Airport Improvement Program: Military Airport Program and Reliever
Set-Aside Update (Testimony, 03/13/96, GAO/T-RCED-96-94).

GAO discussed the status of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
set-asides for: (1) the Military Airport Program (MAP), established to
convert military airports located in congested areas to civilian use;
and (2) reliever airports, intended to reduce congestion at commercial
airports and provide additional access to airports. GAO noted that: (1)
several airports participating in MAP did not meet the congressionally
established program goals and used their funds for projects that could
have been funded through other FAA grants; (2) FAA has tightened
eligibility criteria and required all airports participating in MAP to
submit plans for conversion- and capacity-related projects specific to
MAP; (3) the conditions for the reliever airport set-aside no longer
exist, since there has been a decrease in general aviation traffic,
access to general aviation facilities is adequate, and reliever airports
lack the facilities to accommodate larger general aviation traffic; and
(4) FAA has agreed to reexamine the criteria for designating reliever
airports, but has not yet issued a report or alternative selection
criteria.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-96-94
     TITLE:  Airport Improvement Program: Military Airport Program and 
             Reliever Set-Aside Update
      DATE:  03/13/96
   SUBJECT:  Airports
             Federal aid for transportation
             Commercial aviation
             Military facilities
             Discretionary grants
             Urban transportation operations
             Eligibility criteria
             Set-asides
             Defense conversion
IDENTIFIER:  FAA Military Airport Program
             FAA Airport Improvement Program
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Before the Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives

Hearing
held on
March 13, 1996
Statement
Submitted on
March 13, 1996

AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM -
MILITARY AIRPORT PROGRAM AND
RELIEVER SET-ASIDE UPDATE

Statement for the Record by John H.  Anderson, Jr.,
Director, Transportation and Telecommunications Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-96-94

GAO/RCED-96-94T


(341484)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  MAP - x
  FAA - x
  AIP - x

============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to provide this statement for the record which
addresses issues dealing with the Airport Improvement Program
discussed in our June 1994 reports entitled Airport Improvement
Program:  The Military Airport Program Has Not Achieved Intended
Impact (GAO/RCED-94-209) and Airport Improvement Program:  Reliever
Airport Set-Aside Funds Could Be Redirected (GAO/RCED-94-226).  The
Military Airport Program (MAP) set-aside fund was established to
assist current and former military airports located in congested
metropolitan areas in converting to viable civilian aviation use. 
Congress created the reliever airport set-aside fund to reduce
congestion at commercial airports as well as provide general aviation
with additional access to airports. 

This statement provides an overview of our work on the MAP and the
reliever set-aside and updates the status of each program.  We would
like to first summarize the findings from the two reports and then
provide more detail for each: 

  In 1994, we reported that 9 of the 12 airports selected for the MAP
     did not meet the key legislatively established program goal to
     enhance airport and air traffic capacity in congested
     metropolitan areas by assisting current and former military
     airports convert to civilian use.  Five of the airports in the
     program at that time were unlikely to increase capacity or
     reduce congestion at large metropolitan airports because they
     were not located near airports experiencing 20,000 hours of
     annual delays.  Furthermore, because 9 of the airports had been
     operating as joint use or civilian airports for a decade or more
     they already had the types of facilities in place that the
     program was designed to develop.  We recommended and the Federal
     Aviation Administration (FAA) agreed to tighten its criteria for
     entry into the program and focus its grant funds on conversion
     and capacity projects for MAP airports.  By fiscal year 1997,
     FAA plans to have "graduated" all 12 MAP airports out of the
     program.  To date, FAA has identified only two new potential
     candidates for the MAP that meet its selection criteria. 

  In 1994, we reported that the conditions that the reliever
     set-aside fund was created to address--reducing congestion at
     commercial airports and providing additional general aviation
     access--no longer exist.  We reported that FAA did not consider
     general aviation to be a significant factor in congestion at
     commercial airports because of an overall decline in general
     aviation traffic.  Also, FAA and aviation industry officials
     considered access to general aviation facilities to be
     sufficient where most reliever airports are located.  FAA
     projected an increase in the use of larger general aviation
     aircraft.  However, most reliever airports did not have the
     facilities, such as a 5,000-foot runway or navigational aids, to
     accommodate these types of aircraft.  We reported that FAA did
     not consider the presence of specific facilities or a reliever's
     location when designating reliever airports.  We recommended and
     FAA agreed to reexamine the criteria used for designating
     reliever airports.  However, as of March 12, 1996, FAA has not
     developed any alternative selection criteria for relievers. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

FAA, through the AIP, provides funding for airport planning and
development projects that enhance capacity, safety, security, and
noise mitigation.  FAA has designated about 3,300 airports as
critical to the national airport system and thus eligible for AIP
funding.  FAA allocates most AIP funds on the basis of a legislated
entitlement formula and has set-aside categories earmarked for
specific types of airports or projects.  The set-asides that support
MAP and reliever airports are two of five specially legislated
funding categories (see fig.  1). 

   Figure 1:  AIP Allocation
   Method, 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

FAA also has the discretion to allocate the remaining discretionary
funds on the basis of needs identified by the airports.  From 1982
through 1994, FAA allocated about $16 billion in AIP funds for
improvements at eligible airports. 


   MILITARY AIRPORT PROGRAM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

The MAP set-aside was established to assist current and former
military airports located in congested metropolitan areas in
converting to viable civilian aviation airports.  Currently, the
set-aside is authorized at 2.5 percent of the AIP allocation. 
However, in fiscal year 1996, the MAP allocation was temporarily
reduced to 1.8 percent, or $26 million.\1 The Congress cited three
main conditions that an airport must meet to be eligible for funds
under this program:  (1) it must be a former or current military
airport, (2) it must have the potential for conversion either to a
public use commercial service or reliever airport, and (3) its
"conversion in whole or in part ...  would enhance airport and air
traffic control system capacity in major metropolitan areas and
reduce current and projected flight delays." In 1994, the legislation
was amended to direct FAA to designate only those airports that met
the above criteria and would specifically reduce congestion at
airports with more than 20,000 hours of annual delays of commercial
passenger aircraft.  Also, the Congress expanded potential
participation in the program from 12 to 15 airports.  Of the 12
airports that have participated thus far, 7 graduated after fiscal
year 1995, 1 will graduate after fiscal year 1996, and 4 will
graduate after fiscal year 1997. 

In 1994, 9 of the 12 airports selected for the MAP did not meet the
key congressionally established program goals.  Five airports were
not located in congested air traffic areas and were unlikely to
increase capacity or reduce congestion at large metropolitan airports
or systemwide.  Furthermore, 9 of the airports had been operating as
joint or civilian airports for 10 or more years, and many of the
airports had the types of facilities in place that the program was
designed to develop, such as terminals, parking facilities, and
utilities.  While MAP funds could be used for projects outside the
regular scope of the AIP (like parking facilities and utilities),
most of these airports used the grants for projects like runway and
taxiway resurfacing--projects that are not unique to MAP airport
participants and could be funded with AIP entitlement or
discretionary grants. 

In response to recommendations in our 1994 report, FAA has taken
several actions to address the MAP-related issues we identified. 
First, FAA tightened the eligibility criteria that airports must
satisfy to enter the program by requiring that airports be selected
based in part on their ability to reduce delays at airports
experiencing more than 20,000 hours of annual delays.  Second, FAA
has required that all airports participating in the program submit a
5-year capital plan that identifies conversion- and capacity-related
projects that require the flexibility of MAP funds.  Third, FAA has
graduated 7 of the 12 MAP airports out of the program because they
had participated for 5 years and were no longer eligible for MAP
funds.  By the end of fiscal year 1997, FAA expects that the five
remaining airports will have graduated.  Currently, FAA has
identified two airports (Williams Air Force Base in Arizona and
George Air Force Base in California) that meet AIP and MAP
eligibility criteria, are interested, have the potential to be added
to the program, and have not previously participated in the
program.\2


--------------------
\1 For fiscal year 1996, the Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriation Act (P.L.  104-50) set the MAP funding level
at $26 million. 

\2 In 1990, the Congress directed FAA to survey all current and
former military airports to identify potential candidates for the
program.  FAA completed its survey in 1995 and has identified 16
candidates that today would be eligible to receive AIP funds.  Of the
16, 4 have the potential to reduce delays at commercial airports
exceeding 20,000 hours of annual delay.  Two of the 4 have already
participated in the program (Norton Air Force Base in California and
Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire) and are scheduled to
"graduate" after fiscal year 1997.  The remaining 2 airfields
(Williams and George) meet both the AIP and MAP criteria. 


   RELIEVER SET-ASIDE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

The Congress authorized FAA to allocate 5 percent of AIP funds to a
set-aside fund for reliever airports.  However, in fiscal year 1996,
the reliever allocation was temporarily reduced to 3.3 percent, or
about $48 million.\3 The Congress created the set-aside for relievers
so that they could better (1) relieve congestion at commercial
airports and (2) provide additional general aviation access to the
community.  Since 1982, FAA had designated 329 reliever airports,
most of which are located near major metropolitan areas. 

In 1994, we reported that the objectives for the reliever
set-aside--to reduce congestion at commercial airports and to provide
additional general aviation access--no longer existed.  With respect
to congestion, FAA did not consider general aviation to be a
significant factor in congestion at commercial airports.  Our
analysis in 1994 showed that during 1983 to 1991 the proportion of
general aviation traffic decreased by 38 percent at the nation's
congested commercial airports.  We reported that this decrease was
attributable to an overall decline in general aviation traffic, not
the presence of reliever airports.  FAA's projections at that time
for general aviation traffic suggested that the future role of
reliever airports in alleviating congestion and delays would likely
remain small. 

However, FAA's forecast foresaw a significant increase in one segment
of general aviation traffic--larger general aviation aircraft such as
turboprops and turbojets.  These types of aircraft, which constitute
about 5 percent of the general aviation fleet, are most likely to use
commercial airports.  Yet, most relievers' facilities cannot
accommodate the larger general aviation aircraft or the relievers are
located too far from major business centers.  Aviation association
officials told us that pilots of larger general aviation aircraft
generally prefer airports that have at least a 5,000-foot runway,
navigational aids (like an instrument landing system) that allow
all-weather operations, and a location near major business centers. 

When it designated reliever airports, FAA did not consider existing
facilities or their proximity to major business centers.  In 1994,
only 67 of the 246 reliever airports linked to a nearby commercial
airport had the facilities desired by larger general aviation
aircraft pilots.  Furthermore, only 32 of the 67 reliever airports
were located near congested airports. 

Regarding general aviation access, FAA and aviation industry group
officials considered access to these facilities to be sufficient--and
often more than sufficient--in most areas where relievers are
located.  In 1994, we analyzed five major metropolitan centers with a
total of 34 relievers linked to their commercial airports.  We spoke
with officials at 28 of the 34 relievers to, among other things,
obtain their views as to the adequacy of general aviation access in
the area.  Officials at 22 of the reliever airports told us that they
considered reliever airports within their metropolitan area to be
underused.  The officials pointed to the shrinking size of the
general aviation market as a cause and said that the shrinking market
was forcing them to compete for customers. 

In our 1994 report, we recommended and FAA agreed to develop and
formalize criteria to determine (1) when the presence of reliever
airports could provide relief to airports that experience air traffic
delays caused in part by general aviation traffic, (2) how much
general aviation access is required nationwide, and (3) whether the
current number of reliever airports is appropriate for current and
future general aviation traffic.  FAA's Director of the Office of
Airport Planning and Programming said that the agency was currently
in the process of finalizing a report that contains revised program
criteria; however, as of March 12, 1996, the report had not been
issued. 


--------------------
\3 For fiscal year 1996, the Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriation Act (P.L.  104-50) set the reliever funding
level at $48 million. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.1

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement. 


*** End of document. ***