United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

May 1999 GENERAL AVIATION

AIRPORTS

Unauthorized Land Use

Highlights Need for

Improved Oversight

and Enforcement

GAO/RCED-99-109

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-281078 

May 7, 1999

The Honorable Bud Shuster

Chairman

The Honorable James L. Oberstar

Ranking Democratic Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable William O. Lipinski

Ranking Democratic Member

Subcommittee on Aviation

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

To increase the capacity of the nation’s airport facilities and maintain the

aviation infrastructure, the federal government has made financial grants

or transferred federal land to about 2,000 of the almost 18,000 general

aviation airports in the United States.1

 Since 1982, the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) has provided about $4.7 billion in financial grants to

general aviation airports. About 350 such airports have received land that

is surplus to federal needs, while about 100 have received land that was

not considered surplus but was transferred to support the airports’ needs.

To receive this federal assistance, airports must agree to abide by a

number of requirements designed to ensure that the public interest is

served. Among other things, airports must obtain approval from FAA before

altering the use or ownership of airport land and must use airport

revenues only for their operation, maintenance, or development. FAA is

responsible for monitoring airports’ compliance with these requirements

and, when requirements are not met, for enforcement.

As requested in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Report on the Airport Improvement Program Reauthorization Act of 1998,2

 this report evaluates (1) FAA’s monitoring of general aviation airports’

compliance with federal land-use requirements and (2) FAA’s use of

enforcement tools to resolve cases of noncompliance. To obtain

information on FAA’s oversight of land at general aviation airports, we

1

While commercial service airports handle regularly scheduled commercial airline traffic, general

aviation airports primarily support noncommercial aviation traffic.

2

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Rept. No. 105-639 (July 20, 1998), pp. 41-42.

Page 1 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

visited 14 and surveyed the remaining 9 FAA field offices responsible for

overseeing airports’ compliance.

Results in Brief FAA does not adequately monitor general aviation airports’ compliance

with federal requirements and does not have the internal controls in place

to protect the federal government’s investment in the airports from

mismanagement, fraud, waste, and abuse. Although FAA’s compliance

policy clearly calls for monitoring airports to ensure they meet federal

requirements, only 4 of FAA’s 23 field offices monitor compliance. This

monitoring, however, relies primarily on airports themselves certifying

that they are complying with federal requirements. In 1994, the

Department of Transportation’s Inspector General concluded that relying

on such certifications was insufficient for ensuring compliance with

federal requirements on revenue use, noting that 14 of the 15 airport

owners identified as not complying with revenue use requirements had

previously certified that they were in compliance. One result of FAA’s lack

of monitoring is that airports’ unauthorized use of land has gone

undetected in some cases for over a decade. Unauthorized use has

resulted in the loss or diversion of millions of dollars in airport revenues

from general aviation airports, typically owned by a local government. In

some cases, increased risks to aviation safety also resulted. For example,

FAA determined that birds attracted by an unauthorized landfill at

Hesler-Noble Field in Laurel, Mississippi, posed a possible danger to

aircraft.

FAA generally addresses airports’ noncompliance with federal requirements

through negotiation and settlement rather than the use of available

enforcement actions. When negotiations are unsuccessful and persistent

noncompliance occurs, FAA has not always taken appropriate enforcement

action—such as withholding transportation grants, taking back the title to

airport land, or taking action through the courts. This report makes

recommendations on improving FAA’s compliance monitoring and

enforcement efforts.

Background To promote aviation, FAA provides grants and land to airports. Grants for

airport development were authorized under the Federal Airport Aid

Program from 1946 through 1970 and the Airport Development Aid

Program from 1971 through 1981. During 1982 through 1997, more than

$20.5 billion in grants was awarded to commercial service and general

aviation airports under the current program, the Airport Improvement

Page 2 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

Program.3 About 45 percent of these grants, totaling almost $4.7 billion,

was made to general aviation airports for airport development, including

more than $800 million for land acquisition. While commercial airports

provide scheduled airline passenger service, general aviation airports

primarily serve noncommercial aviation traffic, including business and

recreational aircraft.

FAA’s Office of Airports administers the Airport Improvement Program and

oversees both commercial and general aviation airports’ compliance with

federal grant and land transfer requirements. In December 1997, FAA

established an Airports Compliance Division within the Office of Airports

in Washington, D.C. While 10 full-time compliance policy specialists are

currently assigned to the Compliance Division to advise field offices on

airport land and revenue issues, 23 field offices provide day-to-day

oversight of about 2,000 general aviation airports that have received grant

funds or land from the federal government.4

This oversight responsibility includes ensuring that the airports use airport

land in accordance with federal statutes and regulations by monitoring

airports’ activities and taking enforcement actions, when necessary.

Enforcement begins with a formal notification to an airport of its

noncompliance and can include such actions as withholding aviation

grants or other transportation funds and filing a lawsuit.

Federal Requirements

on Airports’ Use of

Land and Revenues

In order to receive federal grants, airports must certify that they will abide

by the federal requirements contained in the grant agreements by

providing written assurances pertaining to the airports’ operation and

maintenance. For example, an airport must ensure that it will be available

for public use and that airport users will be charged comparable fees.

Generally, grant requirements remain in effect throughout the useful life of

the facilities developed under the grant but do not exceed 20 years.5

However, for land acquired with grant funds, these requirements remain in

effect as long as an airport is on the land.

3

The Airport Improvement Program is funded by the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. The fund is

financed by taxes on domestic and international airline travel, domestic cargo transported by air, and

noncommercial aviation fuel.

4

FAA’s Office of Airports has nine regions. Four regions—Alaska, Central, New England, and Western

Pacific—oversee some or all of the airports in the region. For the purposes of this report, we refer to

these four regions, along with the 19 airport district offices in the remaining five regions, as the 23 FAA

field offices.

5

49 U.S.C. 47107(d).

Page 3 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

In addition to providing financial assistance, federal agencies can transfer

deeds to federal land to airports. Since World War II, the federal

government has transferred land that is considered excess to the federal

government’s needs to about 350 general aviation airports under the

Surplus Property Act. Land that is not excess to a federal agency’s current

needs—called nonsurplus land—can also be transferred for airport

purposes; about 100 general aviation airports have received nonsurplus

land.6

 Unlike financial grant obligations that are a part of a contract

related to the operation and maintenance of airport facilities, the statutory

authorities for the transfer of surplus or nonsurplus federal land place

conditions on an airport owner’s title to the land. If these conditions are

not met, title to the land may be reverted to (i.e., be reclaimed by) the

federal government.7

Both financial grants and land transfers restrict the use of airport land and

airport revenues to airport purposes. An airport purpose is any activity

that involves, makes possible, is required for the safety of, or is otherwise

directly related to the operation of aircraft, such as the use of aircraft

hangars, repair facilities, or runways. An approved Airport Layout Plan

reflects the agreement between FAA and the airport owner on the

allocation of airport areas for specific operational and support functions.

In general, land designated in the plan cannot be used, leased, or sold for

purposes other than airport purposes without the consent of the

Administrator of FAA. If the airport wishes to alter the use of any land

designated in the plan—for city parks or departments or industrial parks,

for example—FAA must agree that the land is not needed for present or

foreseeable airport purposes and must grant permission regardless of

whether the land was acquired by federal grant or land transfer or without

federal assistance. If the altered use generates revenues, the airport must

agree to reinvest the proceeds in the airport. With the consent (called a

“release” of the land) of the Administrator, airport land not needed for

aviation purposes may be sold or leased so that the airport can use the

resulting revenues to support airport development, improvement,

maintenance, and operations.8

6

Surplus and nonsurplus land is transferred under section 47151 and section 47125 of title 49, United

States Code, respectively.

7

See 49 U.S.C. 47152(1) and 14 C.F.R. part 155.

8

The exception to this is nonsurplus land, which cannot be used for nonairport purposes or to generate

revenues; if nonsurplus land is not developed or used for an airport purpose, the title to this land

reverts to the federal government, at the option of the Secretary of Transportation.

Page 4 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

FAA has released land from restrictions on its use for airport purposes at an

estimated 205 airports since 1990. About 75 percent of these releases

involved fewer than 20 acres of land, and about 50 percent involved fewer

than 10 acres. Appendix I provides more information regarding our

estimate of releases nationwide. Most releases we reviewed involved such

issues as using unneeded land to generate revenues for the airport by

developing an industrial park, for example, or by using the land as

easements for roadways. If an airport has altered the use of (or sold)

airport land without FAA’s authorization, the agency may require the

airport to return the land to its former use and condition or approve the

new use of the land after the fact.

In general, all airport revenues must be expended for the airports’

operating expenses and other nonoperating expenditures, such as capital

development. The purpose of the restriction on revenue uses is to prevent

revenue losses or diversions by ensuring that airports receiving federal

assistance use airport revenues for operation and development. The goal is

to make airports as self-sustaining as possible and minimize the need for

further federal assistance. Therefore, when FAA approves the use of land

for nonairport purposes to generate revenues for an airport, its policy

requires that the airport receive fair market value for the sale or lease of

the land.9

 Generally, if an airport sells or leases land for less than fair

market value, the revenues are considered to be lost, or forgone.

Revenues are considered to be “diverted” when an airport fails to use

revenues generated from activities that take place on airport land for

airport purposes. In addition, if an airport owner, typically a local

government, uses airport land for nonairport purposes, such as for city

parks or departments, and does not pay rent to the airport account, the

revenues are also considered to be diverted from the airport. Since 1992,

the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General has reported lost or

diverted revenues of over $18 million at 11 general aviation airports. FAA

closed eight of these cases involving about $15 million, as reported by the

Inspector General—recovering $1.7 million in three cases. FAA officials

noted that all cases were resolved with the Inspector General’s

concurrence.

To assist operators in avoiding revenue diversion, on February 16, 1999,

FAA published a policy statement on the appropriate use of funds

generated by airports. FAA’s new policy requires audits of some airports to

9

For the sale of grant-acquired land, the amount to be reimbursed corresponds to the amount of

federal participation in the land acquisition. 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B).

Page 5 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

determine if revenue diversion has occurred. In addition, the policy allows

FAA to select airports to be audited where there are indications that

revenue diversion may have occurred. According to an official in the

Department of Transportation, this new compliance tool will allow FAA to

target the airports most likely to have substantial revenue

diversion—primarily commercial service airports.

FAA’S Internal

Controls Are

Inadequate to Ensure

Land-Use Compliance

Only four FAA field offices have implemented internal controls to ensure

that general aviation airports comply with federal requirements to use

airport land for airport purposes. These offices use periodic

self-certifications or limited on-site monitoring, and all the field offices

rely primarily on third-party complaints to identify noncompliance. FAA

headquarters staff cited an agencywide emphasis on voluntary compliance

in the early 1990s and staffing reductions as reasons for not implementing

FAA’s compliance policy. When airports are not monitored, the

unauthorized use of airport land is more likely to occur and can lead to the

loss or diversion of airport revenues and increased risks to aviation safety.

Few Field Offices Monitor

Compliance

Of the 23 FAA field offices that are responsible for monitoring general

aviation airports’ compliance with federal requirements, only four—FAA’s

field offices in Kansas City, Missouri; Renton, Washington; Denver,

Colorado; and Helena, Montana—regularly monitor and document

airports’ compliance with land-use requirements. Combined, these offices

oversee 426—or 21 percent—of the approximately 2,000 general aviation

airports that have received grant funds or land from the federal

government.

FAA’s compliance policy handbook—FAA Order 5190.6A, Airport

Compliance Requirements—clearly requires field offices to monitor

airports for compliance with federal requirements. This requirement

serves as an internal control to provide assurance that the federal

government’s investment in airports is protected from mismanagement,

fraud, waste, and abuse. According to the handbook, FAA field offices must

be continuously aware of which airports are not in compliance and

conduct limited surveillance of each airport every 4 years to detect

recurring deficiencies, system weaknesses, or individual abuses of federal

requirements. The surveillance requirement may be met through site visits

or by obtaining a written certification by the airport that it is complying

with federal requirements. The handbook was last updated in 1990, and

FAA officials said they are working on an update, as discussed below.

Page 6 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

The four field offices that meet FAA’s monitoring requirement did so by

obtaining airport self-certifications. As required by the handbook, at least

once every 4 years, the four offices require each airport to certify in

writing that it is abiding by federal requirements. In addition, according to

FAA officials, staff in the Renton, Helena, and Denver field offices

occasionally review airports’ compliance with land-use requirements

during on-site safety reviews, conducting 27 such on-site compliance

inspections in 1998 (17, 7, and 3, respectively) out of about 350 airports

they oversee.

FAA headquarters staff cited an agencywide emphasis on voluntary

compliance in the early 1990s and staffing reductions as reasons why field

offices might choose not to implement FAA’s compliance policy. However,

these reasons do not fully explain why the majority of FAA’s field offices

chose not to monitor compliance. Despite an emphasis on voluntary

compliance, the compliance handbook clearly states the requirement to

have a monitoring system in place, as noted above. Furthermore, Airports

Division staffing levels have not changed significantly since 1985 and have

actually increased. For example, in 1985, Airports was authorized 476

positions. In 1990, Office of Airports staffing was 473, and by 1998 the

office was authorized 485 positions.

Staff in the 14 field offices we visited said that they rely primarily on

informal and formal third-party complaints to identify noncompliance and

that third-party complaints are sufficient to identify the few cases of

inadvertent noncompliance. Field offices reported that nine formal

third-party complaints have been made regarding land use at general

aviation airports since 1990.

Relying on airports’ self-certifications and third-party complaints does not

ensure compliance. For example, in 1994, the Department of

Transportation’s Inspector General reported revenue losses at the Malden

Municipal Airport in Malden, Missouri and found that the airport had

incorrectly responded to the Kansas City field office’s self-certification

questionnaire regarding the use of surplus property.10 In summarizing its

reviews of airports’ revenue use in a separate effort, the Inspector General

reported material weaknesses in FAA’s monitoring of commercial and

general aviation airports’ revenues and concluded that relying on

self-certifications and third-party complaints was insufficient for ensuring

10Monitoring of Accountability and Use of Airport Revenues at the Malden Municpal Airport,

R9-FA-4-010 (July 20, 1994).

Page 7 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

compliance with federal requirements on revenue use.11 The report

indicated that 14 of the 15 general aviation and commercial airport owners

identified as not complying with revenue use requirements had previously

certified they were in compliance, and third-party complaints had been

filed against only 2 of the 15 airports.

FAA officials consider noncompliance with federal land-use requirements

to be a problem, but they believe the incidence of the problem is limited.

However, without a monitoring system in place, FAA may not know when

unauthorized use of airport land occurs.

Unauthorized Land Use

Has Gone Undetected

Because FAA lacks an effective compliance monitoring program, the extent

of unauthorized land use at general aviation airports is unknown.

However, information supplied by field offices on the releases of land at

general aviation airports contained 24 instances of unauthorized land use

that have occurred since 1990. Some of these cases went undetected for

over a decade. These examples involved 15 states under the oversight of

12 different FAA field offices. The seriousness of the land-use violations

ranged from minor isolated infractions to periods of repeated

unauthorized use spanning more than two decades without correction.

Unauthorized land use may lead to the loss or diversion of revenues or

increased safety risks at an airport. For example, the Inspector General

identified almost $6.8 million in lost or diverted revenues at 5 of the 24

airports where the unauthorized use of airport land occurred, and FAA said

it had recovered about $184,000 from 3 of the other general aviation

airports where unauthorized use occurred. Safety problems can also result

from the unauthorized use of airport land, as when a landfill attracts

wildlife and thereby increases the risk of “birdstrikes” by landing and

departing aircraft.

In discussing the 24 cases, FAA officials concluded that the small number of

cases did not indicate that FAA’s compliance program was inadequate or

that a reallocation of resources by the Office of Airports was warranted.

However, as stated previously, without a monitoring system in place, the

extent of noncompliance is unknown and FAA has no assurance that

airports are complying with federal requirements. The following three

examples illustrate how unauthorized land use can continue undetected

for long periods of time when airports’ compliance is not actively

11Interim Summary Report on the Audit of Monitoring Airport Revenue: Federal Aviation

Administration, R9-FA-4-004 (Mar. 7, 1994).

Page 8 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

monitored and how unauthorized use can result in lost or diverted

revenues or safety risks. All three airports obtained surplus land and

grants from the federal government that restrict the use of airport land and

revenues to airport purposes, and the unauthorized use of airport land

went undetected or uncorrected for decades at all three airports.

Hesler-Noble Field, Laurel,

Mississippi

According to FAA field staff, from about 1970 until 1981, Laurel, Mississippi,

constructed police and fire training centers, a building to house street

maintenance equipment, a dog pound, a fire station, a water plant, a little

league park, and a landfill on airport land without FAA’s authorization and

without reimbursing the airport. FAA field staff identified the unauthorized

use in 1981 and reported that birds attracted by the landfill constituted a

safety hazard in 1982 but waited until 1994 to restrict dumping at the

landfill. In July 1998, FAA allowed the city to offset the lost revenues with

the value of city services provided to the airport. FAA field staff could not

explain why it had not addressed the safety problems and land and

revenue use issues for more than 12 years and 17 years, respectively.

Venice Municipal Airport,

Venice, Florida

Between approximately 1972 through 1992, Venice, Florida, constructed a

mobile home facility, little league parks, and a senior center and developed

the airport’s coastal land for public use without obtaining FAA’s

authorization or reimbursing the airport. In response to a complaint, the

Inspector General reported in 1993 that $2.4 million in revenues was lost

over a 4-year period and that almost 300 acres of federal land was

inappropriately used.12 FAA approved an after-the-fact release of airport

land in June 1998 and, according to a field staff, required the city to charge

fair market rent on future leases but recovered no lost revenues

(estimated to be at least $25 million) from leases that were below market

value because the agency had no authority to terminate the leases.

Stuttgart Municipal Airport,

Stuttgart, Arkansas

In 1995, in response to a complaint, the Inspector General reported that

Stuttgart, Arkansas, used a hangar for a mosquito control unit and

established a landfill on airport land without obtaining FAA’s authorization

or reimbursing the airport and leased large tracts of airport land for $1 per

year. Although the Inspector General identified $47,000 in diverted

revenues over a 3-year period, an FAA official said that the total amount

diverted was much greater because the unauthorized use spanned two

decades.13 Furthermore, because the leases of airport land were legally

binding, no amounts could be recovered. The city agreed to pay $6,250 per

12Report on Audit of Airport Revenue Accountability: City of Venice, Florida, R4-FA-3-724 (July 22,

1993).

13Airport Revenues, Stuttgart Municipal Airport, Arkansas, R6-FA-6-002 (Nov. 2, 1995).

Page 9 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

year for the landfill, and FAA officials said that future leases will obtain fair

market rents. In addition, the Inspector General found that FAA approved

airport leases that allowed hunting and farming on airport land. These

activities created a safety hazard because crops were planted to attract

ducks to the airport. As a result, an aircraft struck a bird in 1990. Although

the city subsequently banned hunting on the airport land, another

birdstrike occurred in 1994, causing $20,000 damage to one plane. And in

March 1995, the Inspector General found three duck blinds at the airport

as well as duck decoys near the blinds.

FAA’s Compliance

Guidance Is Outdated

FAA has not revised its compliance and enforcement guidance to keep it

current. FAA Order 5190.6A, Airports Compliance Requirements, was last

updated in October 1989, and the section on enforcement was last updated

in August 1973. While field offices rely on the handbook as a primary

source of guidance, FAA officials said that numerous policy changes have

been made and that they informally convey changes through training and

action memos. They noted that they had drafted a policy guidance letter in

March 1999 for distribution to the field offices to update information on

FAA’s enforcement policy, which dates to 1973. However, these informal

efforts do not provide a consolidated record of FAA’s compliance policy.

FAA’s lack of timely action to publish compliance policy for airports’

revenue use was identified by the Inspector General in 1998 as a

contributing factor to airports’ noncompliance.14 FAA’s Airports

Compliance Division staff said they planned to issue a revised compliance

policy order in 1999.

FAA’s order listing airports that are subject to federal requirements from

land and grant agreements, last revised in April 1990, is similarly

outdated.15 As a result, FAA headquarters does not have ready access to

current summary data on the government’s interests in general aviation

airports nationwide, and information that could be useful in quantifying

field offices’ monitoring workloads and making resource allocation

decisions is not available. In response to our request, field offices gathered

data showing that since the order was issued in 1990, 14 listed general

aviation airports had closed, while 81 others had become subject to

federal requirements.

14Airport Financial Reports: Federal Aviation Administration, AV-1998-201 (Sept. 11, 1998).

15FAA Order 5190.2R, List of Public Airports Affected by Agreements with the Federal Government.

Page 10 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

FAA Emphasizes

Negotiation Over

Enforcement

FAA has a variety of statutory and administrative alternatives for resolving

airports’ noncompliance but has generally chosen not to use them.

Instead, FAA prefers to address noncompliance through negotiation and

settlement. However, in several instances FAA’s attempts at negotiation

have been unsuccessful, and airports’ lack of willingness to comply with

federal requirements justified greater efforts to enforce compliance.

Furthermore, FAA has not followed its policy of obtaining fair market value

for airport land when it knows the use will change, as in the case of a

Kansas City, Missouri, general aviation airport now being closed.

FAA Has Numerous

Enforcement Tools but

Generally Fails to Use

Them

The federal government is entitled to the same legal remedies as any other

party to a contract that has been breached, and FAA’s enforcement policy

calls for FAA officials to seek injunctions or judgments in the courts should

the circumstances warrant. However, FAA officials do not believe it is

generally practical to take legal actions. They said that these matters must

be referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution and that the

dollar amounts involved are usually too low to be a high priority for

Justice.

Alternatively, FAA may assess civil penalties of up to $50,000 without going

to court.16 FAA has not used this power for unauthorized land or revenue

use. For example, FAA allowed the closure of a small general aviation

airport in Fall River, Massachusetts, in February 1996 but required the

airport to reinvest the residual value of federal grant funding

(approximately $30,000) in a nearby general aviation airport in New

Bedford, Massachusetts. However, at the time of our review, almost 2

years after the agreement was signed, Fall River had not provided the

funds and FAA had not pursued legal action or civil penalties. FAA

headquarters staff said they had not pursued legal action because they

believed that ongoing negotiations might prove to be successful.

The Congress has strengthened FAA’s enforcement powers to resolve

revenue diversion cases by including restrictive language in appropriations

and transportation laws. For fiscal years 1994 and 1995, the Congress

specified that transportation funds could be withheld from any local

government that diverts revenues generated by a public airport.17 The

Airport Revenue Protection Act of 1996 made this enforcement action

permanent, giving the Secretary of Transportation the authority to

withhold aviation, transit, and rail funds from local governments that fail

1649 U.S.C. section 46301.

17P.L. 103-122 section 328 and P.L. 103-331 section 325.

Page 11 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

to reimburse airports for illegally diverted funds and to assess civil

penalties against those that fail to reimburse the federal government.18 FAA

headquarters officials said that the agency has never recommended that

transportation funds be withheld under these laws.

FAA also has special enforcement remedies that are inherent in various

types of airport agreements, such as returning to the federal government

the ownership of land it provided if an airport does not comply with

federal requirements. FAA officials said that FAA has never had the title to

surplus or nonsurplus land revert to the agency because it could not

manage the day-to-day operations of an airport.

FAA also may take administrative actions, such as denying requested land

releases or withholding funds provided under the Airport Improvement

Program. For example, FAA field staff denied the airport’s request to

release land at Scholes Field in Galveston, Texas, in May 1998 because of

unresolved issues identified by the Inspector General, including lost

revenues and continued attempts by the city to sell off and/or lease airport

land at less than fair market value.19 FAA also informed the airport that a

failure to take corrective action could result in the city’s becoming

ineligible for federal grants. However, FAA field staff and headquarters

officials noted that withholding grant funds is not a significant deterrent

for communities that would rather close an airport or support it to a lesser

extent.

FAA’s compliance handbook requires that staff first attempt to have an

airport voluntarily correct compliance deficiencies. FAA officials told us

that airports are generally willing to take corrective action and FAA prefers

to exhaust all avenues of voluntary corrective action and negotiate a

settlement of the noncompliance before undertaking enforcement actions.

For example, in September 1998 at the Waterville-R. LaFleur general

aviation airport in Waterville, Maine, the airport began excavation for

construction of an industrial park before requesting a release of the land

from FAA. However, once airport officials realized they needed FAA’s

approval, they voluntarily stopped work until the release was approved.

FAA said that a confrontational approach using its enforcement authority

would be justified only if it resulted in a higher level of compliance than

maintaining a cooperative relationship with airports.

18P.L. 104-264 section 805.

19Airport Revenues: Galveston Municipal Airport Scholes Field, Galveston, Texas, AV-1998-011 (Nov. 7,

1997). According to FAA officials, they had recovered $142,663 and were still pursuing recovery of

funds for the use of airport land as a golf course at the time of our review.

Page 12 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

FAA resolves unauthorized use of airport land by obtaining airports’

assurances that future revenue diversion or losses will not occur; allowing

cities to apply the value of services they provided to the airport, such as

police and fire protection, to offset the lost or diverted airport revenues;

requiring that future leases call for fair market value; or working out other

solutions. For example, FAA field staff drove by Frederick Municipal

Airport in Maryland and discovered an 11-acre public works facility

constructed on airport land. FAA arranged for the city to provide another

land parcel adjoining the airport in exchange for the unauthorized

conversion of the 11 acres of airport land subject to federal restrictions on

its use.

If an airport does not voluntarily make corrections, the handbook requires

FAA to place the airport in pending noncompliance status and notify the

airport of the right to a hearing. As a result of the hearing (or if no hearing

has been requested), the FAA field manager is to determine whether the

airport is in noncompliance and whether FAA should take appropriate

sanctions or civil penalties. However, we found that FAA field offices very

rarely place airports in pending noncompliance or noncompliance status.

For example, out of the 24 cases of unauthorized land use we reviewed,

only 2 had been placed in noncompliance status.20 In the following two

cases—Queen City Municipal Airport in Allentown, Pennsylvania, and

Bader Field in Atlantic City, New Jersey—FAA has not initiated the

enforcement process by placing the airports in pending noncompliance

status despite long-standing compliance problems at both airports.

Queen City Municipal Airport,

Allentown, Pennsylvania

In 1965, FAA approved the city’s request to use an airport hangar located on

6 acres of airport land as a vehicle maintenance facility without releasing

the land or requiring the city to reimburse the airport, as required by the

federal surplus land transfer agreement signed in 1948. FAA officials could

not explain the reason for the inappropriate 1965 decision. In 1984, FAA

denied the city’s request to release the land and advised the city that it had

violated federal surplus property requirements. In 1987, FAA released

airport property for a highway right-of-way and between 1989 and 1992,

FAA awarded four grants totaling $2.3 million to repair runways and

develop a master plan. FAA officials stated that the land release and grants

were provided to persuade the city not to proceed with plans to close the

airport, an important regional reliever airport.21

20Pompano Beach Airpark in Pompano Beach, Florida and Benton Airport in Saline County, Arkansas.

21Reliever airports are those general aviation airports located in metropolitan areas that FAA has

designated to reduce congestion at large commercial airports and to provide access to general

aviation.

Page 13 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

In response to a complaint, the Inspector General reported in January 1997

that the city owed the airport about $2.8 million for the nonpayment of

rent for the maintenance facility from 1984 through 1995.22 Nonetheless,

the airport was scheduled to receive an Airport Improvement Program

grant for almost $300,000 in February 1999. After we discussed the

airports’ continuing noncompliance with FAA headquarters officials in

December 1998, they sent a letter to Queen City on March 5, 1999,

informing the city that FAA would consider taking steps to collect a portion

of the $2.8 million. FAA officials said they took steps to delay the award of

the $300,000 grant until the airport’s noncompliance was resolved. Figure

1 shows an aerial view of the airport and the unauthorized use of airport

hangars for a vehicle maintenance facility.

22Accountability and Use of Airport Revenues, Queen City Municipal Airport, R3-FA-7-002 (Jan. 30,

1997).

Page 14 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

Figure 1: Vehicle Maintenance Facility

at Queen City Municipal Airport,

Allentown, Pennsylvania

Source: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

Bader Field, Atlantic City, New

Jersey

According to FAA officials, since the early 1970s, Atlantic City has used

airport property without obtaining FAA’s approval or reimbursing the

airport as required by federal grants that expire in 2006. Specifically, the

city constructed a high school football field on airport land and used

airport buildings for a police annex and fire station without approval or

reimbursement. Furthermore, the airport’s condition has gradually

deteriorated during the 1990s, and the city claims that the airport is unsafe

and therefore should be closed. Safety issues have resulted from

unauthorized use. In May 1996, after the city allowed the unauthorized

excavation of an aircraft parking area for a minor league baseball stadium

being constructed on the airport land, an aircraft accident occurred. A

Page 15 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

plane hit an unmarked and unlighted excavation hole at night. No injuries

occurred. In addition, during the stadium’s construction, land survey

spikes were driven into the airport runways and left for an unknown

period of time while the airport was still open. In 1997, in defiance of FAA’s

explicit instructions that FAA’s approval was required to build the stadium

on the airport land, the Mayor of Atlantic City informed FAA that

construction of the baseball stadium would proceed. FAA subsequently

signed a memorandum of agreement that allowed the stadium to be built,

hoping that through cooperation, the city would make needed safety

improvements and not close the airport. The agreement required the city

to reimburse the airport for the fair market value of the baseball stadium

land but did not resolve the city’s unauthorized use of and lack of

compensation for airport buildings and the land for the high school

football stadium. Figures 2 and 3 show the unauthorized minor league

baseball stadium, police annex, and aircraft operations area at Bader Field

in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Page 16 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

Figure 2: Use of Airport Land at Bader Field, Atlantic City, New Jersey

View of the airport with the skyline of Atlantic City in the background. Airplanes are parked on the left. 

Police cars are parked in the middle. The police annex once used as a terminal building for commuter 

airlines is on the right.

Minor league baseball stadium surrounded by 

floodlights. Atlantic City Police Department annex 

on the right behind the airport runway.

Ticket booth and entrance to minor league baseball stadium.

Page 17 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

Figure 3: Aircraft Operations Area at Bader Field, Atlantic City, New Jersey

Airport services are limited to parking--there are no fuel, telephone, or restroom facilities 

within the airport for use by pilots and passengers. Atlantic City skyline is in the 

background.

Entry to the runway and aircraft parking area, which are 

surrounded by a chain-link fence. Public notice posted by 

Atlantic City advising that the airport is "active".

STOP

AIRPORT OPERATIONS AREA

-AUTHORIZED VECHICLES ONLYSERVICE VEHICLES CHECK WITH

AIRPORT OPERATIONS

ACTIVE AIRPORT

AIRCREWS &

AUTHORIZED

PERSONNEL

BEYOND THIS POINT

Although almost 2 years had passed without corrective action at the time

of our review, FAA had not cited the airport for official noncompliance,

requested the Inspector General to investigate the overt revenue diversion,

or used other stronger enforcement methods. In December 1998, we

discussed the noncompliance with FAA headquarters officials, who agreed

to determine if the situation was serious enough to warrant enforcement

action. On January 8, 1999, FAA requested the city to provide financial

reports showing that rent from the baseball stadium was being deposited

into an airport account. However, the city did not respond to the request

or repeated phone calls, and a follow-up letter was sent on March 19, 1999.

We referred this matter to the Inspector General in March 1999.

FAA Has Not Enforced

Revenue Use Policy for a

Proposed Airport Closure

in Kansas City, Missouri

Even when FAA is aware of changes to an airport before they occur, it has

not always followed its own policies and required that airports recoup the

fair market value for the sale of surplus property. For example, in

July 1998, FAA signed a memorandum of agreement to release the

Richards-Gebaur Memorial Airport from grant assurances and surplus land

deed requirements once Kansas City, Missouri, and the Kansas City

Southern Railroad agree to establish an intermodal rail-highway depot on

the runway. FAA’s agreement with Kansas City required an estimated

$15 million to be reinvested in other area airports over a 20-year period. By

Page 18 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

signing the agreement, FAA did not follow its policy requiring an

independent appraisal to determine fair market value of the airport

property. The only indication of the value of the 1,300-acre property was a

$33 million estimate cited in field office files, but FAA officials did not

provide an appraisal to support or refute the estimate.

According to FAA officials, the compliance handbook provides that the

Associate Administrator for Airports consider requests to release an entire

airport from federal requirements on a case-by-case basis and that the

Associate Administrator’s authority is not limited by FAA’s policies for

releasing parcels of land. However, this provision in the handbook applies

only to those federal requirements related to federal grants and does not

apply to federal requirements related to airport land that was acquired as

surplus land from the federal government. All but a few acres of the

airport were provided to Kansas City as surplus land when the former

Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base was closed in 1985. FAA’s compliance

policy clearly states that releases of land provided under the Surplus

Property Act must clearly accrue a benefit to civil aviation and that

“This objective is not met unless an amount equal to the net sale proceeds based on the

current FMV [fair market value] of the property is realized as a consequence of the release

and such amount is committed to airport purposes . . . A sale and disposal of airport

property for less than its FMV is inconsistent with the intent of the statute.”

FAA’s decision to allow Kansas City to sell the Richards-Gebaur Memorial

Airport without conducting an appraisal or ensuring that fair market value

is obtained was improper. In commenting on our preliminary findings in

March 1999, FAA headquarters officials said that they are carefully

reviewing the proposed leases of the airport and will consider amending

the memorandum of agreement or rejecting the deal entirely. Figure 4

shows an aerial view of the airport. The railroad tracks are parallel and to

the left of the 8,700 foot runway that is to be converted to an intermodal

rail/truck facility. Figure 5 shows some of the facilities on the airport land.

Page 19 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

Figure 4: Aerial View of Richards-Gebaur Memorial Airport, Kansas City, Missouri

Source: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

Page 20 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

Figure 5: Facilities at Richards-Gebaur Memorial Airport, Kansas City, Missouri

Air traffic control tower, parking area, and hangers.

View of the terminal building (front) and aircraft hanger 

(back and aircraft parking ramp.

Another view of airport from the air traffic control tower.

Source: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

Conclusions FAA’s compliance program is intended to ensure that the public interest

and investment in general aviation airports receiving federal assistance are

protected. This is not currently the case. Because none of FAA’s 23 field

offices conduct regularly scheduled on-site visits to monitor general

aviation airports’ compliance with federal requirements, FAA does not

know the extent of noncompliance at these airports nationwide. Nor does

FAA always effectively enforce federal requirements. Not surprisingly,

therefore, we found unauthorized land and revenue uses and increased

Page 21 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

risks to aviation safety. These problems are compounded by the lack of

current policy guidance and current summary information on the nature of

airports’ federal requirements nationwide. Overall, FAA’s failure to

effectively implement its compliance program leaves the nation’s federally

assisted general aviation airports vulnerable to mismanagement, fraud,

waste, and abuse. Although our review focused on FAA’s land-use

requirements for general aviation airports receiving federal assistance,

FAA’s lack of an effective compliance and enforcement program leaves

compliance with other federal requirements, such as the requirement to

keep airports available for public use and to charge airport users

comparable fees, vulnerable as well.

Addressing noncompliance after it occurs is often difficult. Therefore,

prevention is key to ensuring compliance with federal requirements.

Airports’ self-certifications can also serve to educate airports about their

requirements. However, self-certifications alone are not a sufficient

internal control because, in some instances, noncompliance may be

deliberate, suggesting the need for a more hands-on monitoring approach

than that provided by self-certifications. Consequently, on-site monitoring

and enforcement action are also essential elements of any preventative

compliance strategy.

In instances in which negotiations with an airport are unsuccessful, FAA

has not used its available enforcement actions effectively to deter

violations or recoup losses to the federal government. It has not withheld

transportation grants, taken back the title to airport land, or taken action

through the courts. When such actions are not taken, even in cases of

long-standing noncompliance, the lack of action becomes a de facto policy

of permissiveness. This de facto policy has occurred in two cases we

identified—Bader Field and Queen City Municipal Airport. In the case of

Richards-Gebaur Memorial Airport, however, FAA still has time to adhere

to its own policy of obtaining fair market value for the land being sold for

other purposes.

Recommendations To effectively implement the internal controls contained in FAA’s

compliance policy, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation

direct the Administrator of FAA to revise current compliance policy

guidance to airports to require regularly scheduled monitoring methods

that provide for periodic on-site visits. In conjunction with periodic on-site

visits, the monitoring component could include requiring periodic

self-certifications of compliance from all airports and formally

Page 22 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

coordinating with interested parties who may have information about

airports’ compliance, such as general aviation organization field

representatives.23 In addition, FAA should provide specific criteria for

initiating enforcement action and set reasonable time frames for taking

progressively stronger enforcement actions in cases in which efforts to

achieve voluntary corrective action are unsuccessful.

In those cases of noncompliance that FAA cannot resolve in a reasonable

period of time, we further recommend that the Secretary of Transportation

direct the Administrator of FAA to apply the enforcement tools already

provided by the Congress by holding field offices accountable for taking

enforcement actions, particularly in cases of long-term, repeated, or willful

unauthorized land or revenue use.

Until FAA develops and implements a compliance and enforcement

program that provides adequate internal control over airports’ compliance

with federal requirements, the FAA Administrator should determine

whether the internal control weakness disclosed in this report should be

included when providing information to the Secretary for inclusion in the

Secretary’s annual report to the President and the Congress, as required by

the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982.

Finally, the FAA Administrator should resolve long-standing instances of

noncompliance and revenue diversion by taking enforcement action to

protect the public investment in aviation at the Queen City Municipal

Airport and at Bader Field. FAA should also require that Kansas City obtain

a fair market appraisal of the value of airport land and, upon closing

Richards-Gebaur Memorial Airport, reinvest an amount equal to the

appraised value in local area airports to promote aviation, as required by

FAA’s policy.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of

Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for review

and comment. We met with FAA officials including the Director, Office of

Airport Safety and Standards. We also met with Department of

Transportation officials from the Office of Acquisition and Grant

Management and the Office of General Counsel. FAA officials had several

concerns about the information in the report but did not comment

specifically on the report’s recommendations.

23In 1997, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association announced a program to have volunteers monitor

public-use airports to identify concerns.

Page 23 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

FAA officials said that over the last several years FAA has been working to

enhance its oversight of airport owners’ compliance with federal

obligations. For example, FAA recently issued a revised airport revenue use

policy that requires audits of some airports to determine if revenue

diversion has occurred and allows FAA to select airports to be audited

where there are indications that revenue diversion may have occurred. It

also established an Airports Compliance Division within the Office of

Airports in December 1997 and assigned 10 full-time compliance policy

specialists to advise field offices on airport land and revenue issues and

provide procedural support for compliance personnel in the field. The FAA

officials said that, using the new policy and staff, the agency is working to

ensure that it provides effective oversight to the airports in the national

airport system. FAA officials also said that, over the past several years, the

agency has enhanced its airport industry outreach and educational efforts

by providing agency-sponsored seminars and participating in conferences

sponsored by airport industry and airport owner associations. The efforts

to improve oversight of airports’ compliance described in FAA’s comments

are included in this report, and, therefore, we made no changes in

response to these comments. Because FAA said that it has enhanced its

airport industry outreach and educational efforts, we deleted from our

recommendations a reference to a need to improve these educational

efforts.

The agency officials did not dispute the report’s findings on the level of

monitoring and enforcement, but offered a number of reasons for why

monitoring and enforcement efforts are not more extensive. FAA officials

told us that providing effective oversight requires that the agency prioritize

its use of the limited available staff. FAA officials indicated that its financial

compliance activities are most appropriately focused on commercial

service airports that receive the majority of federal funding. While the FAA

officials agreed that it may be possible to further strengthen compliance

oversight activities with general aviation airports, they believe that the

draft report did not provide sufficient context in which to understand the

relative scope of the issues described in the report. Although there are

over 2,000 general aviation airports subject to federal requirements, they

account for a relatively small proportion of funding and thus do not

warrant a greater expenditure of FAA’s limited resources, the officials

stated. With approximately one person assigned to compliance duties per

region (and many of these people have multiple duties), the FAA officials

said that it is appropriate to focus compliance oversight efforts on the 840

commercial service airports that account for about 80 percent of Airport

Improvement Program funding. The draft report included information

Page 24 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

placing general aviation airports in context within all airports receiving

federal funding. Therefore, we made no changes in response to these

comments. While we acknowledge that the oversight of commercial

service airports is important, this does not relieve FAA from its

responsibility for ensuring that all airports comply with the requirements

associated with the federal funding or land they receive.

Scope and

Methodology

We visited 14 and surveyed 9 of the 23 FAA field offices responsible for

overseeing general aviation airports. The 14 offices we visited represent

seven of the nine FAA regions and manage airports in 33 of the 50 states, or

about two-thirds of all public airports with land subject to federal

requirements in the United States. Specifically, we visited the following

field offices to discuss implementation of the compliance program:

Atlanta, Georgia; Burlingame, California; Burlington, Massachusetts; Camp

Hill, Pennsylvania; Detroit, Michigan; Dulles, Virginia; Garden City, New

York; Jackson, Mississippi; Kansas City, Missouri; Lawndale, California;

Orlando, Florida; and three field offices in Fort Worth, Texas.

We obtained information regarding compliance monitoring and cases of

noncompliance with the federal requirements for land and revenue use,

complaints and investigations, and land releases and airport closures from

each of the 23 FAA field offices. We took a random sample of 506 general

aviation airports and obtained data for each airport in the sample in the 23

field offices to estimate the incidence of releases on a nationwide basis.

With general aviation interest groups, including the Aircraft Owners and

Pilots Association, the National Air Transportation Association, and the

American Association of Airport Executives, we discussed the issue of

airports’ compliance. These groups identified a number of issues regarding

land use at general aviation airports, including the diversion of airport

revenues and safety concerns.

We performed our review in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards from September 1998 through April 1999.

We are providing copies of this report to the Honorable Rodney E. Slater,

the Secretary of Transportation; and the Honorable Jane F. Garvey,

Administrator, FAA. We will also make copies available to others on

request.

Page 25 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
B-281078 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at

(202) 512-2834. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.

John H. Anderson, Jr.

Director, Transportation Issues

Page 26 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
Page 27 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
Appendix I 

Sampling Results

As discussed in the “Scope and Methodology” section of the report, we

used a probability sample of airports to estimate the incidence of releases

on a nationwide basis. Since we used a sample to develop our estimates,

each estimate has a measurable precision. This precision can be used to

develop upper and lower bounds for each estimate. This range is called a

confidence interval. Confidence intervals are stated at a certain

confidence level—in this case, 95 percent. For example, a confidence

interval at the 95-percent confidence level means that in 95 of 100

instances, the sampling procedure that we use would produce a

confidence interval containing the universe value we are estimating. The

following table contains the estimates that we made and their upper and

lower bounds at the 95-percent confidence level. Note that we found 51

releases in our sample, but we were unable to obtain the number of

released acres for 1 of the releases.

Number or Percentage of Airports

Estimate Lower bound Upper bound

Total releases 205 156 254

Releases of less than 10 acres 97 73 126

Releases of from 10 acres 

to less than 20 acres 52 34 78

Releases greater than or equal to

20 acres 52 34 78

Percentage of releases of 

less than 10 acres 48% 33% 63%

Percentage of releases of 

less than 20 acres 74% 61% 87%

Page 28 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

Resources,

Community, and

Economic

Development Division

Janet Barbee

Chris Keisling

Mark Lambert

Allen Rogers

Office of General

Counsel

Dave Hooper

(348130) Page 29 GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100