This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-885 entitled 'Airport Finance: Observations on Planned Airport Development Costs and Funding Levels and the Administration's Proposed Changes in the Airport Improvement Program' which was released on July 31, 2007. This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. Report to the Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives: United States Government Accountability Office: GAO: June 2007: Airport Finance: Observations on Planned Airport Development Costs and Funding Levels and the Administration's Proposed Changes in the Airport Improvement Program Airport Finance: GAO-07-885: GAO Highlights: Highlights of GAO-07-885, a report to Subcommittee on Aviation Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives Why GAO Did This Study: To address the strain on the aviation system, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed transitioning to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). To fund this system and to make its costs to users more equitable, the Administration has proposed fundamental changes in the way that FAA is funded. As part of the reauthorization, the Administration proposes major changes in the way that grants through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) are funded and allocated to the 3,400 airports in the national airport system. In response, GAO was asked for an update on current funding levels for airport development and the sufficiency of those levels to meet planned development costs. This report comprises capital development estimates made by FAA and Airports Council International (ACI), a leading industry association; analyzes how much airports have received for capital development and if sustained, whether it can meet future planned development; and summarizes the effects of proposed changes in funding for airport development. Airport funding and planned development data are drawn from the best available sources and have been assessed for their reliability. The Department of Transportation agreed with the findings of this report. This report does not contain recommendations. What GAO Found: Planned airport development costs total at least $14 billion annually over the next 5 years as expressed in 2006 dollars. This estimate is a combination of FAA’s estimate of $8.2 billion in AIP grant-eligible projects and $5.8 billion from ACI’s estimate of projects not eligible for AIP. FAA’s estimate is based on airport master plans that FAA planners have reviewed and entered into a database of all national system airports. ACI also estimates airports’ planned development, based on a survey of the 100 largest airports and includes all projects regardless of grant eligibility. From 2001 through 2005, airports received an average of about $13 billion a year for planned capital development. This amount covers all types of projects, including those not eligible for federal grants. The primary source of this funding was bonds, which averaged almost $6.5 billion per year, followed by federal grants and passenger facility charges (PFC), which accounted for $3.6 billion and $2.2 billion, respectively (see figure below). If airports continue to attract this level of funding for planned capital development, this amount would annually fall at least $1 billion short of the $14 billion in total planned development costs (the sum of FAA’s estimated $8.2 billion in eligible costs and the industry’s $5.8 billion in ineligible costs). Larger airports foresee a decline of at least $600 million annually, while smaller airports foresee a decline of at least $400 million annually. FAA’s reauthorization proposal would reduce the size of AIP by $750 million but increase the amount that airports can collect from PFCs. However, the benefit from increased PFCs would accrue mostly to larger airports and would not offset a reduced AIP grants program for smaller airports. The proposal would also change the way that AIP and other FAA programs are funded. The new fuel taxes that FAA has proposed may not provide the revenues for AIP that FAA anticipates. Figure: Comparison of Past Airport Funding to Future Development Costs: [See PDF for Image] Sources: GAO analysis of FAA, ACI, Thomson Financial, and state grant data. [End of figure] [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-885]. To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact Gerald L. Dillingham at (202) 512-2834 or DillinghamG@gao.gov. [End of section] Contents: Letter: Results in Brief: Background: Planned Development Costs at Least $14 billion Annually: Airports Have Averaged about $13 Billion Annually in Capital Financing over the Last 5 Years and Use a Variety of Funding Sources: Total Planned Development Exceeds Past Funding Levels by At Least $1 Billion Annually: Administration's FAA Reauthorization Proposal Would Increase Potential Funding for Larger Airports, while Funding for Smaller Airports Could Be Reduced: Agency Comments: Appendix I: Sources of Airports' Capital Funding: Appendix II: Key Changes Proposed in AIP: Appendix III: Scope and Methodology: Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: Related GAO Products: Tables: Table 1: Sources of Airport Funding, 2001-2005: Table 2: Estimated Distribution of AIP Funds at $2.75 Billion and $3.5 Billion Funding Levels under Current and Proposed Authorization Formulas: Table 3: Effect of Proposed Authorization Formula on Smaller Airports: Table 4: Projected PFC Collections with a $6 PFC: Table 5: Projected Airport and Airway Trust Fund in 2009 under the Reauthorization Proposal: Table 6: Comparison of Current AIP authorization and Proposed Reauthorization: Figures: Figure 1: Categories of U.S. Airports: Figure 2: Funding Sources by Size of Airport, 2001-2005: Figure 3: Comparison of Past Airport Funding to Future Development Costs: Figure 4: Comparison of Larger Airports' Past Funding to Future Development Costs: Figure 5: Comparison of Smaller Airports' Past Funding to Future Development Costs: Figure 6: Comparison of Airports' Past Annual Funding to Future Development Costs: Figure 7: AIP Grants to Airports by Category of Airport, 2001-2005: Figure 8: Passenger Facility Charges by Airport Category, 2001-2005: Figure 9: Airport Bonds Issued by Airport Category, 2001-2005: Figure 10: State Grants to Airports by Category of Airport, 2001-2005: Abbreviations: ACI: Airports Council International: AIP: Airport Improvement Program: DOT: Department of Transportation: EAS: Essential Air Service: FAA: Federal Aviation Administration: GA: General Aviation: NASAO: National Association of State Aviation Officials: PFC: passenger facility charge: RE&D: Research, Engineering and Development: United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548: June 29, 2007: The Honorable Jerry F. Costello: Chairman: Subcommittee on Aviation: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: House of Representatives: The Honorable Thomas E. Petri: Ranking Republican Member: Subcommittee on Aviation: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: House of Representatives: Once again, the nation's airports are having to cope with capacity issues. Air traffic has risen back above pre-September 11 levels, as has the level of delays. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operates one of the safest air transportation systems in the world, but it is also a system under strain. Last year, one in four flights was subject to flight delays. In addition, the system is expected to absorb a variety of new and differing aircraft in the future, ranging from the jumbo Airbus A380, which can hold more than 500 passengers, to very light jets, which carry only a few passengers and could greatly increase the number of aircraft in the air. Demand for air travel is expected to reach 1 billion passengers by 2015, according to FAA estimates. The consensus of opinion is that the current aviation system cannot expand to meet this projected growth. FAA is developing a modernization program for its air traffic control system called the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) to accommodate this growth. To fund this system, FAA has proposed relying on a cost-based system using airline user fees and increased fuel taxes instead of passenger ticket taxes and other excise taxes that are due to expire at the end of September 2007. In regard to airports, the Administration is proposing $2.75 billion to fund the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) - -which is substantially less than the current level--and changing the way that grants to the 3,400 airports in the national airport system are funded and allocated under AIP. The Administration's proposal would also allow commercial airports to impose higher passenger facility charges (PFC) to pay for capital projects.[Footnote 1] In anticipation of this year's reauthorization of FAA, you asked for an update on airports' past funding levels from our previous reports,[Footnote 2] the sufficiency of those levels to meet planned development, and how the Administration's proposed reauthorization will affect airports. For this update, we provided responses to these key questions: * What is the estimated cost of planned airport capital development for 2007 through 2011? * How much have airports received for capital development and where is the money coming from? * If past funding levels continue, will they be sufficient to meet planned capital development costs for 2007 through 2011? * What are some of the potential effects of changes in how airport development will be funded as part of the Administration's FAA reauthorization legislation? To determine how much planned development would cost over the next 5 years, we obtained planned capital development data from FAA and the Airports Council International (ACI), a leading industry association. To determine the sources of airport funding, we obtained capital funding data from FAA, the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), and Thomson Financial, a firm that tracks all municipal bond issues. We obtained funding data from 2001 through 2005 because these were the most recent years for which consistent data were available and then adjusted the amounts for inflation to 2006 dollars so that they could be compared to planned development amounts, which are also expressed in 2006 dollars. We screened the planned development and funding data for accuracy and compared funding streams across databases where possible. We did not, however, audit how the databases had been compiled. We reviewed the reliability of these data and concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted our work from August 2006 to May 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. More details about the scope and the methodology of our work are presented in appendix III. Results in Brief: Planned airport capital development costs total at least $14 billion annually over the next 5 years as expressed in 2006 dollars. This estimate is a combination of FAA's estimate of $8.2 billion in AIP- eligible projects and $5.8 billion from ACI's estimate of projects not eligible for AIP. FAA's estimate is based on airport master plans that FAA planners have reviewed and entered into a database of all national system airports. ACI also estimates airports' planned development, based on a survey of the 100 largest airports, but its estimates include all projects regardless of grant eligibility. Given the greater detail and verification entailed in FAA's estimates, we used FAA's estimates for AIP-eligible projects and, lacking any other source, used ACI's estimate for non-eligible projects. From 2001 through 2005, airports received an average of about $13 billion a year for planned capital development from a variety of funding sources. This amount includes funding for all types of projects, including those not eligible for AIP grants. The primary source of this funding was municipal bond proceeds (backed primarily by airport revenues), which averaged almost $6.5 billion per year, followed by AIP and PFCs, which accounted for $3.6 billion and $2.2 billion, respectively. Of the $2.2 billion in PFC collections, 30 percent could go to bond financing. Within the national airport system, the 67 larger airports, which account for 90 percent of passengers, rely more heavily on bond financing to fund their development, while the other approximately 3,300 smaller airports in the national system are more reliant on federal grants.[Footnote 3] The combined estimate for FAA's AIP-eligible and ACI's AIP-ineligible projects for 2007 through 2011 exceeds past funding levels by at least $1 billion annually. While this difference is not an absolute predictor of future funding shortfalls--both funding and planned development may change in the future--it is useful indicator of funding differences over time and between different sizes of airports. This difference is smaller than the $3 billion annual average we estimated in 1998 and 2003, indicating that airports' financial health and access to capital may have improved.[Footnote 4] A difference between past funding and future development plans also exists for both larger and smaller airports. The 67 larger airports averaged $9.4 billion annually in funding, as compared to at least $10 billion annually in AIP-eligible and ineligible projects--a difference of at least $600 million annually. All other airports, including general aviation airports, averaged $3.6 billion annually in funding, as compared to at least $4 billion annually in AIP-eligible and ineligible projects, a difference of at least $400 million annually. The difference between past funding and planned development may be larger than our estimate because of some double counting of PFC collections that are used to finance bond proceeds and because FAA's estimate of planned development may exclude some eligible development. The Administration's reauthorization proposal would provide more money to larger airports through an increase in the PFC ceiling but would not benefit smaller airports that are more reliant on AIP. The proposal would reduce the AIP grants program by $750 million (or more than 20 percent of its current level) but increase the amount that airports can collect from PFCs from $4.50 per passenger to $6.00 per passenger, potentially increasing larger airports' collections by $1.1 billion. Smaller airports would receive a larger portion of AIP funds, but this shift would not compensate for the overall reduction in AIP, especially for general aviation airports that have no ability to collect PFCs. As a separate issue, the Administration's reauthorization proposal would also change the way that AIP and other FAA programs are funded. New fuel taxes that have been proposed to fund AIP and other programs, and if they do not generate the amount of revenue that is anticipated, additional sources of revenue may have to be found. We provided a draft of this report to DOT and ACI. FAA responded for DOT and agreed with the facts of the report while ACI suggested our report use a different approach in developing our estimate. FAA's Manager of Airports Financial Assistance in the Office of Airport Planning & Programming in e-mailed comments, emphasized that any difference between past funding and future planned development did not mean that necessary airport projects would not be built. In FAA's view, large airports, in particular can obtain additional private capital to meet their funding needs. ACI's President in a letter to GAO suggested that our report should provide a range of planned development and funding amounts rather than a single amount. In ACI's view, the full amount of their $15.6 billion planned development estimate should be used and also suggested that we recalculate the historical funding stream based on the effect of using PFCs to finance capital development and preexisting claims on AIP funds in the future. As explained elsewhere in this report, we used the best available data to develop our estimates of both historical funding and planned development in line with prior GAO reports on this topic. Both DOT and ACI provided some clarifying and technical comments which we have incorporated as appropriate. Background: The United States has the largest, most extensive aviation system in the world, with more than 19,000 airports. U.S. airports range from large commercial transportation centers enplaning more than 49 million passengers annually to small grass airstrips serving only a few aircraft each year. Of these, 3,364 are designated as part of the national airport system and are therefore eligible for federal assistance. The federal interest in capital investment for airports has been guided by several objectives, most notably ensuring safety and security, preserving and enlarging the system's capacity, helping small commercial and general aviation airports, funding noise mitigation, and environmental protection. National system airports are of two types--commercial service airports, which total 517, have scheduled service, and enplane 2,500 or more passengers; and general aviation airports, which total 2,847, have no scheduled service, and enplane fewer than 2,500 passengers. (See fig. 1.) FAA further divides commercial service airports into primary airports (enplaning more than 10,000 passengers annually) and other commercial service airports. The 382 primary airports are arranged into various classes of hub airports--large, medium, small, and nonhub. Statutorily, large and medium hub airports are designated as large primary airports and must contribute a large share to projects funded under AIP as well as forgo a portion of their AIP entitlement funds if they collect PFCs. Figure 1: Categories of U.S. Airports: [See PDF for image] Source: FAA. [End of figure] Planned Development Costs at Least $14 Billion Annually: Planned airport development costs, expressed in 2006 dollars, are at least $14 billion annually over the next 5 years. This estimate is a combination of $8.2 billion from FAA's estimate of AIP-eligible planned development and $5.8 billion from ACI's estimate of other planned development costs not eligible for AIP. Projects that are eligible for AIP grants include runways, taxiways, and noise mitigation and reduction efforts; projects that are not eligible for AIP funding include parking garages, hangars, and commercial space in terminals. In combining FAA and ACI data, we attempted to provide the best possible estimate of future airport development costs. FAA's estimate is based primarily on airport master plans for all airports in the national system and is verified by FAA planners as necessary future development. Despite this scrutiny, however, the FAA's estimate is lacking in that some future projects are removed from the database if funding from other sources (such as PFCs or bonds) is identified, while some completed projects remain in the database if they are still to be funded by AIP in future years. Meanwhile, ACI's estimate is drawn from a survey of the 100 largest airports and lacks project detail as compared to FAA's database which is verified against the airport's master plan by an FAA airport planner.[Footnote 5] For airports that did not respond to its survey, ACI either extrapolated future costs based on the responses of similar-sized airports or used FAA's estimates (for smaller airports). Therefore, given the greater detail and verification entailed in FAA's estimates, we used FAA's estimates for AIP-eligible projects, and lacking any other source, used ACI's estimate for non eligible projects.[Footnote 6] This is the same approach that we used in 1998 and 2003. Airports Have Averaged about $13 Billion Annually in Capital Financing over the Last 5 Years and Use a Variety of Funding Sources: From 2001 to 2005, the 3,364 active airports that make up the national airport system received an average of about $13 billion per year for planned capital development from a variety of funding sources. (Additional information on each of these funding sources is contained in app. I.) These funds are used for both AIP-eligible and ineligible projects. The single largest source of these funds was bond proceeds, backed primarily by airport revenues, followed by AIP grants, PFCs, and state and local contributions (see table 1). Some airports use their PFCs to finance bond issues--paying interest on existing bonds--as much as 30 percent of PFC collections by some estimates, which is money that cannot be used for new development. We were unable to make a precise estimate of how much is being financed with PFCs by airport size. However, using 30 percent as a gauge, the total amount of funds available to airports may be overstated by as much as $660 million (30 percent of $2.2 billion in average annual PFC collections). Table 1: Sources of Airport Funding, 2001-2005: 2006 dollars in billions. Funding source: Airport bonds; 2001-2005 average annual funding: $6.5[A]; Percentage of total: 50; Source of funds: State and local governments or airport authorities issue tax-exempt debt. Funding source: AIP grants; 2001-2005 average annual funding: 3.6[B]; Percentage of total: 29; Source of funds: Congress makes funds available from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which receives revenue from various aviation-related taxes. Funding source: Passenger facility charges; 2001-2005 average annual funding: 2.2[C]; Percentage of total: 17; Source of funds: Funds come from passenger fees of up to $4.50 per trip segment at commercial airports. Funding source: State and local contributions; 2001-2005 average annual funding: 0.7; Percentage of total: 4; Source of funds: Funds include state and local grants, loans, and matching funds for AIP grants. Total; 2001-2005 average annual funding: $13; Percentage of total: 100; Source of funds: [Empty]. Source: GAO analysis of FAA, Thomson Financial, and state grant data. Note: Totals may not add because of rounding. [A] Net of refinancing. [B] AIP totaled on a fiscal year basis. [C] As much as $660 million (30 percent of total) of which is used to support bond financing. [End of table] The amount and source of funding vary with the size of airports. The nation's 67 larger airports, which handled almost 90 percent of the passenger traffic in 2005, accounted for 72 percent of all funding ($9.4 billion annually), while the 3,297 other smaller commercial and general aviation airports that make up the rest of the national airport system accounted for the other 28 percent ($3.5 billion annually).[Footnote 7] As shown in figure 2, airports' reliance on federal grants is inversely related to their size---federal grants contributed a little over $1.3 billion annually to larger airports (14 percent of their total funding) and $2.3 billion annually to smaller airports (64 percent of their total funding). Figure 2: Funding Sources by Size of Airport, 2001-2005: [See PDF for image] Sources: GAO analysis of FAA, ACI, Thomson Financial, and state grant data. Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding. [End of figure] Total Planned Development Exceeds Past Funding Levels by At Least $1 Billion Annually: Total planned development of at least $14 billion annually exceeds past funding levels of $13 billion. If the $13 billion annual average funding continues over the next 5 years and were applied only to AIP- eligible projects, it would cover all of the $8.2 billion for projects in FAA's estimate. However, much of the funding available to airports is for AIP-ineligible projects. We could not determine how much of this financing is directed to AIP-eligible versus ineligible projects. Figure 3 compares the $13 billion average annual funding airports received from 2001 through 2005 (adjusted for inflation to 2006 dollars) with the $14 billion (also in 2006 dollars) in annual planned development costs for 2007 through 2011.[Footnote 8] As noted earlier, the $14 billion is the sum of FAA's estimated AIP-eligible costs of $8.2 billion annually and ACI's estimated AIP-ineligible costs of $5.8 billion annually. The overall difference of at least $1 billion annually is not an absolute predictor of future funding differences; both funding and planned development may change in the future. Figure 3: Comparison of Past Airport Funding to Future Development Costs: [See PDF for image] Sources: GAO analysis of FAA, ACI, Thomson Financial, and state grant data. Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding. [End of figure] The difference between past funding and future planned development may be greater than $1 billion for several reasons, but how much greater the difference will be hard to quantify for two reasons. First, past funding may be overstated because some past PFC collections may be double counted if they are used to finance bond proceeds, which could average as much as $660 million annually. Second, FAA's estimate of planned development may be understated because it excludes some projects that have identified funding sources. FAA could not estimate how much in project costs may have been withdrawn from its planning database. The narrowing between past funding and planned development costs to about $1 billion is an indicator of the improving financial health of the nation's airports. Larger Airports--Planned Development Costs Exceed Past Funding by At Least $600 Million: The difference between past funding and planned development costs for larger airports is at least $600 million if both AIP-eligible and ineligible projects are considered.[Footnote 9] From 2001 through 2005, larger airports collected an average of about $9.4 billion a year for capital development, as compared to their estimate of at least $10 billion in future annual planned development costs. Figure 4 shows the comparison of average annual funding versus planned development costs for larger airports. At $5.7 billion annually, the portion of costs not eligible for AIP is 57 percent of the total planned development costs. Figure 4: Comparison of Larger Airports' Past Funding to Future Development Costs: [See PDF for image] Sources: GAO analysis of FAA, ACI, Thomson Financial, and state grant data. Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding. [End of figure] Smaller Airports --Planned Development Costs Exceed Past Funding by At Least $400 Million: The difference between past funding and planned development costs for smaller airports is at least $400 million annually.[Footnote 10] At smaller airports, average annual funding from 2001 through 2005 was about $3.6 billion a year. Annual planned development costs for smaller airports from 2007 through 2011 are estimated to be at least $4 billion. Figure 5 compares average annual funding to planned development costs for smaller airports. As the figure shows, the portion of smaller airports' project costs not eligible for AIP funding is relatively small--about $75 million annually, or about 2 percent of total planned development costs. Figure 5: Comparison of Smaller Airports' Past Funding to Future Development Costs: [See PDF for image] Sources: GAO analysis of FAA, ACI, Thomson Financial, and state grant data. Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding. [End of figure] Size of the Difference between Past Funding and Planned Development May Have Declined since 1996: The difference between past funding and planned development appears to have narrowed from our past estimates. As shown in figure 6, in 1996 we reported that planned development exceeded past funding by $3.7 billion, based on estimated funding of $8.7 billion and planned development of $12.4 billion. In 2001, we reported that the difference was $3.6 billion annually based on funding levels of $13.4 billion and planned development of $17 billion. The more recent difference of $1 billion would represent a significant narrowing in the difference between past funding and future development costs would indicate that airports' improving financial health was improving. Figure 6: Comparison of Airports' Past Annual Funding to Future Development Costs: [See PDF for image] Source: GAO analysis of FAA data. [End of figure] Financial Health of Airports Has Improved, Particularly for Larger Airports: The financial health of airports is strong and has generally improved since September 11, 2001, especially for larger airports. Passenger traffic has rebounded to 2000 levels and bond ratings have improved. Following September 11, many airports cut back on their costs and deferred capital projects. However, credit rating agencies and financial experts now agree that larger airports are generally financially strong and have ready access to capital markets. A good indicator of airports' financial strength is the number and scale of underlying bond ratings provided by bond-rating agencies. More bonds were rated in 2007 than in 2002, and more bonds are rated at the higher end of the rating scale in 2007, meaning that the rating agencies consider them less of a risk today. Furthermore, larger airports tended to have higher ratings than smaller airports. Administration's FAA Reauthorization Proposal Would Increase Potential Funding for Larger Airports, while Funding for Smaller Airports Could Be Reduced: The Administration's reauthorization proposal for AIP would increase potential funding for larger airports, but funding for smaller airports could be reduced because of the overall reduction in AIP. The 2008 fiscal year budget reduces AIP funding from its past level of $3.5 billion in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to $2.75 billion. The proposal also would phase out entitlement (otherwise known as apportionment) grants for larger airports while increasing the PFC ceiling from $4.50 to $6 per passenger.[Footnote 11] While larger airports that account for 90 percent of all passengers will benefit from an increase in the PFC ceiling, this increase in PFCs will not compensate smaller airports for the overall reduction in AIP funding. As a separate issue, the Administration's reauthorization proposal would change the way that AIP and other FAA programs are funded and may not provide enough new tax revenue for anticipated AIP spending even at the reduced levels proposed by the Administration. Administration's FAA Reauthorization Proposal Would Make Fundamental Changes in AIP: The Administration's 2008 FAA reauthorization proposal would reduce AIP and change how AIP is allocated, and increase the PFC available to commercial airports. (Key changes in the proposal's many elements are outlined in app. II.) Unlike previous reauthorization proposals, which made relatively modest changes in the structure of the AIP program, this proposal contains some fundamental changes in the funding and structure of the AIP program. Notably, following the pattern set by the 2000 FAA reauthorization,[Footnote 12] which required larger airports to return a larger percentage of their entitlement funding in exchange for an increase in the PFC, the Administration proposes eliminating entitlement grants for larger airports altogether and at the same time allowing those airports to charge higher PFCs. The reauthorization proposal would eliminate some set-aside programs and increase the proportion of discretionary grant funds available to FAA at higher AIP funding levels.[Footnote 13] Table 2 compares AIP funding allocations under the current funding formulas to the proposed reauthorization allocations at both the current $3.5 billion level and at the Administration's proposed $2.75 billion level. To make more discretionary funding available, this proposal would also remove the funding trigger in current law that doubles the amount of entitlement funds airports receive if the overall AIP funding level is above $3.2 billion. According to FAA officials, their objective is to increase the amount of discretionary funding for airports so that higher-priority projects can be funded. However, that objective is achieved only when total AIP funds are greater than the $2.75 billion budgeted by the Administration. For example, at $2.75 billion in AIP, the current law would generate $967 million in discretionary grants versus $866 million under the proposed reauthorization. This relationship reverses at $3.5 billion in AIP funding, for which the proposal generates $1.328 billion in discretionary grants versus $845 million under current law. Table 2: Estimated Distribution of AIP Funds at $2.75 Billion and $3.5 Billion Funding Levels under Current and Proposed Authorization Formulas: Dollars in millions. AIP funding (after administrative and other costs); AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: $2,636; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: $2,636; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: $3,386; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: $3,386. Entitlements: Primary airports: Large; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 92; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 81; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 184; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 92. Entitlements: Primary airports: Medium; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 56; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 49; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 111; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 56. Entitlements: Primary airports: Small; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 131; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 230; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 262; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 262. Entitlements: Primary airports: Nonhub; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 154; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 269; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 307; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 307. Subtotal primary airports; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 433; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 629; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 864; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 717. Cargo; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 92; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 81; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 118; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 118. Alaska supplemental; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 11; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 19; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 21; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 21. Nonprimary entitlements; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 0; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 309; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 385; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 431. State apportionment; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 488; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 300; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 292; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 339. Carryover entitlements; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 432; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 432; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 432; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 432. Subtotal entitlements; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 1,455; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 1,769; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 2,113; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 2,058. Small airport fund: Nonhub commercial service; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 123; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: [Empty]; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 245; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: [Empty]. Small airport fund: Nonprimary airports; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 61; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: [Empty]; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 122; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: [Empty]. Small airport fund: Small hub; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 31; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: [Empty]; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 61; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: [Empty]. Subtotal entitlements and nondiscretionary; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 1,669; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 1,769; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 2,541; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 2,058. Discretionary: Noise set-aside; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 338; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 211; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 296; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 271. Discretionary: Reliever set-aside; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 0; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: [Empty]; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 6; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: [Empty]. Discretionary: Military Airports (MAP) set-aside; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 39; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: [Empty]; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 34; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: [Empty]. Subtotal discretionary set-asides; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 377; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 211; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 336; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 271. Discretionary: Small airport discretionary fund; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: [Empty]; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 136; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: [Empty]; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 266. Discretionary: Capacity, safety, security, noise; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 442; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 389; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 382; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 594. Discretionary: Remaining discretionary; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 147; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 130; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 127; IP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 198. Subtotal discretionary; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 967; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 866; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: 845; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: 1,328. Total AIP available for grants; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: $2,636; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: $2,636; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Current law: $3,386; AIP allocations under current law compared to proposed reauthorization: Fiscal year 2008, as proposed: $3,386. Source: FAA. [End of table] For smaller airports, the proposal's effect depends on whether AIP funding is reduced to $2.75 billion, as the Administration proposes, or left at the current level of $3.5 billion. At a funding level of $2.75 billion, the proposal would reduce entitlements and other funding dedicated to small airports by $436 million. (see table 3). At a funding level of $3.5 billion in AIP funding, smaller airports would lose $75 million in entitlements and other dedicated funds under FAA's proposal, but discretionary funds would increase by $282 million, making it less certain how smaller airports would fare overall. Table 3: Effect of Proposed Authorization Formula on Smaller Airports: Dollars in millions. Funding categories: Entitlements; Current law at $1,680; Proposed law at $1,244; Difference from current: -436; Proposed law at $1,605; Difference from current: -75. Funding categories: Discretionary; Current law at 510; Proposed law at 519; Difference from current: +9; Proposed law at 792; Difference from current: +282. Source: GAO analysis of FAA data. [End of table] Increasing the PFC Would More than Offset Loss of AIP Entitlements for Larger Airports but Might Not Compensate Smaller Airports for Loss of AIP: The Administration's proposed reauthorization would allow airports to increase their PFC to a maximum of $6 and allow airports to use their PFC collections for any airport projects while forgoing their entitlement funds. A $6 PFC could generate an additional $1.1 billion for larger airports, exceeding the $247 million in entitlements that FAA estimates they would forgo under this reauthorization proposal (see table 4).[Footnote 14] However, smaller airports (small and nonhub) would not benefit as much from this ability to increase PFCs because they collect less in PFCs and are more reliant on AIP for funding.[Footnote 15] A change to a $6 PFC could yield as much as an additional $171 million for smaller airports if they all imposed a $6 PFC. On a net basis, this relatively small increase in PFCs would not compensate smaller airports for the $436 million reduction in AIP at a $2.75 billion funding level. Table 4: Projected PFC Collections with a $6 PFC: Airport size: Large hub; 2007 PFC collections (estimated): $1,869; If all primary airports had a $6 PFC[A]: $2,696; Increase over 2007 collections: $827. Airport size: Medium hub; 2007 PFC collections (estimated): 486; If all primary airports had a $6 PFC[A]: 782; Increase over 2007 collections: 295. Airport size: Subtotal; 2007 PFC collections (estimated): 2,356; If all primary airports had a $6 PFC[A]: 3,479; Increase over 2007 collections: 1,123. Airport size: Small hub; 2007 PFC collections (estimated): 184; If all primary airports had a $6 PFC[A]: 303; Increase over 2007 collections: 119. Airport size: Non hub; 2007 PFC collections (estimated): 71; If all primary airports had a $6 PFC[A]: 123; Increase over 2007 collections: 2. Airport size: Subtotal; 2007 PFC collections (estimated): 255; If all primary airports had a $6 PFC[A]: 426; Increase over 2007 collections: 171. Airport size: Total; 2007 PFC collections (estimated): $2,611; If all primary airports had a $6 PFC[A]: $3,905; Increase over 2007 collections: $1,294. Source: GAO analysis of FAA data. [A] There are currently 382 primary airports eligible to apply for a PFC. [End of table] The reauthorization proposal would also relax project eligibility criteria to allow airports to use their collections in the same way as they use internally generated revenue, including off-airport intermodal transportation projects. The application and review process would also be streamlined. As a result, FAA would no longer approve collections but would rather ensure compliance with PFC and airport revenue rules. Air carriers and other interested parties would retain the right to object to new projects proposed for PFC funding and request FAA's review. Uncertain Whether Proposed Fuel Tax Rates Would Yield the Revenue Anticipated to Fund AIP: In addition to concerns about the level and allocation of AIP funds, another concern is whether or not the fuel tax revenues that the Administration's reauthorization proposal has designated to largely fund AIP after 2009 would be as great as anticipated. Currently, AIP and other FAA programs are principally funded by the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (trust fund), which receives revenue from passenger ticket taxes and segment taxes, airline and general aviation fuel taxes, and other taxes. The Administration's reauthorization proposal would fund air traffic control through user fees for commercial aircraft and fuel taxes for general aviation while limiting the sources of revenue for the trust fund and its uses. Under the proposal, beginning in 2009, the trust fund would continue but only to fund three programs--AIP; Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D); and Essential Air Service (EAS)--and would be funded solely by an equal fuel tax on commercial and general aviation fuel purchases and an international arrival and departure tax (see table 5). Table 5: Projected Airport and Airway Trust Fund in 2009 under the Reauthorization Proposal: Revenue source: Commercial fuel; Proposed tax rate: $0.136; Forecast 2009 consumption (millions of gallons or passengers): 14,531; Forecast 2009 trust fund receipts (in millions of dollars): $1,976; Trust fund expenditure: AIP; Forecast 2009 trust fund expenditures (in millions of dollars): $2,900. Revenue source: General aviation jet fuel; Proposed tax rate: 0.136; Forecast 2009 consumption (millions of gallons or passengers): 1,711; Forecast 2009 trust fund receipts (in millions of dollars): 232; Trust fund expenditure: Research, Engineering and Development; Forecast 2009 trust fund expenditures (in millions of dollars): 140. Revenue source: General aviation gas; Proposed tax rate: 0.136; Forecast 2009 consumption (millions of gallons or passengers): 280; Forecast 2009 trust fund receipts (in millions of dollars): 38; Trust fund expenditure: Essential Air Service; Forecast 2009 trust fund expenditures (in millions of dollars): 50. Revenue source: International head tax; Proposed tax rate: 6.39[A]; Forecast 2009 consumption (millions of gallons or passengers): 158; Forecast 2009 trust fund receipts (in millions of dollars): 1,009; Trust fund expenditure: [Empty]; Forecast 2009 trust fund expenditures (in millions of dollars): [Empty]. Total; Proposed tax rate: [Empty]; Forecast 2009 consumption (millions of gallons or passengers): [Empty]; Forecast 2009 trust fund receipts (in millions of dollars): $ 3,255; Trust fund expenditure: [Empty]; Forecast 2009 trust fund expenditures (in millions of dollars): $3,090. Source: GAO analysis of FAA data. [A] Per arriving and departing passenger. [End of table] FAA officials confirmed for us that in estimating fuel tax revenues they did not take into account possible reductions in fuel purchases due to the increase in the tax rates. Although we do not know by how much, such purchases would decline, conventional economic reasoning, supported by the opinions of industry stakeholders, suggests that some decline might take place. Therefore, the tax rate should be set taking into consideration effects on use and the resulting impact on revenue. FAA officials told us that they believe that these effects would be small because the increased tax burden is a small share of aircraft operating costs and therefore there was no need to take its impact into account. Representatives of general aviation, however, have said that the impact could be more substantial. If consumption possibly falls short of projections or Congress appropriates more funds for AIP, RE&D, or EAS than is currently proposed, then fuel tax rates and the international arrival and departure tax would correspondingly have to be increased or additional funding from another source, such as the trust fund's uncommitted balance or the General Fund, would be needed. Agency Comments: We provided copies of this report to the DOT and ACI for their review and comment. FAA's Manager for Airports Financial Assistance in the Office of Airport Planning and Programming responded for DOT agreed with the findings of the report and provided some clarifying and technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. In e- mailed comments, he emphasized that any difference between past funding and future planned development does not mean that necessary airport projects would not be built. In FAA's view, large airports, in particular, can obtain additional private capital to fund their capital development. ACI also provided comments and suggested that our report provide a range of planned development and funding amounts rather than a single amount. In ACI's view, the full amount of their $15.6 billion planned development estimate should be used and also suggested that we recalculate the historical funding stream based on the effect of using PFCs to finance capital development and preexisting claims on AIP funds in the future. The outcome of such an approach would be to provide a range much greater than the annual average total difference of $1 billion between past funding and planned development that we developed. We did not adopt such an approach in this report because (1) it would be inconsistent with the approach we took in 1998 and 2003 in estimating airport funding and planned development and therefore make comparisons over time more difficult, (2) we continue to believe that FAA's estimate of planned development is better than ACI's for the AIP- eligible portion of projects as explained in this report on page 7, and (3) we were unable to estimate the effect of various factors, such as PFC bonding, on the funding stream across airport types. ACI also offered technical corrections, which we have incorporated into the report where appropriate. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan on no further distribution until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of FAA. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or DillinghamG@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. Signed by: Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: [End of section] Appendix I: Sources of Airports' Capital Funding: Funding for airport capital development comes from four primary sources: federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants, passenger facility charges (PFC), municipal bonds, and state and local grants. Airports vary in their reliance on these sources of funds. Federal Grants: AIP grants are made available from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.[Footnote 16] The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) allocates most AIP grants on the basis of (1) a legislated apportionment formula, tied to the number of passengers an airport enplanes in the case of primary airports, and (2) set-aside categories earmarked for specific types of airports and projects. AIP funding is usually limited to construction or improvements related to aircraft operations, such as runways and taxiways. Commercial revenue-producing facilities are generally not eligible for AIP funding, nor are operational costs. Funds apportioned for large and medium airports remain available for obligation during the fiscal year for which the amount was apportioned and the 2 fiscal years immediately after that year. Funds apportioned for small hub, nonhub, or nonprimary airports or states remain available for obligation during the fiscal year for which the amount was apportioned and the 3 fiscal years immediately following that year. Apportioned funds that have been unused are protected and carry over for the airports through the 3 or 4 year periods. As figure 7 shows, AIP grants as measured in constant 2006 dollars have increased slightly from $3.2 billion in 2001 to $3.3 billion in 2005. Figure 7: AIP Grants to Airports by Category of Airport, 2001-2005: [See PDF for image] Source: GAO analysis of FAA data. [End of figure] Passenger Facility Charges: In 1990, Congress gave commercial airports the option to impose a PFC as an additional means to raise funds for development. Beginning in 1992, authorized airports were able to collect up to $3 per enplaned passenger to use for projects that are eligible for AIP and for certain other types of costs that are not, such as debt financing costs. The PFC program sets forth several broad objectives for the use of these funds in furthering airport development, including (1) preserving or enhancing airports' safety, security, or capacity; (2) reducing noise; or (3) enhancing airline competition. Airports must apply to FAA for approval of both the collection of the fees and the specific projects that the money will pay for. FAA officials note that as long as a project is eligible, meets a program objective, and is adequately justified, they do not have the authority to reject an airport's proposal for the collection or use of PFC funds. Eligible projects under the AIP are also eligible for PFC funding. At the same time airports must consult with airlines when considering participation in the PFC program and the selection of projects to be funded, although airports do not need airlines' agreement on the use of PFCs or on project selection. Once FAA has approved the collection of PFCs by an airport, the airlines are required by the statute to collect the fees from passengers and transmit the funds to the airport. Going forward, airlines have the responsibility under the statute for collecting the fee, and must submit copies to FAA of quarterly reports on the collection and distribution of PFCs to the airports on whose behalf the carriers collect the PFC. Each project in an application must qualify under various criteria including (1) airport development or airport planning eligible under subchapter I of 49 U.S.C. chapter 471; (2) terminal development as described in 49 U.S.C. 47110(d); (3) airport noise compatibility planning as described in 49 U.S.C. 47505; (4) noise compatibility measures eligible for federal assistance under 49 U.S.C. 47504, without regard to whether the measures have been approved under §47504, (as implemented by 14 CFR Part 150); (5) construction of gates and related areas at which passengers are enplaned or deplaned and other areas directly related to the movement of passengers and baggage in air commerce within the boundaries of the airport (these areas do not include restaurants, car rental facilities, automobile parking facilities, or other concession space); or (6) the Air Traffic Modernization Cost Sharing program. In addition to the eligibility project types listed above, debt service and financing costs associated with projects meeting the above criteria are also eligible. Figure 8 shows PFC collections by category; large hub airports accounted for over two-thirds of all PFC collections during 2001 through 2005, while medium hub airports accounted for another 19 percent of total collections. Figure 8: Passenger Facility Charges by Airport Category, 2001-2005: [See PDF for image] Source: GAO analysis of FAA data. [End of figure] Vision 100 included a provision intended to streamline the PFC application process for nonhub airports. The pilot program requires airport sponsors to submit a notice of intent to impose a PFC and for use of PFC revenue for each airport for which a PFC is to be imposed.[Footnote 17] The Secretary of Transportation is not required to file a Federal Register notice for public comment, but the department must review and document its findings on eligibility, consultation, excluded class, and overall collection amount, PFC level, and duration. Once this review is complete, the department forwards a letter of acknowledgment to the airport sponsor within 30 days. In 2005, 248 nonhub airports collected over $65 million in PFCs. Airport Bonds: The single largest category of airport funding is bonds, and large hubs issue the most bonds. From 2001 through 2005, airports issued $32.2 billion worth of bonds, three-quarters of it going to large hub airports. As figure 9 shows, the total amount of bonding (new finance only) varies from year to year but declined in 2004 and 2005 from 2001 through 2003. Figure 9: Airport Bonds Issued by Airport Category, 2001-2005: [See PDF for image] Source: GAO analysis of Thomson Financial data. [End of figure] State and Local Grants: Nearly all states provide financial assistance to airports, primarily in the form of grants as matching funds for AIP grants or as separate state grants. States fund their grant programs through a variety of sources, including aviation fuel and aircraft sales taxes, highway taxes, bonds, and general fund appropriations. State funding data have been aggregated periodically by the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), which began its current annual reporting of state data in 1996. States provided about $3.8 billion to national system airports in the states' fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Figure 10 shows the distribution of those grants by airport category. Figure 10: State Grants to Airports by Category of Airport, 2001-2005: [See PDF for image] Source: GAO analysis of state grant data. [End of figure] [End of section] Appendix II: Key Changes Proposed in AIP By The Administration: Table 6: Comparison of Current AIP authorization and Proposed Reauthorization: Feature: Funding; Current authorization for AIP: Trust fund for all capital programs is funded by an airline ticket tax, segment tax, international departure and arrival taxes, varying rates of fuel taxes, and other taxes. Funding for AIP is appropriated from the trust fund; Administration's Proposed AIP reauthorization: Trust fund is funded by fuel tax of 13.6 cents/gallon for commercial and general aviation and a reduced international arrival and departure tax. Funding for AIP is appropriated from the trust fund. If AIP is increased, the tax rates would have to be increased, the trust fund's uncommitted balance would have to be drawn down, or another funding source would have to found. Feature: Entitlements; Current authorization for AIP: Up to 75 percent of entitlements for large and medium hub airports collecting a PFC are turned back to the small airport fund; Administration's Proposed AIP reauthorization: Entitlements for large and medium hub airports eliminated, by 2010. Feature: Entitlements; Current authorization for AIP: If AIP is greater than $3.2 billion, primary airport entitlements are doubled; Administration's Proposed AIP reauthorization: The $3.2 billion trigger for doubling entitlements is eliminated except for small and nonhub primary airports. Feature: Entitlements; Current authorization for AIP: State apportionment is 20 percent of AIP (18.5 percent if AIP is less than $3.2 billion); Administration's Proposed AIP reauthorization: State apportionment set at greater of 10 percent of AIP or $300 million. Feature: Entitlements; Current authorization for AIP: Nonprimary airport entitlement of up to $150,000; Administration's Proposed AIP reauthorization: The nonprimary airport minimum entitlement of $150,000 per airport is eliminated and replaced by a tiered system of entitlements ranging from $400,000 for large general aviation airports to $100,000 for smaller general aviation airports. The 750 airports that have less than 10 operational and registered based aircraft are guaranteed nothing but remain eligible for discretionary and state apportionment. Feature: Discretionary; Current authorization for AIP: Reliever and military airport set-asides minimum discretionary funding set at $148 million; Administration's Proposed AIP reauthorization: The set-aside for reliever and military airports is eliminated. Feature: Discretionary; Current authorization for AIP: Most types of airfield projects, excluding interest costs, nonrevenue producing terminal space, and on- airport access project costs. General aviation airports may use their entitlement funds for some revenue- producing activities (e.g., hangars).: Small airport fund funded by large and medium hub airport PFC turnbacks of up to 75 percent of PFC collections; Administration's Proposed AIP reauthorization: Most types of airfield projects, excluding interest costs, nonrevenue producing terminal space, and on- airport access project costs. General aviation airports may use their entitlement funds for some revenue-producing activities (e.g., hangars).: Minimum discretionary funding set at $520 million. Feature: Discretionary; Current authorization for AIP: Most types of airfield projects, excluding interest costs, nonrevenue producing terminal space, and on- airport access project costs. General aviation airports may use their entitlement funds for some revenue- producing activities (e.g., hangars).: Small airport fund funded by large and medium hub airport PFC turnbacks of up to 75 percent of PFC collections; Administration's Proposed AIP reauthorization: Small airport fund equal to 20 percent of discretionary funds. Feature: Project eligibility; Current authorization for AIP: Most types of airfield projects, excluding interest costs, nonrevenue producing terminal space, and on- airport access project costs. General aviation airports may use their entitlement funds for some revenue-producing activities (e.g., hangars); Administration's Proposed AIP reauthorization: Expanded to include additional revenue-producing aeronautical support facilities (e.g., self-service fuel pumps) at general aviation airports. Feature: Local government share of project cost (local match); Current authorization for AIP: Government share set at 95 percent for smaller airports through 2007, and 75 percent for large and medium hub airports (noise 80 percent); Administration's Proposed AIP reauthorization: The 95 percent government share reverts to 90 percent as scheduled under Vision 100 except for the very smallest airports. Now maximum share will be a flexible amount with a maximum percentage of 90 percent. Airfield rehabilitation projects lowered to 50 percent maximum at large and medium hubs. Feature: PFCs; Current authorization for AIP: Maximum rate is $4.50 per passenger; Administration's Proposed AIP reauthorization: Maximum rate is $6 per passenger. Feature: PFCs; Current authorization for AIP: All applications subject to FAA review; Administration's Proposed AIP reauthorization: Review and approval are streamlined. Feature: PFCs; Current authorization for AIP: Up to 5 airports, one of each size, with strict limit on rates and charges and requires approval by 65 percent of airlines.: PFCs can be used for all AIP-eligible projects, but also interest costs on airport bonds, terminal gates, and related areas, and noise mitigation can also be used; Administration's Proposed AIP reauthorization: Up to 5 airports, one of each size, with strict limit on rates and charges and requires approval by 65 percent of airlines.: Eligibility expanded to include almost any airport- related project, including off-airport intermodal projects. Feature: PFCs; Current authorization for AIP: Up to 5 airports, one of each size, with strict limit on rates and charges and requires approval by 65 percent of airlines.: PFCs can be used for all AIP-eligible projects, but also interest costs on airport bonds, terminal gates, and related areas, and noise mitigation can also be used; Administration's Proposed AIP reauthorization: Up to 10 large and medium hub airports willing to assume the cost of air navigation facilities are allowed a $7 PFC. Feature: Privatization; Current authorization for AIP: Up to 5 airports, one of each size, with strict limit on rates and charges and requires approval by 65 percent of airlines; Administration's Proposed AIP reauthorization: Up to 15 airports of any size, no limit on rates and charges and no airline veto, but subject to Department of Transportation review and approval. Source: GAO. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix III: Scope and Methodology: To determine how much planned development would cost over the next 5 years, we obtained planned development data from the Federal Aviation Administration and Airports Council International-North America. To determine how much airports of various sizes are spending on capital development and from which sources, we sought data on airports' capital funding because comprehensive airport spending data are limited and because, over time, funding and spending should roughly equate. We obtained capital funding data from FAA, ACI, the National Association of State Aviation Officials, and Thomson Financial--a firm that tracks all municipal bonds. We screened each of these databases for their accuracy to ensure that airports were correctly classified and compared funding streams across databases where possible. We did not, however, audit how the databases had been compiled or test their overall accuracy, except in the case of state grant data from NASAO and some of the Thomson Financial bond data, which we independently confirmed. We determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We subtotaled each funding stream by year and airport category and added other funding streams to determine the total funding. We met with FAA, bond-rating agencies, bond underwriters, airport financial consultants, and airport and airline industry associations and discussed the data and our conclusions to verify their reasonableness and accuracy. To determine whether current funding is sufficient to meet planned development for the 5-year period from 2007 through 2011 for each airport category and overall, we compared total funding to planned development. We correlated each funding stream to each airport's size, as measured by activity, and among other funding streams to better understand airports' varying reliance on them and the relationships among sources of finance. We then discussed our findings with FAA, bond rating agencies, bond underwriters, airport financial consultants, and airport and airline industry associations to determine how our findings compared with their knowledge and experiences. To determine some of the potential effects from changes to how airport development is funded under the Administration's proposed FAA reauthorization legislation, we first analyzed the proposed changes to the Airport Improvement Program's funding and allocation. In particular we analyzed the effect of various funding levels on how the program funds would be allocated. Second, we evaluated the effects of raising the passenger facility charge ceiling, as the Administration proposed, by estimating the potential PFC collections under a $6 PFC on the basis of 2005 enplanements and collection rates, assuming all airports imposed a $6 PFC. Third, we determined the status of FAA's pilot program for airport privatization. Moreover, we discussed the impact of all of the proposed changes (funding/allocation, $6 PFC, and privatization) with FAA, bond-rating agencies, bond underwriters, airport financial consultants, and airport and airline industry associations. [End of section] Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: GAO Contact: Dr. Gerald Dillingham at (202) 512-4803 or DillinghamG@gao.gov: Staff Acknowledgments: For further information on this report, please contact. Individuals making key contributions to this report were Paul Aussendorf, Jay Cherlow, Jessica Evans, David Hooper, Nick Nadarski, Edward Laughlin, Minette Richardson, and Stan Stenersen. [End of section] Related GAO Products: Airport Finance: Preliminary Analysis Indicates Proposed Changes in the Airport Improvement Program May Not Resolve Funding Needs for Smaller Airports. GAO-07-617T. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2007. Airport Finance: Past Funding Levels May Not Be Sufficient to Cover Airports' Planned Capital Development. GAO-03-497T. Washington, D.C.: February 25, 2003. Airport Financing: Annual Funding as Much as $3 Billion Less Than Planned Development. GAO/T-RCED-99-84. Washington, D.C.: February 10, 1999. Passenger Facility Charges: Program Implementation and the Potential Effects of Proposed Changes, GAO/RCED-99-138. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 1999. Airport Financing: Funding Sources for Airport Development. GAO/RCED- 98-71. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 1998. FOOTNOTES [1] The PFC Program allows the collection of PFC fees up to $4.50 for every enplaned passenger at commercial airports controlled by public agencies. Airports use these fees to fund FAA-approved projects that enhance safety, security, or capacity; reduce noise; or increase air carrier competition. [2] In 2003 and 1998, GAO reported on airport financing. See GAO Airport Finance: Past Funding Levels May Not Be Sufficient to Meet Airports' Planned Capital Development, (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2003) and Airport Financing: Funding Sources for Airport Development, (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 1998). [3] We will follow conventions established in GAO's prior report on airport finance in differentiating between larger (large and medium hub airports) and smaller (all other categories of commercial and general aviation airports). See GAO Airport Finance: Past Funding Levels May Not Be Sufficient to Meet Airports' Planned Capital Development, GAO-03- 497T (Washington D.C.: Feb. 25, 2003). [4] GAO-03-497T and Airport Financing: Annual Funding as Much as $3 Billion Less than Planned Development, GAO/T-RCED-99-84 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10, 1999). [5] FAA estimate of $41 billion and ACI estimate of $78 billion do not consider cost increases such as rising construction costs. Going forward, these costs may increase, especially construction costs, which have jumped 26 percent in 30 major U.S. cities over the past 3 years. FAA acknowledges that development estimates may or may not include increases in costs based on construction uncertainty and that annual cost increases are not captured. [6] ACI estimated total planned development costs of $87 billion (in nominal dollars) for the 5-year period. ACI's total is $78 billion, or $15.6 billion (expressed in 2006 dollars), annually--split between $9.8 billion of AIP-eligible costs and $5.8 billion of ineligible costs. [7] As noted above, the total amount of funds may be somewhat overstated because as much as 30 percent ($660 million) of PFCs may be used to finance bond issues. This would particularly affect the total for larger airports, which collect most of the PFCs. [8] If the full measure of ACI's $15.6 billion estimate of planned development is used, the difference increases to $2.6 billion annually. [9] PFC collections, as part of total funding, may be double counted if they are used to finance bond proceeds. [10] PFC collections as part of total funding may be double counted if they are used to finance bond proceeds. [11] AIP grants generally consist of two types--(1) entitlement funds that are apportioned to airports or states by formula each year based on the number of airport passengers or state population and (2) discretionary funds that FAA approves based on a project's priority. [12] The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, Pub. L. No. 106-81 (Apr. 5, 2000). [13] Set-aside programs are designed with a specific purpose, e.g., Military Airport Program (MAP) award grants to current or former military airfields to assist in converting them to civil use and to reduce congestion at existing airports experiencing significant delays. [14] This calculation assumes that the increased PFC would not affect passenger demand for air travel. GAO has previously calculated that a PFC increase could reduce passenger demand, which would reduce the PFC revenue collected at the higher rate. Our previous work suggests the revenue reduction due to demand effects would likely be small. See GAO, Passenger Facility Charges: Program Implementation and the Potential Effects of Proposed Changes, GAO/RCED-99-138 (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 1999). [15] General aviation airports are excluded since they do not have passengers that would pay a PFC. [16] The trust fund is financed by taxes on domestic and international airline travel, domestic cargo transported by air, or mail transported by air, and various fuel taxes. (In addition to noncommercial aviation fuel, there are also taxes on commercial aviation fuel, general aviation (GA) gasoline and GA jet fuel.) [17] Certain types of projects are not eligible to be included in notices of intent, including debt service and complex ground access projects. GAO's Mission: The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." Order by Mail or Phone: The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C. 20548: To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 512-6061: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm: E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: Congressional Relations: Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548: Public Affairs: Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548: