GAO/RCED-00-285R Funds for Airport Noise-Related Projects

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-286087

September 27, 2000

The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

Subject: Aviation and the Environment: Federally Authorized Funding for NoiseRelated Projects

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) administers two programs that fund

airports’ capital development projects, including noise-related projects: the Airport

Improvement Program (AIP), which provides federal grants for airport capital

development, and the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program, which allows

airports, with the approval of FAA, to charge passengers a fee that also pays for

development projects. You asked us to (1) determine the total historical funding of

noise-related projects through both the AIP and the PFC programs, by FAA region,

and (2) compare the amount of AIP funds set aside for noise-related projects in the

AIP appropriation for fiscal year 2000 and the authorized amounts for the AIP for

fiscal years 2001 through 2003 with the projected costs of noise-related projects

planned in the current National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS).1

The AIP grant program is funded by appropriations from the Airport and Airway

Trust Fund. Two types of AIP grants are available to fund capital development at

airports in the national airport system: (1) apportionment grants, which are

distributed by a statutory formula to commercial service airports according to the

number of passengers served and the land weight of cargo moved, and to the states

according to a percentage of the total amount of the appropriated funds, with a

special supplement for the state of Alaska; and (2) discretionary grants (those

1

The more than 3,300 airports in the NPIAS, also referred to as the national airport system, fall into two

categories: (1) commercial service airports—those that enplane 2,500 or more passengers a year and

have scheduled airline service—and (2) general aviation airports—those that have at least 10 aircraft

based at their locations and fewer than 2,500 scheduled enplanements a year. Commercial service

airports consist of primary and other commercial service airports. Primary airports are categorized as

large hubs, medium hubs, small hubs, and nonhubs, based on enplanement levels. The NPIAS

database provides a compilation of planned development projects that are competing for federal

grants, including noise-related projects, at airports in the national system.
2 GAO/RCED-00-285R Funds for Airport Noise-Related Projects

amounts generally remaining after apportionment funds are allocated) for which any

airport in the national airport system may apply. Some discretionary funds are “set

aside” for specific types of projects, such as noise-related projects, or for specific

types of airports. To be eligible for AIP grants, an airport must be included in the

NPIAS, which incorporates a substantial database of individual airports’ capital

development projects, including noise-related projects.

To be eligible for funding with AIP noise set-aside funds, projects must generally be

part of an airport’s FAA-approved noise compatibility program. Participation in the

noise compatibility program is voluntary and is carried out in accordance with the

provisions of 14 C.F.R. part 150. However, projects at schools and hospitals in the

vicinity of an airport may be funded with AIP noise set-aside funds even though an

airport does not have an FAA-approved noise compatibility program.

Airports receiving AIP grants must pay a matching share of the cost of a project. For

noise-related projects, large airports must pay 20 percent of the cost of a project in

matching funds while all other airports must pay 10 percent. The term “large” airport

refers to large and medium hub airports.

The PFC program is a voluntary program that allows airports to charge passengers a

fee that remains with the airport and is used to pay for capital development projects,

including noise-related projects. Airports must obtain FAA’s approval, however, to

collect the fee and to apply the funds to specific projects. FAA administers both

programs through its nine regional offices. 2

Although we present some data by FAA region, geographic location is not a factor in

determining which noise-related projects are funded through AIP grants or PFC

collections. AIP apportionment funds are awarded to a commercial service airport

based on the airport’s total number of enplanements and the land weight of cargo

moved. For AIP discretionary grants, FAA uses a priority ranking system, which

considers factors such as a project’s purpose and the airport’s size, to comparatively

assess eligible projects. Also, under the PFC program, airports determine which

projects they want to fund with the fees and apply to FAA for approval to use the fees

on those projects.

In summary, we found the following:

• Historical AIP funding of noise-related projects, by FAA region: From

fiscal year 1982, the first year of funding under AIP, through fiscal year 1999, AIP

provided about $2.75 billion to airports for noise-related projects. As figure 1

shows, the airports in FAA’s Southern Region collectively were awarded the

2

FAA’s nine regional offices serve the following states: Alaskan Region: Alaska; Central Region:

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska; Eastern Region: Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia; Great Lakes Region: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,

Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; New England Region: Connecticut,

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Northwest Mountain Region:

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming; Southern Region: Alabama,

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee; Southwest

Region: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; and Western-Pacific Region:

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada.
3 GAO/RCED-00-285R Funds for Airport Noise-Related Projects

highest total amount—$709 million, or nearly 26 percent—of the AIP grants for

noise-related projects.3The airports in FAA’s Western-Pacific Region collectively

were awarded the second highest amount—$538 million, or nearly 20 percent—

while the airports in FAA’s Alaskan Region, which unlike other regions includes

only one state, were awarded the lowest amount—$5 million, or 0.2 percent.4

• Historical PFC funding of noise-related projects, by FAA region: For fiscal

years 1992, when FAA began approving PFC collections, through 1999, FAA

approved about $1.64 billion in PFC collections for noise-related projects. As

figure 1 shows, airports in FAA’s Great Lakes Region and Western-Pacific Region

dominated the use of PFC funds for noise-related projects by receiving approval

for nearly 77 percent of the PFC collections that FAA approved for such projects.5

The remaining approved collections were spread across airports in FAA’s other

regions.

Figure 1: Map of FAA’s Regions With Total AIP Funding of Noise-Related Projects and Total Approved

PFC Collections for Noise-Related Projects

3

Enc. I provides detailed data on the funding distribution by FAA region.

4

Under the statutory formula for the application of AIP funds, the state of Alaska is assured a certain

portion of AIP funds each year for development projects.

5

Enc. I provides detailed data on the funding distribution by FAA region.
4 GAO/RCED-00-285R Funds for Airport Noise-Related Projects

• Comparison of current and future AIP noise set-aside funds with planned

noise-related projects in the NPIAS: In the Wendell H. Ford Aviation

Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, the Congress set aside 34 percent

of the AIP discretionary funds specifically for noise-related projects. Under that

formula, AIP provided about $207 million in fiscal year 2000 appropriations, and—

based on authorizations—could provide about $327 million in fiscal year 2001,

$344 million in fiscal year 2002, and $361 million in fiscal year 2003 for noiserelated projects.

We compared appropriations for fiscal year 2000 and authorizations for fiscal

years 2001 through 2003 with the projected costs of noise-related projects in the

current 5-year NPIAS (fiscal years 2000 through 2004). The projected costs were

based on FAA’s estimates of the year the project would receive AIP funding and

the expected start date of the projects. Because the NPIAS contains total project

costs, we deducted the amount that airports would be required to pay as their

matching-share obligations before we compared available AIP noise-set aside

funds with project costs.

As shown in table 1, we found that the projected costs of planned projects

exceeded the available AIP noise set-aside funds for fiscal year 2000 by nearly

$143 million, but it is unknown how these amounts compare for fiscal years 2001

through 2003. What portion, if any, of the $143 million in unfunded projects for

fiscal year 2000 might be rescheduled for funding, or when, could not be

determined. As a result, we could not compute the difference between available

funding and planned project costs for fiscal years 2001 through 2003. FAA’s

planning guidelines state that when planned projects remain unfunded in any

given year because of limited AIP funds, those projects must be reviewed again

and either placed in the NPIAS as warranting future funding or deleted from the

NPIAS database. Because FAA does not track historically what happens to

unfunded projects, FAA was not able to provide data on how unfunded planned

projects had been handled in the past. However, according to FAA officials,

projects scheduled for funding in one year that remain unfunded at the end of that

fiscal year will be scheduled for funding in the following year. Whether an overall

surplus or shortage actually occurs will depend on the amount appropriated for

AIP, the costs and timing of rescheduled projects, and the extent to which any

new projects are added to the NPIAS.6

6

A distribution of the total costs of planned noise-related projects in the current NPIAS (fiscal years

2000 through 2004), by FAA region, appears in enc. II.
5 GAO/RCED-00-285R Funds for Airport Noise-Related Projects

Table 1: Comparison of the AIP Noise Set-Aside With the Cost of Planned Noise-Related Projects in the

NPIAS, Fiscal Years 2000 Through 2003

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year

2000 2001 2002 2003

AIP noise set-aside funds $206,719a$326,798b$344,111b$361,176b

Cost of noise projects in the NPIASc—minus matching

sharesd

349,417 297,036e293,329e150,443e

Difference (142,698) fff

a

Amount appropriated.

b

These are FAA’s estimates for the noise set-aside amounts based only on AIP authorization levels. The actual

amount of the noise set-aside in any given year will be affected by how much, if any, AIP apportionment funds

for that year are unused and thus carried over to the next year. Such apportionment carryover amounts are

added to discretionary funds in the year unused, but subtracted from discretionary funds for the following year.

According to FAA, the apportionment carryover amount has ranged in the past generally between $60 million to

$150 million.

c

Planned costs are based on FAA’s estimates of the year the project will receive AIP funding and the expected

start date of the project. Although data are from the 5-year NPIAS for fiscal years 2000 through 2004, we

compared only 4 years of data because AIP appropriation and/or authorization data are available only through

fiscal year 2003.

d

Airports receiving AIP grants must pay a matching share of the cost of a project. For noise-related projects,

large and medium hub airports pay 20 percent of the cost of a project in matching funds, and all other airports

pay 10 percent.

e

These costs are subject to change. The NPIAS is updated each year, and according to FAA officials, amounts

unfunded will be scheduled for funding in the following fiscal year.

f

The difference cannot be computed because it depends on how much of the $142,698,000 in unfunded NPIAS

noise projects may be carried over for future funding, and when.

Source: GAO compilation of FAA data.

The NPIAS is updated each year, and new projects, as well as airports, may be

added. The current 5-year NPIAS project database was prepared at a time when

FAA limited the amount of AIP noise set-aside funds that an individual airport

could receive in a single year because the demand for those funds generally

exceeded the amount available. Airports with FAA-approved noise compatibility

programs were generally not allowed to receive more than $5 million each in a

single year for noise-related projects. Airports were also generally not allowed to

receive more than $3 million each in a single year for projects at schools and

hospitals in the vicinity of the airport.

In addition, FAA officials stated that the demand for noise set-aside funds is likely

to increase for two reasons. First, FAA approves about 15 to 20 new or revised

noise compatibility programs a year, thus generating new projects eligible for

noise set-aside funding. Second, airports have shown increasing interest in

funding noise mitigation projects for residents who live in geographic areas

beyond those that FAA has defined as incompatible with airport noise. Such

areas have not generally benefited from noise mitigation programs because of the

limited noise set-aside funds.7

7

Currently, FAA’s funding for noise relief is focused on geographic areas exposed to 65 decibels of

noise or higher as measured by the Day-Night Sound Level method, which measures exposure from

cumulative events over time.
6 GAO/RCED-00-285R Funds for Airport Noise-Related Projects

Scope and Methodology

To determine the distribution of AIP and PFC funding for noise-related projects by

FAA region, we obtained AIP and PFC historical data from FAA. We did not

independently review the validity of the AIP program database, but it is the only

database for that information, and we have used data from it extensively during

several reviews of various aspects of the grant program. In 1999, we independently

validated the PFC project database and found it to be very reliable (a 0.3-percent

error rate). We sorted and totaled the AIP and PFC data by FAA region.

To compare the amounts appropriated and authorized for the AIP noise set-aside

with the costs of noise-related projects in the current NPIAS, we obtained from FAA

(1) the actual AIP noise set-aside amounts for fiscal year 2000 and estimates of the

AIP noise set-aside for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 based on the authorized

amounts, and (2) data on the noise-related projects in the 5-year NPIAS for fiscal

years 2000 through 2004. We calculated the matching-share costs of airports for AIPfunded noise-related projects and deleted those costs from NPIAS project costs in

order to compare the AIP share of project costs with the AIP noise set-aside funding

data. We compared the planned project costs based on FAA’s estimates of the year

the projects would receive AIP funding and the expected start date of the projects.

Agency Comments

We provided the Department of Transportation with a copy of the draft report for its

review and comment. The Department had no objections to the information

presented in the draft report.

-----

We performed our work from July 2000 through September 2000 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan

no further distribution of this report until 5 days after the date of this letter. Please

contact me or Belva Martin at (202) 512-2834 if you have any questions. In addition,

Beverly Ann Bendekgey, Julian L. King, and John A. Thomson, Jr. made key

contributions to this report.

Sincerely yours,

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.

Associate Director, Transportation

Issues
7 GAO/RCED-00-285R Funds for Airport Noise-Related Projects

Enclosure I

AIP and PFC Funding for Noise-Related Projects by FAA Region

Tables 2 and 3 identify total Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and total Passenger

Facility Charge (PFC) program funding for noise-related projects, since the inception

of each program, grouped by airports in each of the Federal Aviation Administration’s

(FAA) regions.

Table 2: AIP Funding of Noise-Related Projects for Fiscal Years 1982 Through

1999, by FAA Region

FAA region Amount Percentage

Alaskan $5,027,285 0.2

Central 185,081,464 6.7

Eastern 213,690,454 7.8

Great Lakes 461,913,047 16.8

New England 144,230,863 5.2

Northwest Mountain 217,428,766 7.9

Southern 709,137,391 25.8

Southwest 272,910,721 9.9

Western-Pacific 538,140,679 19.6

Total $2,747,560,670 99.9

Note: The percentages do not total 100 because of rounding.

Source: GAO compilation of FAA data.

Table 3: Approved PFC Collections for Noise-Related Projects for Fiscal Years

1992 Through 1999, by FAA Region

FAA region Amount Percentage

Alaskan $0 0.0

Central 94,741,850 5.8

Eastern 1,452,449 0.1

Great Lakes 645,288,204 39.4

New England 28,390,000 1.7

Northwest Mountain 119,364,538 7.3

Southern 129,175,065 7.9

Southwest 9,832,867 0.6

Western-Pacific 608,668,239 37.2

Total $1,636,913,212 100.0

Source: GAO compilation of FAA data. FAA data are as of October 31, 1999.
8 GAO/RCED-00-285R Funds for Airport Noise-Related Projects

Enclosure II

Noise-Related Projects Included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport

Systems for Fiscal Years 2000 Through 2004, by FAA Region

The total projected costs of noise-related projects that are part of the 5-year National

Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (fiscal years 2000 through 2004) by FAA region

appear in table 4. As the table shows, the largest share of costs for planned

projects—$521 million, or nearly 35 percent of total costs—originates from airports

in FAA’s Great Lakes Region, while the second largest share—$354 million, or nearly

24 percent—originates from airports in FAA’s Southern Region. The smallest share—

$3.8 million, or 0.3 percent—originates from airports in FAA’s Alaskan Region.8

Table 4: Noise-Related Projects in NPIAS for Fiscal Years 2000 Through 2004,

by FAA Region

FAA region Amount Percentage

Alaskan $3,822,222 0.3

Central 87,935,000 5.9

Eastern 53,934,089 3.6

Great Lakes 521,141,980 34.7

New England 61,449,227 4.1

Northwest Mountain 66,794,446 4.4

Southern 354,069,333 23.6

Southwest 106,316,111 7.1

Western-Pacific 247,067,788 16.4

Total $1,502,530,197 100.1

Note: The percentages do not total 100 because of rounding.

Source: GAO compilation of FAA data.

(348250)

8

Unlike other FAA regions, the Alaskan Region consists of only one state and is assured a certain

portion of AIP funds each year for development projects.
Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an e-mail message

with “info” in the body to

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

in Federal Programs

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: 1-800-424-5454