    General Aviation Airports: Unauthorized Land Use Highlights Need for
    Improved Oversight and Enforcement (Letter Report, 05/07/99,
    GAO/RCED-99-109).

    Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO provided information on: (1)
    the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) monitoring of general
    aviation airports' compliance with federal land-use requirements; and
    (2) FAA's use of enforcement tools to resolve cases of noncompliance.

    GAO noted that: (1) 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;
    (2) 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; (3) this monitoring, however, relies
    primarily on airports themselves certifying that they are complying with
    federal requirements; (4) 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; (5) 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; (6) 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; (7) in some
    cases, increased risks to aviation safety also resulted; (8) FAA
    determined that birds attracted by an unauthorized landfill at
    Hesler-Noble Field in Laurel, Mississippi, posed a possible danger to
    aircraft; (9) FAA generally addresses airports' noncompliance with
    federal requirements through negotiation and settlement rather than the
    use of available enforcement actions; and (10) 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.

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

     REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-109
         TITLE:  General Aviation Airports: Unauthorized Land Use
    	     Highlights Need for Improved Oversight and Enforcement
          DATE:  05/07/99
       SUBJECT:  Land management
    	     Federal property management
    	     Transportation safety
    	     Airports
    	     Noncompliance
    	     Internal controls
    	     Land use agreements
    	     Sanctions
    	     Monitoring
    IDENTIFIER:  Federal Aid to Airports Program
    	     FAA Airport Development Aid Program
    	     FAA Airport Improvement Program
    	     Hesler-Noble Field Airport (MS)
    	     Bader Field Airport (NJ)
    	     Richards-Gebaur Memorial Airport (MO)
    	     Queen City Municipal Airport (PA)

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
    ** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
    ** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
    ** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
    ** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
    ** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
    ** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
    ** preserved.                                                   **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
    ** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
    ** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
    **                                                              **
    **                                            **
    **                                                              **
    ** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
    ******************************************************************
    GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS: Unauthorized Land Use Highlights Need
    for Improved Oversight and Enforcement GAO/RCED-99-109 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/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.

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

    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

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

    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).

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

    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.

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

    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).

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

    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.

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

    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

    10 Monitoring of Accountability and Use of Airport Revenues at the
    Malden Municpal Airport, R9- FA- 4- 010 (July 20, 1994).

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

    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

    11 Interim Summary Report on the Audit of Monitoring Airport
    Revenue: Federal Aviation Administration, R9- FA- 4- 004 (Mar. 7,
    1994).

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

    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

    12 Report on Audit of Airport Revenue Accountability: City of
    Venice, Florida, R4- FA- 3- 724 (July 22, 1993). 13 Airport
    Revenues, Stuttgart Municipal Airport, Arkansas, R6- FA- 6- 002
    (Nov. 2, 1995).

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

    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.

    14 Airport Financial Reports: Federal Aviation Administration, AV-
    1998- 201 (Sept. 11, 1998). 15 FAA Order 5190.2R, List of Public
    Airports Affected by Agreements with the Federal Government.

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

    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

    16 49 U. S. C. section 46301. 17 P. L. 103- 122 section 328 and P.
    L. 103- 331 section 325.

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

    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.

    18 P. L. 104- 264 section 805. 19 Airport 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.

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

    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

    20 Pompano Beach Airpark in Pompano Beach, Florida and Benton
    Airport in Saline County, Arkansas. 21 Reliever 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.

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

    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.

    22 Accountability and Use of Airport Revenues, Queen City
    Municipal Airport, R3- FA- 7- 002 (Jan. 30, 1997).

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

    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

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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

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

    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.

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

    B-281078

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

    Source: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

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

    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

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

    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

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

    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.

    23 In 1997, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association announced a
    program to have volunteers monitor public- use airports to
    identify concerns.

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

    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

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

    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.

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

    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

    GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports Page 26

    GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports Page 27

    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%

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

    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) GAO/RCED-99-109 General Aviation Airports Page 29

    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

    *** End of document. ***