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. 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. 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 compliance with federal requirements on revenue use. 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. Some of these cases went undetected for over a decade. 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. FAA also informed the airport that a failure to take corrective action could result in the city’s becoming ineligible for federal grants. Safety issues have resulted from unauthorized use. 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. It has not withheld transportation grants, taken back the title to airport land, or taken action through the courts.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.