Yes. AIG allocations are calculated each year based on the prior full calendar year of enplanement and cargo landed weight data. FY 2026 allocations will be based on CY 2024 data.  Allocations are based on a hybrid of airports performance and an airports performance relative to other primary airports.  Changes in enplanements, cargo landing weight, or relative performance compared to other airports will result in changes in allocation.  Additionally, changes in airport classification from primary to non-primary will change an airports allocation.

Primary airport allocations for FY 2022, FY 2023, and FY 2024 are based on highest enplanements for CY 2018, CY 2019, and previous full CY. An airport that was classified as a primary airport in any of those years is considered a primary airport for the year of allocation. Primary airport allocations for FY25 and FY26 will be based on full prior CY enplanements. 

Allocations for nonprimary airports that do not change NPIAS classification should not vary significantly from FY 2025 to FY 2026. For nonprimary airports, IIJA directs the FAA to use the categories published in the most current NPIAS published in FY2025. The NPIAS is published every other FY with FY 2026 being an off year.  In off years, FAA updates categories for airports that are newly opened, closed, changed to and from primary to nonprimary or moved out of unclassified status.  No updates are made to development costs or changes to and from categories other than primary/nonprimary, and unclassified role.

Yes. If the airport’s classification changes from unclassified to classified, that airport would be eligible for an allocation the following FY based on the airport’s new classification. Similarly, if an airport drops to unclassified it would lose allocations the following FY.

No. Unobligated AIG allocations are available until they expire (see Q-9).

No. The funds are available for obligation until the end of the fourth FY. In the fifth FY, unobligated funds are transferred and used for competitive AFR grants. See Q-9 and Q-F3.

No. The legislation specifically states that there shall be no maximum apportionment limit under 49 U.S.C. 47114(c)(1)(C)(iii).

No. The legislation specifically states that these funds are not subject to the reduced apportionments of 49 U.S.C. 47114(f).

No. The legislation references section 49 U.S.C. 47114(2), requiring cargo apportionments to be based on prior CY landed weight. There was no “best of” provision for cargo.

Yes. The 2024 FAA Reauthorization made changes to both primary and cargo allocations. Beginning with FY25, “the best-of-three” provision is no longer in effect and the minimum primary allocation was increased from $1 million to $1.3 million. In addition, the threshold cargo weight was reduced from 100 million to 25 million pounds of cargo while increasing the allocation of primary funding from 3.5% to 4.0%.

Yes. As discussed in Q-F5 above, the Federal share has been changed for nonhub primary and nonprimary airports for FYs 2025-2026. During this time, the Federal share has increased to 95% for AIG & AFR grants. All other Federal share categories remain unchanged for IIJA.

Yes. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 directs ARP to issue PGLs to provide for the interim implementation of changes to AIP within one year of enactment of the Act (enacted on May 16, 2024).  The FAA has issued all required PGLs.

Yes. Section 741 states that IIJA funding may be used to extend secondary runways at nonhub or small hub primary airports notwithstanding the level of operational activity that would benefit a longer runway. This applies only to AIG funding. 

The criteria for AIP eligibility remain unchanged for both the secondary runway designation and runway length. Therefore, sponsors should proceed with caution if there is not sufficient IIJA funding to complete the project and they cannot meet AIP eligibility requirements. The sponsor will be responsible for completing the project with other non-Federal funding sources. Please work with your ADO/RO to ensure a complete funding plan is in place.

Yes, under certain circumstances. 

For any AIG grant issued to nonhub or nonprimary Sponsors during FYs 2025 or 2026, the Federal Share has changed from 90% to 95%. This change effectively reduces the amount a Sponsor is required to match for a grant. It does not increase the funding provided by FAA.  

Any grant amendments through FYs 2025 and 2026 that increase AIP funding without adding project scope will continue to be subject to the initial 90% federal cost share. If there are any significant changes in project scope or new/amended capitals, then the new federal share will apply as the grant scope is changing. 

For AFR FY 2026, Sponsors can request 95% of the total eligible project costs in their applications. 

ATP and FCT Federal Share remain unchanged at 95%.
 

FAA interprets 49 U.S.C. 47128, State Block Grant Program, as giving direction to provide each State Block Grant participating state program administration responsibilities for grants issued under IIJA. This interpretation is consistent with our long-standing practice. For airports covered under the FAA’s SBGP, the FAA will issue block grants to states designated for projects at specific locations. IIJA funds are location specific, similar to AIP discretionary funding. When projects are ready to move forward, location-specific funding will be awarded based on IIJA availability and actual construction bids or negotiated agreement.

Yes. FAA has provided each of the ten State Block Grant Participating States with funds to support IIJA program administration. Such funding is provided annually and will continue through FY 2026. The parameters regarding the State Block Grant Participating State duties and allowable costs for related program administration are defined in each FY Cooperative Agreement.

Yes. The state can charge for project administrative costs that are directly related to administering the eligible project (many are normally done by a consultant or other hired company) such as application preparation, contract management, engineering oversight, bidding, etc. IIJA programs, like AIP, are subject to the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. See the AIP Handbook for further detail on how FAA applies these requirements in the airport development grant context.

IIJA grants administered under the State Block Grant Program (SBGP) have environmental compliance responsibilities similar to those in AIP. Specific requirements are detailed within each state’s SBGP Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA template is posted on FAA.gov.

The FAA sent guidance out to states and sponsors early in CY 2022, with specific instructions to start updating state Capital Improvement Program (CIP) submissions.  This information will be used by FAA to update our NPIAS, as well as our three year Airports Capital Improvement Program (ACIP).  State Block Grant states should incorporate the additional AIG specific project into the state’s CIPs.  Contact your local ADO for additional details.

The state’s application process will mirror the AIP discretionary application process. This includes ensuring projects are shown in state’s CIP, the project is on the airport’s approved ALP, and submittal of the SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance and other documents as required. See Q-A1. When projects are ready to move forward, location-specific funding will be granted based on IIJA availability and actual construction bids or negotiated agreements.