestions
concerned
increasing the amount of time to use the grants, broadening the
categories of
eligible projects, and using an alternative to FAA‘s National Plan of
Integrated Airports Systems as the basis for funding eligible projects.
Figure:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association:
[End of figure]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-347.
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on
the
link above. For more information, contact Gerald Dillingham at (202)
512-3650 or www.dillinghamg@gao.gov.
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Most Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds Were
Accepted:
General Aviation Entitlement Grants Were Used More Than One-Third of
the Time to Fund Construction of Landing Areas:
State Officials and Selected General Aviation Airport Managers Told Us
That Entitlement Grants Are Useful and Easy to Obtain, but Some Changes
Were Suggested:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: FAA‘s Airport Improvement Program:
Appendix III: Categories of U.S. Airports:
Appendix IV: Accepted General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funding by
State
for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002:
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements:
GAO Contacts:
Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funding
Accepted by State, as of October 1, 2002:
Table 2: Fiscal Year 2002 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funding
Accepted by State, as of October 1, 2002:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of General Aviation Airports Apportioned Entitlement
Grant Funds, Fiscal Years 2001-2003:
Figure 2: General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds Available for
Acceptance, Fiscal Years 2001-2003:
Figure 3: FAA‘s Process for Distributing General Aviation Entitlement
Grants:
Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds
Accepted, as of October 1, 2002:
Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2002 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds
Accepted, as of October 1, 2002:
Figure 6: Percentage of Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 General Aviation
Entitlement Grant Funds Accepted by Airport Size, as of October 1,
2002:
Figure 7: Projects Funded by Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation
Entitlement Grants:
Abbreviations:
AIR-21: Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21ST
Century:
CATI: Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview:
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:
AIP: Airport Improvement Program:
NPIAS: National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems:
ACIP: Airports Capital Improvement Plan:
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyrighted
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images, or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce
copyrighted materials separately from GAO‘s product.
Letter:
February 11, 2003:
The Honorable Don Young
Chairman
The Honorable James Oberstar
Ranking Democratic Member
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives:
In April 2000, Congress passed the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment
and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21),[Footnote 1] which, in
part, directed funding to general aviation airports as part of the
Federal Aviation Administration‘s (FAA) Airport Improvement Program
(AIP).[Footnote 2] AIR-21 reauthorized various programs administered by
FAA and made changes to other programs. Among these changes, AIR-21
restructured the apportionment of state aviation grant funds by
including entitlements for individual nonprimary airports, (hereafter
referred to as general aviation entitlement grants).[Footnote 3] These
general aviation entitlement grants allow up to $150,000 annually, or
one-fifth of development costs shown in the latest published National
Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS),[Footnote 4] whichever is
less, to be allocated to general aviation, reliever, and nonprimary
commercial service airports (hereafter, these three types of airports
are referred to collectively as general aviation airports). Grants are
awarded directly to these airports in 41 states and 2 territories, and
pass through 9 states that receive the funds as block grants.[Footnote
5]
Based on your interest in how well this entitlement grant program was
working, you asked that we review the first 2 years‘ implementation of
general aviation entitlement grants. As agreed with your office, we
addressed the following questions:
* How much general aviation entitlement grant funding for fiscal years
2001 and 2002 has been accepted by general aviation airports, by state
and airport size?
* What types of projects have general aviation airports funded using
general aviation entitlement grants?
* What changes, if any, do state aviation officials, general aviation
airport managers, and FAA officials suggest to general aviation
entitlement grants?
To answer these questions, we reviewed FAA‘s data on grants and
information on eligible projects listed in the NPIAS. We discussed this
information with FAA headquarters staff and resolved any discrepancies
with them. We reviewed data from an FAA survey that its field offices
completed on the use of these grant funds by general aviation airports.
We also surveyed state aviation officials, by telephone, from all 50
states and 2 territories and a sample of officials representing 56
general aviation airports nationwide. The small sample size of general
aviation airport officials was not designed to be projectable to the
population of general aviation airports. In addition to interviewing
cognizant FAA officials, we interviewed officials of general aviation
industry groups. Appendix I explains this report‘s scope and
methodology in greater detail. We performed our work from June 2002
through February 2003, in Easton, Maryland; Odenton, Maryland;
Greenville, Texas; Mesquite, Texas; and Washington, D.C., in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
As of the end of fiscal year 2002, general aviation airports had
accepted general aviation entitlement grants totaling $201 million of
the almost $269 million (about 75 percent) made available by FAA in
fiscal year 2001. Through fiscal year 2002, general aviation airports
had accepted grants totaling $124 million of the $271 million (about 46
percent) apportioned in fiscal year 2002 for the entitlement grants.
However, the percentage of grant funding accepted varied widely from
state to state in both fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Additionally, a
greater percentage of general aviation entitlement grant funds had been
accepted by larger general aviation airports than the smallest
airports. (App. IV lists funds accepted by state for fiscal years 2001
and 2002.):
General aviation airports primarily used their fiscal year 2001
entitlement grant funds to construct landing areas, such as runways,
taxiways, and aprons. These projects constituted over one-third of the
projects reported to FAA. In order of frequency, the next three
categories of projects funded with the general aviation entitlement
funds were (1) pavement maintenance; (2) airfield lighting, weather
observation systems, and navigational aids; and (3) planning. Together
these four categories accounted for over 75 percent of the projects
developed with general aviation entitlement grant funds.
Eighty-five percent of the 50 state and 2 territorial aviation
officials and 84 percent of the selected general aviation airport
managers we interviewed indicated that these entitlement grants are
useful and help meet the needs of general aviation airports. They also
told us that airports have easily met the administrative requirements
for receiving these grants. Over 75 percent of the selected airport
managers added that the grants provided critical funding to undertake
projects at their airports. Although positive about the grants, some
state and territorial officials and airport managers suggested a
variety of changes. The most frequently suggested change was to
increase grant funding to better meet the cost of larger projects.
However, some state and territorial aviation officials expressed
concern that this change would correspondingly decrease the funds
available for state aviation grant funds and thus hamper their ability
to address statewide aviation priorities. Other suggestions included
extending the time frames for fund use, broadening the categories of
eligible projects, and using an alternative to FAA‘s NPIAS as the basis
for funding eligible projects.
We provided the Department of Transportation with a copy of the draft
report for its review and comment. FAA officials agreed with the
information contained in this report and provided some clarifying and
technical comments, which we have incorporated where appropriate.
Background:
Prior to AIR-21, which was signed into law on April 5, 2000, general
aviation airports received AIP funding through funds apportioned to
states by using geographic area and population-based formulas, as well
as through:
discretionary funds.[Footnote 6] These airports also received funds
through FAA‘s small airport fund. AIR-21 amended the general aviation
state apportionment grant program, in part, by creating a special rule,
which provides general aviation entitlement grants for any fiscal year
in which the total amount of AIP funding is $3.2 billion or more. Under
this rule, the amount available for state apportionments increases from
18.5 percent of total AIP funding to 20 percent when AIP‘s total
funding is $3.2 billion or more. From the state apportionment, FAA
computes and allocates the amount available for general aviation
entitlements and the remaining funds are provided for ’unassigned“
state apportionment. The general aviation entitlement grant amount for
any one airport represents one-fifth of the estimate of that airport‘s
5-year costs for its needs, as listed in the most recently published
NPIAS, up to an annual maximum of $150,000. After the aggregate amount
of general aviation entitlements has been determined, the remainder is
provided for the same type of airports within a state on an unassigned
basis, the allocation of which is determined by a state‘s area and
population relative to all other states. To be eligible for a general
aviation entitlement grant, an airport must be listed and have
identified needs in the most recently published NPIAS;[Footnote 7]
therefore, an airport‘s listed needs largely determine the size of an
airport‘s annual grant. However, funding is not limited to the projects
listed in the most recent NPIAS.[Footnote 8] The 1998-2002 NPIAS
provided the basis for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 grants.
The 2001-2005 NPIAS, published in August 2002, provides the basis for
fiscal year 2003 grants.
A general aviation entitlement grant provides funding for 90 percent of
an eligible project‘s total costs; the airport must finance the
remaining 10 percent, although many states pay a share of this local
matching requirement. FAA‘s regional and district offices work with
state aviation officials and sponsors to find appropriate uses for
these funds. Grant funds can be used on most airfield capital projects,
such as runway, taxiway, and apron construction but generally not for
terminals, hangers, and nonaviation development, such as parking lots.
Some airfield maintenance and project planning costs are also allowed.
Accepting a grant not only requires airport officials to pledge to
continue operations and maintenance for 20 years but also precludes the
airport from granting exclusive rights to those providing aeronautical
services and allowing any activity that could interfere with its use as
a general aviation airport.
The number of general aviation airports that were apportioned general
aviation entitlement funds is expected to increase from 2,100 in fiscal
year 2001 to 2,493 in fiscal year 2003, as shown in figure 1. The
expected 19 percent increase reflects the fact that more airports
identified capital needs in the most recent NPIAS, which serves as the
basis for fiscal year 2003 grants. FAA officials explained that before
the NPIAS served as a basis for calculating entitlement grants, some
FAA officials, sponsors, and state aviation officials did not always
give high priority to keeping the general aviation portion of the NPIAS
up to date. Thus, they added, the NPIAS used to calculate the fiscal
years 2001 and 2002 general aviation entitlement might have understated
airport development needs for these airports.
Figure 1: Number of General Aviation Airports Apportioned Entitlement
Grant Funds, Fiscal Years 2001-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: GAO analysis of FAA data.
[End of figure]
In fiscal years 2001 and 2002, entitlement grants for general aviation
airports were available because AIP funding levels were at least $3.2
billion.[Footnote 9] As the number of eligible airports or the value of
development identified in the NPIAS for these airports increases, the
funding for these grants also increases. However, this increase could
result in a corresponding decrease in the amount of AIP funding
available in that year for ’unassigned“ state apportionment grants.
Since the latter amount is determined after subtracting the total
general aviation entitlements from the total state apportionment, FAA
estimates that general aviation entitlement grant funding will rise by
about $70 million from $271 million in fiscal year 2002 to about $341
million for fiscal year 2003, as shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds Available for
Acceptance, Fiscal Years 2001-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: GAO analysis of FAA data.
The amount for fiscal year 2003 is an estimate.
[End of figure] 10:37 AM 2/20/2003
Over half of general aviation airports were apportioned the maximum
amount of funding. For fiscal year 2001, of the 2,100 airports that
were apportioned these entitlements, 71 percent were eligible for the
maximum amount of $150,000.[Footnote 10] With the publication of the
new NPIAS in August 2002, 83 percent of the 2,493 eligible airports
were apportioned the maximum for fiscal year 2003.
The General Aviation Entitlement Grant Process:
Working in collaboration with FAA‘s regional or airport district
offices, general aviation airports identify projects that will be
funded with entitlement grants. These projects are listed in FAA‘s
Airports Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP), which includes only those
projects that FAA has identified as candidates for AIP funding. After
FAA has certified that the application materials are in order and all
relevant AIP statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements have been
satisfied, FAA then sends a grant offer to the airport sponsor or the
state aviation agency representing the airport sponsor.[Footnote 11]
The flowchart in figure 3 illustrates this process.
Figure 3: FAA‘s Process for Distributing General Aviation Entitlement
Grants:
[See PDF for image]
Note: GAO presentation of FAA information.
[End of figure]
When an airport elects not to accept its general aviation entitlement
grant funds, the funds revert to AIP‘s discretionary fund to be awarded
by FAA to another airport, as provided by statute. However, the funds
remain available to this airport for up to 3 years. Therefore, in the
third year that an airport has entitlement grant funds available, it
could have as much as $450,000 available for a grant. In addition, an
airport can use part of its general aviation entitlement grant in the
first year and carry over the remainder for use later. For example, an
airport might have a general aviation entitlement grant of $140,000,
but the only AIP-eligible project it can implement during the fiscal
year might require just $80,000 in AIP funds. FAA could issue the grant
for $80,000 that fiscal year and include the remaining $60,000 of the
airport‘s available funds in another grant for that airport at any time
within the 3 years after the grant was first made available.
For general aviation airports in the nine block grant states, the
acceptance process for these entitlement grants works
differently.[Footnote 12] Each block grant state is apportioned a lump
sum equal to the total of these grants for airports in that state plus
total unassigned state apportionment funds. FAA has distributed all
general aviation entitlement grant funds to these states in the same
year the funds were apportioned. The block grant states are then
responsible for distributing the funds to individual general aviation
airports according to FAA‘s requirements.
According to FAA officials, states are required to offer eligible
general aviation airports their entitlements in the fiscal year it is
made available. If an airport does not accept the entitlement in the
first year of its availability, the distribution of a general aviation
entitlement grant must nonetheless be made to that airport by the end
of 3 years. If an airport has not accepted the funding at the end of
the 3-year period, the grant would be reduced by the amount of the
funding not accepted. FAA officials explained that each block grant
could be adjusted on an annual basis, but this approach is used to
provide block grant states flexibility similar to the authority FAA has
in managing AIP and general aviation entitlement grants. FAA officials
added that the state assumes the risk if funds are used for another
airport during the 3-year period. If funds have been expended at
another airport and an unassigned state apportionment is not available
to provide the general aviation entitlement funding to the original
eligible airport, it would be necessary for the state to repay the
federal funds with its own state-generated funds.
Most Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds Were
Accepted:
As of October 1, 2002, about 75 percent of the total fiscal year 2001
general aviation entitlement grant funds had been accepted by the
airports to which they were apportioned, and about 46 percent of the
total fiscal year 2002 general aviation entitlement grant funds had
been accepted. The percentage of the total funding accepted by airports
for both fiscal years varied widely from state to state. Also, the
percentage varied by size, with the larger[Footnote 13] general
aviation airports having accepted 77 percent of their fiscal year 2001
entitlement funds compared to 65 percent for the smallest
airports.[Footnote 14]
Three Quarters of Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation Entitlement Grant
Funds Was Accepted:
As of October 1, 2002, $201 million (about 75 percent) of the $269
million in general aviation entitlement grant funding apportioned for
2001 had been accepted, as shown in figure 4. Of the $201 million
accepted, $145 million (54 percent) was accepted in fiscal year 2001
and $56 million (21 percent) was accepted in fiscal year 2002. Almost
$69 million of the fiscal year 2001 apportionments was carried over for
possible future acceptance in fiscal year 2003. These grants were made
to 1,599 (76 percent) of the 2,100 eligible airports.
Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds
Accepted, as of October 1, 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: GAO analysis of FAA and block grant state data.
[End of figure]
About Half of Fiscal Year 2002 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds
Were Accepted:
As shown in figure 5, airports had accepted $124 million of the $271
million in fiscal year 2002 general aviation entitlement grants (about
46 percent). Grants were made to 1,026 of the 2,108 eligible airports
(49 percent). The remaining amount ($147 million) can be accepted in
fiscal years 2003 or 2004.
Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2002 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds
Accepted, as of October 1, 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: GAO analysis of FAA and block grant state data.
[End of figure]
The Percentage of General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds Accepted
Varies Widely by State:
General aviation airports in some states accepted a larger percentage
of funds in both fiscal years 2001 and 2002 than in other states. For
fiscal year 2001 general aviation entitlement grant funds, the
percentage of funds accepted ranged from about 48 percent to 100
percent.[Footnote 15] The acceptance rate for fiscal year 2002 general
aviation entitlement grant funds varied from 11 percent to 99
percent.[Footnote 16] (See app. IV for a complete list of the
percentage of funds that were accepted by state for fiscal years 2001
and 2002.):
Funding for the Largest General Aviation Airports Is More Likely to
Have Been Accepted Than Funding for the Smallest Airports:
Larger general aviation airports (as measured by the number of based
aircraft) have accepted more of their general aviation entitlement
grant funding than the smallest airports, as shown in figure
6.[Footnote 17] Airports with more than 100 based aircraft had accepted
77 percent of their fiscal year 2001 general aviation entitlement grant
funds. Similarly, general aviation airports with between 50 and 99
based aircraft had accepted about 81 percent of their general aviation
entitlement funds. In contrast, 65 percent of the general aviation
entitlement grant funds for fiscal year 2001 for airports with less
than 20 based aircraft had been accepted. This pattern is similar for
fiscal year 2002 funding. Airports with more than 100 based aircraft
had accepted about 58 percent of their fiscal year 2002 grant funds,
compared with 39 percent of the grant funds for airports with less than
20 based aircraft.
Figure 6: Percentage of Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 General Aviation
Entitlement Grant Funds Accepted by Airport Size, as of October 1,
2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: GAO analysis of FAA and block grant state data.
[End of figure]
General Aviation Entitlement Grants Were Used More Than One-Third of
the Time to Fund Construction of Landing Areas:
According to the results of FAA‘s survey, general aviation airports
most often used the funds from fiscal year 2001 entitlement grants to
construct landing areas (e.g., runways, taxiways, and aprons). As shown
in figure 7, of the 1,373 total projects reported in FAA‘s survey, 483
(35 percent) were designated as landing area construction projects.
Figure 7: Projects Funded by Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation
Entitlement Grants:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: GAO analysis of FAA‘s survey, Airport Improvement Program FY
2001 Non-Primary Entitlements.[Footnote 18]
Percentages do not total to 100 percent because of rounding.
[End of figure]
The next three categories of projects most frequently undertaken were
as follows:
Pavement maintenance (227): This category includes the general upkeep
and maintenance of paved areas on airport land, such as filling and
sealing cracks, grading pavement edges, and coating pavement with
protective sealants.
Airfield lighting, weather observation equipment, and navigational aids
(200): Navigational aids include eligible airport approach and landing
systems, visual navigation aids, and electronic navigation and weather
equipment, which help observe, detect, report, and communicate weather
conditions at an airport.
Planning projects (162): This category includes the costs associated
with preparing the documents that are a necessary part of developing
plans to address current and future airport needs. This includes the
plans required for airport development (e.g., the master plan and
airport capital improvement plan) and environmental assessments as well
as the additional elements or costs that are needed to complete such
plans.
These four largest categories comprise over 75 percent of all projects
funded with general aviation entitlement grants in fiscal year 2001.
State Officials and Selected General Aviation Airport Managers Told Us
That Entitlement Grants Are Useful and Easy to Obtain, but Some Changes
Were Suggested:
Almost all of the 50 state and 2 territorial aviation officials and the
56 selected general aviation airport managers that we interviewed
indicated that these entitlement grants are useful and help meet the
needs of general aviation airports.[Footnote 19],[Footnote 20] They
also told us that airports have easily met the administrative
requirements for receiving these grants. Over two-thirds of the
selected airport managers said that the grants provided critical
funding to undertake projects at their airports. Although positive
about the grants, some state officials and airport managers suggested a
variety of changes. While the most frequently suggested change was to
increase grant funding to better meet the cost of larger projects, some
state aviation officials expressed concern that this change would
correspondingly decrease the funds available for state aviation
apportionments and thus hamper their ability to address statewide
aviation priorities. Other frequently mentioned suggestions included
extending the time frames for fund use and broadening the categories of
eligible projects. Five of the 52 state aviation officials and one
airport manager commented that the NPIAS is not an up-to-date list of
airport needs and recommended that it not be used to distribute these
entitlement grant funds.
General Aviation Airports Said They Easily Met FAA‘s Grant Requirements
and the Funds Helped Meet Their Needs:
Over two-thirds of the state aviation officials told us that FAA‘s
requirements for receiving these entitlement grants are easy to
fulfill. These requirements include completing required airport capital
improvement and layout plans, submitting grant application forms,
getting projects included in the NPIAS, and providing the 10 percent
matching funds. Most general aviation airport managers we interviewed
agreed with this view. FAA officials reported that they purposely
simplified the grant processing paperwork requirements for the general
aviation entitlement grants, knowing that many eligible airports would
be first time recipients of FAA funding. In addition, FAA officials
told us that the regional and district offices conducted extraordinary
outreach efforts to ensure that qualifying airports were aware of these
new grants.
Almost 85 percent of the state aviation officials found entitlement
grants useful by allowing general aviation airports to purchase needed
equipment and undertake large projects, such as runway repairs. For
example, one state aviation official told us that these grants were
very important for maintaining safety and preserving runways at general
aviation airports in his state. Over two-thirds of the selected general
aviation airport managers said that they would not have been able to
undertake or complete needed projects without these grant funds, and
three-fourths of them said that the categories of projects eligible for
funding include most of their capital needs. This means that they can
use the funds for needed improvements, even for comparatively smaller
projects such as lighting and fencing. Other state officials and
airport managers added that the general aviation entitlement grants are
important to the viability of general aviation airports. One state
official said that the grants are helping to prevent the closure of
general aviation airports, some of which provide medical access for
small communities.
State Aviation Officials and Airport Managers Most Frequently Suggested
Increasing Funding Levels and Time Frames:
Increasing the maximum amount of general aviation entitlement grants
was the most frequent suggestion from state aviation officials to
improve their usefulness. Some general aviation airport managers we
surveyed supported this view. Almost two-thirds of the state aviation
officials stated that the current annual maximum of $150,000 is not
adequate to complete some major projects, while about one-third of the
airport managers expressed this opinion. Other suggestions to improve
the grants‘ usefulness included making all 3 years of funding available
to airports in the first year and increasing the time frame for funding
availability to beyond the current 3-year limit.
Almost half of the state officials suggested increasing the annual
amount of these grants to better enable general aviation airports to
meet the cost of larger capital projects. Most state officials said
that because the $150,000 annual amount is not adequate to complete
some major projects, some airports rollover the funding to accumulate
up to $450,000 of funding over 3 years to complete such projects.
However, some state aviation officials and airport managers also
expressed concern that even this 3-year total might not be sufficient
to complete such expensive capital projects as repairing or improving
runways and taxiways. Some state aviation officials, as well as some
selected airport managers, reported undertaking comparatively smaller
projects, such as fencing for security, lighting, and pavement
maintenance. While emphasizing the importance of the grants to general
aviation airports, many selected airport managers expressed more
concern about the adequacy of funding than any other issue we discussed
with them. Their most frequent suggestion to improve the grants was to
increase funding amounts to better meet the cost of larger capital
projects.
Nine state aviation officials also suggested allowing more flexibility
in the existing 3-year time frame to use the funds, which would enable
airports to afford a broader range of projects. Two airport managers we
interviewed also suggested increased flexibility. For example, three
state aviation officials suggested making all 3 years of grant funding
available to airports in the first year. One of these officials said
that making the full 3-year grant amount available to airports during
the first year of funding would help airports undertake critical
projects earlier because they would not need to wait to accumulate
sufficient funding. According to FAA officials, this suggestion would
represent a significant departure from current practices for
administering entitlement funds. Officials told us that while multiyear
grants can be made to primary airports for multiyear projects,[Footnote
21]AIR-21 did not provide this authority for general aviation
entitlement grants. Officials noted that this added flexibility could
benefit some airports.
Alternatively, other state aviation officials, as well as some of the
selected airport managers, suggested extending the current 3-year time
frame for using these funds to as much as 4 or 5 years. They expect
this extension would allow them to accumulate sufficient funds to
undertake a broader range of capital projects and allow some airports
sufficient time to complete these projects.
While state aviation officials and selected airport managers said that
increased funding and time frames could help them complete larger
projects, apportionment grants are also available to general aviation
airports to help them complete many of these projects. Some state
aviation officials reported that general aviation airports use
entitlement grant funds in combination with apportionment funds to
complete such larger projects as improving, extending, or constructing
runways, taxiways, and aprons.
Opinions of Some State Aviation Officials and Airport Managers Differ
on Increased General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funding:
Seven of the state aviation officials expressed concern that, as
funding for general aviation entitlement grants increases, funding for
unassigned apportionment grants could correspondingly decrease because
the amount available for unassigned apportionment is determined by
deducting the general aviation entitlement grant funding from a fixed
percentage of AIP. Two state aviation officials told us that the
reduction in aviation apportionment funding could hamper the states‘
abilities to address their aviation priorities. Some state aviation
officials said that because they can better determine which projects
within their states are high priorities, they are better able to
distribute the funds to airports on a statewide basis. For example, a
state aviation official said that because these entitlement grants have
reduced funding for significant projects, the small projects general
aviation airports have undertaken have had a minimal impact on that
state‘s aviation system. FAA officials added that while the grants have
been used for worthwhile projects, less unassigned apportionment grant
funding could limit a state‘s ability to address its aviation
priorities and provide access to the national aviation system from
rural and nonmetropolitan areas.
Because the entitlement funds come directly to general aviation
airports, general aviation airport managers we interviewed were not
concerned with the shift in funding source. One airport manager
commented that projects requested by large airports are generally
assigned a higher priority by states than projects requested by small
airports. This manager added that, as a result, small airports usually
do not receive apportionment funds from state aviation agencies. The
manager told us that general aviation entitlement grants have allowed
the airport to complete projects that would not have been selected by
the state for apportionment funding. However, FAA officials stated that
they determine the allocation of unassigned apportionment funds, except
in block grant states. FAA officials added that project type and
purpose receive more consideration than airport size in allocating
these funds.
State Aviation and Airport Managers Suggested Broadening Categories of
Eligible Projects:
While most officials said that the categories of projects eligible for
entitlement grants generally covered the capital needs of general
aviation airports, some of them suggested broadening the categories of
eligible projects to include revenue-producing facilities. Under
current program rules, revenue-producing facilities, such as hangars,
terminals, and fueling stations, are not eligible for these grants.
However, a few state officials told us that these facilities should be
considered eligible for the grants because they would help produce the
revenue necessary to allow small airports to supplement grant funding,
complete needed projects, and, in some cases, become more self-
sufficient and remain open. Many of the airport managers we interviewed
supported this view. FAA officials indicated that expansion of
eligibility warrants consideration but would require statutory changes.
A Few Officials Suggested Changing the Basis to Determine Eligible
Projects:
Five state aviation officials suggested that FAA use a more current
list of airport projects to determine the amounts of future general
aviation entitlement grants. One airport manager also made this
suggestion. One state official was concerned that the list of projects
in FAA‘s NPIAS was between 18 and 24 months old when FAA used it to
calculate the entitlement grants for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. That
official said that because FAA used an outdated list of airports‘
needs, the grant amounts some airports received were based on already
completed projects. Another official added that some of these airports
then used the grant funds for low-priority projects because higher
priority projects had been completed.
FAA officials disagreed with this criticism of the use of the NPIAS.
They told us that the NPIAS is used only to calculate the amount of an
airport‘s general aviation entitlement grant. Decisions on the projects
to be funded are based on the airport‘s ACIP, which is kept up to date
through regular consultation between FAA and the airport‘s sponsor or
state aviation officials. Nevertheless, FAA officials acknowledged that
use of the NPIAS added complexity and confusion to calculation of
general aviation entitlement grants, and indicated that a simplified
method warranted consideration.
Since most eligible airports receive the maximum grant amount, an
alternative approach might be to establish a uniform general aviation
entitlement amount for each general aviation airport listed in the
NPIAS. FAA officials pointed out that, under current formulas, care
would be needed in selecting the uniform grant level under this
approach. Setting the level too low would limit the usefulness of the
general aviation entitlement grant to individual airports, but setting
the level too high would reduce the amount of unassigned apportionment
funding based on state and national priorities.
Agency Comments:
We provided the Department of Transportation with a copy of the draft
report for its review and comment. FAA officials agreed with
information contained in this report and provided some clarifying and
technical comments, which we have incorporated where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator,
FAA. This report is also available at no charge on GAO‘s Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me or Carol Anderson-Guthrie at (202) 512-2834 if you
have any questions. Individuals making key contributions to this report
are listed in appendix V.
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph. D.
Director, Civil Aviation Issues:
Signed by Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph. D.:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
We were asked to review the general aviation entitlement grant funding
that was available to eligible nonprimary airports--referred to as
general aviation airports for simplicity in this report--including
reliever, nonprimary commercial service, and other general aviation
airports. Of the universe of 2,943 general aviation airports, we
reviewed data for those that were eligible to receive these grants
based on the requirements established by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). We reviewed data on the general aviation
entitlement grant funding that was accepted by general aviation
airports, both directly from FAA and through block grant states. To
obtain information from block grant states, we asked block grant state
aviation officials to provide information on general aviation
entitlement grant obligations made by their state to individual
airports. We also analyzed a survey conducted by FAA to determine the
types of projects that had been undertaken with the general aviation
entitlement grant funding. In addition, to determine the stakeholders‘
opinions concerning general aviation entitlement grants, we designed
and administered a survey of all 52 state and territory aviation
officials and 56 airport management officials.
Initially, we conducted interviews with FAA and other relevant aviation
industry officials to better understand the program and the scope of
the issues. We gathered information on industry opinions about the
general aviation entitlement program including its usefulness, its
limitations, and possible changes to the program. The interviews
provided an introductory view of the general aviation entitlement grant
program. To establish a background context and understanding of the
program‘s purpose, we also conducted research on the legislation,
statutes, policies, procedures, and guidelines that govern the
implementation and operation of the general aviation entitlement grant
program.
To determine the amount of general aviation entitlement grant funds
that were accepted by airports, we received data from FAA‘s Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) Grants Management Database, which contains
all general aviation entitlement grants issued directly by FAA to
airports and state sponsorship programs. This database also includes
grants issued through October 1, 2002, using fiscal year 2001 and
fiscal year 2002 general aviation entitlements. The database includes
grants issued directly to airports and grants issued under state
sponsorship outside of the block grant program. The database includes
data on the aggregate amount of general aviation entitlement grant
funding included in state block grants. However FAA‘s national database
does not track distribution of block grant funds by the states,
including general aviation entitlement grants to individual airports in
the nine block grant states. After comparing these data with the 1998-
2002 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), we found some
discrepancies. In coordination with FAA officials, we resolved these
discrepancies and they are reflected in our report. We classified all
grants accepted through state sponsorship program grants as having been
accepted directly by individual airports. We then deleted all state
sponsorship program grants from the data. The total block grants
accepted were removed to avoid overstating the amount that individual
airports accepted. To obtain grant acceptance data for airports
receiving grants through block grant states, we asked state aviation
officials in those states to provide acceptance data as of October 1,
2002, on all the airports that were eligible for general aviation
entitlement grants. This information was self-reported, and we did not
verify the information provided by the states. After we discussed our
methodology with FAA officials and reached agreement that the data from
FAA and the individual block grant states were comparable, we
aggregated the datasets. Funds not accepted were classified as ’carry
over/not yet accepted.“ We then merged these data with the 1998-2002
NPIAS file and categorized the results by airport size, as measured by
the number of based aircraft and state,[Footnote 22] in order to
identify possible trends in the data. Using FAA‘s guidance, we
stratified airports into four size categories: less than 20 based
aircraft, 20-49 based aircraft, 50-99 based aircraft, and 100 or more
based aircraft.
In order to ascertain the projects that have been undertaken by general
aviation airports, we used FAA‘s survey of Airport Improvement Program
FY2001 Non-Primary Entitlements. FAA surveyed its nine regions and the
nine block grant states to gather data for several items, including the
projects for which airports used the general aviation entitlement grant
funds. FAA created 11 categories for the projects. We reviewed the
results of its survey and met with FAA officials to discuss our
interpretation. We did not verify the information provided by FAA.
However, we raised questions about the overall design of FAA‘s data
collection effort and the specific steps carried out to help ensure the
quality of the collected data. We determined that the data quality was
sufficient for the purpose of our review.
To assess the usefulness of the general aviation entitlement grants and
to identify the potential areas of change, we surveyed state aviation
and airport management officials. We designed a computer-assisted
telephone interview (CATI) instrument to collect their responses. We
conducted a census of state aviation officials (50 states and 2
territories) who oversee the operations of airports and head their
respective state aviation programs. All 52 of these aviation officials
provided their opinions on the experiences of airports in their
respective states and territories. To compare state and airport-level
responses about the program, we also obtained the perspectives of 56
general aviation airport management officials to acquire their
responses to the same questions and direct illustrations of their
experience with the program. The small sample size was not designed to
be projectable to the population of general aviation airports. However,
measures were taken to help ensure that the airports chosen
systematically cover and broadly represent the substantive criteria.
Our selection approach was completed in three steps. First, we
identified airports that accepted entitlement grant funds in either
fiscal years 2001 or 2002. Second, we stratified these airports
according to: size--the number of based aircraft--measured as small
(less than 20 based aircraft), medium 1 (20-49), medium 2 (50-99), and
large (100 or more); FAA regional location; and block grant status
(whether the airport is located in a block grant state). We sought
guidance from FAA in determining the airport size categories. The
stratification process produced 56 exclusive groups (airports in block
grant states are not located in each FAA region). Then, in the third
step, we randomly selected one airport from each of the groups, which
were joined to form the final sample of 56 airports. All of the airport
management officials provided responses about their experiences with
the program.
The CATI consisted of closed-and open-ended questions that asked about
an airport‘s experiences with and its ability to meet the requirements
of the general aviation entitlement grant. Descriptive statistical
analyses of close-ended survey data were performed to determine
response patterns. Analyses of open-ended responses were conducted to
detect broad themes and topics within those themes, summarizing state
aviation and airport management responses on program improvements and
projects undertaken using entitlement grants.
We conducted our review from June 2002 through February 2003 in Easton,
Maryland; Odenton, Maryland; Greenville, Texas; Mesquite, Texas; and
Washington, D.C., in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. The collection of state aviation and airport
management interview data was completed in September and November 2002,
respectively.
[End of section]
Appendix II: FAA‘s Airport Improvement Program:
The Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which was created in 1982, is
funded by the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. AIP distributes funds to
airports through grants in a manner that reflects several national
priorities and objectives including financing small state and community
airports. The distribution system for AIP grants is complex. It is
based on a combination of formula grants (also referred to as
apportionments) and discretionary funds. Formula funds are apportioned
by formula or percentage and may be used for any eligible airport or
planning project. Through the AIP, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) apportions formula grants automatically to specific airports or
types of airports including primary airports, cargo service airports,
general aviation airports, and Alaska airports.
In administering AIP, FAA must comply with various statutory
provisions, formulas, and set-asides established by law, which specify
how AIP grant funds are to be distributed among airports. Each year,
FAA uses the statutory formulas to determine how much in apportionment
funds are to be made available to each airport or state. After
determining these amounts, FAA informs each airport or state of the
amount of funding available for that year. However, these funds do not
automatically go to an airport‘s sponsor. To receive the funds it is
entitled to, an airport or state has to submit a valid grant
application to FAA. In addition, under the act, individual airports and
states do not have to use these funds in the year they are made
available. The act gives most airports and states up to 3 years to use
their apportionment funds. This carryover allows airports to accumulate
a larger amount to pay for more costly projects. Once the
apportionments have been determined, the remaining amount of AIP funds
is deposited in that program‘s discretionary fund, which consists of
set-asides that are established by statute and other distributions. AIP
funds are usually limited to planning, designing, and constructing
projects that improve aircraft operations, such as runways, taxiways,
aprons, and land purchases, as well as to purchase security, safety,
and emergency equipment. AIP funds are also available to plan for and
implement programs to mitigate aircraft noise in the vicinity of
airports. However, these grants are generally not eligible for projects
related to commercial revenue-generating portions of terminals, such as
shop concessions, commercial maintenance hangars, fuel farms, parking
garages, and off-airport road construction.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Categories of U.S. Airports:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV Accepted General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funding by
State for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002:
Table 1: Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funding
Accepted by State, as of October 1, 2002:
State : Alabama; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 44; Accepted fiscal year 2001: $4,060,335; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: $552,079; Carryover/not yet accepted: $1,662,155; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 73.51.
State : Alaska; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 95; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 4,734,631; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 1,159,133; Carryover/not yet accepted: 5,185,940; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 53.19.
State : American Samoa; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 2; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 0; Accepted fiscal year 2002:
90,000; Carryover/not yet accepted: 60,000; Percentage accepted as of
10/1/02: 60.00.
State : Arkansas; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 40; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,590,410; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 1,224,225; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,117,295; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 77.35.
State : Arizona; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 42; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 5,297,027; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 414,127; Carryover/not yet accepted: 220,000; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 96.29.
State : California; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 146; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 9,869,783; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 4,815,450; Carryover/not yet accepted: 4,959,000; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 74.76.
State : Colorado; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 33; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,459,839; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 456,477; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,159,573; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 71.55.
State : Connecticut; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 6; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 528,714; Accepted fiscal year
2002: 2,004; Carryover/not yet accepted: 369,282; Percentage accepted
as of 10/1/02: 58.97.
State : Delaware; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 2; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 205,000; Accepted fiscal year
2002: 0; Carryover/not yet accepted: 0; Percentage accepted as of 10/1/
02: 100.00.
State : Florida; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 69; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 4,405,564; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 1,492,736; Carryover/not yet accepted: 3,435,863; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 63.19.
State : Georgia; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 82; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 8,360,031; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 873,799; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,925,353; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 82.75.
State : Hawaii; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 4; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 150,000; Accepted fiscal year
2002: 0; Carryover/not yet accepted: 407,400; Percentage accepted as of
10/1/02: 26.91.
State : Idaho; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
27; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,764,606; Accepted fiscal year 2002:
696,000; Carryover/not yet accepted: 788,420; Percentage accepted as of
10/1/02: 75.73.
State : Illinois[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible:
airports: 65; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 3,281,622; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 3,415,437; Carryover/not yet accepted: 2,220,071; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 75.10.
State : Indiana; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 57; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 5,866,509; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 1,454,580; Carryover/not yet accepted: 940,111; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 88.62.
State : Iowa; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
49; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,337,912; Accepted fiscal year 2002:
843,859; Carryover/not yet accepted: 2,730,846; Percentage accepted as
of 10/1/02: 53.81.
State : Kansas; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 44; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,454,619; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 782,987; Carryover/not yet accepted: 2,459,754; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 47.64.
State : Kentucky; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 26; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,609,548; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 718,097; Carryover/not yet accepted: 955,317; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 70.90.
State : Louisiana; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 41; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,720,843; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 1,568,158; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,391,616; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 75.50.
State : Maine; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
10; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 908,881; Accepted fiscal year 2002:
272,089; Carryover/not yet accepted: 107,919; Percentage accepted as of
10/1/02: 91.63.
State : Maryland; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 15; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,250,497; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 476,690; Carryover/not yet accepted: 458,813; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 79.01.
State : Massachusetts; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 17; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,613,676; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 349,182; Carryover/not yet accepted: 363,652; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 84.37.
State : Michigan[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible:
airports: 76; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 6,491,029; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 2,322,500; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,996,008; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 81.53.
State : Minnesota; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 65; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,852,939; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 1,933,071; Carryover/not yet accepted: 4,043,590; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 54.20.
State : Mississippi; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 63; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 3,805,218; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 1,243,193; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,414,309; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 78.12.
State : Missouri[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible:
airports: 44; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 3,856,600; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 1,366,060; Carryover/not yet accepted: 900,000; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 85.30.
State : Montana; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 35; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,246,080; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 1,072,916; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,651,818; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 58.40.
State : Nebraska; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 28; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 667,575; Accepted fiscal year
2002: 1,071,933; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,126,753; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 60.69.
State : Nevada; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 24; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,878,622; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 506,314; Carryover/not yet accepted: 685,281; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 77.68.
State : New Hampshire; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 9; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 933,992; Accepted fiscal year
2002: 168,341; Carryover/not yet accepted: 0; Percentage accepted as of
10/1/02: 100.00.
State : New Jersey[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible:
airports: 19; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 0; Accepted fiscal year 2002:
150,000; Carryover/not yet accepted: 2,489,555; Percentage accepted as
of 10/1/02: 5.68.
State : New Mexico; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 38; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,119,889; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 2,235,133; Carryover/not yet accepted: 903,334; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 82.82.
State : New York; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 57; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 5,109,266; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 2,286,925; Carryover/not yet accepted: 995,809; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 88.13.
State : North Carolina[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes;
Eligible: airports: 53; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,446,800; Accepted
fiscal year 2002: 3,600,445; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,169,000;
Percentage accepted as of 10/1/02: 83.80.
State : North Dakota; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 23; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,142,527; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 130,886; Carryover/not yet accepted: 60,586; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 97.40.
State : Ohio; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
88; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 7,217,611; Accepted fiscal year 2002:
2,984,776; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,718,235; Percentage accepted
as of 10/1/02: 85.59.
State : Oklahoma; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 74; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 3,340,126; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 1,847,658; Carryover/not yet accepted: 2,861,822; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 64.45.
State : Oregon; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 41; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,566,448; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 921,700; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,514,411; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 69.73.
State : Pennsylvania[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes;
Eligible: airports: 39; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 904,500; Accepted
fiscal year 2002: 3,155,312; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,247,099;
Percentage accepted as of 10/1/02: 76.50.
State : Puerto Rico; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 6; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 640,099; Accepted fiscal year
2002: 109,901; Carryover/not yet accepted: 150,000; Percentage accepted
as of 10/1/02: 83.33.
State : Rhode Island; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 3; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 146,222; Accepted fiscal year
2002: 300,000; Carryover/not yet accepted: 0; Percentage accepted as of
10/1/02: 100.00.
State : South Carolina; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 42; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 3,545,308; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 1,124,057; Carryover/not yet accepted: 879,963; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 84.14.
State : South Dakota; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 33; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,854,537; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 389,567; Carryover/not yet accepted: 389,567; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 76.06.
State : Tennessee[A] b; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible:
airports: 56; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 6,697,018; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 0; Carryover/not yet accepted: 112,982; Percentage accepted
as of 10/1/02: 98.34.
State : Texas[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible:
airports: 99; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 6,602,681; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 1,426,280; Carryover/not yet accepted: 3,245,284; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 71.22.
State : Utah; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
28; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,814,667; Accepted fiscal year 2002:
155,483; Carryover/not yet accepted: 748,698; Percentage accepted as of
10/1/02: 79.87.
State : Vermont; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 8; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 300,000; Accepted fiscal year
2002: 300,000; Carryover/not yet accepted: 308,844; Percentage accepted
as of 10/1/02: 66.02.
State : Virginia; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 34; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,123,618; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 893,430; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,741,352; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 63.40.
State : Washington; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 26; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,330,002; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 849,483; Carryover/not yet accepted: 739,825; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 74.66.
State : West Virginia; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 16; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,887,147; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 378,131; Carryover/not yet accepted: 54,945; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 97.63.
State : Wisconsin[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible:
airports: 36; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,631,000; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 916,667; Carryover/not yet accepted: 2,037,334; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 55.57.
State : Wyoming; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 21; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,182,518; Accepted fiscal
year 2002: 595,393; Carryover/not yet accepted: 154,607; Percentage
accepted as of 10/1/02: 94.73.
State : Total; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): [Empty]; Eligible:
airports: 2,100; Accepted fiscal year 2001: $144,804,086; Accepted
fiscal year 2002: $56,092,665; Carryover/not yet accepted: $68,576,078;
Percentage accepted as of 10/1/02: 74.55.
Source: FAA:
Note: GAO analysis of data from FAA‘s AIP Grants Management Database.
[A] Data provided by block grant states in response to our data
collection instrument.
[B] In any given year, the total number of accepted entitlement grants
in Tennessee represents larger and usually fewer grants than other
states because, with FAA‘s permission, Tennessee forwards its
carryovers. In other words, an airport in Tennessee that is eligible
for $150,000 could accept $450,000 in either its first, second, or
third year of eligibility. According to FAA officials, the extra
$300,000, if awarded in the first fiscal year, or the extra $150,000 if
awarded in the second fiscal year, actually represents unassigned state
apportionment funds. In FAA‘s opinion, the airport may agree to carry
over its remaining general aviation entitlement funds, but FAA does not
believe there is any legal basis in the law governing AIP to enforce
that commitment.
[End of table]
Table 2: Fiscal Year 2002 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funding
Accepted by State, as of October 1, 2002:
State: Alabama; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
44; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: $3,710,751; Carryover/not yet accepted:
$2,563,818; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 59.14.
State: Alaska; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
97; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 3,460,771; Carryover/not yet accepted:
7,875,600; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 30.53.
State: American Samoa; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 2; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 90,000; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 60,000; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 60.00.
State: Arkansas; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 41; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 2,590,002; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 2,491,928; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 50.96.
State: Arizona; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
42; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 4,996,153; Carryover/not yet accepted:
935,001; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 84.24.
State: California; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 146; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 9,872,186; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 9,772,047; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 50.25.
State: Colorado; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 33; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,938,335; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 2,137,554; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 47.56.
State: Connecticut; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 6; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 300,000; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 600,000; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 33.33.
State: Delaware; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 3; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 292,555; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 62,445; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 82.41.
State: Florida; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
68; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 4,736,509; Carryover/not yet accepted:
4,581,154; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 50.83.
State: Georgia; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
82; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 6,530,433; Carryover/not yet accepted:
4,628,750; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 58.52.
State: Hawaii; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
4; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 0; Carryover/not yet accepted: 557,400;
Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 0.00.
State: Idaho; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
27; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,620,360; Carryover/not yet accepted:
1,628,666; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 49.87.
State: Illinois[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible:
airports: 64; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 3,860,650; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 4,906,480; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 44.04.
State: Indiana; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
57; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 5,549,191; Carryover/not yet accepted:
2,712,009; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 67.17.
State: Iowa; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
49; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 865,983; Carryover/not yet accepted:
5,046,634; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 14.65.
State: Kansas; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
45; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,227,200; Carryover/not yet accepted:
3,620,160; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 25.32.
State: Kentucky; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 26; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,492,018; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 1,790,944; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 45.45.
State: Louisiana; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 42; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 3,098,591; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 2,732,026; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 53.14.
State: Maine; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
10; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 453,073; Carryover/not yet accepted:
835,816; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 35.15.
State: Maryland; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 14; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,050,000; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 986,000; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 51.57.
State: Massachusetts; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 17; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,243,760; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 1,082,750; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 53.46.
State: Michigan[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible:
airports: 75; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 5,749,059; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 4,910,478; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 53.93.
State: Minnesota; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 65; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,896,920; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 6,932,680; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 21.48.
State: Mississippi; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 63; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 3,467,410; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 2,995,310; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 53.65.
State: Missouri[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible:
airports: 45; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 3,449,600; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 2,823,060; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 54.99.
State: Montana; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
35; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,456,874; Carryover/not yet accepted:
2,513,940; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 36.69.
State: Nebraska; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 27; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 964,364; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 1,821,422; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 34.62.
State: Nevada; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
25; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,740,802; Carryover/not yet accepted:
1,479,415; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 54.06.
State: New Hampshire; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 8; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 944,070; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 8,263; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 99.13.
State: New Jersey[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible:
airports: 19; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 0; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 2,639,555; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 0.00.
State: New Mexico; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 38; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 3,185,743; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 2,072,613; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 60.58.
State: New York; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 61; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 5,600,542; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 3,343,858; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 62.62.
State: North Carolina[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes;
Eligible: airports: 54; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 150,000; Carryover/
not yet accepted: 7,216,245; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 2.04.
State: North Dakota; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 23; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,724,881; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 609,118; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 73.90.
State: Ohio; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
88; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 5,728,989; Carryover/not yet accepted:
6,191,633; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 48.06.
State: Oklahoma; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 74; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 2,993,808; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 5,055,798; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 37.19.
State: Oregon; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
41; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 2,410,648; Carryover/not yet accepted:
2,591,911; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 48.19.
State: Pennsylvania[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible:
airports: 39; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 2,666,133; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 2,640,778; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 50.24.
State: Puerto Rico; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 5; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 0; Carryover/not yet accepted:
750,000; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 0.00.
State: Rhode Island; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 3; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 269,798; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 176,424; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 60.46.
State: South Carolina; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 42; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 3,250,362; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 2,298,966; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 58.57.
State: South Dakota; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 33; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,421,041; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 1,529,317; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 48.17.
State: Tennessee[A] b; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible:
airports: 56; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 730,260; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 6,079,740; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 10.72.
State: Texas[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible:
airports: 100; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 4,393,805; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 6,934,662; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 38.79.
State: Utah; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
27; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 2,277,578; Carryover/not yet accepted:
1,291,270; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 63.82.
State: Vermont; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
8; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 300,000; Carryover/not yet accepted:
608,844; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 33.01.
State: Virginia; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 35; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,735,756; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 3,172,644; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 35.36.
State: Washington; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 27; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,362,799; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 1,706,511; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 44.40.
State: West Virginia; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible:
airports: 16; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,728,763; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 591,460; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 74.51.
State: Wisconsin[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible:
airports: 36; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,393,467; Carryover/not yet
accepted: 3,191,534; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 30.39.
State: Wyoming; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports:
21; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 2,116,768; Carryover/not yet accepted:
815,750; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 72.18.
State: Totals; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): [Empty]; Eligible:
airports: 2,108; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: $124,088,761; Carryover/
not yet accepted: $146,600,381; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02:
45.84.
Source: FAA:
Note: GAO analysis of data from FAA‘s AIP Grants Management Database.
[A] Data provided by block grant states in response to our data
collection
instrument.
[B] In any given year, the total number of accepted entitlement grants
in
Tennessee represents larger and usually fewer grants than other states
because, with FAA‘s permission, Tennessee forwards its carryovers. In
other words, an airport in Tennessee that is eligible for $150,000
could accept $450,000 in either its first, second, or third year of
eligibility. According to FAA officials, the extra $300,000, if awarded
in the first fiscal year, or the extra $150,000 if awarded in the
second fiscal year, actually represents unassigned state apportionment
funds. In FAA‘s opinion, the airport may agree to carry over its
remaining general aviation entitlement funds, but FAA does not believe
there is any legal basis in the law governing AIP to enforce that
commitment.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Gerald Dillingham, Ph.D., (202) 512-2834
Carol Anderson-Guthrie, (214) 777-5739:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Jon Altshul, Nancy Boardman, Jeanine
Brady, Kevin Jackson, Bert Japikse, Michael Mgebroff, Jeff Miller,
George Quinn, and Don Watson made key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] P.L. 106-181, 104, 114 Stat 61.
[2] See appendix II for details on AIP.
[3] See appendix III for definitions and categories of U.S. airports.
[4] NPIAS is an FAA database of all airports considered to be part of
the national airport system, from which FAA periodically publishes a 5-
year plan for Congress that identifies airport development projects.
[5] The nine block grant states--Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin-
-make the final grant decisions while the other states and territories
participate in the decisionmaking with the final selection made by FAA.
[6] For further discussion of AIP funds, see U.S. General Accounting
Office, Aviation Finance: Distribution of Airport Grant Funds Comply
With Statutory Requirements, GAO-02-283 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30,
2002).
[7] An airport listed in the NPIAS but without needs identified would
not be apportioned general aviation entitlement funds.
[8] FAA stated that the NPIAS is an organic document that is
continuously updated. By law, FAA is required to publish a report on
the status of NPIAS every 2 years. The published NPIAS is used to
calculate the amount of the general aviation entitlement.
[9] Although total AIP funds were $3.14 billion in fiscal year 2001,
due to a budget rescission (i.e., slightly below the $3.2 billion
threshold that triggers both general aviation entitlement grants and
the increased apportionment level for general aviation airports to 20
percent of total AIP funds), Congress directed the program to be
triggered nevertheless. Total AIP funds were $3.22 billion in fiscal
year 2002.
[10] Because the 1998-2002 NPIAS was used for fiscal years 2001 and
2002, the amounts associated with both years are relatively unchanged.
[11] The AIP statute permits FAA to execute grants with state aviation
agencies acting on behalf of individual airports.
[12] In a block grant state the sponsor is the state, which receives
the general aviation entitlement grant funds for its eligible airports
and works with the individual airport operators to identify projects
for funding.
[13] Airports with more than 100 based aircraft.
[14] Airports with less than 20 based aircraft.
[15] Airports in Hawaii and New Jersey are not included in this range
because their acceptance rates are significantly lower than the next
lowest rate.
[16] Airports in Hawaii, New Jersey, and North Carolina are not
included in this range because they are outliers.
[17] Data from Tennessee and Michigan, both block grant states, are not
included in our grant acceptance by airport size analysis because these
states use a methodology to allocate grant funds to their airports that
differs from other states and territories. Thus, aggregating data on
grant acceptance by airport size from these two states with the other
states would have skewed the results for this particular analysis.
[18] FAA‘s Great Lakes Region and New Jersey did not respond to the
survey.
[19] Throughout this report, unless otherwise stated, references to
state officials also include the two territorial officials that we
interviewed.
[20] Overall, the responses of state aviation officials from the nine
block grant states varied only slightly from the responses of officials
from the other states. In addition, these nine states expressed
concerns similar to the other states about program improvements.
[21] FAA officials explained that multi-year grants cannot extend
beyond the last year of current AIP authorization--fiscal year 2003. As
such, FAA cannot issue multi-year grants for fiscal year 2003.
Moreover, the funds are provided to the airport annually only after
enactment of the Department of Transportation appropriation.
[22] According to FAA officials, based aircraft is the most reliable
criterion for airport size at general aviation airports. Operations
(take offs and landings) and enplanements (passengers boardings) are
two other indicators of airport size. However, it is difficult for some
general aviation airports to accurately calculate operations because
they may lack control towers. Additionally, because general aviation
airports have no scheduled commercial passenger service, enplanements
reveals very little about the size of these airports.
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:
