Detailed Information on the
FAA Grants-in-Aid for Airports Assessment

The Administration proposed a change to the authorization formula so that funds would be primarily targeted to medium and small aiports that are more dependent on Federal assistance.

Create a performance measure for efficient program delivery.

Measure: Number of priority runway safety areas improved each year to meet FAA standards, or to the extent practicable.

Explanation:The long-term target is to improve all 454 priority runway safety areas to standard or to the extent practicable by FY 2015, mitigating the risk to overrunning aircraft. Note: for fiscal years 2000 to 2004 the target referred to RSAs initiated because many RSAs were multi-year projects. In 2005, FAA changed the measure to reflect RSA improvements completed. The below table therefore does not show targets for years 2000 to 2004.

Measure: Total number of priority runway safety areas that meet FAA standards or have been improved to the extent practicable.

Explanation:FAA has a long term goal of upgrading all RSAs at priority runways at certificated airports to meet standards, or to the extent practical, by the end of FY 2015. The agency has a plan with annual goals for RSA improvements that demonstrates yearly progress toward this goal. Since FAA has only begun tracking the total number in FY 2008, there are no targets included for prior years.

Measure: Percentage of active airfield pavement in fair or better condition.

Explanation:The target is to maintain at least 93% of pavement in fair or better condition. The measure includes all paved runways (4,447) at the 3,431 National Plan of Integrated Airports (NPIAS) facilities. Commercial airfields (about 17% of the total) are inspected on an annual basis. The remaining 83% (general/public use airfields) are inspected on a three-year cycle. All runways at all these airports are subject to wear and tear, varying weather conditions, and environmental issues, making it a continual challenge to anticipate degradation of runways during their life cycles. Additionally, increased instances of silica reactivity distress can lead to premature pavement failure. FAA anticipates that these factors will make maintaining at least 93% of active airfields in fair or better condition even more challenging in coming years.

Measure: Number of individuals assisted by AIP funding of Noise Compatibility Program projects.

Explanation:This measure reflects the commitment of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) to reduce the number of individuals impacted by significant aviation noise. AIP aims to assist at least 100,000 individuals between FY 2006 through FY 2010, based on a five year moving average, with a minimum of 20,000 per year. AIP will fund projects based on the recommendations of a completed Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). Projects will include residential insulation or relocation of individuals. Individuals, including school students, located in the 65 DNL noise contour are eligible to receive AIP funding for NCP projects.

Measure: Increase in Annual Service Volume (ASV) at Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) airports, as measured by a five-year average.

Explanation:The goal is to increase the ASV at the 35 OEP airports by 1 percent each year. Increased ASV provides airports with the potential to accommodate more annual operations and decrease the average delay per operation at each airport. This measure estimates the benefit, in terms of additional aircraft operations, from runway construction projects. A runway construction project includes new runways, runway extensions, and airfield reconfigurations. Aircraft operations include air carrier, commuter, air taxi, general aviation, and military aircraft. Only the 35 OEP airports are included in this measure. The measure is a 5-year moving average. The 1998 ASV is the base year. ASV is calculated using the Runway Delay Simulation Model (RDSIM). Delay curves are developed for each of the 35 OEP airports for the existing airport layout and with new runways where proposed. A consistent calculation technique to estimate capacity was used for all airports, based on demand schedules and fleet mixes, supplemented with flight counts and standard air traffic control procedures for each airport. For those airports where new runways are to be commissioned, the ASV can be estimated any time in the year that the runway will be opened.

Measure: Average labor costs for every $1 million of grants awarded at primary airports (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:This measure tracks the efficiency of administering the Airport Improvement Program

Measure: Average labor costs for every $1 million of grants awarded at non-primary airports (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:This measure tracks the efficiency of administering the Airport Improvement Program

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose is to maintain a safe and efficient nationwide system of public use airports that meets the present and future needs of civil aeronautics.

Evidence: Title 49, Chapter 471 U.S.C.

Does the program address a specific interest, problem or need?

Explanation: The AIP program addresses capacity needs at airports as well as safety and security needs. Through federal funding, FAA is able to encourage airports to address issues that are of a national priority. Through annual funding in appropriations bills, Congress reiterates the program's importance. The AIP program is part of the FAA's mission to address the growing capacity needs.

Evidence: DOT Performance Report FY 2000 and Performance Plan FY 2002

Is the program designed to have a significant impact in addressing the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: While AIP is critical to spur aviation safety, efficiency, and economic growth, large airports would continue to operate without AIP funds. Large airports rely on AIP funds for 20% of their construction costs. The smaller airports in the national airport system, 96% of all airports, rely on AIP for over 80% of their funding. If AIP were removed, many airports would be unable to comply with safety and system efficiency requirements, and would be at risk of closure. Approximately 60% of all AIP funding goes to the smaller airports.

Evidence:  

Is the program designed to make a unique contribution in addressing the interest, problem or need (i.e., not needlessly redundant of any other Federal, state, local or private efforts)?

Explanation: Federal funding creates partnerships with airports to achieve mutually agreeable goals. Since the Federal government operates the airspace and maintains air traffic control operations and technology, it is important that the Federal government play a large role in the capacity needs on the ground. Large and medium hubs need the Federal investment to signal to the private sector that the program is viable. Bond issuers and private financing organizations view AIP funds as a form of guarantee that the projects will be complete. FAA asserts that airports would not make adequate investments in safety and noise without federal funding and oversight.

Evidence: Bond issuers and private financing institutions view AP funds as a form of a quarantee that the projects will be complete and fully funded. FAA asserts that airports would not make adequate investments in safety and noise without federal funding and oversight.

Is the program optimally designed to address the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: Regulation may be more efficient, but grants are more effective in producing results that match FAA goals. Grants that fund safety and system efficiency promote partnerships, giving airports ownership in solving problems. FAA has improved the tools it uses to select projects for funding.

Evidence: FAA believes that the funding creates partnerships that make change possible. Regulation would place FAA in an adversarial role.

Does the program have a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: AIP does have long-term goals that focus on outputs. These goals link to FAA's performance goals that include both GPRA and supplemental goals that are outcome oriented.

Evidence: "FAA's long term goals are: 1) bring all 520 runway safety areas to standard, as practicable, by 2007, 2) support new runway construction to increase capacity at large hubs by 5% over 5 years, 3) reduce the number of persons exposed to high levels of noise by 50,000 over 5 years and 4) keep at least 93% of all active airfield pavement in fair or better condition at all times. Goals are included in Office of Airports Performance Goals for FY 2002 document (http://intranet.faa.gov/arp/pdf's/02goals8.doc.) "

Does the program have a limited number of annual performance goals that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals?

Explanation: AIP has annual goals that tie to the cumulative long - term goals. These goals are output oriented but they are linked to FAA's performance goals that are outcome oriented.

Evidence: "FAA's long term goals are: 1) upgrade 65 runway safety areas to standard, as practicable, 2) support new runway construction to increase capacity at large hubs by 1% a year, 3) reduce the number of persons exposed to high levels of noise by 10,000 a year and 4) keep at least 93% of all active airfield pavement in fair or better condition at all times. Goals are included in Office of Airports Performance Goals for FY 2002 document (http://intranet.faa.gov/arp/pdf's/02goals8.doc.) "

Do all partners (grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, etc.) support program planning efforts by committing to the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: There is no requirement for grantees to directly link their activities to program goals. In developing each year's funding plan, airports update their 3-year capital improvement plan to bring it in line with the national plan. The airports' plans mark their progress in meeting commitments to the development necessary for the national airport system.

Evidence: Airports Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) Order, www.faa.gov/arp/publications/orders/acip/5100-39.pdf

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs that share similar goals and objectives?

Explanation: Two separately budgeted programs that are interrelated to the AIP are the F&E and Homeland Security Programs. The AIP is collaboratively coordinated with these programs in the appropriate offices of FAA and TSA, respectively, in order that the airport development and planning under AIP complements the navigational aids under F&E and the TSA approved airport security plans and installations. There are also many cases of collaboration with FHWA and FTA on key intermodal transportation projects. In addition, joint grant announcements occur through OST coordination with military agencies for the use of MAP funds at joint-use airports and with the Economic Development Agency on airport developement projects.

Evidence:  

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope conducted on a regular basis or as needed to fill gaps in performance information to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness?

Explanation: GAO and the IG conduct regular evaluations of the AIP program. While these reviews are not scheduled on a regular basis, GAO and the IG have completed 7 reviews over the last 5 years on the AIP program.

Evidence: FY 2003 President's Budget and Congressional justifications. An example of a recent report includes: GAO report April 2002 "Aviation Finance: Distribution of Airport Grant Funds Complied with Statuatory Requirements." Notice from the IG's office that they are conducting a review of FAA financing issues as well as airport financing (www.oig.dot.gov/item_details.php?item=648

Is the program budget aligned with the program goals in such a way that the impact of funding, policy, and legislative changes on performance is readily known?

Explanation: The AIP budget is aligned based on AIR-21 funding levels and identifies the split between grants and personnel. The FAA intends to work towards aligning the budget with performance.

Evidence: AIR-21, FY 2003 President's Budget

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: FAA conducts periodic reviews reflected in the U.S. DOT Performance Plan to determine if the intended outcomes are achieved. In FY 2002, the FAA evaluated the AIP noise set-aside program. The evaluation revealed the need to ensure that noise exposure maps be as recent and accurate as possible to aid programming decisions under the AIP. Starting with the FY 2003 program, regional Airports division managers will be required to ensure that 100% of all AIP programming decisions are based on noise contours that are reasonable representations of the current and/or five-year forecast conditions at airports applying for grants from the noise set-aside. As a result of the accident in AR, an AIP long-term goal was established to bring all runway safety areas at certificated airports up to standard, as practicable, by 2007.

Evidence: DOT Performance Plan and Report. See the following web site for more information on the noise program. (www.faa.gov/arp/environmental/index.cfm?ARPnav=enviro#noise) The aircraft accident at Little Rock, AR in which a commercial airliner ran off of the end of the runway and collided with objects in the runway safety area brought about a re-evaluation of the policy on objects in the runway safety area.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The AIP program follows statutory guidance as well as FAA internal guidance to manage the program. However, because of the lead time involved in airport construction the program cannot constantly adjust program priorities to manage the program. Outcomes from grants are often years away so it is hard to make decisions in a timely fashion.

Evidence: AIR-21 (P.L. 106-181)

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Program managers are responsible for achieving results and the performance measures are built into personnel evaluations.

Evidence: Managers annual performance evaluations are based on how well their organization met the goals.

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Yes, the budget office ensures that funds are obligated In a timely manner. The AIP program traditionally obligates 100% of available funds. Any unobligated funds are carried forward. The AIP makes sure that recoveries are processed accordingly.

Evidence: GAO report April 2002 "Aviation Finance: Distribution of Airport Grant Funds Complied with Statuatory Requirements." FY 2003 President's Budget Submission

Does the program have incentives and procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program's performance plan does not include efficiency measures and targets. The program is operated in an efficient manner but it is not due to internal program procedures.

Evidence:  

Does the agency estimate and budget for the full annual costs of operating the program (including all administrative costs and allocated overhead) so that program performance changes are identified with changes in funding levels?

Explanation: The AIP program is one part of the larger Airports line of business within FAA. However, the AIP appropriation request covers more than just AIP, it also funds the administrative costs of the Airports office. FAA is in the process of developing a cost accounting system that will be able to track costs by activity.

Evidence: FY2003 President's Budget Submission

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program is free of material internal control weaknesses. However, the program has experienced difficulty with erroneous payments. DOT has established a recovery audit system to reduce the number of erroneous payments.

Evidence: OIG report on FAA's financial statements for FY 2001 and 2000 (www.oig.dot.gov/show_pdf.php?id=712)

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The Airports office internal performance goals have been used to address weaknesses in managing AIP project costs and timeliness of completion. One of these goals requires that 70% of all grant offers be based on actual bids. Timeliness is managed through goals for project completions. Staff from headquarters meet with regional airport directors to discuss how the program can improve its effectiveness.

Evidence: FAA Annual performance goals and DOT Performance Plan.

Are grant applications independently reviewed based on clear criteria (rather than earmarked) and are awards made based on results of the peer review process?

Explanation: In developing the ACIP, (an internal funding plan), the staff reviews airport plans for development and decides which projects are of greater priority. The ACIP process involves individual airports, state officials and headquarters staff. Congressional earmarking is a problem.

Evidence: The Airports Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) Order (www.faa.gov/arp/publications/orders/acip/5100-39.pdf)

Does the grant competition encourage the participation of new/first-time grantees through a fair and open application process?

Explanation: The FAA uses a numerical system as one tool for prioritizing airport development for discretionary projects. In addition, airports must submit grant applications to FAA to spend their formula funds. All airports are aware of the selection criteria and FAA requirements.

Evidence: The Airports Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) Order (www.faa.gov/arp/publications/orders/acip/5100-39.pdf)

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The AIP program office in headquarters together with the regional staff keep in regular contact with airports across the US. Grantees must also submit applications in order to receive their formula funds so FAA is aware of their activities.

Evidence: The Airports Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) Order (www.faa.gov/arp/publications/orders/acip/5100-39.pdf), and the NPIAS. (www.faa.gov/arp/planning/npias/index.cfm?ARPnav=npias)

Does the program collect performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: FAA tracks performance on grant activity from the airports. However, only the grant announcements are made available to the public. Performance data are used internally for the ACIP and NPIAS formulations.

Evidence:  

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome goal(s)?

Explanation: The program is making progress towards its long term goals. For FY 2001, the annual accomplishments will allow the Airport's office to make their long term goal.

Evidence:  

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The Airport's office met or exceeded its annual performance goals.

Evidence:  

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: FAA has improved the cost-effectiveness and efficiency in program execution. For instance, the FAA used more automated financial databases and delegated authority to the regions, reducing the number of headquarters personnel assigned to funds control and eliminating the need for paper ledgers for the national program. Under AIR 21, AIP funding levels have risen but staffing has remained flat. In the future, FAA will achieve further efficiencies by permitting direct data entry from local airport sponsors and states and through use of contractors.

Evidence: Annual reports to Congress, annual year-end clean audits. Program is receiving a score of "small extent" because many of their management efficiencies are still in the design and planning stages and have not been implemented yet.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The AIP program compared to FHWA Federal-aid highway program has well established procedures for monitoring airport projects funded under the AIP program. Before an airport can move forward with a project, it must meet with FAA to discuss responsibilities of all parties.

Evidence: DOT Management Challenges report (www.oig.dot.gov/item_details.php?item=87)

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The GAO and OIG have audited various aspects of the AIP regularly to gauge its effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes. An April 2002 GAO report concluded that the management of AIP complied with requirements. OIG's June 1998 report and GAO's May 1999 report provided similar findings. When audits recommend changes or improvements, FAA has made adjustments. After the release of GAO's June 1994 report on the AIP Reliever Airport Set-Aside Funds, FAA changed the way it was distributing funds to reliever airports.

Evidence: GAO report April 2002 "Aviation Finance: Distribution of of Airport Grant Funds Complied with Statuatory Requirements. (GAO - 02-283). This program is receiving a score of "large extent" because many of the GAO and IG's reports only look at specific portions of the AIP program.