Aviation Finance: Implementation of General Aviation Entitlement Grants (02/11/2003, GAO-03-347}

-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-347
    TITLE:   Aviation Finance: Implementation of General Aviation Entitlement Grants
     DATE:   02/11/2003



This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-347 
entitled 'Aviation Finance: Implementation of General Aviation 
Entitlement Grants' which was released on February 11, 2003.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO productsï¿½ 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 [email protected].



Report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 

Representatives:



February 2003:



Aviation Finance:



Implementation of General Aviation Entitlement Grants:



GAO-03-347:



GAO Highlights: 



Highlights of GAO-03-347, a report to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, House of Representatives:



February 2003:



Aviation Finance:



Implementation of General Aviation Entitlement Grants:



Why GAO Did This Study:



In 2000, Congress created general aviation entitlement grants to 
provide 

funding up to $150,000 per fiscal year to individual general aviation 

airports. These grants fund capital improvements and repair projects. 
GAO 

was asked to (1) assess the amount of funding airports used, (2) 
identify 

the types of projects undertaken, and (3) convey suggestions made by 

interested parties to improve the grants in preparation for the 

reauthorization of the legislation 

in 2003.



What GAO Found: 



By the end of fiscal year 2002, most fiscal year 2001 general aviation 

entitlement grant funds had been accepted by the airports to which they 

were apportioned.  However, less than half of the fiscal year 2002 

entitlement grant funds had been accepted by those airports at the end 
of 

fiscal year 2002.  The remaining portions of unused entitlement funds 
for 

the 2 fiscal years were carried over to use in the following years--up 
to 

3 years. In both fiscal years, the percentage of entitlement grant 
funds 

accepted varied widely by state.  Larger general aviation airports 
accepted 

a greater percentage of their entitlement grants than small airports 
for 

both fiscal years.



In fiscal 2001, general aviation airports used these funds primarily to 

undertake landing area construction projectsï¿½runways, taxiways, and 
aprons. 

In addition, the airports used the funds to undertake pavement 
maintenance; 

airfield lighting, weather observation systems, and navigational aids; 
and 

planning projects. These four categories constituted over 75 percent of 
all 

projects undertaken with these funds. 



While most state aviation officials, selected airport managers, and FAA 

officials we spoke with indicated these entitlement grants were useful, 

they also suggested some changes.  The most common concerned the amount 
of 

funding. Several state aviation officials and some selected airport 
managers 

indicated that the $150,000 annual maximum amount per airport was not 

adequate to complete projects.  However, state officials expressed 
concerns 

that increasing the entitlement amount could hinder the statesï¿½ ability 
to 

address their own aviation priorities because any increase would 

proportionately decrease the statesï¿½ apportionments.  The majority of 
the 

selected airport managers indicated that, without these grants, their 
airports 

would have been unable to undertake the projects.  Other suggestions 
concerned 

increasing the amount of time to use the grants, broadening the 
categories of 

eligible projects, and using an alternative to FAAï¿½s National Plan  of 

Integrated Airports Systems as the basis for funding eligible projects.



Figure: 



[See PDF for image]



Source: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association:



[End of figure]



www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-347.



To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the 

link above. For more information, contact Gerald Dillingham at (202) 

512-3650 or [email protected].



Contents:



Letter:



Results in Brief:



Background:



Most Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds Were 

Accepted:



General Aviation Entitlement Grants Were Used More Than One-Third of 

the Time to Fund Construction of Landing Areas:



State Officials and Selected General Aviation Airport Managers Told Us 

That Entitlement Grants Are Useful and Easy to Obtain, but Some Changes 

Were Suggested:



Agency Comments:



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:



Appendix II: FAAï¿½s Airport Improvement Program:



Appendix III: Categories of U.S. Airports:



Appendix IV: Accepted General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funding by 
State

for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002:



Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements:



GAO Contacts:



Acknowledgments:



Tables:



Table 1: Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funding 

Accepted by State, as of October 1, 2002:



Table 2: Fiscal Year 2002 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funding 

Accepted by State, as of October 1, 2002:



Figures:



Figure 1: Number of General Aviation Airports Apportioned Entitlement 

Grant Funds, Fiscal Years 2001-2003:



Figure 2: General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds Available for 

Acceptance, Fiscal Years 2001-2003:



Figure 3: FAAï¿½s Process for Distributing General Aviation Entitlement 

Grants:



Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds 

Accepted, as of October 1, 2002:



Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2002 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds 

Accepted, as of October 1, 2002:



Figure 6: Percentage of Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 General Aviation 

Entitlement Grant Funds Accepted by Airport Size, as of October 1, 
2002:



Figure 7: Projects Funded by Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation 

Entitlement Grants:



Abbreviations:



AIR-21: Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21ST 

Century:



CATI: Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview:



FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:



AIP: Airport Improvement Program:



NPIAS: National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems:



ACIP: Airports Capital Improvement Plan:



This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyrighted

protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed

in its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain 

copyrighted graphics, images, or other materials. Permission from the 

copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAOï¿½s product. 



Letter:



February 11, 2003:



The Honorable Don Young

Chairman

The Honorable James Oberstar

Ranking Democratic Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives:



In April 2000, Congress passed the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment 

and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21),[Footnote 1] which, in 

part, directed funding to general aviation airports as part of the 

Federal Aviation Administrationï¿½s (FAA) Airport Improvement Program 

(AIP).[Footnote 2] AIR-21 reauthorized various programs administered by 

FAA and made changes to other programs. Among these changes, AIR-21 

restructured the apportionment of state aviation grant funds by 

including entitlements for individual nonprimary airports, (hereafter 

referred to as general aviation entitlement grants).[Footnote 3] These 

general aviation entitlement grants allow up to $150,000 annually, or 

one-fifth of development costs shown in the latest published National 

Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS),[Footnote 4] whichever is 

less, to be allocated to general aviation, reliever, and nonprimary 

commercial service airports (hereafter, these three types of airports 

are referred to collectively as general aviation airports). Grants are 

awarded directly to these airports in 41 states and 2 territories, and 

pass through 9 states that receive the funds as block grants.[Footnote 

5]



Based on your interest in how well this entitlement grant program was 

working, you asked that we review the first 2 yearsï¿½ implementation of 

general aviation entitlement grants. As agreed with your office, we 

addressed the following questions:



* How much general aviation entitlement grant funding for fiscal years 

2001 and 2002 has been accepted by general aviation airports, by state 

and airport size?



* What types of projects have general aviation airports funded using 

general aviation entitlement grants?



* What changes, if any, do state aviation officials, general aviation 

airport managers, and FAA officials suggest to general aviation 

entitlement grants?



To answer these questions, we reviewed FAAï¿½s data on grants and 

information on eligible projects listed in the NPIAS. We discussed this 

information with FAA headquarters staff and resolved any discrepancies 

with them. We reviewed data from an FAA survey that its field offices 

completed on the use of these grant funds by general aviation airports. 

We also surveyed state aviation officials, by telephone, from all 50 

states and 2 territories and a sample of officials representing 56 

general aviation airports nationwide. The small sample size of general 

aviation airport officials was not designed to be projectable to the 

population of general aviation airports. In addition to interviewing 

cognizant FAA officials, we interviewed officials of general aviation 

industry groups. Appendix I explains this reportï¿½s scope and 

methodology in greater detail. We performed our work from June 2002 

through February 2003, in Easton, Maryland; Odenton, Maryland; 

Greenville, Texas; Mesquite, Texas; and Washington, D.C., in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.



Results in Brief:



As of the end of fiscal year 2002, general aviation airports had 

accepted general aviation entitlement grants totaling $201 million of 

the almost $269 million (about 75 percent) made available by FAA in 

fiscal year 2001. Through fiscal year 2002, general aviation airports 

had accepted grants totaling $124 million of the $271 million (about 46 

percent) apportioned in fiscal year 2002 for the entitlement grants. 

However, the percentage of grant funding accepted varied widely from 

state to state in both fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Additionally, a 

greater percentage of general aviation entitlement grant funds had been 

accepted by larger general aviation airports than the smallest 

airports. (App. IV lists funds accepted by state for fiscal years 2001 

and 2002.):



General aviation airports primarily used their fiscal year 2001 

entitlement grant funds to construct landing areas, such as runways, 

taxiways, and aprons. These projects constituted over one-third of the 

projects reported to FAA. In order of frequency, the next three 

categories of projects funded with the general aviation entitlement 

funds were (1) pavement maintenance; (2) airfield lighting, weather 

observation systems, and navigational aids; and (3) planning. Together 

these four categories accounted for over 75 percent of the projects 

developed with general aviation entitlement grant funds.



Eighty-five percent of the 50 state and 2 territorial aviation 

officials and 84 percent of the selected general aviation airport 

managers we interviewed indicated that these entitlement grants are 

useful and help meet the needs of general aviation airports. They also 

told us that airports have easily met the administrative requirements 

for receiving these grants. Over 75 percent of the selected airport 

managers added that the grants provided critical funding to undertake 

projects at their airports. Although positive about the grants, some 

state and territorial officials and airport managers suggested a 

variety of changes. The most frequently suggested change was to 

increase grant funding to better meet the cost of larger projects. 

However, some state and territorial aviation officials expressed 

concern that this change would correspondingly decrease the funds 

available for state aviation grant funds and thus hamper their ability 

to address statewide aviation priorities. Other suggestions included 

extending the time frames for fund use, broadening the categories of 

eligible projects, and using an alternative to FAAï¿½s NPIAS as the basis 

for funding eligible projects.



We provided the Department of Transportation with a copy of the draft 

report for its review and comment. FAA officials agreed with the 

information contained in this report and provided some clarifying and 

technical comments, which we have incorporated where appropriate.



Background:



Prior to AIR-21, which was signed into law on April 5, 2000, general 

aviation airports received AIP funding through funds apportioned to 

states by using geographic area and population-based formulas, as well 

as through:



discretionary funds.[Footnote 6] These airports also received funds 

through FAAï¿½s small airport fund. AIR-21 amended the general aviation 

state apportionment grant program, in part, by creating a special rule, 

which provides general aviation entitlement grants for any fiscal year 

in which the total amount of AIP funding is $3.2 billion or more. Under 

this rule, the amount available for state apportionments increases from 

18.5 percent of total AIP funding to 20 percent when AIPï¿½s total 

funding is $3.2 billion or more. From the state apportionment, FAA 

computes and allocates the amount available for general aviation 

entitlements and the remaining funds are provided for ï¿½unassignedï¿½ 

state apportionment. The general aviation entitlement grant amount for 

any one airport represents one-fifth of the estimate of that airportï¿½s 

5-year costs for its needs, as listed in the most recently published 

NPIAS, up to an annual maximum of $150,000. After the aggregate amount 

of general aviation entitlements has been determined, the remainder is 

provided for the same type of airports within a state on an unassigned 

basis, the allocation of which is determined by a stateï¿½s area and 

population relative to all other states. To be eligible for a general 

aviation entitlement grant, an airport must be listed and have 

identified needs in the most recently published NPIAS;[Footnote 7] 

therefore, an airportï¿½s listed needs largely determine the size of an 

airportï¿½s annual grant. However, funding is not limited to the projects 

listed in the most recent NPIAS.[Footnote 8] The 1998-2002 NPIAS 

provided the basis for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 grants. 

The 2001-2005 NPIAS, published in August 2002, provides the basis for 

fiscal year 2003 grants.



A general aviation entitlement grant provides funding for 90 percent of 

an eligible projectï¿½s total costs; the airport must finance the 

remaining 10 percent, although many states pay a share of this local 

matching requirement. FAAï¿½s regional and district offices work with 

state aviation officials and sponsors to find appropriate uses for 

these funds. Grant funds can be used on most airfield capital projects, 

such as runway, taxiway, and apron construction but generally not for 

terminals, hangers, and nonaviation development, such as parking lots. 

Some airfield maintenance and project planning costs are also allowed. 

Accepting a grant not only requires airport officials to pledge to 

continue operations and maintenance for 20 years but also precludes the 

airport from granting exclusive rights to those providing aeronautical 

services and allowing any activity that could interfere with its use as 

a general aviation airport.



The number of general aviation airports that were apportioned general 

aviation entitlement funds is expected to increase from 2,100 in fiscal 

year 2001 to 2,493 in fiscal year 2003, as shown in figure 1. The 

expected 19 percent increase reflects the fact that more airports 

identified capital needs in the most recent NPIAS, which serves as the 

basis for fiscal year 2003 grants. FAA officials explained that before 

the NPIAS served as a basis for calculating entitlement grants, some 

FAA officials, sponsors, and state aviation officials did not always 

give high priority to keeping the general aviation portion of the NPIAS 

up to date. Thus, they added, the NPIAS used to calculate the fiscal 

years 2001 and 2002 general aviation entitlement might have understated 

airport development needs for these airports.



Figure 1: Number of General Aviation Airports Apportioned Entitlement 

Grant Funds, Fiscal Years 2001-2003:



[See PDF for image] 



Note: GAO analysis of FAA data.



[End of figure] 



In fiscal years 2001 and 2002, entitlement grants for general aviation 

airports were available because AIP funding levels were at least $3.2 

billion.[Footnote 9] As the number of eligible airports or the value of 

development identified in the NPIAS for these airports increases, the 

funding for these grants also increases. However, this increase could 

result in a corresponding decrease in the amount of AIP funding 

available in that year for ï¿½unassignedï¿½ state apportionment grants. 

Since the latter amount is determined after subtracting the total 

general aviation entitlements from the total state apportionment, FAA 

estimates that general aviation entitlement grant funding will rise by 

about $70 million from $271 million in fiscal year 2002 to about $341 

million for fiscal year 2003, as shown in figure 2.



Figure 2: General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds Available for 

Acceptance, Fiscal Years 2001-2003:



[See PDF for image] 



Notes: GAO analysis of FAA data.



The amount for fiscal year 2003 is an estimate.



[End of figure] 10:37 AM 2/20/2003



Over half of general aviation airports were apportioned the maximum 

amount of funding. For fiscal year 2001, of the 2,100 airports that 

were apportioned these entitlements, 71 percent were eligible for the 

maximum amount of $150,000.[Footnote 10] With the publication of the 

new NPIAS in August 2002, 83 percent of the 2,493 eligible airports 

were apportioned the maximum for fiscal year 2003.



The General Aviation Entitlement Grant Process:



Working in collaboration with FAAï¿½s regional or airport district 

offices, general aviation airports identify projects that will be 

funded with entitlement grants. These projects are listed in FAAï¿½s 

Airports Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP), which includes only those 

projects that FAA has identified as candidates for AIP funding. After 

FAA has certified that the application materials are in order and all 

relevant AIP statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements have been 

satisfied, FAA then sends a grant offer to the airport sponsor or the 

state aviation agency representing the airport sponsor.[Footnote 11] 

The flowchart in figure 3 illustrates this process.



Figure 3: FAAï¿½s Process for Distributing General Aviation Entitlement 

Grants:



[See PDF for image] 



Note: GAO presentation of FAA information.



[End of figure] 



When an airport elects not to accept its general aviation entitlement 

grant funds, the funds revert to AIPï¿½s discretionary fund to be awarded 

by FAA to another airport, as provided by statute. However, the funds 

remain available to this airport for up to 3 years. Therefore, in the 

third year that an airport has entitlement grant funds available, it 

could have as much as $450,000 available for a grant. In addition, an 

airport can use part of its general aviation entitlement grant in the 

first year and carry over the remainder for use later. For example, an 

airport might have a general aviation entitlement grant of $140,000, 

but the only AIP-eligible project it can implement during the fiscal 

year might require just $80,000 in AIP funds. FAA could issue the grant 

for $80,000 that fiscal year and include the remaining $60,000 of the 

airportï¿½s available funds in another grant for that airport at any time 

within the 3 years after the grant was first made available.



For general aviation airports in the nine block grant states, the 

acceptance process for these entitlement grants works 

differently.[Footnote 12] Each block grant state is apportioned a lump 

sum equal to the total of these grants for airports in that state plus 

total unassigned state apportionment funds. FAA has distributed all 

general aviation entitlement grant funds to these states in the same 

year the funds were apportioned. The block grant states are then 

responsible for distributing the funds to individual general aviation 

airports according to FAAï¿½s requirements.



According to FAA officials, states are required to offer eligible 

general aviation airports their entitlements in the fiscal year it is 

made available. If an airport does not accept the entitlement in the 

first year of its availability, the distribution of a general aviation 

entitlement grant must nonetheless be made to that airport by the end 

of 3 years. If an airport has not accepted the funding at the end of 

the 3-year period, the grant would be reduced by the amount of the 

funding not accepted. FAA officials explained that each block grant 

could be adjusted on an annual basis, but this approach is used to 

provide block grant states flexibility similar to the authority FAA has 

in managing AIP and general aviation entitlement grants. FAA officials 

added that the state assumes the risk if funds are used for another 

airport during the 3-year period. If funds have been expended at 

another airport and an unassigned state apportionment is not available 

to provide the general aviation entitlement funding to the original 

eligible airport, it would be necessary for the state to repay the 

federal funds with its own state-generated funds.



Most Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds Were 

Accepted:



As of October 1, 2002, about 75 percent of the total fiscal year 2001 

general aviation entitlement grant funds had been accepted by the 

airports to which they were apportioned, and about 46 percent of the 

total fiscal year 2002 general aviation entitlement grant funds had 

been accepted. The percentage of the total funding accepted by airports 

for both fiscal years varied widely from state to state. Also, the 

percentage varied by size, with the larger[Footnote 13] general 

aviation airports having accepted 77 percent of their fiscal year 2001 

entitlement funds compared to 65 percent for the smallest 

airports.[Footnote 14]



Three Quarters of Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation Entitlement Grant 

Funds Was Accepted:



As of October 1, 2002, $201 million (about 75 percent) of the $269 

million in general aviation entitlement grant funding apportioned for 

2001 had been accepted, as shown in figure 4. Of the $201 million 

accepted, $145 million (54 percent) was accepted in fiscal year 2001 

and $56 million (21 percent) was accepted in fiscal year 2002. Almost 

$69 million of the fiscal year 2001 apportionments was carried over for 

possible future acceptance in fiscal year 2003. These grants were made 

to 1,599 (76 percent) of the 2,100 eligible airports.



Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds 

Accepted, as of October 1, 2002:



[See PDF for image]



Note: GAO analysis of FAA and block grant state data.



[End of figure] 



About Half of Fiscal Year 2002 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds 

Were Accepted:



As shown in figure 5, airports had accepted $124 million of the $271 

million in fiscal year 2002 general aviation entitlement grants (about 

46 percent). Grants were made to 1,026 of the 2,108 eligible airports 

(49 percent). The remaining amount ($147 million) can be accepted in 

fiscal years 2003 or 2004.



Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2002 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds 

Accepted, as of October 1, 2002:



[See PDF for image] 



Note: GAO analysis of FAA and block grant state data.



[End of figure] 



The Percentage of General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funds Accepted 

Varies Widely by State:



General aviation airports in some states accepted a larger percentage 

of funds in both fiscal years 2001 and 2002 than in other states. For 

fiscal year 2001 general aviation entitlement grant funds, the 

percentage of funds accepted ranged from about 48 percent to 100 

percent.[Footnote 15] The acceptance rate for fiscal year 2002 general 

aviation entitlement grant funds varied from 11 percent to 99 

percent.[Footnote 16] (See app. IV for a complete list of the 

percentage of funds that were accepted by state for fiscal years 2001 

and 2002.):



Funding for the Largest General Aviation Airports Is More Likely to 

Have Been Accepted Than Funding for the Smallest Airports:



Larger general aviation airports (as measured by the number of based 

aircraft) have accepted more of their general aviation entitlement 

grant funding than the smallest airports, as shown in figure 

6.[Footnote 17] Airports with more than 100 based aircraft had accepted 

77 percent of their fiscal year 2001 general aviation entitlement grant 

funds. Similarly, general aviation airports with between 50 and 99 

based aircraft had accepted about 81 percent of their general aviation 

entitlement funds. In contrast, 65 percent of the general aviation 

entitlement grant funds for fiscal year 2001 for airports with less 

than 20 based aircraft had been accepted. This pattern is similar for 

fiscal year 2002 funding. Airports with more than 100 based aircraft 

had accepted about 58 percent of their fiscal year 2002 grant funds, 

compared with 39 percent of the grant funds for airports with less than 

20 based aircraft.



Figure 6: Percentage of Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 General Aviation 

Entitlement Grant Funds Accepted by Airport Size, as of October 1, 

2002:



[See PDF for image] 



Note: GAO analysis of FAA and block grant state data.



[End of figure] 



General Aviation Entitlement Grants Were Used More Than One-Third of 

the Time to Fund Construction of Landing Areas:



According to the results of FAAï¿½s survey, general aviation airports 

most often used the funds from fiscal year 2001 entitlement grants to 

construct landing areas (e.g., runways, taxiways, and aprons). As shown 

in figure 7, of the 1,373 total projects reported in FAAï¿½s survey, 483 

(35 percent) were designated as landing area construction projects.



Figure 7: Projects Funded by Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation 

Entitlement Grants:



[See PDF for image] 



Notes: GAO analysis of FAAï¿½s survey, Airport Improvement Program FY 

2001 Non-Primary Entitlements.[Footnote 18]



Percentages do not total to 100 percent because of rounding.



[End of figure] 



The next three categories of projects most frequently undertaken were 

as follows:



Pavement maintenance (227): This category includes the general upkeep 

and maintenance of paved areas on airport land, such as filling and 

sealing cracks, grading pavement edges, and coating pavement with 

protective sealants.



Airfield lighting, weather observation equipment, and navigational aids 

(200): Navigational aids include eligible airport approach and landing 

systems, visual navigation aids, and electronic navigation and weather 

equipment, which help observe, detect, report, and communicate weather 

conditions at an airport.



Planning projects (162): This category includes the costs associated 

with preparing the documents that are a necessary part of developing 

plans to address current and future airport needs. This includes the 

plans required for airport development (e.g., the master plan and 

airport capital improvement plan) and environmental assessments as well 

as the additional elements or costs that are needed to complete such 

plans.



These four largest categories comprise over 75 percent of all projects 

funded with general aviation entitlement grants in fiscal year 2001.



State Officials and Selected General Aviation Airport Managers Told Us 

That Entitlement Grants Are Useful and Easy to Obtain, but Some Changes 

Were Suggested:



Almost all of the 50 state and 2 territorial aviation officials and the 

56 selected general aviation airport managers that we interviewed 

indicated that these entitlement grants are useful and help meet the 

needs of general aviation airports.[Footnote 19],[Footnote 20] They 

also told us that airports have easily met the administrative 

requirements for receiving these grants. Over two-thirds of the 

selected airport managers said that the grants provided critical 

funding to undertake projects at their airports. Although positive 

about the grants, some state officials and airport managers suggested a 

variety of changes. While the most frequently suggested change was to 

increase grant funding to better meet the cost of larger projects, some 

state aviation officials expressed concern that this change would 

correspondingly decrease the funds available for state aviation 

apportionments and thus hamper their ability to address statewide 

aviation priorities. Other frequently mentioned suggestions included 

extending the time frames for fund use and broadening the categories of 

eligible projects. Five of the 52 state aviation officials and one 

airport manager commented that the NPIAS is not an up-to-date list of 

airport needs and recommended that it not be used to distribute these 

entitlement grant funds.



General Aviation Airports Said They Easily Met FAAï¿½s Grant Requirements 

and the Funds Helped Meet Their Needs:



Over two-thirds of the state aviation officials told us that FAAï¿½s 

requirements for receiving these entitlement grants are easy to 

fulfill. These requirements include completing required airport capital 

improvement and layout plans, submitting grant application forms, 

getting projects included in the NPIAS, and providing the 10 percent 

matching funds. Most general aviation airport managers we interviewed 

agreed with this view. FAA officials reported that they purposely 

simplified the grant processing paperwork requirements for the general 

aviation entitlement grants, knowing that many eligible airports would 

be first time recipients of FAA funding. In addition, FAA officials 

told us that the regional and district offices conducted extraordinary 

outreach efforts to ensure that qualifying airports were aware of these 

new grants.



Almost 85 percent of the state aviation officials found entitlement 

grants useful by allowing general aviation airports to purchase needed 

equipment and undertake large projects, such as runway repairs. For 

example, one state aviation official told us that these grants were 

very important for maintaining safety and preserving runways at general 

aviation airports in his state. Over two-thirds of the selected general 

aviation airport managers said that they would not have been able to 

undertake or complete needed projects without these grant funds, and 

three-fourths of them said that the categories of projects eligible for 

funding include most of their capital needs. This means that they can 

use the funds for needed improvements, even for comparatively smaller 

projects such as lighting and fencing. Other state officials and 

airport managers added that the general aviation entitlement grants are 

important to the viability of general aviation airports. One state 

official said that the grants are helping to prevent the closure of 

general aviation airports, some of which provide medical access for 

small communities.



State Aviation Officials and Airport Managers Most Frequently Suggested 

Increasing Funding Levels and Time Frames:



Increasing the maximum amount of general aviation entitlement grants 

was the most frequent suggestion from state aviation officials to 

improve their usefulness. Some general aviation airport managers we 

surveyed supported this view. Almost two-thirds of the state aviation 

officials stated that the current annual maximum of $150,000 is not 

adequate to complete some major projects, while about one-third of the 

airport managers expressed this opinion. Other suggestions to improve 

the grantsï¿½ usefulness included making all 3 years of funding available 

to airports in the first year and increasing the time frame for funding 

availability to beyond the current 3-year limit.



Almost half of the state officials suggested increasing the annual 

amount of these grants to better enable general aviation airports to 

meet the cost of larger capital projects. Most state officials said 

that because the $150,000 annual amount is not adequate to complete 

some major projects, some airports rollover the funding to accumulate 

up to $450,000 of funding over 3 years to complete such projects. 

However, some state aviation officials and airport managers also 

expressed concern that even this 3-year total might not be sufficient 

to complete such expensive capital projects as repairing or improving 

runways and taxiways. Some state aviation officials, as well as some 

selected airport managers, reported undertaking comparatively smaller 

projects, such as fencing for security, lighting, and pavement 

maintenance. While emphasizing the importance of the grants to general 

aviation airports, many selected airport managers expressed more 

concern about the adequacy of funding than any other issue we discussed 

with them. Their most frequent suggestion to improve the grants was to 

increase funding amounts to better meet the cost of larger capital 

projects.



Nine state aviation officials also suggested allowing more flexibility 

in the existing 3-year time frame to use the funds, which would enable 

airports to afford a broader range of projects. Two airport managers we 

interviewed also suggested increased flexibility. For example, three 

state aviation officials suggested making all 3 years of grant funding 

available to airports in the first year. One of these officials said 

that making the full 3-year grant amount available to airports during 

the first year of funding would help airports undertake critical 

projects earlier because they would not need to wait to accumulate 

sufficient funding. According to FAA officials, this suggestion would 

represent a significant departure from current practices for 

administering entitlement funds. Officials told us that while multiyear 

grants can be made to primary airports for multiyear projects,[Footnote 

21]AIR-21 did not provide this authority for general aviation 

entitlement grants. Officials noted that this added flexibility could 

benefit some airports.



Alternatively, other state aviation officials, as well as some of the 

selected airport managers, suggested extending the current 3-year time 

frame for using these funds to as much as 4 or 5 years. They expect 

this extension would allow them to accumulate sufficient funds to 

undertake a broader range of capital projects and allow some airports 

sufficient time to complete these projects.



While state aviation officials and selected airport managers said that 

increased funding and time frames could help them complete larger 

projects, apportionment grants are also available to general aviation 

airports to help them complete many of these projects. Some state 

aviation officials reported that general aviation airports use 

entitlement grant funds in combination with apportionment funds to 

complete such larger projects as improving, extending, or constructing 

runways, taxiways, and aprons.



Opinions of Some State Aviation Officials and Airport Managers Differ 

on Increased General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funding:



Seven of the state aviation officials expressed concern that, as 

funding for general aviation entitlement grants increases, funding for 

unassigned apportionment grants could correspondingly decrease because 

the amount available for unassigned apportionment is determined by 

deducting the general aviation entitlement grant funding from a fixed 

percentage of AIP. Two state aviation officials told us that the 

reduction in aviation apportionment funding could hamper the statesï¿½ 

abilities to address their aviation priorities. Some state aviation 

officials said that because they can better determine which projects 

within their states are high priorities, they are better able to 

distribute the funds to airports on a statewide basis. For example, a 

state aviation official said that because these entitlement grants have 

reduced funding for significant projects, the small projects general 

aviation airports have undertaken have had a minimal impact on that 

stateï¿½s aviation system. FAA officials added that while the grants have 

been used for worthwhile projects, less unassigned apportionment grant 

funding could limit a stateï¿½s ability to address its aviation 

priorities and provide access to the national aviation system from 

rural and nonmetropolitan areas.



Because the entitlement funds come directly to general aviation 

airports, general aviation airport managers we interviewed were not 

concerned with the shift in funding source. One airport manager 

commented that projects requested by large airports are generally 

assigned a higher priority by states than projects requested by small 

airports. This manager added that, as a result, small airports usually 

do not receive apportionment funds from state aviation agencies. The 

manager told us that general aviation entitlement grants have allowed 

the airport to complete projects that would not have been selected by 

the state for apportionment funding. However, FAA officials stated that 

they determine the allocation of unassigned apportionment funds, except 

in block grant states. FAA officials added that project type and 

purpose receive more consideration than airport size in allocating 

these funds.



State Aviation and Airport Managers Suggested Broadening Categories of 

Eligible Projects:



While most officials said that the categories of projects eligible for 

entitlement grants generally covered the capital needs of general 

aviation airports, some of them suggested broadening the categories of 

eligible projects to include revenue-producing facilities. Under 

current program rules, revenue-producing facilities, such as hangars, 

terminals, and fueling stations, are not eligible for these grants. 

However, a few state officials told us that these facilities should be 

considered eligible for the grants because they would help produce the 

revenue necessary to allow small airports to supplement grant funding, 

complete needed projects, and, in some cases, become more self-

sufficient and remain open. Many of the airport managers we interviewed 

supported this view. FAA officials indicated that expansion of 

eligibility warrants consideration but would require statutory changes.



A Few Officials Suggested Changing the Basis to Determine Eligible 

Projects:



Five state aviation officials suggested that FAA use a more current 

list of airport projects to determine the amounts of future general 

aviation entitlement grants. One airport manager also made this 

suggestion. One state official was concerned that the list of projects 

in FAAï¿½s NPIAS was between 18 and 24 months old when FAA used it to 

calculate the entitlement grants for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. That 

official said that because FAA used an outdated list of airportsï¿½ 

needs, the grant amounts some airports received were based on already 

completed projects. Another official added that some of these airports 

then used the grant funds for low-priority projects because higher 

priority projects had been completed.



FAA officials disagreed with this criticism of the use of the NPIAS. 

They told us that the NPIAS is used only to calculate the amount of an 

airportï¿½s general aviation entitlement grant. Decisions on the projects 

to be funded are based on the airportï¿½s ACIP, which is kept up to date 

through regular consultation between FAA and the airportï¿½s sponsor or 

state aviation officials. Nevertheless, FAA officials acknowledged that 

use of the NPIAS added complexity and confusion to calculation of 

general aviation entitlement grants, and indicated that a simplified 

method warranted consideration.



Since most eligible airports receive the maximum grant amount, an 

alternative approach might be to establish a uniform general aviation 

entitlement amount for each general aviation airport listed in the 

NPIAS. FAA officials pointed out that, under current formulas, care 

would be needed in selecting the uniform grant level under this 

approach. Setting the level too low would limit the usefulness of the 

general aviation entitlement grant to individual airports, but setting 

the level too high would reduce the amount of unassigned apportionment 

funding based on state and national priorities.



Agency Comments:



We provided the Department of Transportation with a copy of the draft 

report for its review and comment. FAA officials agreed with 

information contained in this report and provided some clarifying and 

technical comments, which we have incorporated where appropriate.



We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator, 

FAA. This report is also available at no charge on GAOï¿½s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.



Please contact me or Carol Anderson-Guthrie at (202) 512-2834 if you 

have any questions. Individuals making key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix V.



Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph. D.

Director, Civil Aviation Issues:



Signed by Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph. D.:



[End of section]



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:



We were asked to review the general aviation entitlement grant funding 

that was available to eligible nonprimary airports--referred to as 

general aviation airports for simplicity in this report--including 

reliever, nonprimary commercial service, and other general aviation 

airports. Of the universe of 2,943 general aviation airports, we 

reviewed data for those that were eligible to receive these grants 

based on the requirements established by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA). We reviewed data on the general aviation 

entitlement grant funding that was accepted by general aviation 

airports, both directly from FAA and through block grant states. To 

obtain information from block grant states, we asked block grant state 

aviation officials to provide information on general aviation 

entitlement grant obligations made by their state to individual 

airports. We also analyzed a survey conducted by FAA to determine the 

types of projects that had been undertaken with the general aviation 

entitlement grant funding. In addition, to determine the stakeholdersï¿½ 

opinions concerning general aviation entitlement grants, we designed 

and administered a survey of all 52 state and territory aviation 

officials and 56 airport management officials.



Initially, we conducted interviews with FAA and other relevant aviation 

industry officials to better understand the program and the scope of 

the issues. We gathered information on industry opinions about the 

general aviation entitlement program including its usefulness, its 

limitations, and possible changes to the program. The interviews 

provided an introductory view of the general aviation entitlement grant 

program. To establish a background context and understanding of the 

programï¿½s purpose, we also conducted research on the legislation, 

statutes, policies, procedures, and guidelines that govern the 

implementation and operation of the general aviation entitlement grant 

program.



To determine the amount of general aviation entitlement grant funds 

that were accepted by airports, we received data from FAAï¿½s Airport 

Improvement Program (AIP) Grants Management Database, which contains 

all general aviation entitlement grants issued directly by FAA to 

airports and state sponsorship programs. This database also includes 

grants issued through October 1, 2002, using fiscal year 2001 and 

fiscal year 2002 general aviation entitlements. The database includes 

grants issued directly to airports and grants issued under state 

sponsorship outside of the block grant program. The database includes 

data on the aggregate amount of general aviation entitlement grant 

funding included in state block grants. However FAAï¿½s national database 

does not track distribution of block grant funds by the states, 

including general aviation entitlement grants to individual airports in 

the nine block grant states. After comparing these data with the 1998-

2002 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), we found some 

discrepancies. In coordination with FAA officials, we resolved these 

discrepancies and they are reflected in our report. We classified all 

grants accepted through state sponsorship program grants as having been 

accepted directly by individual airports. We then deleted all state 

sponsorship program grants from the data. The total block grants 

accepted were removed to avoid overstating the amount that individual 

airports accepted. To obtain grant acceptance data for airports 

receiving grants through block grant states, we asked state aviation 

officials in those states to provide acceptance data as of October 1, 

2002, on all the airports that were eligible for general aviation 

entitlement grants. This information was self-reported, and we did not 

verify the information provided by the states. After we discussed our 

methodology with FAA officials and reached agreement that the data from 

FAA and the individual block grant states were comparable, we 

aggregated the datasets. Funds not accepted were classified as ï¿½carry 

over/not yet accepted.ï¿½ We then merged these data with the 1998-2002 

NPIAS file and categorized the results by airport size, as measured by 

the number of based aircraft and state,[Footnote 22] in order to 

identify possible trends in the data. Using FAAï¿½s guidance, we 

stratified airports into four size categories: less than 20 based 

aircraft, 20-49 based aircraft, 50-99 based aircraft, and 100 or more 

based aircraft.



In order to ascertain the projects that have been undertaken by general 

aviation airports, we used FAAï¿½s survey of Airport Improvement Program 

FY2001 Non-Primary Entitlements. FAA surveyed its nine regions and the 

nine block grant states to gather data for several items, including the 

projects for which airports used the general aviation entitlement grant 

funds. FAA created 11 categories for the projects. We reviewed the 

results of its survey and met with FAA officials to discuss our 

interpretation. We did not verify the information provided by FAA. 

However, we raised questions about the overall design of FAAï¿½s data 

collection effort and the specific steps carried out to help ensure the 

quality of the collected data. We determined that the data quality was 

sufficient for the purpose of our review.



To assess the usefulness of the general aviation entitlement grants and 

to identify the potential areas of change, we surveyed state aviation 

and airport management officials. We designed a computer-assisted 

telephone interview (CATI) instrument to collect their responses. We 

conducted a census of state aviation officials (50 states and 2 

territories) who oversee the operations of airports and head their 

respective state aviation programs. All 52 of these aviation officials 

provided their opinions on the experiences of airports in their 

respective states and territories. To compare state and airport-level 

responses about the program, we also obtained the perspectives of 56 

general aviation airport management officials to acquire their 

responses to the same questions and direct illustrations of their 

experience with the program. The small sample size was not designed to 

be projectable to the population of general aviation airports. However, 

measures were taken to help ensure that the airports chosen 

systematically cover and broadly represent the substantive criteria. 

Our selection approach was completed in three steps. First, we 

identified airports that accepted entitlement grant funds in either 

fiscal years 2001 or 2002. Second, we stratified these airports 

according to: size--the number of based aircraft--measured as small 

(less than 20 based aircraft), medium 1 (20-49), medium 2 (50-99), and 

large (100 or more); FAA regional location; and block grant status 

(whether the airport is located in a block grant state). We sought 

guidance from FAA in determining the airport size categories. The 

stratification process produced 56 exclusive groups (airports in block 

grant states are not located in each FAA region). Then, in the third 

step, we randomly selected one airport from each of the groups, which 

were joined to form the final sample of 56 airports. All of the airport 

management officials provided responses about their experiences with 

the program.



The CATI consisted of closed-and open-ended questions that asked about 

an airportï¿½s experiences with and its ability to meet the requirements 

of the general aviation entitlement grant. Descriptive statistical 

analyses of close-ended survey data were performed to determine 

response patterns. Analyses of open-ended responses were conducted to 

detect broad themes and topics within those themes, summarizing state 

aviation and airport management responses on program improvements and 

projects undertaken using entitlement grants.



We conducted our review from June 2002 through February 2003 in Easton, 

Maryland; Odenton, Maryland; Greenville, Texas; Mesquite, Texas; and 

Washington, D.C., in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. The collection of state aviation and airport 

management interview data was completed in September and November 2002, 

respectively.



[End of section]



Appendix II: FAAï¿½s Airport Improvement Program:



The Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which was created in 1982, is 

funded by the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. AIP distributes funds to 

airports through grants in a manner that reflects several national 

priorities and objectives including financing small state and community 

airports. 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. Formula funds are apportioned 

by formula or percentage and may be used for any eligible airport or 

planning project. Through the AIP, the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) apportions formula grants automatically to specific airports or 

types of airports including primary airports, cargo service airports, 

general aviation airports, and Alaska airports.



In administering AIP, FAA must comply with various statutory 

provisions, formulas, and set-asides established by law, which specify 

how AIP grant funds are to be distributed among airports. Each year, 

FAA uses the statutory formulas to determine how much in apportionment 

funds are to be made available to each airport or state. After 

determining these amounts, FAA informs each airport or state of the 

amount of funding available for that year. However, these funds do not 

automatically go to an airportï¿½s sponsor. To receive the funds it is 

entitled to, an airport or state has to submit a valid grant 

application to FAA. In addition, under the act, individual airports and 

states do not have to use these funds in the year they are made 

available. The act gives most airports and states up to 3 years to use 

their apportionment funds. This carryover allows airports to accumulate 

a larger amount to pay for more costly projects. Once the 

apportionments have been determined, the remaining amount of AIP funds 

is deposited in that programï¿½s discretionary fund, which consists of 

set-asides that are established by statute and other distributions. AIP 

funds are usually limited to planning, designing, and constructing 

projects that improve aircraft operations, such as runways, taxiways, 

aprons, and land purchases, as well as to purchase security, safety, 

and emergency equipment. AIP funds are also available to plan for and 

implement programs to mitigate aircraft noise in the vicinity of 

airports. However, these grants are generally not eligible for projects 

related to commercial revenue-generating portions of terminals, such as 

shop concessions, commercial maintenance hangars, fuel farms, parking 

garages, and off-airport road construction.



[End of section]



Appendix III: Categories of U.S. Airports:



[See PDF for image] 



[End of figure] 



[End of section]



Appendix IV Accepted General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funding by 

State for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002:



Table 1: Fiscal Year 2001 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funding 

Accepted by State, as of October 1, 2002:



State : Alabama; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 44; Accepted fiscal year 2001: $4,060,335; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: $552,079; Carryover/not yet accepted: $1,662,155; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 73.51.



State : Alaska; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 95; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 4,734,631; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 1,159,133; Carryover/not yet accepted: 5,185,940; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 53.19.



State : American Samoa; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 2; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 0; Accepted fiscal year 2002: 

90,000; Carryover/not yet accepted: 60,000; Percentage accepted as of 

10/1/02: 60.00.



State : Arkansas; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 40; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,590,410; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 1,224,225; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,117,295; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 77.35.



State : Arizona; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 42; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 5,297,027; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 414,127; Carryover/not yet accepted: 220,000; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 96.29.



State : California; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 146; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 9,869,783; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 4,815,450; Carryover/not yet accepted: 4,959,000; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 74.76.



State : Colorado; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 33; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,459,839; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 456,477; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,159,573; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 71.55.



State : Connecticut; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 6; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 528,714; Accepted fiscal year 

2002: 2,004; Carryover/not yet accepted: 369,282; Percentage accepted 

as of 10/1/02: 58.97.



State : Delaware; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 2; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 205,000; Accepted fiscal year 

2002: 0; Carryover/not yet accepted: 0; Percentage accepted as of 10/1/

02: 100.00.



State : Florida; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 69; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 4,405,564; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 1,492,736; Carryover/not yet accepted: 3,435,863; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 63.19.



State : Georgia; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 82; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 8,360,031; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 873,799; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,925,353; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 82.75.



State : Hawaii; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 4; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 150,000; Accepted fiscal year 

2002: 0; Carryover/not yet accepted: 407,400; Percentage accepted as of 

10/1/02: 26.91.



State : Idaho; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

27; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,764,606; Accepted fiscal year 2002: 

696,000; Carryover/not yet accepted: 788,420; Percentage accepted as of 

10/1/02: 75.73.



State : Illinois[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible: 

airports: 65; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 3,281,622; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 3,415,437; Carryover/not yet accepted: 2,220,071; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 75.10.



State : Indiana; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 57; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 5,866,509; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 1,454,580; Carryover/not yet accepted: 940,111; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 88.62.



State : Iowa; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

49; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,337,912; Accepted fiscal year 2002: 

843,859; Carryover/not yet accepted: 2,730,846; Percentage accepted as 

of 10/1/02: 53.81.



State : Kansas; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 44; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,454,619; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 782,987; Carryover/not yet accepted: 2,459,754; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 47.64.



State : Kentucky; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 26; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,609,548; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 718,097; Carryover/not yet accepted: 955,317; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 70.90.



State : Louisiana; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 41; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,720,843; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 1,568,158; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,391,616; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 75.50.



State : Maine; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

10; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 908,881; Accepted fiscal year 2002: 

272,089; Carryover/not yet accepted: 107,919; Percentage accepted as of 

10/1/02: 91.63.



State : Maryland; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 15; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,250,497; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 476,690; Carryover/not yet accepted: 458,813; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 79.01.



State : Massachusetts; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 17; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,613,676; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 349,182; Carryover/not yet accepted: 363,652; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 84.37.



State : Michigan[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible: 

airports: 76; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 6,491,029; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 2,322,500; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,996,008; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 81.53.



State : Minnesota; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 65; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,852,939; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 1,933,071; Carryover/not yet accepted: 4,043,590; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 54.20.



State : Mississippi; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 63; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 3,805,218; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 1,243,193; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,414,309; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 78.12.



State : Missouri[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible: 

airports: 44; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 3,856,600; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 1,366,060; Carryover/not yet accepted: 900,000; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 85.30.



State : Montana; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 35; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,246,080; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 1,072,916; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,651,818; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 58.40.



State : Nebraska; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 28; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 667,575; Accepted fiscal year 

2002: 1,071,933; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,126,753; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 60.69.



State : Nevada; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 24; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,878,622; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 506,314; Carryover/not yet accepted: 685,281; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 77.68.



State : New Hampshire; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 9; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 933,992; Accepted fiscal year 

2002: 168,341; Carryover/not yet accepted: 0; Percentage accepted as of 

10/1/02: 100.00.



State : New Jersey[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible: 

airports: 19; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 0; Accepted fiscal year 2002: 

150,000; Carryover/not yet accepted: 2,489,555; Percentage accepted as 

of 10/1/02: 5.68.



State : New Mexico; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 38; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,119,889; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 2,235,133; Carryover/not yet accepted: 903,334; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 82.82.



State : New York; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 57; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 5,109,266; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 2,286,925; Carryover/not yet accepted: 995,809; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 88.13.



State : North Carolina[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; 

Eligible: airports: 53; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,446,800; Accepted 

fiscal year 2002: 3,600,445; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,169,000; 

Percentage accepted as of 10/1/02: 83.80.



State : North Dakota; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 23; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,142,527; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 130,886; Carryover/not yet accepted: 60,586; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 97.40.



State : Ohio; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

88; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 7,217,611; Accepted fiscal year 2002: 

2,984,776; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,718,235; Percentage accepted 

as of 10/1/02: 85.59.



State : Oklahoma; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 74; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 3,340,126; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 1,847,658; Carryover/not yet accepted: 2,861,822; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 64.45.



State : Oregon; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 41; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,566,448; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 921,700; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,514,411; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 69.73.



State : Pennsylvania[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; 

Eligible: airports: 39; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 904,500; Accepted 

fiscal year 2002: 3,155,312; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,247,099; 

Percentage accepted as of 10/1/02: 76.50.



State : Puerto Rico; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 6; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 640,099; Accepted fiscal year 

2002: 109,901; Carryover/not yet accepted: 150,000; Percentage accepted 

as of 10/1/02: 83.33.



State : Rhode Island; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 3; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 146,222; Accepted fiscal year 

2002: 300,000; Carryover/not yet accepted: 0; Percentage accepted as of 

10/1/02: 100.00.



State : South Carolina; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 42; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 3,545,308; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 1,124,057; Carryover/not yet accepted: 879,963; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 84.14.



State : South Dakota; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 33; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,854,537; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 389,567; Carryover/not yet accepted: 389,567; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 76.06.



State : Tennessee[A] b; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible: 

airports: 56; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 6,697,018; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 0; Carryover/not yet accepted: 112,982; Percentage accepted 

as of 10/1/02: 98.34.



State : Texas[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible: 

airports: 99; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 6,602,681; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 1,426,280; Carryover/not yet accepted: 3,245,284; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 71.22.



State : Utah; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

28; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,814,667; Accepted fiscal year 2002: 

155,483; Carryover/not yet accepted: 748,698; Percentage accepted as of 

10/1/02: 79.87.



State : Vermont; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 8; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 300,000; Accepted fiscal year 

2002: 300,000; Carryover/not yet accepted: 308,844; Percentage accepted 

as of 10/1/02: 66.02.



State : Virginia; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 34; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,123,618; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 893,430; Carryover/not yet accepted: 1,741,352; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 63.40.



State : Washington; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 26; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,330,002; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 849,483; Carryover/not yet accepted: 739,825; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 74.66.



State : West Virginia; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 16; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,887,147; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 378,131; Carryover/not yet accepted: 54,945; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 97.63.



State : Wisconsin[A]; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible: 

airports: 36; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 1,631,000; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 916,667; Carryover/not yet accepted: 2,037,334; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 55.57.



State : Wyoming; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 21; Accepted fiscal year 2001: 2,182,518; Accepted fiscal 

year 2002: 595,393; Carryover/not yet accepted: 154,607; Percentage 

accepted as of 10/1/02: 94.73.



State : Total; Block: grant: state[A] (Yes/No): [Empty]; Eligible: 

airports: 2,100; Accepted fiscal year 2001: $144,804,086; Accepted 

fiscal year 2002: $56,092,665; Carryover/not yet accepted: $68,576,078; 

Percentage accepted as of 10/1/02: 74.55.



Source: FAA:



Note: GAO analysis of data from FAAï¿½s AIP Grants Management Database.



[A] Data provided by block grant states in response to our data 

collection instrument.



[B] In any given year, the total number of accepted entitlement grants 

in Tennessee represents larger and usually fewer grants than other 

states because, with FAAï¿½s permission, Tennessee forwards its 

carryovers. In other words, an airport in Tennessee that is eligible 

for $150,000 could accept $450,000 in either its first, second, or 

third year of eligibility. According to FAA officials, the extra 

$300,000, if awarded in the first fiscal year, or the extra $150,000 if 

awarded in the second fiscal year, actually represents unassigned state 

apportionment funds. In FAAï¿½s opinion, the airport may agree to carry 

over its remaining general aviation entitlement funds, but FAA does not 

believe there is any legal basis in the law governing AIP to enforce 

that commitment.



[End of table]



Table 2: Fiscal Year 2002 General Aviation Entitlement Grant Funding 

Accepted by State, as of October 1, 2002:



State: Alabama; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

44; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: $3,710,751; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

$2,563,818; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 59.14.



State: Alaska; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

97; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 3,460,771; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

7,875,600; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 30.53.



State: American Samoa; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 2; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 90,000; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 60,000; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 60.00.



State: Arkansas; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 41; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 2,590,002; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 2,491,928; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 50.96.



State: Arizona; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

42; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 4,996,153; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

935,001; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 84.24.



State: California; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 146; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 9,872,186; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 9,772,047; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 50.25.



State: Colorado; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 33; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,938,335; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 2,137,554; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 47.56.



State: Connecticut; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 6; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 300,000; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 600,000; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 33.33.



State: Delaware; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 3; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 292,555; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 62,445; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 82.41.



State: Florida; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

68; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 4,736,509; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

4,581,154; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 50.83.



State: Georgia; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

82; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 6,530,433; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

4,628,750; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 58.52.



State: Hawaii; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

4; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 0; Carryover/not yet accepted: 557,400; 

Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 0.00.



State: Idaho; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

27; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,620,360; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

1,628,666; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 49.87.



State: Illinois[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible: 

airports: 64; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 3,860,650; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 4,906,480; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 44.04.



State: Indiana; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

57; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 5,549,191; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

2,712,009; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 67.17.



State: Iowa; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

49; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 865,983; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

5,046,634; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 14.65.



State: Kansas; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

45; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,227,200; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

3,620,160; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 25.32.



State: Kentucky; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 26; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,492,018; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 1,790,944; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 45.45.



State: Louisiana; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 42; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 3,098,591; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 2,732,026; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 53.14.



State: Maine; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

10; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 453,073; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

835,816; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 35.15.



State: Maryland; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 14; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,050,000; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 986,000; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 51.57.



State: Massachusetts; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 17; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,243,760; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 1,082,750; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 53.46.



State: Michigan[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible: 

airports: 75; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 5,749,059; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 4,910,478; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 53.93.



State: Minnesota; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 65; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,896,920; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 6,932,680; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 21.48.



State: Mississippi; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 63; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 3,467,410; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 2,995,310; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 53.65.



State: Missouri[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible: 

airports: 45; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 3,449,600; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 2,823,060; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 54.99.



State: Montana; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

35; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,456,874; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

2,513,940; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 36.69.



State: Nebraska; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 27; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 964,364; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 1,821,422; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 34.62.



State: Nevada; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

25; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,740,802; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

1,479,415; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 54.06.



State: New Hampshire; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 8; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 944,070; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 8,263; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 99.13.



State: New Jersey[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible: 

airports: 19; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 0; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 2,639,555; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 0.00.



State: New Mexico; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 38; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 3,185,743; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 2,072,613; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 60.58.



State: New York; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 61; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 5,600,542; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 3,343,858; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 62.62.



State: North Carolina[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; 

Eligible: airports: 54; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 150,000; Carryover/

not yet accepted: 7,216,245; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 2.04.



State: North Dakota; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 23; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,724,881; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 609,118; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 73.90.



State: Ohio; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

88; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 5,728,989; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

6,191,633; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 48.06.



State: Oklahoma; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 74; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 2,993,808; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 5,055,798; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 37.19.



State: Oregon; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

41; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 2,410,648; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

2,591,911; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 48.19.



State: Pennsylvania[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible: 

airports: 39; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 2,666,133; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 2,640,778; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 50.24.



State: Puerto Rico; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 5; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 0; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

750,000; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 0.00.



State: Rhode Island; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 3; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 269,798; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 176,424; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 60.46.



State: South Carolina; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 42; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 3,250,362; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 2,298,966; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 58.57.



State: South Dakota; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 33; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,421,041; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 1,529,317; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 48.17.



State: Tennessee[A] b; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible: 

airports: 56; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 730,260; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 6,079,740; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 10.72.



State: Texas[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible: 

airports: 100; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 4,393,805; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 6,934,662; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 38.79.



State: Utah; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

27; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 2,277,578; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

1,291,270; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 63.82.



State: Vermont; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

8; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 300,000; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

608,844; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 33.01.



State: Virginia; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 35; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,735,756; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 3,172,644; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 35.36.



State: Washington; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 27; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,362,799; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 1,706,511; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 44.40.



State: West Virginia; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: 

airports: 16; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,728,763; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 591,460; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 74.51.



State: Wisconsin[A]; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): Yes; Eligible: 

airports: 36; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 1,393,467; Carryover/not yet 

accepted: 3,191,534; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 30.39.



State: Wyoming; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): No; Eligible: airports: 

21; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: 2,116,768; Carryover/not yet accepted: 

815,750; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 72.18.



State: Totals; Block grant state [A] (Yes/No): [Empty]; Eligible: 

airports: 2,108; Accepted: fiscal year 2002: $124,088,761; Carryover/

not yet accepted: $146,600,381; Percentage: accepted as of 10/1/02: 

45.84.



Source: FAA:



Note: GAO analysis of data from FAAï¿½s AIP Grants Management Database.



[A] Data provided by block grant states in response to our data 
collection 

instrument.



[B] In any given year, the total number of accepted entitlement grants 
in 

Tennessee represents larger and usually fewer grants than other states 

because, with FAAï¿½s permission, Tennessee forwards its carryovers. In 

other words, an airport in Tennessee that is eligible for $150,000 

could accept $450,000 in either its first, second, or third year of 

eligibility. According to FAA officials, the extra $300,000, if awarded 

in the first fiscal year, or the extra $150,000 if awarded in the 

second fiscal year, actually represents unassigned state apportionment 

funds. In FAAï¿½s opinion, the airport may agree to carry over its 

remaining general aviation entitlement funds, but FAA does not believe 

there is any legal basis in the law governing AIP to enforce that 

commitment.



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:



GAO Contacts:



Gerald Dillingham, Ph.D., (202) 512-2834

Carol Anderson-Guthrie, (214) 777-5739:



Acknowledgments:



In addition to those named above, Jon Altshul, Nancy Boardman, Jeanine 

Brady, Kevin Jackson, Bert Japikse, Michael Mgebroff, Jeff Miller, 

George Quinn, and Don Watson made key contributions to this report.



FOOTNOTES:



[1] P.L. 106-181, 104, 114 Stat 61.



[2] See appendix II for details on AIP.



[3] See appendix III for definitions and categories of U.S. airports.



[4] NPIAS is an FAA database of all airports considered to be part of 

the national airport system, from which FAA periodically publishes a 5-

year plan for Congress that identifies airport development projects. 



[5] The nine block grant states--Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New 

Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin-

-make the final grant decisions while the other states and territories 

participate in the decisionmaking with the final selection made by FAA.



[6] For further discussion of AIP funds, see U.S. General Accounting 

Office, Aviation Finance: Distribution of Airport Grant Funds Comply 

With Statutory Requirements, GAO-02-283 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 

2002).



[7] An airport listed in the NPIAS but without needs identified would 

not be apportioned general aviation entitlement funds.



[8] FAA stated that the NPIAS is an organic document that is 

continuously updated. By law, FAA is required to publish a report on 

the status of NPIAS every 2 years. The published NPIAS is used to 

calculate the amount of the general aviation entitlement.



[9] Although total AIP funds were $3.14 billion in fiscal year 2001, 

due to a budget rescission (i.e., slightly below the $3.2 billion 

threshold that triggers both general aviation entitlement grants and 

the increased apportionment level for general aviation airports to 20 

percent of total AIP funds), Congress directed the program to be 

triggered nevertheless. Total AIP funds were $3.22 billion in fiscal 

year 2002.



[10] Because the 1998-2002 NPIAS was used for fiscal years 2001 and 

2002, the amounts associated with both years are relatively unchanged.



[11] The AIP statute permits FAA to execute grants with state aviation 

agencies acting on behalf of individual airports.



[12] In a block grant state the sponsor is the state, which receives 

the general aviation entitlement grant funds for its eligible airports 

and works with the individual airport operators to identify projects 

for funding.



[13] Airports with more than 100 based aircraft.



[14] Airports with less than 20 based aircraft.



[15] Airports in Hawaii and New Jersey are not included in this range 

because their acceptance rates are significantly lower than the next 

lowest rate. 



[16] Airports in Hawaii, New Jersey, and North Carolina are not 

included in this range because they are outliers. 



[17] Data from Tennessee and Michigan, both block grant states, are not 

included in our grant acceptance by airport size analysis because these 

states use a methodology to allocate grant funds to their airports that 

differs from other states and territories. Thus, aggregating data on 

grant acceptance by airport size from these two states with the other 

states would have skewed the results for this particular analysis. 



[18] FAAï¿½s Great Lakes Region and New Jersey did not respond to the 

survey.



[19] Throughout this report, unless otherwise stated, references to 

state officials also include the two territorial officials that we 

interviewed.



[20] Overall, the responses of state aviation officials from the nine 

block grant states varied only slightly from the responses of officials 

from the other states. In addition, these nine states expressed 

concerns similar to the other states about program improvements.



[21] FAA officials explained that multi-year grants cannot extend 

beyond the last year of current AIP authorization--fiscal year 2003. As 

such, FAA cannot issue multi-year grants for fiscal year 2003. 

Moreover, the funds are provided to the airport annually only after 

enactment of the Department of Transportation appropriation.



[22] According to FAA officials, based aircraft is the most reliable 

criterion for airport size at general aviation airports. Operations 

(take offs and landings) and enplanements (passengers boardings) are 

two other indicators of airport size. However, it is difficult for some 

general aviation airports to accurately calculate operations because 

they may lack control towers. Additionally, because general aviation 

airports have no scheduled commercial passenger service, enplanements 

reveals very little about the size of these airports.



GAOï¿½s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the 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. GAOï¿½s 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 the Internet. GAOï¿½s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ï¿½Todayï¿½s Reports,ï¿½ on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select ï¿½Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released productsï¿½ under the GAO Reports heading.



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. General Accounting 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: [email protected]



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: