[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45007-45010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22494]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Notice of Revision to Airport Capital Improvement Plan
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of revision to Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP)
National Priority System.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 22, 1996, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
issued a Notice requesting comments regarding the National Priority
System (NPS) (61 Federal Register 25731). The NPS is used to assist in
the development of the Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) as well
as provide a basis for the
[[Page 45008]]
distribution of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) monies. Provided
herein is a summary of the comments received and FAA responses. Based
on these comments and additional direction from the Congress contained
in the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-264),
the FAA has modified its NPS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stan Lou, Manager, Programming
Branch, APP-520, (202) 267-8809.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to the Federal Register notice
of May 22, 1996, the FAA received forty-eight letters containing
comments. Eighteen letters were received from State organizations; nine
letters were received from trade organizations; fifteen were received
from airports; and six were received from other respondents such as
airport consultants.
The FAA has divided these comments into the following categories
for evaluation: general comments, formula modifications, and
consideration of other factors. A discussion of each category is
provided below. FAA's response to all three categories follows this
section.
The summary of comments is intended to represent the divergence or
correspondence of industry views. It is not intended as an exhaustive
restatement of comments received. All comments received were considered
by the FAA, even if not specifically identified in this summary.
Background
Historically, the demand for discretionary funds has exceeded the
amount available for distribution. As a result, a priority system was
developed primarily to standardize evaluation of airport development
projects. The priority system is a process that supports agency goals
and objectives by ensuring that the highest priority development work
is being completed nationwide. It uses a formula which generates a
numeric value (national priority rating, NPR) for each project item
taking into account project type and airport size. Under this system,
project types are ranked by their purpose; projects ensuring airport
safety and security are ranked as the most important priorities,
followed by maintaining current infrastructure development, mitigating
noise and other environmental impacts, meeting standards, and
increasing system capacity. This system is designed to facilitate
routine prioritization for all proposed AIP projects, and most AIP
discretionary monies are distributed based on these numeric values.
While the FAA's grant allocation process provides sufficient
flexibility to consider other factors in addition to a project's
priority rating, the use of these other factors has not been
formalized.
General Comments
The three comments of a general nature suggested using the priority
system to develop a National Plan of airport development, to develop a
structured project selection process under AIP, and to provide more
flexibility for individual airport innovation.
FAA Should Modify NPS Formula
Sixty-eight separate comments addressed some aspect of the formula
used in rating projects under the NPS. The largest number of these
comments objected to the higher weight that the NPS gives large and
medium hub airports. Twenty-eight respondents indicated that the NPS
formula favors larger airports to the detriment of smaller airports. In
many of the comments, the argument was made that large airports are
more likely to have access to non-federal sources of revenue to fund
airport development and should not be granted an advantage over smaller
airports which are more dependent on federal aid to fund airport
development. The respondents included fifteen State organizations,
three trade organizations, seven individual airports, and three others.
The second largest number of comments addressed the actual formula,
discussing either the points assigned to each project category or the
number and type of project categories. Twenty-four respondents either
suggested some adjustment to points assigned a category or suggested
additional categories.
A total of eight comments suggested that the categories used in the
formula need to be better defined so that the aviation industry has an
improved understanding of how the FAA ranks the importance of projects.
Another six comments recommended that the use of the point totals
should be reversed so that the FAA's highest priorities are reflected
in highest scores (rather than the lowest score representing the
highest priority).
Finally, two comments addressed the use of airport size as a factor
for selection of noise projects. The respondents argued that airport
size can be irrelevant to exposure to noise, e.g., two structures in
the 75 DNL have similar noise exposure whether the airports are large
hub airports or small hub airports.
FAA Should Consider Other Factors in AIP Project Selection
Twenty-nine comments supported use of the NPS, but in conjunction
with input from FAA Regional Offices and Airports District Offices and
from airport sponsors at time of AIP allocation decisions. A common
objection was that the FAA's NPS only uses a single value to select
projects and does not provide a formalized ability to account for
factors both quantitative and qualitative such as local priorities,
financial resources and risk assessments when selecting projects for
Federal funding.
Twenty comments requested that local priorities or state priorities
be considered in AIP project selection. Some suggested including the
economic benefit of the airport to its community. Seven comments
suggested assigning identical numeric priorities to all phases of a
project. Under the existing system, for example, land acquisition
required to construct a runway extension may have a lower priority than
the construction of the runway extension itself, causing delays in the
baseline project. Commenters suggested that all work elements contain
the same priority as the baseline project.
Finally, two comments addressed issues such as prior commitments in
project selection. Five comments addressed the role of cost factors in
project selection. Two comments suggested consideration of future
airport growth in project selection. Seven comments addressed use of
Pavement Condition Index in pavement rehabilitation projects. Six
comments suggested considering ``economy of scale,'' whereby other
development at the same airport may be raised in priority to take
advantage of a contracting opportunity at that airport.
FAA Response: We agree that the formulation of a National Plan is
essential to the safe and efficient operation of the National Airspace
System (NAS). The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS),
as required by Section 47103 of Title 49 of United States Code (USC),
is the FAA's document that provides long and short range cost estimates
of AIP eligible projects associated with establishing a system of
airports adequate to meet the needs of the NAS. The NPS has been
created to prioritize these needs in accordance with the FAA's goals
and objectives and rank them accordingly.
One element within the NPS is the NPR. The NPR has been used
successfully as a screening tool to identify projects of sufficient
national interest to warrant investment of
[[Page 45009]]
Federal funds. The priority system has taken on greater importance as
AIP appropriations have decreased and as the FAA has been required to
adopt performance measures and investment criteria to support grant
allocation decisions.
The FAA realizes that a numerical rating alone cannot account for
all quantitative and qualitative factors that may effect the importance
of an individual airport development project. Factors such as benefit-
cost analysis, impact on safety, and system performance should be
considered when selecting projects for Federal funding. In addition,
section 47115(d) of Title 49 USC, requires consideration of airport
improvement priorities of the States, and regional offices of the
Administration, to the extent such priorities are not in conflict with
the effect the project will have on the overall national air
transportation system capacity and the project benefit and cost.
The NPR serves as an initial screen for the majority of projects
selected; and, on a more limited basis, the NPR is used in tandem with
other factors. These other factors, in addition to the list provided in
the previous paragraph, include environmental issues, regional, state
and metropolitan system plans, airport growth, and market forces, which
are considered in AIP project selection today. However, the current
system does not have a formal process to account for these factors in
project selection. As a result, the FAA will develop a process to serve
as a secondary screen to the NPR and account for these other factors.
Although there is an element of the airport size in the priority
calculations, the net effect of this element has been minimal in
practice. This is due in part to discretionary set-asides and specific
apportionments contained in the statutory distribution of AIP funds.
Airport size will continue to be considered along with other factors
for project selection. However, the introduction of the new priority
calculation formula will permit a greater reliance on the actual
project type as opposed to the airport type.
The FAA agrees that the current system has created confusion
concerning the formula and how it is used. As a result, the FAA has
included a definition section in this Notice for further clarification.
Further, the FAA agrees that the point totals should be reversed for
ease of application. Henceforth, under the revised system, the higher
the point rating, the higher priority assigned to a project.
The FAA also agrees that all work items associated with a major
airport improvement be treated as having one priority value. This
policy is reflected in Appendix I.
In response to the comments that the NPS and the categories used in
the National Priority Calculation should be better defined, we offer
the following:
The ACIP is a product which helps identify, plan, fund, and execute
airport development in such a way as to ensure that the highest and
most critical needs are met with limited funding. It communicates needs
and funding plans for airport sponsors, states, FAA, and others who
have a stake in the development of the NAS.
The NPS is a tool by which FAA evaluates projects, contained in the
ACIP, for AIP funding. NPS uses many factors: national plans; goals and
objectives; anticipated AIP funding levels; a numerical project rating;
and other regional and/or local factors as described in this notice.
In order to implement these concepts, a standard database has been
established. This database (NPIAS-CIP) provides a common data structure
to compile and analyze airport development needs. It is used by FAA to
help determine the distribution of AIP discretionary funds in
compliance with Title 49 USC.
An element of the NPS is the determination of objective priority
ratings for airport projects. A numerical priority calculation ranks
work items in accordance with agency goals and objectives. Priority
numbers are calculated based on the size and type of airport (service
level) and the type of project (as described by the NPIAS-CIP project
codes). The revised NPS calculation provides a standard means to sort
airport needs from highest to lowest priority, evaluates funding plans
(the ACIP) versus the highest priority needs, improves upon the
existing AIP priority system, and aids in project selection for
discretionary funding.
The NPS calculation and project selection process are outlined in
Appendix I.
The FAA appreciates the time and effort of the respondents. After
carefully considering these comments and after evaluation of the
additional statutory direction contained in Public Law 104-264, the FAA
hereby issues the following Policy.
This policy is issued pursuant to the authority of Title 49, United
States Code.
Issued in Washington, DC on August 19, 1997.
Ellis A. Ohnstad,
Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division.
Appendix I
Policy/Procedure
a. Internal guidance will be published and revised as needed to
carry out the intent of this notice. This guidance will be shared
with states, sponsors and others as determined by each Regional
Office.
b. It is the intent of this notice that all work items
associated with major airport improvements should be treated as one
priority value under the NPS, e.g., lighting and marking with runway
reconstruction; land acquisition with obstruction removal. In these
instances, ACIP program submittals should provide a complete
schedule of projects for the entire major airport improvement.
c. Sound and consistent ACIP concepts must be employed by FAA,
states, and sponsors for effective project selection.
d. The FAA Headquarters Office of Airport Planning and
Programming will publish standard project descriptions and project
coding requirements to ensure consistency nationally.
e. Use of passenger, cargo, and state area population
entitlement funds is encouraged on high priority NPS projects. Final
determination of actual discretionary funds availability may be
based on entitlement usage as well as other factors.
f. Project justification for projects not included in the
priority level or the listing of national program of candidate
projects must be based on additional qualitative evaluation to be
formalized prior to fiscal year 1999. Larger projects, requesting $5
million or more in discretionary funds, will require more in depth
analysis both at the regional and national level, including benefit-
cost analysis.
g. The FAA Headquarters Office of Airport Planning and
Programming will publish recommended project evaluation analysis
criteria which may be used for project selection and project
justifications. This analysis will be consistent with Title 49 USC,
related policy, and national FAA goals and objectives.
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Project Selection Process
a. Regional Offices initiate the ACIP process through
coordination and input from planning studies, sponsors, states, the
NPIAS, national planning and other sources. An ACIP program of
development for the upcoming fiscal year and beyond is submitted
annually to FAA Headquarters Office of Airport Planning and
Programming.
b. FAA Office of Airport Planning and Programming will apply
numerical priority ratings to the ACIP program using an anticipated
AIP funding level. The numerical priority ratings will serve as an
initial screen to produce a listing of projects.
c. The projects that have successfully competed using the
numerical ratings will be identified to the FAA Regional Offices.
[[Page 45010]]
Regional Offices, after review, may appeal to the FAA Office of
Planning and Programming for any projects that have not qualified
for further consideration. Acceptable projects plus those that rate
above the priority level make up the national program of candidate
projects.
d. After any limitation on contract authority is enacted through
an appropriation act, the FAA Headquarters will advise FAA Regional
Offices of actual funds availability based upon the appropriations
act's enactment, ACIP programs, and other factors.
e. FAA will then make final selection of projects from the
listing of candidate projects identified in step c., above, based on
qualitative factors such as benefit-cost analysis, risk assessment,
environmental issues, regional priorities, state and metropolitan
system plans, airport growth, and market forces.
f. FAA Headquarters will evaluate national performance of the
completed development program and make adjustments to the NPS as
needed to ensure attainment of national goals and objectives. All
adjustments to the NPS will be done in accordance with this Notice.
National Priority Rating
The following general equation was developed:
Priority Rating = (k5*P)*[k1*APT)+(k2*P)+(k3*C)+(k4*T)]
Where:
k1 = 1.00
k2 = 1.40
k3 = 1.00
k4 = 1.20
k5 = 0.25
P = Purpose
C = Component
T = Type
APT = Airport
Various coefficients were evaluated to generate a NPR consistent
with FAA objectives. This resulted in the following equation
Priority Rating=.25P*(APT+1.4P+C+1.2T)
The purpose code is used twice within the equation to signify
added importance. The airport code is assigned a range of 2 to 5 to
provide sufficient variability to the size of the airport; whereas,
each of the other factors range from 0 to 10. These factors are
assigned point values (pts) consistent with FAA goals and
objectives.
APT=Airport Code
Primary Commercial Service Airports
Large and Medium Hub=5 pts
Small and Non Hub=4 pts
Non Primary Commercial Service, Reliever, and General Aviation
Airports
Based Aircraft or Itinerant Operations
100 or 50,000=5 pts
50 or 20,000=4 pts
20 or 8,000=3 pts
<20 and=""><8,000=2 pts="" p="Purpose" points="" (0="" to="" 10="" pts).="" (purpose="" code="" definitions="" follow="" the="" listing="" of="" all="" codes)="" ca="Capacity=7" pts="" en="Environment=8" pts="" ot="Other=4" pts="" pl="Planning=8" pts="" re="Reconstruction/Rehabilitate=8" pts="" sa="Safety/Security=10" pts="" sp="Statutory" emphasis="" programs="9" pts="" st="Standards=6" pts="" c="Component" points="" (0="" to="" 10="" pts).="" (some="" codes="" are="" defined="" for="" clarification)="" ap="Apron=5" pts="" bd="Building=3" pts="" eq="Equipment=8" pts="" fi="Financing" (refers="" to="" financing="" costs="" associated="" with="" bond="" retirement)="0" pts="" gt="Ground" transportation="" (refers="" to="" people="" movers="" and="" rail/road="" access)="4" pts="" he="Helipad=9" pts="" ho="Homes" (refers="" to="" noise="" mitigation="" measures="" for="" residences)="7" pts="" la="Land=7" pts="" na="New" airport="4" pts="" ot="Other" (refers="" to="" varying="" project="" elements;="" ie.="" fuel="" farms,="" airport="" drainage,="" etc.)="7" pts="" pb="Public" bldg="" (refers="" to="" noise="" mitigation="" measures="" for="" public="" buildings)="7" pts="" pl="Planning=7" pts="" rw="Runway=10" pts="" sb="Seaplane=9" pts="" te="Terminal=1" pt="" tw="Taxiway=8" pts="" vt="Vertiport=4" pts="" t="Type" points="" (0="" to="" 10="" pts)="" 60="Outside" 65="" dnl="0" pts="" 65="65-69" dnl="4" pts="" 70="70-74" dnl="7" pts="" 75="Inside" 75="" dnl="10" pts="" ac="Access" to="" airport="7" pts="" ad="Administration" costs="0" pts="" aq="Acquire" airport="5" pts="" bo="Bond" retirement="0" pts="" co="Construction=10" pts="" di="De-Icing" facility="6" pts="" dv="Development" land="6" pts="" ex="Extension/Expansion=6" pts="" ff="Fuel" farm="" development="2" pts="" fr="Runway" friction="9" pts="" im="Improvements" to="" existing="" infrastructure="8" pts="" in="Instrument" approach="" aid="7" pts="" li="Lighting=8" pts="" ma="Master" planning="9" pts="" me="Metropolitan" planning="7" pts="" ms="Miscellaneous=5" pts="" mt="Environmental" mitigation="6" pts="" no="Noise" plan/suppression="7" pts="" ob="Obstruction" removal="10pts" pa="Automobile" parking="1pt" pm="People" mover="3pts" rf="Aircraft" rescue="" fire="" fighting="" (arff)="" vehicle="10pts" rl="Rail=3pts" se="Security=6pts" sf="Runway" safety="" area="8pts" sg="Runway/Taxiway" signs="9pts" sn="Snow" removal="" equipment="9pts" sr="Sensors=8pts" st="State" planning="8pts" sv="Airport" service="" road="6pts" sf="Safety" zone="" (rpz)="8pts" vi="Visual" approach="" aid="8pts" vt="Construct" v/tol="" rw/vert="" plan="2pts" wx="Weather" reporting="" equipment="8pts" applying="" the="" above="" relationship="" produces="" a="" numerical="" value="" between="" 0="" and="" 100="" depending="" upon="" the="" associated="" values="" for="" apt,="" p,="" c="" and="" t.="" in="" general,="" projects="" with="" higher="" numerical="" values="" are="" most="" consistent="" with="" national="" goals.="" it="" is="" anticipated="" that="" periodically="" the="" individual="" point="" values="" and="" equation="" coefficients="" may="" be="" adjusted="" slightly="" to="" reflect="" modified="" system="" needs="" and="" priorities="" and="" experience="" gained="" in="" using="" the="" revised="" nps.="" purpose="" category="" definitions="" safety/security="" definition:="" this="" category="" includes="" items="" required="" by="" regulation="" in="" 14="" cfr="" part="" 107,="" 14="" cfr="" part="" 139="" or="" the="" airport="" certification="" manual="" and="" those="" safety/security="" items="" that="" cannot="" be="" accommodated="" by="" any="" other="" operational="" procedures="" to="" maintain="" an="" equivalent="" level="" of="" safety/security.="" also="" included="" is="" airport="" hazard="" removal/marking.="" statutory="" emphasis="" programs="" definition:="" this="" category="" includes="" items="" included="" in="" title="" 49="" usc,="" such="" as,="" runway="" grooving,="" friction="" treatment,="" and="" distance-to-="" go="" signs="" on="" all="" primary="" and="" secondary="" runways="" at="" commercial="" service="" airports;="" vertical="" visual="" guidance="" systems="" on="" all="" primary="" runways;="" and="" runway="" lighting,="" taxiway="" lighting,="" sign="" systems,="" and="" marking="" for="" all="" commercial="" service="" airports.="" reconstruction/rehabilitate="" definition:="" this="" category="" is="" defined="" as="" development="" required="" to="" preserve,="" repair,="" or="" restore="" the="" functional="" integrity="" of="" eligible="" airport="" infrastructure.="" environment="" definition:="" this="" category="" includes="" actions="" necessary="" to="" carry="" out="" the="" statutes="" set="" forth="" in="" the="" national="" environmental="" policy="" act="" (nepa)="" and="" 14="" cfr="" part="" 150.="" such="" actions="" are="" defined="" within="" environmental="" assessments="" (ea),="" environmental="" impact="" statements="" (eis),="" and/or="" noise="" compatibility="" programs="" (ncp).="" planning="" definition:="" this="" category="" includes="" the="" preliminary="" studies="" needed="" to="" define="" and="" prioritize="" specific="" airport="" needs.="" items="" such="" as="" airport="" system="" and="" master="" planning="" are="" included="" in="" this="" category.="" capacity="" definition:="" this="" category="" includes="" development="" required="" to="" increase="" system="" capacity="" by="" increasing="" the="" airport's="" capacity="" beyond="" its="" present="" designed="" activity="" level.="" in="" this="" case,="" system="" capacity="" is="" defined="" as="" increasing="" capacity="" at="" individual="" airports="" experiencing="" or="" expecting="" to="" experience="" 20,000="" hours="" or="" more="" of="" delay.="" standards="" definition:="" development="" to="" bring="" existing="" airports="" up="" to="" recommended="" faa="" design="" standards="" based="" on="" the="" current="" design="" category.="" other="" definition:="" this="" category="" includes="" development="" items="" other="" than="" those="" necessary="" to="" safely="" operate="" an="" airport="" or="" for="" improvement="" of="" airside="" capacity.="" items="" such="" as="" people="" movers,="" rail="" systems,="" access="" roads,="" parking="" lots,="" fuel="" farms,="" and="" training="" systems="" are="" included="" in="" this="" category.="" [fr="" doc.="" 97-22494="" filed="" 8-22-97;="" 8:45="" am]="" billing="" code="" 4910-13-m="">