Order Code IB10026
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Airport Improvement
Program
Updated February 7, 2003
Robert S. Kirk
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Founding Legislation
Airport and Airway Development and Revenue Acts of 1970 (P.L. 91-258)
Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248)
Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
The Airport and Airway Trust Fund
AIP Funding
The Impact of FAIR21 on AIP
AIP Funding Distribution
Formula and Discretionary Funds
The Federal Share of AIP Matching Funds
Distribution of AIP Grants by Airport Size
Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs)
AIP Funding of Airport Security
Congressional Issues
The PFC Cap
Budgetary Treatment of the Aviation Trust Fund
Airport Capital Needs Debate
Noise Mitigation
Place Naming
Aviation Security Legislation and AIP
AIP Funding of Contract Towers: the Small Airport Safety, Security and Air Service
Improvement Act (H.R. 1979; H.Rept. 107-496)
LEGISLATION
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10026
02-07-03
Airport Improvement Program
SUMMARY
The Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
eliminating or raising the ceiling while airlines
(49 U.S.C. Chapter 471) has provided federal
had argued for no change.
grants for airport development and planning
since the passage of the Airport and Airway
The House version of the 2000 reauthor-
Improvement Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248). AIP
ization bill (H.R. 1000) would have taken the
funding is usually spent on projects that sup-
Aviation Trust Fund off-budget to encourage
port aircraft operations including runways,
the spending of trust fund revenues and unex-
taxiways, aprons, noise abatement, land pur-
pended balances for aviation purposes. The
chase, and safety, emergency or snow removal
off-budget proposal never emerged from
equipment. Funds obligated for the AIP are
conference. Instead of taking the trust fund
drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust
off-budget, FAIR21 includes “point of order”
Fund, which is supported by user fees and fuel
provisions that, if utilized, could assure that
taxes.
all trust fund receipts and interest are spent
annually and increases the likelihood that AIP
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
will be fully funded at the authorized level.
on New York and Washington led to passage
To date, this has been the case: AIP has
of the Aviation and Transportation Security
received the fully authorized amounts of $3.2
Act (ATSA) (P.L. 107-71). ATSA broadened
billion and $3.3 billion for FY2001 and
the range of security activities and projects
FY2002, respectively, and President Bush’s
that are eligible for AIP grants.
FY2003 budget request proposes to fully fund
AIP at $3.4 billion. The appropriations com-
On April 5, 2000 President Clinton
mittees of both the Senate (S. 2808) and the
signed the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Invest-
House (H.R. 5559) also recommended $3.4
ment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
billion for FY2003. The Senate version
(FAIR21; P.L. 106-181). Two years in the
became part of H.J.Res. 2, the FY2003 Omni-
making, this $40 billion multi-year Federal
bus Appropriation Act, which is now in
Aviation Administration(FAA) reauthorizat-
Conference. Since October 1, 2002 the AIP
ion bill included AIP authorizations of $3.2
has been operating under a series of continu-
billion for FY2001, $3.3 billion for FY2002,
ing resolutions.
and $3.4 billion for FY2003. The Act also
increased the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC)
Noise mitigation spending is closely
ceiling to $4.50 per boarding passenger.
linked to airport capacity policy because
airport noise levels are a major factor in local
Raising the ceiling on the PFC had been
resistance to airport improvement projects.
one of the most contentious policy issues
FAIR21 increased the set aside for noise
related to AIP. The PFC is essentially a local
mitigation from 31% to 34% of AIP discre-
tax on each boarding passenger that is levied
tionary funds.
by an airport with federal approval. The
ceiling had been set at $3 since 1990. During
the reauthorization airports had supported
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10026
02-07-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The September 11, 2001 hijacking of four airliners from three airports and the enormous
loss of life from their use as weapons has had an impact on the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP). In the aftermath of the attack, many airports are seeking to use AIP funds
for airport security improvements. Congress responded to the attacks by passing the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 (ATSA)(P.L. 107-38). ATSA includes
provisions that broaden AIP eligibility to cover airport security costs incurred because of
FAA mandated security changes imposed in response to the September 11 attacks.
On February 4, 2002, President Bush submitted his FY2003 budget request to Congress,
requesting $3.4 billion for AIP. On July 26, 2002 the Senate Committee on Appropriations
also recommended $3.4 billion (S. 2808; S.Rept. 107-224), as did the House Committee on
Appropriations on October 7, 2002 (H.R. 5559; H.Rept. 107-722). Because a FY2003
transportation appropriations bill has not become law, the AIP has been operating, since
October 1, 2002, at the FY2002 spending level, under a series of continuing resolutions. The
Senate-passed H.J.Res. 2, included the text of the Senate-reported bill on January 23, 2003.
The House disagreed to Senate-passed bill and agreed to conference. The main conference
issue is resolution of the differences in the lists of airports “place named” in the House and
Senate reports.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides federal grants to airports for airport
development and planning. AIP funding is usually limited to improvements related to
aircraft operations, typically for planning and construction of projects such as; runways,
taxiways, aprons, noise abatement, land purchase, as well as security, safety, or emergency
equipment. Commercial revenue producing portions of terminals (such as shop concessions
or commercial maintenance hangars), automobile parking garages, and off-airport road
construction are examples of improvements that generally are not eligible for AIP funding.
AIP money cannot be used for airport operational expenses or bond repayments.
The AIP is one of five major sources of airport capital development funding. The other
sources are tax-exempt bonds, passenger facility charges (PFCs), state and local grants, and
airport operating revenue. Different airports use different combinations of these sources
depending on the individual airport’s financial situation and the type of project being
considered. Small airports are more likely to be dependent on AIP grants than large- or
medium-sized airports. The larger airports are also much more likely to participate in the
tax-exempt bond market or finance capital development projects with the proceeds generated
from PFCs.
The PFC is a local tax imposed, with federal approval, by an airport on each boarding
passenger. PFC funds can be used for a somewhat broader range of projects than AIP grants
and are more likely to be used for “ground side” projects such as passenger terminal and
ground access improvements. PFCs can also be used for bond repayments.
This issue brief discusses the Airport Improvement Program and its complement, the
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC). After a brief history of federal support for airport
CRS-1

---

IB10026
02-07-03
construction and improvement, the report describes AIP funding, its source of revenues,
funding distribution, the types of projects the program funds, AIP and PFC policy issues, and
the allowable use of AIP funds for airport security purposes.
Founding Legislation
Prior to World War II the federal government limited its role in aviation to maintaining
the airway system, viewing airports as a local responsibility. Some federal monies were
spent on airports during the 1930s (about $150 million) but only as part of federal work relief
activities. The national defense need for a strong system of airports during World War II led
to the first major federal support for airport construction. After the war, the Federal Airport
Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-377) continued federal aid under the Federal Aid to Airports Program,
although at lower levels than during the war years. In the 1960s substantial funding also went
to upgrade and extend runways for use by commercial jets. Congestion, both in the air and
on the ground at U.S. airports, was seen as evidence by some that past federal support for
airports had not been sufficient to maintain adequate airport capacity.
Airport and Airway Development and Revenue Acts of 1970 (P.L.
91-258)
Congress responded to the congestion problems and capacity concerns at airports by
passing two Acts. The first, the Airport and Airway Development Act, dealt with the
spending side of federal aid to airports. It established the forerunner program of the AIP, the
Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP), and set forth the program’s grant criteria,
distribution guidelines, and first five years’ authorization. The second Act, the Airport and
Airway Revenue Act of 1970, dealt with the revenue side of airport development. This Act
established the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (also known as the Aviation Trust Fund).
Revenues from levies on aviation users and fuel were dedicated to the fund.
Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248)
This Act created the current AIP. Although the AIP maintained the ADAP’s approach
of using grants-in-aid to support an integrated national system of airports, it did make some
significant changes in the operation of the program. The program differences included
altering the funding distribution among the different categories of airports, extending aid
eligibility to privately owned general aviation airports, increasing the federal share of eligible
project costs, and earmarking a portion of total funding for noise abatement and compatibility
planning.
Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
The structure of AIP funds distribution reflects the national priorities and objectives of
assuring airport safety and security, stimulating capacity, reducing congestion, helping fund
noise and environmental mitigation costs, and financing small state and community airports.
This section first discusses the source of the money used to pay for AIP grants, the
Aviation Trust Fund. It then sets forth the overall impact on AIP of the passage of FAIR21,
which reauthorized FAA through FY2003. Next, it explains the AIP’s system of project
CRS-2

---

IB10026
02-07-03
grant distribution. The section then describes AIP funding in terms of what types of projects
the grants are spent on and examines grant distribution by airport size. Finally, it discusses
the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC).
The Airport and Airway Trust Fund
The money that goes into the Aviation Trust Fund comes from a variety of aviation user
fees and fuel taxes. These tax revenues are authorized through September 30, 2007, by the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-34). Revenue sources include:
! 7.5% ticket tax;
! $3.00 flight segment tax;
! 6.25% tax on cargo waybills;
! 4.3 cents per gallon on commercial aviation fuel;
! 19.3 cents per gallon on general aviation gasoline;
! 21.8 cents per gallon on general aviation jet fuel;
! $13.20 international arrival tax;
! $13.20 international departure tax;
! 7.5% tax on second party sales of airline award miles (normally “frequent
flyer” awards);
! 7.5% ticket tax at rural airports.
Over much of the life of the trust fund, these revenues plus interest on the trust fund’s
unexpended balances brought more revenue into the fund than was being paid out. This has
led to the growth in the end-of-year unexpended balance in the trust fund. There are
outstanding commitments against these unexpended balances, so not all of the unexpended
balance would actually be available in any given year. Nonetheless, these unexpended
balances (somewhat inaccurately referred to by some as a surplus) have been large enough
relative to the FAA budget to make their existence controversial.
The scenario of an unexpended trust fund balance, that grows substantially larger each
year, was expected to end with the FY2000 budget. For FY2000, the FAA’s budget was
funded entirely from the trust fund, with no contribution from Treasury general fund
revenues. The trust fund estimates for FY2000, in President Clinton’s FY2001 budget,
indicated that trust fund revenues and interest would roughly equal expenditures in FY2000.
However, the actual outgo from the trust fund during FY2000 was smaller than predicted and
the unexpended balance again grew, although at a slower rate than in some previous years.
The FY2001 DOT appropriations act provided $12.5 billion for FAA, including just over
$2 billion from the Treasury general fund. However, because the expected trust fund
income, for FY2001 was $11.4 billion--but only $10.5 billion, at the most, is estimated to
have been drawn from the trust fund for the year--the unexpended balance in the trust fund
may still have grown. The FY2002 DOT Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-87) provided $13.3
billion for FAA with a general fund share of just $1.1 billion, should again have slowed the
rate of growth of the trust fund’s unexpended balances. Emergency supplemental
appropriations of $533.5 million, included in the FY2002 Department of Defense
Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117)--to be drawn from the aviation trust fund over the next
few years--should also reduce the rate of growth in the balance. In addition, most observers
believe the drop in demand for air travel that began during 2001, due to the recessionary
economy and potential passengers’ fear of flying following the September 11 attacks, will
CRS-3

---

IB10026
02-07-03
significantly constrain the revenues available from the trust fund. It is likely that the trust
fund’s end-of-year unexpended balances will decline for FY2002 and possibly for FY2003
as well. (For more, see CRS Report RS21321. Aviation Taxes and Fees: Major Issues, by
John W. Fischer)
AIP Funding
AIP spending since FY1982 is illustrated in Figure 1. From FY1982 to FY1992 annual
spending (obligations) increased from $412.5 million to $1,954.5 million. From FY1982 to
FY1992 the obligation limits increased every year except for FY1986, when it dipped by
$28.6 million below the FY1985 level. For FY1993-FY1997 spending was reduced as part
of overall deficit reduction. AIP spending declined in FY1993 and FY1994 before leveling
off at about the $1.5 billion level during FY1995-FY1997.
Obligations for FY1998 rose to $1.7 billion. The FY1999 omnibus appropriations act
(P.L. 105-277) provided obligational authority for $1.95 billion. However, the money was
released intermittently as a series of partial year authorizations were passed. On October 1,
1999, with the beginning of the new fiscal year 2000, the AIP went into abeyance, causing
the suspension of AIP grant distribution. The enactment of FAIR21 allowed the FY2000
AIP funds to be distributed.
For FY2000 appropriations, the enacted appropriations legislation (P.L. 106-69) again
provided for $1.95 billion. However, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 ( P.L.
106-113), called for an across-the-board cut of 0.38% from all discretionary budget authority
and obligation limitations. Another $45 million is to be obligated to pay for the
administration of the AIP. This allowed FAA to obligate just over $1.85 billion for airport
grants in FY2000.
For FY2001, the DOT Appropriations Act funded AIP at the authorized level of $3.2
billion. This was an increase of nearly 70% over the FY2000 enacted funding. The
Administration had proposed $1.95 billion for AIP. Following passage of the FY2001 DOT
appropriations bill, the FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-554) provided
for a government-wide rescission that reduced the amount available for AIP by roughly $7
million.
The FY2002 DOT appropriations act (P.L. 107-87) provides for the fully authorized
funding of $3.3 billion for AIP. Of this amount, $57.05 million is set aside for
administration and $20 million is to be provided for the Small Community Air Service
Development Pilot Program. The proposal also rescinds $301.7 million in unused previous
years budget authority. This rescission will have no impact on the FY2002 funding available
for AIP.
CRS-4

---

IB10026
02-07-03
Figure 1. AIP Authorization and Obligations, FY1982-FY2002
(Millions of $)
In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington,
$175 million in FY2001 supplemental appropriations (available until expended), included
in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 3338; H.Rept. 107-350), were made
available for AIP to help reimburse airports for the costs of post-September 11 security
mandates imposed by law or DOT. In addition, the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-206) includes a provision for $150 million for emergency
grants, contingent on a request by the Administration for their use, to airports to offset the
costs of FAA security mandates. The Bush Administration, however, has announced that it
will not utilize any of the contingent emergency funds provided for in P.L. 107-206.
On February 4, 2002, President Bush submitted his FY2003 budget to Congress. The
budget requests the fully authorized $3.4 billion for AIP. Of this amount, the President
requests that $83 million be provided for the Essential Air Service Program (EAS). On July
26, 2002, the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $3.4 billion (S. 2808;
S.Rept. 107-224), as did the House Committee on Appropriations on October 7, 2002 (H.R.
5559; H.Rept. 107-722). Both of these bills rejected the use of AIP funds for EAS. Because
a FY2003 transportation appropriations bill has not become law, AIP has been operating, at
the FY2002 funding level, under continuing resolutions since October 1, 2002. The Senate-
passed H.J.Res. 2, which included the text of the Senate-reported bill, on January 23, 2003.
The House disagreed to Senate-passed bill and agreed to conference. The main conference
issue is resolution of the differences in the lists of airports “place named” in the House and
Senate reports. (For more see CRS Report RS31308, Appropriations for FY2003:
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies, coordinated by David Randall
Peterman and John Frittelli).
CRS-5

---

IB10026
02-07-03
The Impact of FAIR21 on AIP
The enactment of FAIR21, was the culmination of two years of legislative effort to pass
a multi-year FAA reauthorization bill. The length of the effort was a reflection of the
difficult issues faced. Major issues that had to be resolved included the budgetary treatment
of the aviation trust fund, raising the ceiling on the passenger facility charge (PFC), and the
amounts to be spent and their distribution.
Provisions to take the aviation trust fund off-budget or erect budgetary “firewalls” to
assure that all trust fund revenues and interest would be spent each year for aviation purposes
never emerged from the conference committee. Instead, the enacted legislation includes a
so-called “guarantee” that all of each year’s receipts and interest credited to the trust fund
will be made available annually for aviation purposes. The guarantee is enforced by changes
made in House and Senate point-of-order rules. One rule makes it out-of-order to consider
legislation that does not spend all trust fund revenues for aviation purposes. The second rule
makes it out-of-order to consider legislation for funding FAA’s Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) or Research, Engineering and Development (RE &D) budgets if AIP and the
Facilities and Equipment (F&E) budgets are funded below authorized levels. Although these
provisions are not airtight, they do increase the likelihood that the budget resources made
available for AIP for FY2001-FY2003 will equal the levels authorized in FAIR21 and, thus
far, this has been the case.
FAIR21 does not, however, make any major changes in the structure or functioning of
AIP. The big difference is the amount of money made available for airport development
projects. From a funding level of approximately $1.9 billion for FY2000, AIP’s
authorization increases funding by nearly 70% to $3.2 billion for FY2001, then to $3.3
billion for FY2002, and to $3.4 billion for FY2003. Within the context of these increases,
the formula funding and minimums for primary airports are doubled starting in FY2001. The
state apportionment for general aviation airports is increased form 18.5% to 20%. The noise
set-aside is increased from 31% to 34% of discretionary funding and a reliever airport
discretionary set-aside of 0.66% is established.
FAIR21 also increases the PFC maximum to $4.50 per boarding passenger. In return
for imposing a PFC above the $3 level, large and medium hub airports would give back, or
“forgo,” 75% of their AIP formula funds. This will make more AIP funding available to the
smaller airports.
AIP Funding Distribution
The distribution system for AIP grants is complex. It is based on a combination of
formula grants (also referred to as apportionments) and discretionary funds. Each year
formula grants are apportioned automatically to specific airports or types of airports
including primary airports, cargo service airports, general aviation airports, and Alaska
airports. The discussion below incorporates changes to AIP enacted in FAIR21.
Formula and Discretionary Funds.
Formula Funds. Sometimes referred to as apportionments, these funds are
apportioned by formula or percentage (see, 16th Annual Report of the AIP: FY1997.
CRS-6

---

IB10026
02-07-03
Washington, FAA, 1998: pp. 12-15). Formula funds may generally be used for any eligible
airport or planning project. Formula funds are divided into four categories, primary airports,
cargo service airports, general aviation airports, and Alaska supplemental funds. Each
category distributes AIP funds by a different formula. Most airports have up to three years
to use their apportionments. Non-hub commercial service airports (the smallest of the
primary airports) have up to four years.
Primary Airports. The apportionment for primary airports is based on the number of
passenger boardings made at the airport during the prior calendar year. Beginning in
FY2001, the amount apportioned for each fiscal year is equal to double the amount that
would be received according to the following formulas:
! $7.80 for each of the first 50,000 passenger boardings;
! $5.20 for each of the next 50,000 passenger boardings;
! $2.60 for each of the next 400,000 passenger boardings;
! $0.65 for each of the next 500,000 passenger boardings; and
! $0.50 for each passenger boarding in excess of 1 million.
The minimum formula allocation is $1 million. The maximum is $26 million. New
airports receive the minimum for their first fiscal year of operation.
Cargo Service Airports. 3% of AIP funds are apportioned to cargo service airports.
The allocation formula is the proportion of the individual airport’s landed weight to the total
landed weight at all cargo service airports.
General Aviation Airports. Beginning in FY2001, 20% of AIP funds are to be
apportioned for use at general aviation and reliever airports. From this share, all airports,
excluding all non-reliever primary airports, receive the lessor of:

! $150,000; or
! one fifth of the estimated 5-year costs published in the most recent National
Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) to a maximum of $200,000 per
year.
Any remaining funds would be distributed based on state-based population and area
formulas.
Alaska Supplemental Funds. Funds are apportioned to Alaska to assure that Alaskan
airports receive at least as much as they did under the ADAP in 1980. FAIR21 doubles the
Alaska Supplemental.
Forgone Apportionments. Large and medium hub airports that collect a passenger
facility charge of $3 or less have their AIP apportionments reduced by an amount equal to
50% of their projected PFC revenue for the fiscal year until they have forgone (sometimes
referred to as a “give back”) 50% of their AIP formula grants. In the case of a fee above the
$3 level the percentage forgone is 75%. The implementation of the reduction is not imposed
until the first fiscal year following the calendar year in which the PFC is first imposed.
A special small airport fund gets 87.5% of these forgone funds. The discretionary fund
gets the remaining 12.5%.
CRS-7

---

IB10026
02-07-03
Discretionary Funding. The discretionary fund (49 U.S.C. sec. 47115-47117)
includes the money not distributed under the apportioned entitlements as well as, the forgone
PFC revenues that were not deposited into the Small Airport Fund. Discretionary grants are
approved by the FAA based on project priority and other selection criteria, including
congressional directives in appropriations legislation. Despite its name, the discretionary
fund is subject to three set-asides and certain other spending criteria. The three set-asides
are:
Airport Noise Set-Aside. At least 34% of discretionary grants are set-aside for noise
compatibility planning and for carrying out noise abatement and compatibility programs.
Military Airport Program (MAP). At least 4% of discretionary funds are set-aside for
conversion and dual use of current and former military airports. 15 airports may participate.
Grants for Reliever Airports. There is a discretionary set-aside of 2/3 of 1% for
reliever airports in metropolitan areas suffering from flight delays.
The Secretary of Transportation is also directed to see that 75% of the grants made from
the discretionary fund are used to preserve and enhance capacity, safety and security at
primary and reliever airports, and also to carry out airport noise compatibility planning and
programs at these airports.
Subject to these limitations, the three set-asides, or priority directives from the
appropriation committees (referred to by some as “place naming”), the Secretary, through the
FAA, has discretion in the distribution of grants from the remainder of the discretionary fund.
The Federal Share of AIP Matching Funds. For AIP development projects, the
federal government share differs depending on the type of airport. The federal share, whether
funded by formula or discretionary grants, is as follows:
! 75% for large and medium hub airports (80% for noise compatibility
projects);
! 90% for other airports; and
! 90% for integrated airport system planning grants;
! “not more than” 90% for airport projects in states participating in the state
block grant program;
! 40% for projects funded from the discretionary fund at airports receiving
exemptions under section 47134, the pilot program for private ownership of
airports;
! 100% for FY2002 costs of security related activities required by the
Secretary of DOT after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The airports themselves must raise the remaining share from other sources. Unlike
federal aid to highways, AIP grants generally go directly to airports rather than through the
states.
This federal share regime means that smaller airports do not pay as high a percentage
of AIP project costs as large and medium airports do. These are fixed percentages with the
above mentioned exception of the state block grant states.
CRS-8

---

IB10026
02-07-03
Distribution of AIP Grants by Airport Size. The appropriateness of the
distribution of grants among airports of different size has, at times, been a source of debate
(for airport definitions see CRS Report RL30096, p. 11). It is important to keep in mind that
although smaller airports’ individual grants are much smaller than the grants going to large
and medium hub airports, the smaller airports are much more dependent on AIP to meet their
capital needs. Based on 1996 data, a GAO report (GAO/RCED-98-71) found that about 10%
of large and medium airports’ capital funding comes from AIP, contrasting with just over
50% for airports smaller than medium hub. (For graphic presentations of airport funding
sources, see U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). Airport Financing: Funding Sources
for Airport Development, GAO/RCED-98-71. 1998. 52 p.) A recent GAO report (GAO-02-
283) found, for the years FY1996 through FY1999, grants to small airports (small hub and
smaller) grew 56% while grants to large and medium hub airports grew only 24%, indicating
that AIP was becoming increasingly important to small airports.
FAIR21 will continue this trend and raise the percentage share for smaller airports. This
is because large and medium hub airports will be foregoing 75% of their AIP formula funds
in return for the ability to impose PFCs at the $4.50 level.
Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs)
During the late 1960s a number of airports began collecting a local “head tax” (the
precursor of the PFC) on each paying passenger boarding an aircraft. There was severe
criticism of the passenger charges, by both airlines and passengers. The complaints included:
administrative problems for the airlines in collecting the charge; passenger inconvenience;
and, especially, the diversion of head tax revenue for off-airport projects and projects not
aviation related. In 1973, the Airport Development Acceleration Act banned the imposition
of state and local passenger charges.
In 1990 expected tight budgets, resulting from the federal deficit, led to a
reconsideration of head taxes. Concerns that the Aviation Trust Fund and other existing
sources of funds for Airport development would be insufficient to meet national airport
needs led to the legislation that developed the passenger facility charge (PFC). The PFC was
seen as being complementary to AIP funding. The Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion
Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508) allowed the Secretary of Transportation to authorize public
agencies that control commercial airports to impose a passenger facility fee of $1 or $2 or
$3 on each paying passenger boarding an aircraft at the airports. The money was to be used
to finance eligible airport-related projects and, unlike AIP funds, could be used to make
payments for debt service or indebtedness incurred to carry out the projects. There was a $3
cap on each airport’s PFC and there was a $12 limit on the total PFCs that a passenger could
be charged per round-trip. Although the FAA oversees the PFC program, the agency does
not impose the fee. The PFC is a state, local, or port authority fee, not a federally imposed
tax. Because of the complementary relationship between AIP and PFCs, PFC legislation is
generally folded into the AIP provisions of FAA reauthorization legislation. The legislative
origin of the PFC itself is Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L.
101-508).
FAIR21 increased the PFC ceiling to $4.50. To impose a PFC over the $3 level an
airport has to show that the funded projects will make significant improvements in air safety,
increase competition, reduce congestion or noise impacts on communities and that these
CRS-9

---

IB10026
02-07-03
projects could not be funded using of AIP funds. Large and medium hub airports imposing
PFCs above the $3 level forego 75% of their AIP formula funds. Beginning in FY2001,
PFCs at large and medium hub airports may not be approved unless they have submitted a
written competition plan to the FAA. The competition plans are to include information such
as, the availability of gates, leasing arrangements, gate-use requirements, patterns of air
service, controls over air- and ground-side capacity, intentions to build gates that could be
used as common facilities, and airfare levels compared to other large airports.
PFCs are a significant source of capital improvement revenue for large, medium, small
hub, and non-hub commercial airports. The PFC percentage of airport development funding
in FY1996 by airport size is as follows: large hub, 19.9%; medium hub, 14%; small hub,
16.9%; nonhub commercial, 9.7%; and other commercial service, 0.5%. Under the AIP the
corresponding percentages are: large hub, 9.7%; medium hub, 12%; small hub, 42%; non-
hub commercial, 71%; and other commercial service, 76%. (These percentages were
extrapolated from charts [FY1996 figures] in, GAO, Funding Sources for Airport
Development, pp. 44-48.) As of November 1, 2002, 308 airports were collecting PFCs and
332 had received PFC approval. A substantial portion of PFC revenues are used to make
interest payments on bonds.
Airports have used PFC revenues for a broad range of purposes. Unlike AIP grants, of
which almost three-quarters have gone to airside projects (runways, taxiways, aprons, and
safety related projects) PFC revenues have been distributed more equally between airside and
landside projects. The PFC statutory language lends itself to a broader interpretation of
“capacity enhancing” and the implementing regulations are less constraining than those for
AIP funds. Also the airlines, who historically have preferred funding be dedicated to airside
projects, only have to be notified and provided with an opportunity for consultation about
PFC funding requests and are therefore somewhat less involved in the PFC project planning
and decision-making process than with AIP projects. The difference in the pattern of project
types may also be influenced by the difference in project spending patterns between the
larger airports, that collect most of the PFC revenue and have more substantial landside
infrastructure, versus the smaller airports that are much more dependent on AIP funding.
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-38) requires that FAA expedite
the processing and approval of PFC requests for security projects and for reimbursement of
costs of DOT security mandates.
AIP Funding of Airport Security
The September 11 attack increased interest in what kinds of security spending could
qualify for AIP funding and some confusion as to how airport security projects rate against
other priorities in the program. In the aftermath of September 11, FAA advised its field
offices that the policies that restricted AIP funding were being temporally lifted. FAA could
now approve discretionary funding for security projects and airports could use their formula
funds for equipment and facilities of any security project approved by the Civil Aviation
Security Field Office. The projects could include security activities for the protection of
persons, baggage, and cargo at an airport as well as security activities on board aircraft
parked at an airport. Personnel, training, and uniform costs, as well as maintenance and
operational costs remained ineligible due to statutory limitations. Security projects, along
with safety projects, are considered the highest priority projects.
CRS-10

---

IB10026
02-07-03
On November 19, 2001, President Bush signed the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (ATSA) (P.L. 107-71). Section 119 of the act expands AIP eligibility for FY2002 to
cover any “additional security related activity required by law or by the Secretary after
September 11, 2001, and before October 1, 2002.” For non-primary airports located in the
confines of enhanced class B airspace, funds apportioned in FY2002 and FY2003 can be
used to fund any activity, including operational activities, if the activity was carried out when
any restriction in the Notice to Airmen FDC1/0618 was in effect. Also eligible, in FY2002,
are payments for debt service on indebtedness incurred by an airport sponsor or at a privately
owned or operated airport passenger terminal financed by indebtedness incurred by the
sponsor if the Secretary of DOT determines that such payments are necessary to prevent a
default on the indebtedness. The federal share for these purposes is 100%.
As mentioned earlier, H.R. 3338 included supplemental appropriations of $175 million,
available until expended, for AIP security grants. In addition, the FY2002 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-206) includes a provision for $150 million for
emergency grants, contingent on a request by the Administration for their use, to airports to
offset the costs of FAA security mandates. The Bush Administration, however, has
announced that it will not utilize any of the contingent emergency funds in P.L. 107-206.
Congressional Issues
The safe operation of airports is, by statute, the highest aviation priority. Other
priorities include minimizing noise impacts, increasing capacity to the maximum feasible
extent, and encouraging efficient service to state and local communities. AIP legislation also
links increasing capacity to increasing efficiency and safety. The issues discussed below are
not only issues that rose to prominence during the recent reauthorization debate but also
issues that will retain significance during the oversight years leading up the next
reauthorization cycle.
The PFC Cap
The cap on the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) is one of the most contentious policy
issues related to the AIP . PFCs have been extremely popular with airports because they
allow for a broader range of improvement projects than AIP, and also because PFCs give
airports more freedom from airline involvement in the project decision-making process.
Airports also argue that PFCs are pro-competitive in allowing airports to build gates and
facilities that can encourage new entrant carriers without incumbent airline approval
(although some would deny that this has been done). The airlines argue that the PFC is just
another tax on air travelers and is anti-consumer because it raises travel costs. Airlines also
argue that airports are using PFCs to fund projects of marginal value instead of projects that
offer meaningful safety or capacity enhancements. As mentioned before, FAIR21 raised the
PFC cap to $4.50. The agreement also increased to 75% the portion of AIP formula funds
that large and medium airports must give up, if they impose a PFC at the $4 or $4.50 level,
and also required these airports to submit competition plans to the FAA. As of November
1, 2002, 158 airports were approved to collect PFCs at the $4.50 level.
Ongoing post-FAIR21 oversight issues will most likely focus on questions concerning
the pattern of spending of the higher PFC revenues. Will the increase in the PFC cap lead
CRS-11

---

IB10026
02-07-03
to airport development projects that can be seen as being pro-competitive by encouraging
new entrant carriers? Despite the requirement that projects funded by PFCs at the new
ceiling increase competition among carriers, will the pattern of PFC spending, over time,
benefit dominant carriers’ facilities?
Budgetary Treatment of the Aviation Trust Fund
Of the three principal FAA reauthorization proposals, only the House version of AIR21
included provisions that would have altered the budgetary treatment of the Aviation Trust
Fund. These provisions were intended to assure that all aviation trust fund revenues would
be consistently expended for aviation purposes. In its initial version, reported out of
committee on March 11, 1999, AIR21 both took the Aviation Trust fund off budget and
created discretionary spending guarantees or “fire walls,” similar to that were created for the
Highway Trust Fund by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178)
(TEA21). These provisions guaranteed the spending of the all the aviation revenues that
flow into the aviation account and also mandated that the Treasury fund 30% of the
guaranteed FAA funding levels set forth in the Bill from general tax revenues. From
FY1982, when the AIP was enacted to FY2002, the percentage of the FAA budget drawn
each year from general fund revenues has varied substantially from year to year, from as low
as 0% to as high as 59%.
On May 27, 1999, AIR21, was amended in a second full committee mark up. The
newly reported bill kept provisions to take the trust fund off budget but eliminated the
“firewall provisions” and in place of a guaranteed 30% general fund share, the amended bill,
capped the general fund share at the 1998 level ($3.351 billion). These trust fund changes
faced resistance from Members in both Houses and also from many appropriations and
budget committee members, who felt that the changes could hamper their ability to fund
other transportation programs and would constrain their flexibility in meeting the goals of
the budget process.
None of these proposals survived conference. Instead FAIR21, as enacted, includes
language that makes it “out of order” in the House of Senate to consider legislation that does
not use all aviation trust fund receipts and interest annually. A second capital priority “point
of order” provision makes it out of order to consider legislation for any fiscal year through
FY2003 for RE&D or O&M if the sum of the obligation limitation for AIP and the
appropriation for F&E are below their authorized levels. (See CRS Report RS20177, Airport
and Airway Trust Fund Issues in the 106th Congress, by John W. Fischer.)
Following the passage of FAIR21 an ongoing issue was expected to be the strength of
the Act’s spending “guarantees” and point-of-order enforcement provisions. For example,
points-of-order can be waived. However, to date, there have been no serious challenges to
the point-of-order enforcement provisions.
Another issue is the impact of the aviation industry recession on trust fund revenues
under the fund’s existing tax and user fee structure. In addition, supplemental appropriations
have drawn from the trust fund and are contributing to the decline in the trust fund’s
unexpended balances. The less robust condition of the trust fund could have funding
implications in the upcoming FAA reauthorization.
CRS-12

---

IB10026
02-07-03
Airport Capital Needs Debate
The federal government’s interest in the needs debate is broader than just dealing with
capacity constrained airports. It also deals with implementing federal safety, security, and
noise policies. The needs estimates produced by airport and airline interests reflect their
business perspectives. Congress has both national interests and local concerns to consider
when making decisions on the federal role in airport finance.
During the 1996 reauthorization debate the airlines, the airports, and the FAA all
projected widely differing long-term airport financial needs. At the low end, the airline
estimate (prepared by the Air Transport Association of America) was that $4 billion would
be needed each year, while the airport estimate (prepared by the Airports Council
International-North America and the American Association of Airport Executives) was $10
billion. The FAA estimated the yearly need at $6.5 billion. During 1996 an estimated $7
billion was raised from all sources for airport capital development. Some advocates for the
$10 billion spending level argue that there is a spending gap of approximately $3 billion per
year. Others argue that the size of the gap is exaggerated by the inclusion of all proposed
projects in the $10 billion need figure. Assuming the accuracy of the $10 billion dollar need
level, the increase in AIP funding in FAIR21 increases the AIP share of overall airport
development needs funding from below 20% to about 30%. Together, the AIP and PFC
programs could now provide nearly 50% of needs.
Record delays and cancellations during the summers of 1999 and 2000 has led to
increased calls for airport capacity improvements, especially for new runway construction.
A congressional oversight issue will be whether the increased AIP spending under FAIR21
at the major congested airports will increase capacity on the air-side (e.g. new runways,
aprons, taxiways, etc.) at congested airports.
A related issue is whether the decline in demand for air passenger air transportation,
that coincided with the economic recession that began in 2001 and was exacerbated by the
impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks, will lead to a delay in capacity enhancing airport
projects. Also, will congestion in the security lines lead to a redirection of AIP spending
toward security needs at airport terminals. (See, U.S. GAO. Airport Development Needs.
GAO/RCED-97-99. April 1997, and also, National Civil Aviation Review Commission.
Airport Development Needs and Financing Options. Washington, 1997.)
Noise Mitigation
During the reauthorization debate the immediate issue for Congress was what level to
set the noise set-aside in AIP reauthorization legislation. In the longer-term the issue is
maintaining noise abatement spending at levels that assure that noise abatement projects
reflect their status as high AIP priority. Noise policy is linked to airport capacity policy
because airport noise levels are a major factor in local resistance to airport expansion or
improvement projects.
AIP discretionary funds are the primary source of noise mitigation projects. AIP formula
funds, PFCs, or bond funding are less often used for noise mitigation projects. Small
commercial and general aviation airports generally do not have alternative sources of funding
for noise mitigation.
CRS-13

---

IB10026
02-07-03
FAIR21 raised the discretionary set-aside from 31% to 34%. This will push noise
mitigation spending above $300 million for FY2001-FY2003. Even given this increase, the
adequacy of AIP funding for noise mitigation will remain an issue. The coming increase in
the number of airport improvement and construction projects may well increase the incidence
of noise-based opposition to airport expansion and improvement, and lead to pressure for
even more noise mitigation spending. AIP funds other than the discretionary set-aside can
also be used for noise mitigation projects.
Place Naming
Historically, Congress has not earmarked AIP funds in the manner typical to transit
appropriations where specific projects have specific dollar amounts designated in the
language of the appropriations bills. Instead of earmarking, AIP funds are subject to “place
naming.” Under place naming the appropriations committees direct FAA to give priority
consideration to discretionary grant applications at airports named in the appropriations bill
report language. Prior to FY2001, the dollar amount for each named airport was generally
not specified. In FY2000 the number of airports named in the report language of the House,
Senate, and conference agreement increased significantly. The enacted FY2001 conference
agreement (H.Rept. 106-940) place named 158 airports and also specified dollar amounts
to be awarded. The language was also more directive. The report directs FAA to “provide
not less than the following funding levels, out of available discretionary resources.” The
FY2002 appropriations bill conference report (H.Rept. 107-308), place names 101 airports,
sets the dollar amounts, and directs FAA to provide “not less than” the listed totals. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out of committee its version of the FY2003
transportation appropriations bill (S.Rept. 107-224) on July 26, 2002. The report language
place names 229 airports and returns to the historic pattern of not listing specific grant
amounts but directing FAA to give priority to discretionary grant requests for projects at the
named airports. In the House Committee on Appropriations FY2003 report (H.Rept. 107-
722) 210 airports are place named. Differences in the House and Senate airport lists will be
worked out in conference on H.J.Res. 2, the FY2003 omnibus Appropriations Act. At issue
is the appropriate scope of place naming and the impact it has on FAA’s grant application
process.
Aviation Security Legislation and AIP
With the passage of ATSA the congressional issues are ones of oversight. Will the
elevation of security activities as high priorities (including in some cases operations costs)
lead to a substantial shift of AIP resources away from its traditionally emphasized air-side
capacity projects toward more spending on land-side security-related terminal
improvements? Will this redirection of funds lead to delays and cancellations of planned air-
side capacity projects and increase the likelihood of an airport capacity crisis in the future?
The findings of a recently released General Accounting Office (GAO) report (GAO-03-27)
indicate that this may be the case. The report found that 17% of the $3.3 billion in AIP
appropriations for FY2002 are being awarded for security projects. The average for AIP
through FY 2001 was less than 2%. The $561 million awarded for security purposes for
FY2002 was an 800% increase over the $57 million awarded for FY2001. GAO also found
that there were reductions in AIP funding awarded for nonsecurity projects for FY2002 from
the award levels of FY2001.
CRS-14

---

IB10026
02-07-03
AIP Funding of Contract Towers: the Small Airport Safety, Security
and Air Service Improvement Act (H.R. 1979; H.Rept. 107-496)
H.R. 1979 would expand AIP eligibility criteria to include the building and equipping
of air traffic control towers at airports participating in the Contract Tower Program (CTP).
Under this program, the FAA contracts with private companies to staff visual flight rule
towers instead of using federal air traffic controllers. Air traffic control towers, are usually
funded from the FAA’s facilities and equipment (F&E) budget. The FAA’s CTP contracts,
require the a participating airport to provide the air traffic control facilities for the contract
air traffic controllers and equipment at no expense to the federal government. H.R. 1979
would allow contract tower program airports to use their AIP entitlement (formula funds) or
AIP state apportionments to build and equip air traffic control towers. The bill also allows
contract tower airports to use their entitlements, but not state apportionments, for
reimbursement for past construction and equipment purchases made after October 1, 1996.
AIP discretionary grants would not be made for these purposes. The federal share is limited
to 90% and may not exceed a total federal cost of $1.1 million per tower. The bill does not
provide any additional funding.
During debate in the House, supporters of the bill argued that many small airports with
commercial service or high traffic general aviation activity would like to build control towers
to enhance safety at their airports and are willing to use their AIP entitlement grants to fund
their construction, given the unavailability of F&E funding for building towers at CTP
airports. They also argued that the building of more towers would expand the CTP, and that
program history indicates that the CTP improves safety, security, efficiency, increases the
likelihood of commercial service to rural areas, and saves the FAA money. Supporters also
argued that the bill would not cost the federal government any additional money because it
relies on existing AIP funding.
Opponents of the bill countered that it includes provisions that would undermine AIP’s
existing goals of enhancing airport safety, capacity, security, and efficiency. Although the
bill would only allow the use of funds allocated by formula to each of the CTP airports, these
airports would likely have to forgo planned spending on other needs to free up their AIP
allocations for spending on a control tower. Opponents also argued that the airports signed
contract tower operating agreements with the full knowledge that AIP funds could not be
used for the construction and equipping of CTP towers. In addition, the agreements made
it clear that, in consideration of the air traffic control service being provided by the federal
government, the airport sponsor was to provide an air traffic control tower at no cost.
The provisions that generated the most active debate, however, were the provisions that
would have allowed for reimbursement of costs incurred after October 1, 1996 for tower
construction and equipment purchases. Supporters argued there are airports that took the
initiative to build the towers themselves, rather than waiting for federal funding, and that
these airports should not be penalized relative to airports that waited for the federal funding
under H.R. 1979. Supporters also asserted that, since the reimbursement would only come
from formula funds that an airport is given by law, the bill would give these airports the right
to choose whether or not to use its entitlement money for reimbursement. They also denied
that the bill would take any money away from capacity enhancing projects (at major airports)
since it was limited to money allocated to small airports. Opponents of reimbursement,
countered that the roughly 26 airports thought to be eligible for reimbursement, signed
CRS-15

---

IB10026
02-07-03
agreements to provide air traffic control tower facilities, and, in return, the federal
government assumed the costs of staffing and operations. They also contended that since
many of these airports were eligible for the minimum entitlement of $150,000, that a $1.1
million tower would absorb all their AIP entitlement funding for seven years, preventing
them from spending federal aid on other important AIP priorities. They argued that with
FAA reauthorization approaching, the bill sets a bad precedent that could lead to a multitude
of reimbursement proposals for other infrastructure improvements during the reauthorization
debate. Opponents also pointed out that there were no controls over what the reimbursed
money could be spent on. Finally, opponents complained that the bill exempted these towers
from AIP statutory and regulatory requirements, with the exception Davis-Bacon, small
business, and veterans preference requirements (some argue that these three requirements,
however, will be enough to prevent AIP reimbursement grants to many of the 26 eligible
airports in any case). H.R. 1979 was passed by the House on June 20, 2002. To date, there
has been no Senate action on the bill since it was received in the Senate and referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on June 21, 2002. The House
Committee on Appropriations FY2003 transportation appropriations bill (H.R. 5559)
included a provision (Section 339) that would require the FAA to report to Congress on the
safety implications of allowing a small airport to use AIP funds to build or equip a visual
flight rule air traffic control tower to be operated under the CTP. The report would also
examine whether, on grounds of “fairness and equity,” airports that have already built and
equipped contract towers should be eligible for reimbursement from AIP funds.
LEGISLATION
P.L. 106-181, H.R. 1000 (Shuster)
The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (H.R.
1000), also referred to as AIR21 or FAIR21, was enacted on April 5, 2000.
P.L. 107-38 (Young)
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) broadened the eligibility of
security projects and activities for AIP funding.
S. 2808; S.Rept. 107-224* (Murray) [star print]
The Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY2003.
The bill recommends $3.4 billion for AIP for FY2003.
H.R. 5559; H.Rept. 107-722 (Rogers)
The Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY2003.
The bill recommends $3.4 billion for AIP for FY2003.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Report 98-579. Airport Finance: A Brief Overview.
CRS Issue Brief IB10032. Transportation Issues in the 108th Congress.
CRS-16

---