PRIORITIZATION OF AIRPORT 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Report Number: AV-2008-002 

Date Issued: October 26, 2007 
U.S. Department of 

Memorandum

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Office of Inspector General 

Subject: ACTION: Prioritization of Airport 

Improvement Program Funding 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Report Number AV-2008-002 

Date: October 26, 2007 

From: Robin K. Hunt 

Acting Assistant Inspector General 

 for Aviation and Special Program Audits 

Reply to 

Attn. of: JA-10 

To: Acting Federal Aviation Administrator 

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

Administration’s (FAA) prioritization of grant funding in the Airport 

Improvement Program (AIP). The objectives of our audit were to (1) evaluate the 

effectiveness of FAA’s policies and procedures for ensuring that the highest 

priority airport improvement projects are funded and (2) review the funding for the 

three AIP set-aside programs to determine whether the funding levels were being 

met as required by law. We performed our audit from August 2006 through May 

2007, in accordance with generally accepted Government Auditing Standards as 

prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our scope and 

methodology are presented in the exhibit to this report. 

BACKGROUND 

The FAA is responsible for administering the AIP. The AIP supports the Nation’s 

airport system by providing funds primarily to enhance safety and security, 

maintain the infrastructure, increase capacity, and mitigate airport noise in 

surrounding communities. 

FAA’s policy is to fund the highest priority projects. To fund the highest priority 

projects each year, FAA—in cooperation with airport sponsors,1

 planning 

agencies (e.g., regional metropolitan planning organizations), and states—

develops the Airport Capital Improvement Plan, a 3- to 5-year rolling plan for 

funding airport planning and development projects. Projects are assigned a 

 

1

 An airport sponsor is usually a public agency that owns the airport. 
2

quantitative rating from 0 to 100—the higher the rating, the higher the project 

priority. The quantitative rating is one factor that contributes to the selection of a 

project. Qualitative factors that contribute to the selection of a project include, but 

are not limited to, whether the sponsor has received the required matching, nonFederal funding to complete the project or whether the airport has completed a 

required environmental review. 

FAA distributes two types of AIP grant funds: formula and discretionary. 

• Formula funds, often referred to as entitlements, are divided into 4 categories: 

primary airports (commercial airports with at least 10,000 enplanements2

 per 

year), cargo service airports, general aviation airports, and Alaska 

supplemental funds.3

 Entitlement funds can be used for AIP-eligible projects 

for airport capital improvement and repairs such as rehabilitating runways and 

acquiring aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment. For primary airports, 

terminal development can only be funded through the use of entitlement funds. 

• The discretionary fund includes the money not distributed under the 

entitlements. Despite its name, the discretionary fund includes three statutory 

set-aside programs that benefit (1) noise compatibility planning and 

implementation to mitigate airport noise; (2) the Military Airport Program 

(MAP) to convert former military airfields to civilian airports; and (3) certain 

reliever airports4

 that help provide relief from congestion and delays at nearby, 

busier commercial service airports. 

Entitlements 

$1.68 billion 

(48%) 

Set-Asides 

$369 million 

(10%) 

Discretionary 

Funds 

$1.49 billion 

(42%) 

Figure. AIP Funding Allocations 

for FY 2006

Source: Data from FAA’s Office of Airport Planning and Programming 

In fiscal year (FY) 2006, FAA 

provided approximately $3.5 billion 

in AIP funding that was allocated as 

follows: $1.68 billion in entitlement 

grants, $1.49 billion in discretionary 

grants, and $369 million in setasides (see figure). Under the FY 

2007 continuing resolution, the AIP 

is funded at the FY 2006 level of 

$3.5 billion, a $200 million 

reduction from the FY 2007 

authorized level. With limited AIP 

funding, FAA must focus AIP money on the highest priority projects nationwide. 

 

2

 Enplanements are passenger boardings. 3

 Funds are apportioned for certain Alaska airports to ensure that Alaska receives at least as much as these airports 

were apportioned in FY 1980 under previous grant-in-aid legislation in accordance with Title 49 USC, Section 

47114(e). 4

 The reliever airports eligible for this funding must have certain characteristics, including, but not limited to, over 

75,000 annual operations and a runway with a landing distance of at least 5,000 feet. 
3

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

FAA’s policies are effectively ensuring that the highest priority rated projects are 

funded in accordance with regulations. However, under Vision 100,5

 FAA can 

fund—and is funding—lower priority rated projects (i.e., those rated under 40). 

This means that other higher priority rated projects could go unfunded. We 

reviewed 725 high priority rated AIP projects6

 for FY 2005 and 2006 in 4 regions 

and found that FAA funded 563 projects, or about 78 percent. For the remaining 

162 unfunded projects, or about 22 percent, FAA provided us with adequate 

reasons as to why the projects were not funded. FAA’s reasons for not funding a 

high priority rated project included the following: an environmental review 

needing completion (which is required prior to FAA approval) or an airport being 

in litigation over the project. 

We also found that FAA is meeting its strategic goal of funding projects that can 

enhance airport safety, security, and system capacity. For example, in FY 2006, 

the highest percentage of AIP dollars spent (85 percent) and the number of 

projects funded (83 percent) were for projects that could enhance safety and 

security and system capacity. 

While we found that the current set-aside funding requirements are being met, the 

MAP can result in low priority projects being funded at an airport that meets 

set-aside program requirements, while higher priority projects at other airports 

could go unfunded. For example, in FY 2006, 21 of 46 MAP projects (46 percent 

of projects with an estimated cost of $36.6 million) were rated under 40. One 

project with a rating of 19 was funded at a cost of more than $2.2 million to 

rehabilitate a parking lot. 

Projected passenger traffic has grown, and the Department has committed to 

accelerate major airport infrastructure projects by giving priority treatment and 

resources to capacity projects. Therefore, FAA must ensure that MAP projects are 

enhancing capacity and reducing congestion in metropolitan areas—which is the 

intended goal of the MAP. If the projects do not meet this goal, then the funding 

should be re-directed toward other projects at MAP airports that could potentially 

enhance capacity and reduce congestion in metropolitan areas or projects that 

enhance the overall National Airspace System, such as runway extensions, runway 

rehabilitations, or other safety or capacity projects. 

 

5

 Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, Pub. L. No. 108-176 (2003). 6

 In this report, we considered high priority rated projects to be those rated 70 and above or those that FAA refers to as 

“flags,” including congressional earmarks, noise mitigation, MAP, and runway safety projects. Projects rated 70 and 

above are the highest priority rated projects and are generally most consistent with FAA’s goals. 
4

FINDINGS 

FAA’s Policies and Procedures Are Effectively Ensuring That the 

Highest Priority Projects Are Funded 

FAA policy is to fund the highest priority projects that best meet the Nation’s 

airport system needs. For the most part, we found that FAA policies and 

procedures are effectively ensuring that the highest priority rated projects are 

being funded. We also found that FAA is meeting its goal of funding projects that 

can enhance airport safety, security, and system capacity. 

Highest Priority Rated Projects Are Being Funded 

We found that FAA has a well-established system that rates and prioritizes AIP 

projects and includes both quantitative and qualitative factors. Projects are 

assigned a quantitative rating from 0 to 100—the higher the rating, the higher the 

project priority. Table 1 shows examples of project types and their ratings. In 

fiscal years 2005 and 2006, FAA generally funded projects rated above 40.7

 FAA 

allows funding of projects rated under 40 if they can be shown to significantly 

enhance FAA’s goals, which include enhancing airport safety, security, or system 

capacity. 

Table 1. Examples of Project Types 

and Their Rating Ranges 

Project Type Rating Range*

Constructing a people mover 15-39 

Mitigating airport noise for residential areas 40-70 

Installing runway lighting 77-97 *

Individual ratings vary depending on the size and type of the airport. 

 Source: FAA Order 5100.39A, “Airport Capital Improvement Plan.” 

According to FAA, a numerical rating alone cannot account for most qualitative 

factors that may affect the importance of an individual airport development 

project. The numerical priority rating is intended to be used with qualitative 

factors to select airport development projects. Qualitative factors that contribute 

to the selection of a project include, but are not limited to, whether the airport 

sponsor has: (1) received the required matching, non-Federal funding to complete 

the project; (2) completed the required environmental review for the project; and 

(3) complied with FAA regulations governing use of AIP funds. 

 

7

 Each year, FAA determines a priority rating threshold level and creates a list of projects that meet or exceed the 

threshold level to be considered for discretionary funding. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the priority rating 

threshold level was 40. 
5

We reviewed 725 high priority rated AIP projects for FY 2005 and FY 2006 in 

4 regions and found that FAA funded 563 projects, or about 78 percent. For the 

162 unfunded projects, or about 22 percent, FAA provided us with adequate 

reasons as to why the projects were not funded. These reasons varied and 

included the following: an environmental review needing completion (which is 

required prior to FAA approval); an airport initially proposing a project but later 

deciding not to fund it; an airport being involved in litigation over a project; or 

funding being used for other emergency projects (such as responding to hurricane 

damage). 

Highest Priority Projects That Enhance Safety, Security, and System 

Capacity Are Being Funded 

Safety and security are the highest priority projects. Other major FAA policy 

objectives are to maintain airport infrastructure and increase capacity. FAA’s goal 

each year is to fund the highest priority projects that enhance: (1) airport safety, 

such as improving runway safety areas; (2) security, such as installing airport 

perimeter fencing; and (3) system capacity, such as providing AIP funding for 

the O’Hare Modernization Program—a multi-phased, multi-year, and 

multibillion-dollar project designed to reduce flight delays and increase capacity at 

Chicago O’Hare International Airport and throughout the National Airspace 

System. 

We reviewed the types of projects that FAA approved to determine the extent to 

which FAA was meeting its statutory requirements and policy goals by funding 

the highest priority projects that enhance these three areas. FAA has eight 

categories for rating projects that are eligible for AIP funding. As shown in 

table 2, the highest percentage of AIP dollars spent (85 percent) and the number of 

projects funded (83 percent) in FY 2006 were for projects that could improve 

safety, security, or capacity, with the highest percentage of dollars spent 

(60 percent) and number of projects funded (72 percent) in the standards and 

reconstruction categories (standards and reconstruction projects ultimately 

improve safety and security). Examples of standards projects include snow 

removal equipment, deicing equipment, and perimeter fencing. Examples of 

reconstruction projects include rehabilitating and repairing runways; these in turn 

enhance safety and maintain airport capacity and infrastructure. 
6

Table 2. Percentages by Dollar, by Number of Projects 

per Category Funded in FY 2006 

Category Type Percentage of 

Dollars Spent on 

Projects in the 

Category 

Percentage of the Number 

of Projects in Each 

Category 

Standards\a 33% 46% 

Reconstruction\b 27% 26% 

Capacity\c 17% 4% 

Environment\d 10% 5% 

Safety and Security\e 8% 7% 

Planning\f 2% 8% 

Statutory Emphasis\g <1% <1% 

Other\h 3% 4% 

\a To enable the airport to meet FAA standards, such as snow removal equipment. 

\b To rehabilitate and repair runways. 

\c To construct new runways and extend existing runways to increase an airport’s passenger, cargo, or 

flight operations and reduce delays. 

\d To conduct environmental reviews and noise mitigation projects. 

\e To support the safety and security of airport operations. 

\f To conduct planning studies, such as an airport master plan. 

\g To enable statutory projects such as runway grooving, friction treatment, and runway signs and markings. 

\h To obtain items such as people movers, parking lots, and training systems. 

Source: Data from FAA’s Office of Airport Planning and Programming 

Current Funding Requirements Are Being Met, but MAP Funding 

Levels and the Type of Projects Receiving Funds Need Re-Examining 

Another area we reviewed under the AIP funding regiment was whether 

discretionary funding thresholds for the set-aside programs were being met as 

required by law. While we found that current set-aside funding thresholds are 

being met, the MAP set-aside is funding lower priority rated projects, including 

projects that typically are not eligible for AIP funding. Thus, the MAP set-aside 

can result in lower priority rated projects being funded at an airport that meets 

set-side program requirements, while higher priority projects at other airports 

could go unfunded. 

By statute, each year, FAA must spend an amount equal to:

• 35 percent of its discretionary AIP funding on airport noise compatibility 

planning and implementation (to mitigate airport noise); 

• 4 percent of discretionary funds on the MAP (to convert former military 

airfields to civilian airfields with the goal of increasing capacity and easing 

congestion); and 
7

• 0.66 percent of discretionary funds at certain reliever airports (to provide relief 

from congestion and delays at nearby, busy commercial service airports). 

Under the noise set-aside program, all airport sponsors can request discretionary 

AIP funding for eligible airport noise compatibility planning and implementation 

projects. However, only those airports in the MAP are eligible to receive MAP 

set-aside funding. The reliever set-aside can be used for AIP-eligible projects at 

certain reliever airports based on specific criteria. 

In FY 2005 and FY 2006, FAA provided a total of $791.8 million for projects in 

the three set-aside programs, including approximately $779.3 million in 

discretionary funds and $12.5 million in entitlement funds.8

 Our work shows that 

all the projects in noise and reliever set-aside programs rank high enough in 

FAA’s rating system to have been funded without the set-aside funding. 

With respect to FY 2005 and FY 2006 funding for the set-aside programs, FAA 

funded noise mitigation, reliever airport, and MAP projects at levels that exceeded 

the amounts required by law; specifically, FAA: 

• Was required to spend about $300 million each fiscal year on airport noise 

mitigation projects9

 and spent about $342 million and $305 million in FY 2005 

and FY 2006, respectively. Because all of the airport noise mitigation projects 

funded ranked high enough in FAA’s rating system, they could have been 

funded without the statutory funding requirement. 

• Was required to spend about $6 million each fiscal year on projects at selected 

reliever airports. FAA provided about $49 million and $38 million to these 

airports in FY 2005 and FY 2006, respectively. All of the reliever set-aside 

projects were rated above 40 each year, including projects such as runway 

rehabilitations; this suggests that the set-aside program may not have been 

necessary to fund them. 

• Was required to spend about $34 million each fiscal year on projects at MAP 

airports. Up to 15 airports can participate in the MAP each year. FAA 

provided about $70 million and about $58 million in discretionary and 

entitlement funding to these airports in FY 2005 and FY 2006, respectively 

(see table 3). In addition to set-aside funds, MAP airports can also obtain 

entitlement funding and compete for additional discretionary funding. 

 

8

 By statute, FAA is authorized to use entitlement as well as discretionary funds to meet its funding requirements for 

the noise set-aside program. 9

 FAA was required to spend about $301 million in FY 2005 and about $298 million in FY 2006 on noise set-aside 

projects. 
8

Table 3. AIP Funding Provided to MAP Airports 

in FY 2005 and FY 2006 

Funding Type FY 2005 FY 2006 

MAP Set-Aside AIP Discretionary 

Funds 

$34,518,503 $34,014,408 

Additional AIP Discretionary Funds $18,691,928 $ 9,046,768 

Total AIP Discretionary Funds $53,210,431 $43,061,176 

AIP Entitlement Funds $16,784,508 $15,010,087 

Total AIP Funding $69,994,939 $58,071,263 

Source: Data from FAA’s Office of Airport Planning and Programming 

Also, under the current law, airports in the MAP can use AIP funds for projects 

that are normally ineligible for AIP discretionary funding, such as fuel farms, 

hangars, and parking lots. Projects of this type are also lower priority rated 

projects (i.e., projects rated under 40) that would usually not be funded with 

discretionary funds except for the MAP provision. 

In FY 2005 and FY 2006, much of the total funding provided to airports in the 

MAP was used for projects rated under 40. In FY 2005, 26 of 61 projects at MAP 

airports (43 percent of projects with an estimated cost of $32.8 million) funded 

were rated under 40. In FY 2006, 21 of 46 projects at MAP airports (46 percent of 

projects with an estimated cost of $36.6 million) were rated under 40. One project 

with a rating of 19 was funded at a cost of more than $2.2 million to rehabilitate a 

parking lot. 

Without the set-aside funding requirement and the provision to fund projects 

normally ineligible for AIP funding, several of these projects would not have been 

funded. FAA’s AIP Handbook,10 which contains the policy and procedures used 

to administer the AIP, states that the biggest obstacle to growth at MAP airports 

may be inadequate airport facilities that are not normally eligible for AIP funds. 

We recognize that there may be a need to fund projects that are not normally 

eligible for AIP funds in order to contribute to the growth of MAP airports. 

However, growth does not necessarily translate into enhancing capacity and 

reducing congestion in metropolitan areas, which is the intended goal of MAP. 

We are aware of only one successful conversion of a former military airfield to 

civilian airfield—the Bergstrom Air Force Base conversion to the 

Austin-Bergstrom International Airport in Austin, Texas. However, this 

conversion was unique in that the existing Austin airport had outgrown its 

usefulness as a viable commercial airport, and the city of Austin needed a new 

 

10 FAA Order 5100.38C, “Airport Improvement Program Handbook,” June 28, 2005. 
9

airport. The closure of Bergstrom Air Force Base provided an alternative for the 

city of Austin to build a new airport that could enhance capacity and reduce 

congestion in the Austin area. 

Another military airfield, the Scott Air Force Base, was converted into a joint-use 

military and civilian airfield with little, if any, success in meeting the goal of the 

MAP. This air force base is co-located with the Mid-America St. Louis Airport 

and shares airfield facilities under a joint-use agreement. The Mid-America St. 

Louis Airport is located in Moscoutah, Illinois, 24 miles from St. Louis Lambert 

International Airport in Missouri. Construction costs at the Mid-America St. 

Louis airport totaled $210 million, with FAA providing over $128 million in AIP 

discretionary funds. This conversion has been unsuccessful in attracting daily 

commercial service, and the airport currently has only one airline providing 

scheduled service twice per week to each of two cities. 

Low priority rated projects accounted for 44 percent of projects at MAP airports 

and 54 percent of funding for MAP airports in FY 2005 and FY 2006. Given 

these significant amounts, FAA must ensure that MAP projects will contribute to 

the MAP goal of enhancing capacity and reducing congestion in metropolitan 

areas before it funds them. If the projects do not meet this goal, then the funding 

should be re-directed toward other projects at MAP airports that could potentially 

enhance capacity and reduce congestion in metropolitan areas or projects that 

enhance the overall National Airspace System (e.g., runway extensions, runway 

rehabilitations, or other safety or capacity projects). 

RECOMMENDATION 

We recommend that FAA monitor and track MAP projects to ensure that the MAP 

is achieving its intended goal to enhance capacity and reduce congestion in 

metropolitan areas. When MAP projects do not meet this goal, FAA should redirect the funding toward other projects at MAP airports that could potentially 

enhance capacity and reduce congestion in metropolitan areas or projects that 

enhance the overall National Airspace System. These include runway extensions, 

runway rehabilitations, or other safety or capacity projects. 

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

RESPONSE 

We submitted our draft report to FAA on August 23, 2007. We did not receive a 

formal, written response from FAA on our draft report. We discussed the draft 

report with the Director of the Office of Airport Planning and Programming and 

his staff in September 2007. FAA expressed concern on how the report 
10

characterized lower priority rated MAP projects. FAA stated that MAP projects 

that are normally ineligible for AIP funds and lower priority rated, such as fuel 

farms and hangars, are eligible for the MAP because military airfields typically 

need these facilities if they are going to operate successfully as civilian airports. 

In our report, we recognize that there may be a need to fund projects that are not 

normally eligible for AIP funds in order to contribute to the growth of MAP 

airports. However, growth at a MAP airport does not necessarily translate into 

enhancing capacity and reducing congestion in metropolitan areas which is the 

intended goal of the MAP. 

ACTIONS REQUIRED 

In accordance with Department of Transportation Order 8000.1C, within 

30 calendar days, please provide us with your formal, written comments regarding 

our recommendation. If you concur with the recommendation, please indicate the 

specific action taken or planned and the target date for completion. If you do not 

concur, please provide your rationale. You may provide alternative courses of 

action that you believe would resolve the issues presented in this report. 

We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation of FAA representatives during this 

audit. If I can answer any questions or be of further assistance, please feel free to 

contact me at (415) 744-0420 or Scott Macey, Program Director, at (415) 

744-0434. 

# 

cc: FAA Chief of Staff 

Associate Administrator for Airports 

 Anthony Williams, ABU-100 

 

 
11

EXHIBIT. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

The objectives of our audit were to (1) evaluate the effectiveness of FAA’s policies 

and procedures for ensuring that the highest priority airport improvement projects are 

funded and (2) review the funding for the three AIP set-aside programs to determine 

whether the funding levels were being met as required by law. 

We performed our audit from August 2006 through May 2007, in accordance with 

generally accepted Government Auditing Standards as prescribed by the Comptroller 

General of the United States. 

To evaluate the effectiveness of FAA’s policies and procedures for ensuring that the 

highest priority airport improvement projects are funded, we reviewed and analyzed 

reports, laws, regulations, orders, and policies and procedures pertaining to the 

prioritization of AIP funds. This allowed us to identify AIP planning and program 

requirements. We also interviewed FAA personnel at Headquarters and at field 

offices and discussed various policies and procedures used to prioritize AIP funds. 

We reviewed planning and programming documents for FY 2005 and FY 2006 to 

determine whether the highest priority AIP projects were funded and to ascertain why 

some were unfunded. For this analysis, we considered high priority projects to be 

those projects rated 70 and above or projects that FAA refers to as “flags,” including 

congressional earmarks, noise mitigation, MAP, and runway safety projects. Projects 

rated 70 and above are the highest priority rated projects and are most consistent with 

FAA’s goals. We visited five FAA regions in total. Four regions provided us with 

information on why projects were not funded in FY 2005, and three of these regions 

provided us with these data in FY 2006. One region did not provide us with 

information for FY 2005 or FY 2006. Another region provided us with information 

for FY 2005 but not for FY 2006. We reviewed a total of 725 projects. 

To determine if FAA met the required level of set-aside funding, we analyzed the 

lists of projects and airports that received funding under the set-aside programs in 

FY 2005 and FY 2006. We also reviewed the priority rankings of the projects funded 

to determine the degree to which lower priority rated projects were funded in the setasides. 

We performed work at FAA Headquarters and five FAA regions: the Central Region 

in Kansas City, Missouri; the Great Lakes Region in Des Plaines, Illinois; the 

Southwest Region in Fort Worth, Texas; the Southern Region in College Park, 

Georgia; and the Western-Pacific Region in Lawndale, California. We visited 

selected field offices in each region (five field offices in total). We also met with 

airport officials and industry representatives to better understand AIP funding issues. 

Exhibit. Scope and Methodology 
The following pages contain textual versions of the graphs and charts found in this 

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

here to accommodate assistive technology. 
Prioritization of Airport Improvement Program Funding

508 Compliant Presentation 

Figure. Airport Improvement Program Funding Allocations for Fiscal Year 2006 

In fiscal year (FY) 2006, FAA provided approximately $3.5 billion in AIP funding that 

was allocated as follows: $1.68 billion in entitlement grants (or 48 percent) $1.49 billion 

in discretionary grants (or 42 percent), and $369 million in set-asides (or 10 percent). 

Source: Data from FAA’s Office of Airport Planning and Programming 

Table 1. Examples of Project Types and Their Rating Ranges 

Project Type: Constructing a people mover. Rating Range: 15-39. 

Project Type: Mitigating airport noise for residential areas. Rating Range: 40-70. 

Project Type: Installing runway lighting. Rating Range: 77-97. 

Note: Individual ratings vary depending on the size and type of the airport. 

Source: FAA Order 5100.39A, “Airport Capital Improvement Plan.”

Table 2. Percentages by Dollar, by Number of Projects per Category Funded in 

Fiscal Year 2006 

In the project category of Standards, 33 percent of AIP dollars were spent in fiscal year 

2006. The percentage of projects funded in this category was 46 percent. (Note: 

Standards projects enable the airport to meet FAA standards, such as snow removal 

equipment.) 

In the project category of Reconstruction, 27 percent of AIP dollars were spent in fiscal 

year 2006. The percentage of projects funded in this category was 26 percent. (Note: 

Reconstruction projects help rehabilitate and repair runways.) 

In the project category of Capacity, 17 percent of AIP dollars were spent in fiscal year 

2006. The percentage of projects funded in this category was 4 percent. (Note: Capacity 

projects help construct new runways and extend existing runways to increase an airport’s 

passenger, cargo, or flight operations and reduce delays.) 

In the project category of Environment, 10 percent of AIP dollars were spent in fiscal 

year 2006. The percentage of projects funded in this category was 5 percent. (Note: 

Environment projects enable environmental reviews and noise mitigation projects.) 

In the project category of Safety and Security, 8 percent of AIP dollars were spent in 

fiscal year 2006. The percentage of projects funded in this category was 7 percent. 

(Note: Safety and Security projects support the safety and security of airport operations.) 
In the project category of Planning, 2 percent of AIP dollars were spent in fiscal year 

2006. The percentage of projects funded in this category was 8 percent. (Note: Planning 

projects enable planning studies, such as an airport master plan.) 

In the project category of Statutory Emphasis, less than 1 percent of AIP dollars were 

spent in fiscal year 2006. The percentage of projects funded in this category was less 

than 1 percent. (Note: Statutory Emphasis projects enable statutory projects such as 

runway grooving, friction treatment, and runway signs and markings.) 

In the project category of Other, 3 percent of AIP dollars were spent in fiscal year 2006. 

The percentage of projects funded in this category was 4 percent. (Note: Other projects 

are to obtain items such as people movers, parking lots, and training systems.) 

Source: Data from FAA’s Office of Airport Planning and Programming 

Table 3. AIP Funding Provided to Military Airport Program (or MAP) Airports in 

Fiscal Year 2005 and Fiscal Year 2006 

In fiscal year 2005, MAP airports received $34,518,503 in MAP Set-Aside AIP 

Discretionary Funds. In fiscal year 2006, they received $34,014,408. 

In fiscal year 2005, MAP airports received $18,691,928 in Additional AIP Discretionary 

Funds. In fiscal year 2006, they received $ 9,046,768. 

In fiscal year 2005, MAP airports received a total of $53,210,431 in AIP Discretionary 

Funds. In fiscal year 2006, they received a total of $43,061,176. 

In fiscal year 2005, MAP airports received $16,784,508 in AIP Entitlement Funds. In 

fiscal year 2006, they received $15,010,087. 

In fiscal year 2005, the total AIP Funding for MAP airports was $69,994,939. In fiscal 

year 2006, the total AIP funding for MAP airports was $58,071,263. 

Source: Data from FAA’s Office of Airport Planning and Programming