Order Code IB10026
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Airport Improvement
Program
Updated July 14, 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 AIR21 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
FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-7) General Provisions That Impact AIP
Letters of Intent for Airport Security Projects (Section 367)
AIP Funding of Contract Tower Program Towers (Section 370)
AIP Reauthorization Proposals in 2003
Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act (S. 824) (AIR-V)
Flight 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (H.R. 2115)
Congressional Issues
Budgetary Treatment of the Aviation Trust Fund
Airport Capital Needs Debate
Noise Mitigation
“Place Naming” in Annual Appropriations Legislation
Aviation Security Legislation and AIP
LEGISLATION
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10026
07-14-03
Airport Improvement Program
SUMMARY
The Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
AIR21 included “point of order” provisions
(49 U.S.C. Chapter 471) has provided federal
that were designed to assure that all trust fund
grants for airport development and planning
receipts and interest are spent annually and
since the passage of the Airport and Airway
increased the likelihood that AIP will be fully
Improvement Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248). AIP
funded at the authorized level. AIR21 also
funding is usually spent on projects that sup-
increased the set aside for noise mitigation
port aircraft operations including runways,
from 31% to 34% of AIP discretionary funds.
taxiways, aprons, noise abatement, land pur-
chase, and safety, emergency or snow removal
The FY2003 Consolidated Appropria-
equipment. Funds obligated for the AIP are
tions Act (P.L. 108-7) authorized $500 million
drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust
for FY2003-FY2007 to fund “letters of intent”
Fund, which is supported by user fees and fuel
for airport security projects. This provision
taxes.
could lessen the demand for AIP funding for
security purposes.
The bill also expanded
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
AIP’s eligibility requirements to include the
on New York and Washington led to passage
construction and equipping of air traffic con-
of the Aviation and Transportation Security
trol towers at contract tower program airports.
Act (ATSA) (P.L. 107-71). ATSA broadened
the range of security activities and projects
The House and Senate have both passed
that are eligible for AIP grants.
FAA reauthorization bills. The House-passed
bill, Flight 100–Century of Aviation Reau-
FY2003 is the last year of AIP’s existing
thorization Act (H.R. 2115), would authorize
authorizing legislation, the Wendell H. Ford
AIP at $3.4 billion for FY2004, $3.6 billion
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the
for FY2005, $3.8 billion for FY2006, and $4.0
21st Century (AIR21; P.L. 106-181). Two
billion for FY2007. The Senate-passed ver-
years in the making, this $40 billion multi-
sion, the Aviation Investment and Revitaliza-
year Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)
tion Vision Act (H.R. 2115 as amended by S.
reauthorization bill greatly increased AIP’s
824), would authorize AIP at $3.4 billion for
annual obligational authority from less than $2
FY2004, $3.5 billion for FY2005, and $3.6
billion to $3.2 billion for FY2001, $3.3 billion
billion for FY2006.
for FY2002, and $3.4 billion for FY2003.
The Act increased the Passenger Facility
On July 11, 2003, the House Appropria-
Charge (PFC) ceiling from $3 to $4.50 per
tions Subcommittee on Transportation, Trea-
boarding passenger. The PFC is essentially a
sury, and Independent Agencies voted favor-
local tax on each boarding passenger that is
ably on a FY2004 appropriations bill that
levied by an airport with federal approval.
recommends AIP funding of $3.5 billion.
Congressional Research Service
˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10026
07-14-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On July 11, 2003, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury,
and Independent Agencies marked-up a bill that recommends AIP be funded for FY2004 at
$3.5 billion.
On June 11, 2003, the House passed a bill, the Flight 100–Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (H.R. 2115), recommending a four year authorization of AIP at $3.4
billion for FY2004, $3.6 billion for FY2005, $3.8 billion for FY2006, $4.0 billion for
FY2007. On June 12, 2003, the Senate passed the Aviation Investment and Revitalization
Vision Act (S. 824) (AIR-V), recommending a three year authorization of AIP at $3.4 billion
for FY2004, $3.5 billion for FY2005, and $3.6 billion for FY2006.
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
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.
CRS-1

---

IB10026
07-14-03
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 AIR21,
which reauthorized FAA through FY2003. Next, it explains the AIP’s system of project
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).
CRS-2

---

IB10026
07-14-03
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;
! $13.40 international arrival tax;
! $13.40 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, ended in FY2001. 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, significantly constrained the revenues available from
the trust fund. The end of year balance for the trust fund dropped from a high of $14.5
billion for FY2001 to $12.6 billion for FY2002. Estimated balances for FY2003 and
FY2004 are $12.3 billion and $10.6 billion, respectively. (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 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. This allowed FAA to obligate just
over $1.85 billion for airport grants in FY2000.
CRS-3

---

IB10026
07-14-03
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.
Figure 1. AIP Authorization and Obligations, FY1982-FY2003
(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. The FY2002 DOT Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-87)
provided for the fully authorized funding of $3.3 billion for AIP. The FY2003 Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7) provided for the fully authorized $3.4 billion less the
0.65% across-the-board rescission (roughly $20 million). (For more see CRS Report
RL31308, Appropriations for FY2003: Department of Transportation and Related Agencies,
coordinated by David Randall Peterman and John Frittelli).
The Impact of AIR21 on AIP
AIR21, the existing authorization, expires at the end of FY2003. Its enactment, 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.
CRS-4

---

IB10026
07-14-03
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 included 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 did increase the likelihood that the budget resources made
available for AIP for FY2001-FY2003 would equal the levels authorized in AIR21 and, thus
far, this has been the case.
AIR21 did not, however, make any major changes in the structure or functioning of AIP.
The big difference was the amount of money made available for airport development
projects.
From a funding level of approximately $1.9 billion for FY2000, AIP’s
authorization increased 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 were doubled starting in FY2001.
The state apportionment for general aviation airports was increased form 18.5% to 20%. The
noise set-aside was increased from 31% to 34% of discretionary funding and a reliever
airport discretionary set-aside of 0.66% was established.
AIR21 also increased 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 made 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.
Formula and Discretionary Funds.
Formula Funds.
Sometimes referred to as apportionments, these funds are
apportioned by formula or percentage. 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. The amount
CRS-5

---

IB10026
07-14-03
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. 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. AIR21 doubled 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%.
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:
CRS-6

---

IB10026
07-14-03
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;
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.
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
CRS-7

---

IB10026
07-14-03
smaller) grew 56% while grants to large and medium hub airports grew only 24%, indicating
that AIP was becoming increasingly important to small airports.
AIR21 continued this trend and raised the percentage share for smaller airports. This
is because large and medium hub airports now forego 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).
AIR21 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
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,
CRS-8

---

IB10026
07-14-03
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.
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
CRS-9

---

IB10026
07-14-03
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%.
FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-7)
General Provisions That Impact AIP
Two sections in P.L. 108-7's general provisions could have a significant impact on AIP.
Letters of Intent for Airport Security Projects (Section 367)
Section 367 allows the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security to issue “letters
of intent” to airports that commit to obligate from future budget authority for airport security
improvement projects that involve the replacement of baggage conveyer systems or
reconfiguration of terminal baggage areas in order to install explosive detection systems.
The letters establish schedules of reimbursement to the airports for the federal government’s
share of costs as amounts become available, if the airport, after the letter is issued, carries out
the project without AIP funding. Section 367 authorizes $500 million, annually, for
FY2003-FY2007 to carry out the Section. This could reduce the demand for AIP funds for
airport security improvement projects.
AIP Funding of Contract Tower Program Towers (Section 370)
Section 370 of P.L. 108-7 included the text of the Small Airport Safety, Security and
Air Service Improvement Act (H.R. 1979; H.Rept. 107-496), which had passed the House
on June 20, 2002 but had not been acted on by the Senate. Section 370 expands AIP
eligibility criteria to include the building and equipping of air traffic control towers at
airports participating in the Contract Tower Program (CTP). Under the CTP, 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. Prior the enactment of P.L. 107-7, the FAA’s CTP contracts,
required 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. Section 370
allows 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 can 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 the floor debate in the House on Section 370's predecessor bill, H.R. 1979, the
provisions that generated the most active debate, were the provisions to allow for retroactive
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
CRS-10

---

IB10026
07-14-03
to use its entitlement money for reimbursement. Opponents of reimbursement, countered
that the roughly 26 airports thought to be eligible for reimbursement, signed agreements to
provide air traffic control tower facilities, and, in return, the federal government assumed the
costs of staffing and operations. Opponents pointed out that there were no controls over
what the reimbursed money could be spent on and 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). Finally, they argued that with FAA reauthorization approaching, the bill would
set a bad precedent that could lead to a multitude of reimbursement proposals for other
infrastructure improvements during the reauthorization debate. In addition, Section 370,
requires DOT to study the “feasibility, costs, and benefits” of allowing CTP airports to use
up to 10% of their AIP apportionments to pay the non-federal share of the operating costs of
a CTP control tower.
AIP Reauthorization Proposals in 20031
Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act (S. 824) (AIR-V)
AIR-V (or Air-Vision), a three year FAA reauthorization bill passed by the Senate on
June 12, 2003, includes provisions that will impact AIP in a number of ways. Some of the
impacts, such as the funding levels and the noise set aside, affect AIP directly but other
impacts are less direct. Relative to AIP, much of AIR-V’s legislative attention is directed
toward facilitating capacity enhancing projects, especially toward the major airports included
in the 2001 Airport Capacity Benchmark study. AIR-V also includes streamlining provisions
such as expedited coordinated environmental review and design-build contracting. These
provisions could both increase major airport runway projects and accelerate the pace of
project development and thereby increase the demand for AIP funding in some future years.
! AIR-V would authorize AIP at $3.4 billion for FY2004, $3.5 billion for
FY2006, and $3.6 billion for FY2006.
! The bill would extend the AIR21 point-of-order enforcement provisions and
spending guarantees designed to assure that the FAA capital programs,
including AIP, are funded at their fully authorized levels.
! The discretionary set aside for noise compatibility projects would be raised
from 34% to 35%.
Eligibility would be expanded to include noise
mitigation projects approved in an environmental record of decision for
projects designated as national capacity projects.
! For FY2004, any airport that had fewer than one-half of 1% (excludes all
large hub and some medium hub airports) of total U.S. passenger boardings
for the calendar year used for determining AIP formula funds and also had
declining boardings such that they had fewer than 10,000 passenger
boardings in calendar year 2002, but more than 10,000 boardings in calendar
year 2000, would be apportioned an amount equal to that received for
FY2002.
1 This Issue Brief is not the FAA reauthorization tracking report. For tracking reauthorization see
CRS Issue Brief IB10121, Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization.
CRS-11

---

IB10026
07-14-03
! For FY2004 the bill would also raise the federal share to 95% at all national
system airports smaller than medium hub.
! DOT would be able to authorize an airport sponsor to award a design-build
contract under certain conditions.
! The bill calls for DOT to identify, from the FAA’s Airport Capacity
Benchmark Report 2001, airports experiencing delays that significantly
affect the national transportation system. DOT is to direct any of these
airports that is not engaged in a runway expansion process to establish a
delay reduction task force to conduct a capacity enhancement study and
submit, within 9 months, recommendations for capacity enhancement at the
airport. If runway expansion or reconstruction is recommended then DOT
and the airport have five years to complete the planning and environmental
review process.
Airports that decline to undertake the recommended
expansions would be ineligible for AIP planning and expansion funds and
no PFCs would be approved for five years for the airport. DOT is to
expedite funding for those airports that take action.
! DOT would be required to implement an “expedited coordinated
environmental review process” for national capacity projects that would
make use of designated project coordinators and environmental impact
teams to: provide for better coordination among the federal, state, and local
agencies concerned with the development of environmental impact
statements or environmental assessments under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S. C. 4321 et. seq.). Federal agencies with
jurisdiction over environmental reviews would accord such reviews of
national capacity projects the highest possible priority. Also directs DOT
to initiate a five year pilot program to improve the environmental review of
national capacity projects.
! The bill defines the conditions that must be met under alternatives analysis
for an alternative for a congested airport to be considered “reasonable”
under the bill. The conditions include that the airport alternative: not create
an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, the national aviation
system, or the navigable airspace; it must maintain the safe and efficient use
of airspace; it must result in the same reduction of congestion as the
proposed project; and it may not conflict with any federal law or regulation.
! DOT would be required to present to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation a list of current and proposed categorical
exclusions from the National Environmental Protection Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq) environmental review and environmental impact statements
requirements.
! AIR-V would provide for AIP grants to state and units of local governments
for land use compatibility plans directly related to national capacity projects
under certain conditions.
! Would require notice to purchasers that a property is located within the
noise contours of an airport.
! The bill includes a number of provisions to streamline the PFC public notice
requirement as well as the requirement of notice and consultation of air
carriers at applicant airports. Would eliminate the “significant contribution”
project requirement on large and medium hub airports that wish to impose
PFCs at the $4 and $4.50 level.
CRS-12

---

IB10026
07-14-03
! Would establish a pilot program to test alternative procedures for
authorizing small airports to impose PFCs.
! Large and medium hub airports would have to notify DOT of any denial of
access to an applicant airline to gates and other facilities.
! The bill would create an Aviation Security Capital Fund with an annual
authorization of $500 million derived from existing security fees (language
was added by amendment to clarify that these authorized funds would also
require appropriation. This could help lessen the demands for AIP funds for
security purposes.
Flight 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (H.R. 2115)
The House passed its proposal for FAA reauthorization, including its AIP authorization
proposals on June 11, 2003. The proposals differ from S. 824's treatment of AIP in a number
of ways, including its four year duration and its more generous annual increases. The bill
would fund AIP at $3.4 billion for FY2004, $3.6 billion for FY2005, $3.8 billion for
FY2006, and $4.0 billion for FY2007. The bill also includes environmental streamlining
provisions but does not include provisions similar to the Senate bill’s national capacity
projects. The bill includes a number of significant program changes.
! The bill restricts the eligibility of baggage conveyor replacement to AIP
formula funds.
! Small airports would be allowed to use their formula funds for post-911
security costs.
! DOT may require a written assurance from an airport that it will undertake
improvement of a runway’s safety area prior to approving a grant for the
construction, reconstruction, or repair of a runway.
! An airport would be allowed to keep the proceeds of land sales if the airport
uses the proceeds for airport development or for noise compatibility
purposes.
! The bill would reduce apportionments to airports with more than 3.5 million
annual enplanements by 5 cents per boarding passenger.
! Cargo service airport formula is increased from 3% to 3.5%.
! For FY2004, any airport that had fewer than one-half of 1% (excludes all
large hub and some medium hub airports) of total U.S. passenger boardings
for the calendar year used for determining AIP formula funds and also had
declining boardings such that they had fewer than 10,000 passenger
boardings in calendar year 2002, but more than 10,000 boardings in calendar
year 2000, would be apportioned an amount equal to that received for
FY2002.
! Would allow an airport to use AIP noise set aside funds for projects
approved in a record of decision (ROD) for an airport project, for land use
planning, and for certain Clean Air Act requirements. This could mean that
some airports that have not submitted a noise mitigation plan to FAA could
still be eligible for AIP noise mitigation funding in some cases.
! Would make eligible the costs of construction or modification of parking
facilities needed to meet security requirements.
CRS-13

---

IB10026
07-14-03
! Airports smaller than medium hub would be allowed to use AIP funds for
the costs of interest payments, bond insurance, and other credit enhancement
costs associated with a bond issue used to finance eligible projects.
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.
Budgetary Treatment of the Aviation Trust Fund
AIR21 included language that made 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 made 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 AIR21 an ongoing issue was the strength of the Act’s
spending “guarantees” and point-of-order enforcement provisions. For example, points-of-
order can be waived. There were, however, no serious challenges to the point-of-order
enforcement provisions. AIR-V would extend these provisions through FY2006. Flight-100
is silent on the issue, however it would fund FAA operations at 79% form the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund. Funding all or most of FAA operations from the trust fund, coupled
with the potential of declining trust fund revenues, could put pressure on the funding of AIP
in the out years of a FAA reauthorization bill.
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.
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 AIR21
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.
CRS-14

---

IB10026
07-14-03
In a recent examination of airport capital needs the FAA estimated that just over $9
billion per year would be needed to meet the costs of projects that would be eligible for AIP
grants. Airports Council International estimated that just under $15 billion per year would
be needed for projects that may or may not be AIP eligible. (See, U.S. GAO. Airport
Development Needs. GAO/RCED-97-99. April 1997, and Airport Finance: Past Funding
Levels May Not Be Sufficient to Cover Airports’ Planned Capital Development. GAO-03-
497t February 25, 2003)
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.
AIR-V would raise the noise set-aside from 34% to 35% of discretionary funding where
as Flight-100 would change the calculation to 9% of the total program level (but drawn from
the discretionary fund). Although the 9% formula could approximate the current level of
funding, the bill broadens eligibility to include air quality improvement and also allows
formula fund spending on noise mitigation and air quality improvements be counted toward
the 9% total. Under certain conditions this could lead to a reduction in AIP spending on
noise mitigation.
“Place Naming” in Annual Appropriations Legislation
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 named 101 airports,
set the dollar amounts, and directed FAA to provide “not less than” the listed totals. The
FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7) place named 164 airports. At
issue is the appropriate scope of place naming and the impact it has on FAA’s grant
application process.
CRS-15

---

IB10026
07-14-03
Aviation Security Legislation and AIP
With the elevation of security activities as high priorities, a substantial portion of AIP
funding is being used for airport security costs (including in some cases operations costs).
This has led to a proportional decline of AIP resources dedicated to air-side projects. The
findings of a recently released General Accounting Office (GAO) report (GAO-03-27) bear
this out. 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 non-security projects for FY2002 from the award levels of FY2001. The
provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-7), for airport security letters of
intent supported by a $500 million authorization could ease the pressure on AIP. AIR-V’s
provision for the creation of an Aviation Security Capital Fund with an annual appropriation
of $500 million could also reduce the demands for AIP grants for security purposes. The
question that is not yet resolved is whether both the letters of intent and the Aviation Security
Capital Fund are both needed, and if not, whether the Capital Fund proposal should replace
the enacted letter of credit mechanism, or should the Capital fund provision be struck from
AIR-V.
LEGISLATION
P.L. 108-7, H.J.Res. 2
The FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution. The bill provides $3.4 billion
for AIP for FY2003. Signed into law February 20, 2003.
S. 824 (McCain)
Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act (AIR-V or AIR-Vision).
As
reported, would reauthorize AIP for three years: $3.4 billion for FY2004; $3.5 billion for
FY2005; and $3.6 billion for FY2006. Passed June 12, 2003.
H.R. 2115 (Young)
Flight 100–Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. As reported, would authorize AIP
for four years: $3.4 billion for FY2004, $3.6 billion for FY2005, $3.8 billion for FY2006,
and $4.0 billion for FY2007. Passed June 11, 2003.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Report 98-579. Airport Finance: A Brief Overview.
CRS Issue Brief IB10032. Transportation Issues in the 108th Congress.
CRS Issue Brief IB10121. Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization.
CRS-16

---