[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45007-45010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22494]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


Notice of Revision to Airport Capital Improvement Plan

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of revision to Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) 
National Priority System.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On May 22, 1996, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
issued a Notice requesting comments regarding the National Priority 
System (NPS) (61 Federal Register 25731). The NPS is used to assist in 
the development of the Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) as well 
as provide a basis for the

[[Page 45008]]

distribution of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) monies. Provided 
herein is a summary of the comments received and FAA responses. Based 
on these comments and additional direction from the Congress contained 
in the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-264), 
the FAA has modified its NPS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stan Lou, Manager, Programming 
Branch, APP-520, (202) 267-8809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to the Federal Register notice 
of May 22, 1996, the FAA received forty-eight letters containing 
comments. Eighteen letters were received from State organizations; nine 
letters were received from trade organizations; fifteen were received 
from airports; and six were received from other respondents such as 
airport consultants.
    The FAA has divided these comments into the following categories 
for evaluation: general comments, formula modifications, and 
consideration of other factors. A discussion of each category is 
provided below. FAA's response to all three categories follows this 
section.
    The summary of comments is intended to represent the divergence or 
correspondence of industry views. It is not intended as an exhaustive 
restatement of comments received. All comments received were considered 
by the FAA, even if not specifically identified in this summary.

Background

    Historically, the demand for discretionary funds has exceeded the 
amount available for distribution. As a result, a priority system was 
developed primarily to standardize evaluation of airport development 
projects. The priority system is a process that supports agency goals 
and objectives by ensuring that the highest priority development work 
is being completed nationwide. It uses a formula which generates a 
numeric value (national priority rating, NPR) for each project item 
taking into account project type and airport size. Under this system, 
project types are ranked by their purpose; projects ensuring airport 
safety and security are ranked as the most important priorities, 
followed by maintaining current infrastructure development, mitigating 
noise and other environmental impacts, meeting standards, and 
increasing system capacity. This system is designed to facilitate 
routine prioritization for all proposed AIP projects, and most AIP 
discretionary monies are distributed based on these numeric values. 
While the FAA's grant allocation process provides sufficient 
flexibility to consider other factors in addition to a project's 
priority rating, the use of these other factors has not been 
formalized.

General Comments

    The three comments of a general nature suggested using the priority 
system to develop a National Plan of airport development, to develop a 
structured project selection process under AIP, and to provide more 
flexibility for individual airport innovation.

FAA Should Modify NPS Formula

    Sixty-eight separate comments addressed some aspect of the formula 
used in rating projects under the NPS. The largest number of these 
comments objected to the higher weight that the NPS gives large and 
medium hub airports. Twenty-eight respondents indicated that the NPS 
formula favors larger airports to the detriment of smaller airports. In 
many of the comments, the argument was made that large airports are 
more likely to have access to non-federal sources of revenue to fund 
airport development and should not be granted an advantage over smaller 
airports which are more dependent on federal aid to fund airport 
development. The respondents included fifteen State organizations, 
three trade organizations, seven individual airports, and three others.
    The second largest number of comments addressed the actual formula, 
discussing either the points assigned to each project category or the 
number and type of project categories. Twenty-four respondents either 
suggested some adjustment to points assigned a category or suggested 
additional categories.
    A total of eight comments suggested that the categories used in the 
formula need to be better defined so that the aviation industry has an 
improved understanding of how the FAA ranks the importance of projects. 
Another six comments recommended that the use of the point totals 
should be reversed so that the FAA's highest priorities are reflected 
in highest scores (rather than the lowest score representing the 
highest priority).
    Finally, two comments addressed the use of airport size as a factor 
for selection of noise projects. The respondents argued that airport 
size can be irrelevant to exposure to noise, e.g., two structures in 
the 75 DNL have similar noise exposure whether the airports are large 
hub airports or small hub airports.

FAA Should Consider Other Factors in AIP Project Selection

    Twenty-nine comments supported use of the NPS, but in conjunction 
with input from FAA Regional Offices and Airports District Offices and 
from airport sponsors at time of AIP allocation decisions. A common 
objection was that the FAA's NPS only uses a single value to select 
projects and does not provide a formalized ability to account for 
factors both quantitative and qualitative such as local priorities, 
financial resources and risk assessments when selecting projects for 
Federal funding.
    Twenty comments requested that local priorities or state priorities 
be considered in AIP project selection. Some suggested including the 
economic benefit of the airport to its community. Seven comments 
suggested assigning identical numeric priorities to all phases of a 
project. Under the existing system, for example, land acquisition 
required to construct a runway extension may have a lower priority than 
the construction of the runway extension itself, causing delays in the 
baseline project. Commenters suggested that all work elements contain 
the same priority as the baseline project.
    Finally, two comments addressed issues such as prior commitments in 
project selection. Five comments addressed the role of cost factors in 
project selection. Two comments suggested consideration of future 
airport growth in project selection. Seven comments addressed use of 
Pavement Condition Index in pavement rehabilitation projects. Six 
comments suggested considering ``economy of scale,'' whereby other 
development at the same airport may be raised in priority to take 
advantage of a contracting opportunity at that airport.
    FAA Response: We agree that the formulation of a National Plan is 
essential to the safe and efficient operation of the National Airspace 
System (NAS). The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), 
as required by Section 47103 of Title 49 of United States Code (USC), 
is the FAA's document that provides long and short range cost estimates 
of AIP eligible projects associated with establishing a system of 
airports adequate to meet the needs of the NAS. The NPS has been 
created to prioritize these needs in accordance with the FAA's goals 
and objectives and rank them accordingly.
    One element within the NPS is the NPR. The NPR has been used 
successfully as a screening tool to identify projects of sufficient 
national interest to warrant investment of

[[Page 45009]]

Federal funds. The priority system has taken on greater importance as 
AIP appropriations have decreased and as the FAA has been required to 
adopt performance measures and investment criteria to support grant 
allocation decisions.
    The FAA realizes that a numerical rating alone cannot account for 
all quantitative and qualitative factors that may effect the importance 
of an individual airport development project. Factors such as benefit-
cost analysis, impact on safety, and system performance should be 
considered when selecting projects for Federal funding. In addition, 
section 47115(d) of Title 49 USC, requires consideration of airport 
improvement priorities of the States, and regional offices of the 
Administration, to the extent such priorities are not in conflict with 
the effect the project will have on the overall national air 
transportation system capacity and the project benefit and cost.
    The NPR serves as an initial screen for the majority of projects 
selected; and, on a more limited basis, the NPR is used in tandem with 
other factors. These other factors, in addition to the list provided in 
the previous paragraph, include environmental issues, regional, state 
and metropolitan system plans, airport growth, and market forces, which 
are considered in AIP project selection today. However, the current 
system does not have a formal process to account for these factors in 
project selection. As a result, the FAA will develop a process to serve 
as a secondary screen to the NPR and account for these other factors.
    Although there is an element of the airport size in the priority 
calculations, the net effect of this element has been minimal in 
practice. This is due in part to discretionary set-asides and specific 
apportionments contained in the statutory distribution of AIP funds. 
Airport size will continue to be considered along with other factors 
for project selection. However, the introduction of the new priority 
calculation formula will permit a greater reliance on the actual 
project type as opposed to the airport type.
    The FAA agrees that the current system has created confusion 
concerning the formula and how it is used. As a result, the FAA has 
included a definition section in this Notice for further clarification. 
Further, the FAA agrees that the point totals should be reversed for 
ease of application. Henceforth, under the revised system, the higher 
the point rating, the higher priority assigned to a project.
    The FAA also agrees that all work items associated with a major 
airport improvement be treated as having one priority value. This 
policy is reflected in Appendix I.
    In response to the comments that the NPS and the categories used in 
the National Priority Calculation should be better defined, we offer 
the following:
    The ACIP is a product which helps identify, plan, fund, and execute 
airport development in such a way as to ensure that the highest and 
most critical needs are met with limited funding. It communicates needs 
and funding plans for airport sponsors, states, FAA, and others who 
have a stake in the development of the NAS.
    The NPS is a tool by which FAA evaluates projects, contained in the 
ACIP, for AIP funding. NPS uses many factors: national plans; goals and 
objectives; anticipated AIP funding levels; a numerical project rating; 
and other regional and/or local factors as described in this notice.
    In order to implement these concepts, a standard database has been 
established. This database (NPIAS-CIP) provides a common data structure 
to compile and analyze airport development needs. It is used by FAA to 
help determine the distribution of AIP discretionary funds in 
compliance with Title 49 USC.
    An element of the NPS is the determination of objective priority 
ratings for airport projects. A numerical priority calculation ranks 
work items in accordance with agency goals and objectives. Priority 
numbers are calculated based on the size and type of airport (service 
level) and the type of project (as described by the NPIAS-CIP project 
codes). The revised NPS calculation provides a standard means to sort 
airport needs from highest to lowest priority, evaluates funding plans 
(the ACIP) versus the highest priority needs, improves upon the 
existing AIP priority system, and aids in project selection for 
discretionary funding.
    The NPS calculation and project selection process are outlined in 
Appendix I.
    The FAA appreciates the time and effort of the respondents. After 
carefully considering these comments and after evaluation of the 
additional statutory direction contained in Public Law 104-264, the FAA 
hereby issues the following Policy.
    This policy is issued pursuant to the authority of Title 49, United 
States Code.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 19, 1997.
Ellis A. Ohnstad,
Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division.

Appendix I

Policy/Procedure

    a. Internal guidance will be published and revised as needed to 
carry out the intent of this notice. This guidance will be shared 
with states, sponsors and others as determined by each Regional 
Office.
    b. It is the intent of this notice that all work items 
associated with major airport improvements should be treated as one 
priority value under the NPS, e.g., lighting and marking with runway 
reconstruction; land acquisition with obstruction removal. In these 
instances, ACIP program submittals should provide a complete 
schedule of projects for the entire major airport improvement.
    c. Sound and consistent ACIP concepts must be employed by FAA, 
states, and sponsors for effective project selection.
    d. The FAA Headquarters Office of Airport Planning and 
Programming will publish standard project descriptions and project 
coding requirements to ensure consistency nationally.
    e. Use of passenger, cargo, and state area population 
entitlement funds is encouraged on high priority NPS projects. Final 
determination of actual discretionary funds availability may be 
based on entitlement usage as well as other factors.
    f. Project justification for projects not included in the 
priority level or the listing of national program of candidate 
projects must be based on additional qualitative evaluation to be 
formalized prior to fiscal year 1999. Larger projects, requesting $5 
million or more in discretionary funds, will require more in depth 
analysis both at the regional and national level, including benefit-
cost analysis.
    g. The FAA Headquarters Office of Airport Planning and 
Programming will publish recommended project evaluation analysis 
criteria which may be used for project selection and project 
justifications. This analysis will be consistent with Title 49 USC, 
related policy, and national FAA goals and objectives.

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Project Selection Process

    a. Regional Offices initiate the ACIP process through 
coordination and input from planning studies, sponsors, states, the 
NPIAS, national planning and other sources. An ACIP program of 
development for the upcoming fiscal year and beyond is submitted 
annually to FAA Headquarters Office of Airport Planning and 
Programming.
    b. FAA Office of Airport Planning and Programming will apply 
numerical priority ratings to the ACIP program using an anticipated 
AIP funding level. The numerical priority ratings will serve as an 
initial screen to produce a listing of projects.
    c. The projects that have successfully competed using the 
numerical ratings will be identified to the FAA Regional Offices.

[[Page 45010]]

Regional Offices, after review, may appeal to the FAA Office of 
Planning and Programming for any projects that have not qualified 
for further consideration. Acceptable projects plus those that rate 
above the priority level make up the national program of candidate 
projects.
    d. After any limitation on contract authority is enacted through 
an appropriation act, the FAA Headquarters will advise FAA Regional 
Offices of actual funds availability based upon the appropriations 
act's enactment, ACIP programs, and other factors.
    e. FAA will then make final selection of projects from the 
listing of candidate projects identified in step c., above, based on 
qualitative factors such as benefit-cost analysis, risk assessment, 
environmental issues, regional priorities, state and metropolitan 
system plans, airport growth, and market forces.
    f. FAA Headquarters will evaluate national performance of the 
completed development program and make adjustments to the NPS as 
needed to ensure attainment of national goals and objectives. All 
adjustments to the NPS will be done in accordance with this Notice.

National Priority Rating

    The following general equation was developed:

Priority Rating = (k5*P)*[k1*APT)+(k2*P)+(k3*C)+(k4*T)]

Where:
    k1 = 1.00
    k2 = 1.40
    k3 = 1.00
    k4 = 1.20
    k5 = 0.25
    P = Purpose
    C = Component
    T = Type
    APT = Airport

    Various coefficients were evaluated to generate a NPR consistent 
with FAA objectives. This resulted in the following equation

Priority Rating=.25P*(APT+1.4P+C+1.2T)

    The purpose code is used twice within the equation to signify 
added importance. The airport code is assigned a range of 2 to 5 to 
provide sufficient variability to the size of the airport; whereas, 
each of the other factors range from 0 to 10. These factors are 
assigned point values (pts) consistent with FAA goals and 
objectives.

APT=Airport Code

Primary Commercial Service Airports
    Large and Medium Hub=5 pts
    Small and Non Hub=4 pts

Non Primary Commercial Service, Reliever, and General Aviation 
Airports
Based Aircraft or Itinerant Operations
    100 or 50,000=5 pts
    50 or 20,000=4 pts
    20 or 8,000=3 pts
    <20 and <8,000=2 pts

P=Purpose Points (0 to 10 pts). (Purpose code definitions follow the 
listing of all codes)

CA=Capacity=7 pts
EN=Environment=8 pts
OT=Other=4 pts
PL=Planning=8 pts
RE=Reconstruction/Rehabilitate=8 pts
SA=Safety/Security=10 pts
SP=Statutory Emphasis Programs=9 pts
ST=Standards=6 pts

C=Component Points (0 to 10 pts). (Some codes are defined for 
clarification)

AP=Apron=5 pts
BD=Building=3 pts
EQ=Equipment=8 pts
FI=Financing (refers to financing costs associated with bond 
retirement)=0 pts
GT=Ground Transportation (refers to people movers and rail/road 
access)=4 pts
HE=Helipad=9 pts
HO=Homes (refers to noise mitigation measures for residences)=7 pts
LA=Land=7 pts
NA=New Airport=4 pts
OT=Other (refers to varying project elements; ie. fuel farms, 
airport drainage, etc.)=7 pts
PB=Public Bldg (refers to noise mitigation measures for public 
buildings)=7 pts
PL=Planning=7 pts
RW=Runway=10 pts
SB=Seaplane=9 pts
TE=Terminal=1 pt
TW=Taxiway=8 pts
VT=Vertiport=4 pts

T=Type Points (0 to 10 pts)

60=Outside 65 DNL=0 pts
65=65-69 DNL=4 pts
70=70-74 DNL=7 pts
75=Inside 75 DNL=10 pts
AC=Access to Airport=7 pts
AD=Administration Costs=0 pts
AQ=Acquire Airport=5 pts
BO=Bond Retirement=0 pts
CO=Construction=10 pts
DI=De-Icing Facility=6 pts
DV=Development Land=6 pts
EX=Extension/Expansion=6 pts
FF=Fuel Farm Development=2 pts
FR=Runway Friction=9 pts
IM=Improvements to Existing Infrastructure=8 pts
IN=Instrument Approach Aid=7 pts
LI=Lighting=8 pts
MA=Master Planning=9 pts
ME=Metropolitan Planning=7 pts
MS=Miscellaneous=5 pts
MT=Environmental Mitigation=6 pts
NO=Noise Plan/Suppression=7 pts
OB=Obstruction Removal=10pts
PA=Automobile Parking=1pt
PM=People Mover=3pts
RF=Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) Vehicle=10pts
RL=Rail=3pts
SE=Security=6pts
SF=Runway Safety Area=8pts
SG=Runway/Taxiway Signs=9pts
SN=Snow Removal Equipment=9pts
SR=Sensors=8pts
ST=State Planning=8pts
SV=Airport Service Road=6pts
SF=Safety Zone (RPZ)=8pts
VI=Visual Approach Aid=8pts
VT=Construct V/Tol RW/Vert Plan=2pts
WX=Weather Reporting Equipment=8pts

    Applying the above relationship produces a numerical value 
between 0 and 100 depending upon the associated values for APT, P, C 
and T. In general, projects with higher numerical values are most 
consistent with national goals. It is anticipated that periodically 
the individual point values and equation coefficients may be 
adjusted slightly to reflect modified system needs and priorities 
and experience gained in using the revised NPS.

Purpose Category Definitions

Safety/Security

    Definition: This category includes items required by regulation 
in 14 CFR Part 107, 14 CFR part 139 or the Airport Certification 
Manual and those safety/security items that cannot be accommodated 
by any other operational procedures to maintain an equivalent level 
of safety/security. Also included is airport hazard removal/marking.

Statutory Emphasis Programs

    Definition: This category includes items included in Title 49 
USC, such as, runway grooving, friction treatment, and distance-to-
go signs on all primary and secondary runways at commercial service 
airports; vertical visual guidance systems on all primary runways; 
and runway lighting, taxiway lighting, sign systems, and marking for 
all commercial service airports.

Reconstruction/Rehabilitate

    Definition: This category is defined as development required to 
preserve, repair, or restore the functional integrity of eligible 
airport infrastructure.

Environment

    Definition: This category includes actions necessary to carry 
out the statutes set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) and 14 CFR part 150. Such actions are defined within 
Environmental Assessments (EA), Environmental Impact Statements 
(EIS), and/or Noise Compatibility Programs (NCP).

Planning

    Definition: This category includes the preliminary studies 
needed to define and prioritize specific airport needs. Items such 
as airport system and master planning are included in this category.

Capacity

    Definition: This category includes development required to 
increase system capacity by increasing the airport's capacity beyond 
its present designed activity level. In this case, system capacity 
is defined as increasing capacity at individual airports 
experiencing or expecting to experience 20,000 hours or more of 
delay.

Standards

    Definition: Development to bring existing airports up to 
recommended FAA design standards based on the current design 
category.

Other

    Definition: This category includes development items other than 
those necessary to safely operate an airport or for improvement of 
airside capacity. Items such as people movers, rail systems, access 
roads, parking lots, fuel farms, and training systems are included 
in this category.
[FR Doc. 97-22494 Filed 8-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M