GAO-07-773R FAA Funding Comparison

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

June 8, 2007 

The Honorable James L. Oberstar 

Chairman 

The Honorable John L. Mica 

Ranking Republican Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Jerry F. Costello 

Chairman 

The Honorable Thomas E. Petri 

Ranking Republican Member 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Federal Aviation Administration: Cost Allocation Practices and Cost 

Recovery Proposal Compared with Selected International Practices 

Anticipating the expiration of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) current 

authorization at the end of fiscal year 2007, the administration submitted a proposal1

on February 14, 2007, for reauthorizing FAA and the excise taxes that fund most of its 

budget. This proposal would introduce cost-based charges for commercial users of 

air traffic control services, eliminate many current taxes, substantially raise fuel taxes 

for general aviation users to pay for their use of air traffic control services, and 

charge commercial and general aviation users a fuel tax to pay primarily for airport 

capital improvements. In January 2007, FAA released the results of a recently 

completed cost allocation study2

 in support of the administration’s proposal for 

 

1

Two bills were introduced on request in the House and Senate, H.R. 1356 and S. 1076, respectively, the 

Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007. 

2

Federal Aviation Administration, FY 2005 Cost Allocation Report (Washington, D.C., Jan. 31, 2007). 
transitioning to user fees. FAA and the administration used this study to determine 

the factors that drive the costs of providing air traffic control services, allocate these 

costs to various users of air traffic control services, and support the development of 

alternative methods to recover those costs. On March 21, 2007, we testified before 

the House Subcommittee on Aviation,3 providing our observations on selected 

changes to FAA’s funding and budget structure contained in the administration’s 

reauthorization proposal. As requested, we are also providing comparative 

information to further assist Congress in considering FAA’s funding proposal. 

Accordingly, we addressed the following question: How do the proposed practices for 

allocating and recovering the cost of FAA’s air traffic control operations compare to 

the practices of other countries? 

To address this question, we reviewed FAA’s 2007 cost allocation report and the 

administration’s reauthorization proposal. We interviewed officials from FAA, 

selectedair navigation service providers (ANSP) 4 in other countries whose practices 

we previously reviewed,5 EUROCONTROL,6

 and international aviation industry 

associations. We selected the ANSPs in Australia and Canada—Airservices Australia 

and NAV CANADA, respectively—and EUROCONTROL as illustrative of similarities

and differences in the way that air traffic control costs can be allocated and 

recovered. Both Australia and Canada have relatively high levels of general aviation 

activity, which makes their ANSPs particularly useful for comparison to FAA, since 

the United States has the highest level of general aviation activity in the world. 

Significant inherent differences between the U.S. and other countries’ ANSPs 

worldwide cannot be accounted for in this study. For instance, the administrative 

management function of each country’s ANSP differs. NAV CANADA is a privately 

owned ANSP, while Airservices Australia is a wholly government-owned ANSP. Our 

selection of ANSPs is a nonprobability sample, and information presented about them 

cannot be used to make inferences about the ANSPs we did not review. We 

compared the practices described in FAA’s 2007 cost allocation report to the cost 

allocation practices of the selected ANSPs. We also compared the cost recovery 

practices set forth in the administration’s proposed cost recovery legislation to the 

cost recovery practices of the selected ANSPs. (See enc. I for additional information 

on our methodology.) We conducted our work from April 2007 through June 2007 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

 3

GAO, Federal Aviation Administration: Observations on Selected Changes to FAA’s Funding and 

Budget Structure in the Administration’s Reauthorization Proposal, GAO-07-625T (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 21, 2007). 

4

An ANSP is an organization that provides air navigation services to ensure safe flights in an efficient 

and cost-effective way. FAA’s Air Traffic Organization is the ANSP for the United States, while 

Airservices Australia and NAV CANADA are the ANSPs for Australia and Canada, respectively.

5

GAO, Air Traffic Control: Characteristics and Performance of Selected International Air 

Navigation Service Providers and Lessons Learned from Their Commercialization, GAO-05-769

(Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2005). 

6

EUROCONTROL is the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, which comprises 37

member states, including the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. The agency is responsible for

developing a seamless pan-European air traffic management system in coordination with each 

country’s government/ANSP. 

2 GAO-07-773R FAA Funding Comparison
Summary

The practices FAA used to allocate air traffic control costs to users and the 

administration proposed to recover these costs from users differ somewhat from the 

practices employed by ANSPs in other countries. The International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO)7 has established guidance for allocating and recovering costs 

attributed to air traffic-related services, but member states are not legally bound to 

follow its principles. In its 2007 cost allocation study, FAA allocated its total air 

traffic control costs to the three air traffic service categories that drive these costs—

terminal services, en route services, and oceanic services. 8 FAA then assigned the 

costs for providing these services to two types of aircraft—high-performance aircraft, 

which include all fixed wing turbine-engine aircraft, and piston aircraft, which 

include fixed-wing piston-engine aircraft and helicopters—because different aircraft 

types affect costs differently. More specifically, turbine- and piston-engine aircraft fly 

at different altitudes and speeds, and these differences in operating characteristics 

lead to differences in the costs of providing air traffic control services. The ANSPs 

with cost-based charges that we reviewed also allocate costs to each of their service 

categories—although the percentages allocated to each category vary by country—

but none of these ANSPs further allocate costs by the type of aircraft used. To 

recover costs, the administration proposes charging commercial aircraft users for en 

route services based on distance traveled and for terminal services based on airport 

size and aircraft weight. This proposed practice for recovering terminal costs 

generally resembles the practices of the other ANSPs we reviewed,9

 but the proposed 

practice for recovering en route costs differs because the other ANSPs also consider 

aircraft weight—a factor that increases the share of costs recovered from larger 

aircraft that can carry more fare-paying passengers. To recover costs from general 

aviation users, the administration is proposing a fuel tax of 56.4 cents per gallon for 

air traffic control services.10 By contrast, some other ANSPs11 currently charge users 

 7

ICAO is an advisory organization affiliated with the United Nations that aims to promote the

establishment of international civil aviation standards and recommended practices and procedures.

8

Terminal services are air traffic control services that FAA staff provide to guide flights from the

terminal to the runway and through takeoff. These services rely primarily on control towers and 

terminal radar approach control centers (TRACON). TRACONs then pass flights off to air route traffic 

control centers, which provide en route control until the flights near their destinations; these services

are referred to as en route services. Oceanic services are analogous to en route services, except that

the aircraft is flying over the ocean, where fewer communication, navigation, and surveillance

capabilities are available than over land. FAA also allocates costs to flight service stations (FSS), 

which provide pilot and weather briefings through automated flight service stations. However, FAA 

did not further allocate FSS costs among users because (1) costs are expected to decline substantially

in future years, (2) the cost recovery proposal funds these costs from the General Fund, and (3) 

charging user fees for these services would encourage general aviation pilots to fly “outside the 

system,” which would negatively affect safety. 

9

NAV CANADA does not vary terminal charges by airport size. 

10The administration would impose an additional fuel tax of 13.6 cents a gallon to fund the Airport 

Improvement Program, Essential Air Services, and Research, Engineering, and Development, bringing

the total fuel tax to 70 cents per gallon. 

11Some European ANSPs do not charge general aviation users an annual fee. 

3 GAO-07-773R FAA Funding Comparison
of small general aviation aircraft an annual fee based on such factors as aircraft 

weight and number of flight operations. 

Background 

FAA currently receives the majority of its support (82 percent) from the Airport and 

Airway Trust Fund (trust fund), whose revenues come from a series of excise taxes 

paid by aircraft operators. These excise taxes are associated with purchases of 

airline tickets and aviation fuel, as well as with cargo shipment. In fiscal year 2006, 

the ticket tax was the largest single source of trust fund revenue, followed by the 

international departure and arrival tax, the passenger segment tax,12 and fuel taxes. 

These trust fund revenues are then available for use subject to appropriations. In 

addition to these revenues, General Fund revenues have been used in most years to 

fund FAA. About $2.6 billion was appropriated for fiscal year 2006 from the General 

Fund for FAA’s operations. This amount represents about 18 percent of FAA’s total 

appropriation. 

FAA has expressed concern that under the current funding structure, revenues 

depend heavily on factors such as ticket prices that are not connected to FAA’s 

workload and costs. In addition, FAA maintains that every cost allocation study the 

agency has done over the last three decades has found that general aviation is 

responsible for at least 11 percent of air traffic costs, yet general aviation users pay 

roughly 3 percent of the taxes that go into the trust fund.13 According to FAA, under 

the current structure, increases in the agency’s workload may not be accompanied by 

revenue increases because users are not directly charged for the costs that they 

impose on FAA for their use of the national airspace system. Revenues collected 

from ticket taxes—which are 7.5 percent of ticket prices—are primarily dependent 

on the ticket price and the number of airplane passengers, while air traffic workload 

is primarily driven by the number of flights, the airports that aircraft use, and the 

distances that aircraft fly. This disconnect raises three key concerns about the 

current funding structure—its long-term revenue adequacy, equity, and efficiency. 

The administration has cited these concerns as its reasons for proposing major 

changes in FAA’s funding, including introducing user fees to recover the costs of air 

traffic services. 

ICAO has established guidance on ascertaining the full costs of air navigation 

services and developing a charging system aimed at recovering those costs. The 

policies allow for different methods of allocating costs attributed to en route, 

terminal, and oceanic services and recovering those costs from users. Member states 

are not legally bound to follow ICAO policies, but many ANSPs worldwide charge 

some type of user fees to recover their air navigation services costs. However, the 

 12The passenger segment tax is levied on each segment of a passenger’s domestic flight. For example,

a passenger flying from New York to Seattle, with a connection in Chicago, travels two segments—the

first from New York to Chicago and the second from Chicago to Seattle. The segment tax rate was 

$3.30 in 2006.

13The 3 percent of taxes that go into the trust fund does not include taxes paid by air taxis and 

fractionally owned aircraft. Similarly, the amounts FAA attributed to general aviation in its 2007 cost 

allocation study do not include costs driven by air taxis or fractionally owned aircraft. 

4 GAO-07-773R FAA Funding Comparison
schemes for charging and recovering these user fees vary. The ANSPs we reviewed 

rely on user charges as their primary source of revenue, but ANSPs can also choose 

to recover less than the full costs of some services in recognition of local, regional, or 

national benefits. According to FAA, its methodology for allocating air traffic control 

costs and the method contained in the administration’s reauthorization proposal to 

recover these costs follow ICAO guidance. 

Proposed FAA Practices for Allocating Costs Differ from Those of Selected 

Providers

FAA’s methodology for allocating air traffic control costs and the method contained 

in the administration’s reauthorization proposal to recover these costs from users 

differ somewhat from practices currently employed by ANSPs in other countries. In 

its 2007 cost allocation study, FAA allocated its total air traffic control costs to the 

three air traffic service categories that drive its costs and then assigned the costs for 

providing these services to two user groups defined by aircraft type.

14 The ANSPs we 

reviewed also allocate costs to each of their service categories but do not further 

allocate costs by aircraft type. To recover costs from commercial users, the 

administration proposes charging commercial aircraft for (1) en route services based 

on distance traveled and (2) terminal services based on airport size and aircraft 

weight. The other ANSPs employ an aircraft weight factor that increases the share of 

en route costs recovered from larger aircraft. To recover costs from general aviation 

users, the administration proposes a fuel tax; in contrast, the ANSPs we reviewed 

charge users of small general aviation aircraft an annual rate based on such factors as 

aircraft weight or number of flight operations. In addition, the administration 

proposes a congestion fee for all aircraft landings and takeoffs at congested large-hub 

airports. While other ANSPs do not charge a congestion fee, ICAO standards indicate 

that such fees are appropriate. 

Both FAA and Selected ANSPs Allocate Air Traffic Control Costs by Type of Service, 

but FAA Differs in Allocating Costs by Type of Aircraft

In its January 2007 study, FAA employed a two-stage methodology to allocate the 

costs of providing air traffic control services. First, FAA allocated its total air traffic 

control costs among the air traffic service categories that drive its costs—terminal 

services, en route services, and oceanic services. Based on an analysis of activities at 

service category locations, FAA allocated about 51 percent of its air traffic control 

costs to terminal services, about 46 percent to en route services, and about 3 percent 

to oceanic services.15 FAA then assigned air traffic costs to user groups based on 

aircraft type. 

The two principal user groups are the high-performance group, which includes all 

fixed-wing turbine-engine aircraft operations, and the piston aircraft group, which 

includes fixed-wing piston-engine aircraft operations and helicopters. According to 

 14Under the FAA proposal for funding air traffic control services, some aircraft (such as military

aircraft and air ambulances) would be exempt from charges. The cost allocated to exempt aircraft

would be covered by general revenue funds. 

15This analysis does not include costs allocated to flight service stations. 

5 GAO-07-773R FAA Funding Comparison
FAA, this cost allocation methodology is based on the assumptions that highperformance users generally compete for the same air traffic control resources, have 

more time-sensitive operations, and require more complex air traffic equipment and 

procedures than do piston aircraft operations. Differences in the speed and cruising 

altitudes of the two aircraft types also affect their en route costs. 

The other ANSPs we reviewed employ a different methodology for allocating air 

traffic control service costs. Like FAA, most foreign ANSPs we reviewed allocate 

costs based on their services and operational activities, according to the Civil Air 

Navigation Service Organization (CANSO).16 However, the foreign ANSPs we 

reviewed differ from FAA in that they do not allocate costs by specific user group or 

by aircraft engine type. Officials from CANSO and NAV CANADA also told us that 

FAA would be unique among ANSPs in further allocating terminal and en route 

service costs to user groups as proposed. In addition, the proportion of costs 

allocated to various services varies by country. For instance, in fiscal year 2003, NAV 

CANADA allocated about 53 percent of its total air traffic control costs to en route 

services, 43 percent to terminal services, and the remaining 4 percent to oceanic 

services. In Europe, EUROCONTROL member states’ ANSPs allocate on average 

about 80 percent of their costs to en route services and about 20 percent to terminal 

services.17 EUROCONTROL member states’ ANSPs also allocate a portion of their 

cost base to the administrative services provided by EUROCONTROL, according to 

CANSO. 

Both Proposed FAA and Selected ANSP En Route Charges Are Based on Distance, 

but ANSPs Factor Weight into Charges and Only FAA Imposes a Congestion Charge 

Under the administration’s proposal for recovering the costs of air traffic control 

services, FAA’s practices would both resemble and differ from those of the other 

ANSPs we reviewed. (See table 1 for a comparison of these practices). Like these 

providers, FAA would charge user fees to commercial aircraft for air traffic control 

services. FAA’s en route service charge is based on the distance an aircraft flies in 

U.S.-controlled airspace.18 Other ANSPs charge fees for en route services based on 

the distance traveled but also factor aircraft weight into their fees. For instance, 

Airservices Australia bases its en route charge on both the distance flown in an 

Australian flight information region19 and the maximum permissible takeoff weight of 

the aircraft. Hence, the charge for a given distance varies in part with the maximum 

 16CANSO is an international trade organization that represents the interests of ANSPs worldwide. 

FAA—along with NAV CANADA, Airservices Australia, EUROCONTROL member states’ ANSPs, and 

other ANSPs—is a member of CANSO. 

17The composition of air traffic differs among countries and could account for the variation in the 

proportion of costs allocated to various services. For example, the United States has a significantly 

larger general aviation segment than other countries. 

18FAA currently charges overflight fees to operators of aircraft that fly in U.S.-controlled airspace but 

neither take off nor land in the United States. These fees are purely mileage based, with no weight 

factor. 

19An Australian flight information region is the entire airspace over continental Australia and other 

airspace allocated by ICAO to Australia. 

6 GAO-07-773R FAA Funding Comparison
takeoff weight of the aircraft. For example, Airservices Australia charges a unit rate 

of $3 for a Boeing 747-100 weighing 324 metric tons, while it charges a unit rate of 

$0.68 for a Gates Learjet 35A weighing about 8 metric tons.20 According to an official 

from NAV CANADA, which also uses a weight factor in determining en route charges, 

aircraft weight is an indicator of the value of service provided because the ability of 

an aircraft to carry passengers or cargo is related to its weight. According to 

EUROCONTROL, aircraft weight is included to reflect the relative contributing 

capacities, or payload, of different aircraft because larger and heavier planes carry 

more passengers and generate more revenues and can therefore pay relatively more 

for air navigation services than smaller and lighter planes flying the same distances. 

Including weight as a factor results in a larger share of the costs being recovered 

from heavier aircraft than if cost recovery is based on distance alone. Incorporating 

weight as a factor in determining charges is consistent with ICAO guidance. 

Table 1: FAA and Selected ANSP Cost Recovery Practices 

Uses an

aircraft 

weight 

factor 

for 

terminal 

charges 

Uses 

airport 

size as a 

factor 

for 

terminal 

charges 

Uses 

weight 

factor 

for en 

route 

charges 

Uses 

distance 

factor 

for en 

route 

charges 

Uses 

congestion 

pricing 

Levies a 

fuel tax for 

general and 

commercial 

aviationa

Charges

an 

annual 

fee for 

most

general 

aviation 

Charges

business 

jets user 

fees 

United States X X X X X 

Australia X X X X X X

Canada X X X X X

EUROCONTROL

member states 

X X X b X

Sources: FAA, Airservices Australia, NAV CANADA, EUROCONTROL. 

a European Union member states levy fuel taxes for private pleasure flying. b Some EUROCONTROL member states charge a flat rate to general aviation aircraft using visual flight rules. 

Under the administration’s proposal, FAA would recover its costs for terminal 

services much as our selected ANSPs do, basing its charges for commercial aircraft 

on airport size and aircraft weight. For example, the rate for landing at a large U.S. 

hub airport—one with at least 1 percent of total U.S. passenger enplanements—

would be somewhat higher than the rates at smaller airports that have FAA air traffic 

control towers. FAA would vary rates for aircraft weight because larger aircraft 

require greater separation, thus imposing greater terminal airspace costs, according 

to FAA officials. Similarly, EUROCONTROL member states and NAV CANADA take 

the maximum permissible takeoff weight of the aircraft into account when setting 

terminal service charges. Airservices Australia also bases terminal service charges 

on the weight of the aircraft but incorporates location-specific charges. For instance, 

Airservices Australia currently charges a rate of $4 per metric ton for an aircraft that 

weighs more than 5.7 metric tons to land in Sydney, but $3.50 if the same aircraft 

 20All financial amounts have been converted to U.S. dollars from each country’s local currency using 

the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s purchasing power parities for gross

domestic products. The tonnage is also shown in metric tons. 

7 GAO-07-773R FAA Funding Comparison
lands in Melbourne.21 Airservices Australia developed location-specific charges to 

ensure that funding for air traffic services would be decentralized and locally driven. 

NAV CANADA differs somewhat from some of its ANSP counterparts in that it does 

not vary its charges for terminal services by airport size. 

The administration’s proposal to charge a congestion fee for all aircraft takeoffs and 

landings at congested large-hub airports would also differ from the practices of the 

other ANSPs we reviewed. These ANSPs do not currently charge a congestion fee for 

all aircraft takeoffs and landings. However, beginning in March 2008, NAV CANADA 

will charge $8 a day for aircraft weighing less than 3 metric tons. Most of these are 

general aviation aircraft that depart from seven major international airports, 

including Vancouver, Toronto Pearson, and Montreal Trudeau international airports. 

According to a NAV CANADA official, this daily charge was created because there 

was a need for small general aviation aircraft to contribute more for services at these 

airports. The official also noted that NAV CANADA recognized that this daily charge 

might encourage some aircraft operators to use alternative airports, which would 

promote efficiency by helping minimize the incidence of larger aircraft having to wait 

for smaller aircraft to take off or land.22 Airservices Australia also charges small 

general aviation aircraft additional fees for services at six airports, including Sydney 

and Melbourne (see the following section for a description of Airservices Australia’s 

fees for general aviation users). Neither NAV CANADA nor Airservices Australia 

refers to the higher fees charged to general aviation for using specified airports as 

congestion charges. 

FAA Charges a Fuel Tax for General Aviation Users, while ANSPs Impose an Annual 

Fee

Under the administration’s proposal, FAA’s practices for recovering costs from 

general aviation users would differ from the practices of the other ANSPs we 

reviewed. Specifically, all general aviation operators would be charged a fuel tax of 

56.4 cents per gallon for air traffic control services, an increase of about 35 cents per 

gallon over the 21.8 cents fuel tax that general aviation operators currently pay into 

the trust fund to fund FAA. By contrast, the ANSPs we reviewed charge a fee that 

they collect annually from operators of small general aviation aircraft.23 For instance, 

NAV CANADA charges $58 for aircraft weighing up to 2 metric tons and $192 for 

some aircraft weighing over 2 but less than 3 metric tons. Thus, for example, small 

aircraft—such as a Cessna 172 that weighs about 1 metric ton—pay $58 annually for 

 21Airservices Australia’s rate for aircraft weighing more than 5.7 metric ton is as of June 2006. The rate

will be increasing in Melbourne beginning on July 1, 2007. 

22In some European countries, airports may charge higher landing fees. 

23Countries may charge a fuel tax for purposes other than air navigation services. For example, in 

Canada, the federal government charges an excise tax on aviation gasoline and jet fuel. The

government considers the revenue from those excise taxes on fuel as general tax revenue. 

8 GAO-07-773R FAA Funding Comparison
air navigation services.24 NAV CANADA adopted this annual fee method primarily 

because it is administratively simple. In addition, the modest fee level recognizes that 

a substantial percentage of small general aviation aircraft operate at airports with no 

air traffic control towers and that many small aircraft have relatively few flights per 

year. Airservices Australia charges operators of general aviation aircraft weighing 

less than 2.5 metric tons and flying 200 or fewer flights per year annually from about 

$44 to more than $928 depending on how many flights an operator makes and 

whether the operator also uses Airservices Australia’s en route services.25 This 

approach is similar to the administration’s proposal in that increased aircraft 

operation will result in a higher fee. However, unlike the administration’s proposal, 

the fee level is not set to recover a specified share of costs. In Canada and Australia, 

business jets and other aircraft that weigh more than 3 and 2.5 metric tons, 

respectively, are charged flight-specific user fees.26

Agency Comments 

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation for 

review and comment. The Federal Aviation Administration responded and generally 

agreed with the report’s contents, noting that its cost allocation and proposed cost 

recovery practices differ somewhat from those of the other ANSPs discussed in the 

report. FAA further noted that its cost allocation method is more detailed than the 

methods of the other ANSPs. In addition, FAA provided technical clarifications, 

which we incorporated into the report as appropriate. 

________________________________________ 

We are sending copies to the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of 

the Federal Aviation Administration, and other interested parties. In addition, the 

report will be available on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

 24Except for private aircraft not used for business purposes—that is, those used exclusively for 

recreational purposes--the fee for these aircraft is composed of a base rate of $58 regardless of the 

aircraft weight. This same fee also applies to aircraft between 2 and 3 metric tons restricted to aerial

agricultural spraying. 

25Airservices Australia’s annual charge is as of June 2006. Its annual charge will increase beginning on 

July 1, 2007. The annual charge also does not include flights into six specified airports, including

Sydney and Melbourne. 

26Some countries in Europe charge general aviation an additional approach fee if the aircraft is using 

an instrument landing system, regardless of aircraft weight.

9 GAO-07-773R FAA Funding Comparison
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Individuals 

making key contributions to this report are listed in enclosure II. 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Enclosures 

10 GAO-07-773R FAA Funding Comparison
Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology 

To compare the practices set forth in the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) 

cost allocation system and the administration’s reauthorization proposal with the 

practices of other countries’ air navigation service providers (ANSP)—Airservices 

Australia and NAV CANADA—we reviewed FAA’s cost allocation report and the 

administration’s reauthorization proposal and Airservices Australia’s and NAV 

CANADA’s cost allocation and cost recovery policies and documents, including their 

charging schemes, which were publicly available. We selected the latter to illustrate 

the similarities and differences in the way air traffic control costs can be allocated 

and recovered. In addition, Australia and Canada have relatively high levels of general 

aviation activity, which make Airservices Australia and NAV CANADA particularly 

useful for comparison to FAA, since the United States has the highest level of general 

aviation activity in the world. Significant inherent differences between the U.S. and 

other countries’ ANSPs worldwide cannot be accounted for in this study. We 

examined FAA's method of allocating costs in order to compare it with other ANSPs’ 

methods. Our selection of these ANSPs is a nonprobability sample, and our 

observations about them cannot be used to make inferences about the ANSPs we did 

not review. We also interviewed officials from FAA, NAV CANADA, the Civil Air 

Navigation Service Organization, EUROCONTROL (the European Organisation for 

the Safety of Air Navigation), and the International Air Transport Association. 

We converted the local currency of each country into U.S. dollars using the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s purchasing power 

parities for gross domestic products. We also examined the International Civil 

Aviation Organization’s guidance document, Policies on Charges for Airports and 

Air Navigation Services, and compared it with FAA’s cost allocation practices and 

the administration’s cost recovery proposal. In addition, we reviewed prior GAO 

reports and testimony and interviewed FAA officials. Finally, we reviewed FAA’s 

January 2007 cost allocation report and analyzed the administration’s proposed 

legislation, the Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 

2007. We conducted our review from April 2007 through June 2007 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

11 GAO-07-773R FAA Funding Comparison
Enclosure II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov 

Staff Acknowledgments 

In addition to the contact named above, Ed Laughlin, Jay Cherlow, Bess Eisenstadt, 

Jennifer Kim, Maureen Luna-Long, Maren McAvoy, and Jack Warner made key 

contributions to this report. 

(540149) 

12 GAO-07-773R FAA Funding Comparison
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

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. Government Accountability 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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER