Are airports required to provide space or land to lease to other federal agencies at reduced rent or rent-free, and if so is this compliant with an airport’s other federal legal obligations?

Other than the above, airports are not required to provide space or land to lease to other federal agencies at reduced rent or rent-free. However, they are also not prohibited from doing so. Providing space or land to federal agencies for nominal rent should generally be limited to those facilities necessary for the federal agency’s operations, and consistent with the mission, if an arm of the U.S. Armed Forces.

What are federal agencies obligated to provide to airports?

The federal agencies researched for this digest do not have obligations specific to airports. Rather, they have obligations to the citizens of the United States, and those obligations may, in turn, require certain activities to occur on or in partnership with airports. For example, the joint initiative between the CBP and the USDA for inspections of agricultural goods occurs at airports, among other ports of entry into the United States. Similarly, the TSA and the CBP have important functions related to homeland security that must occur at an airport, but the obligation to provide the service does not directly include obligations to provide anything to airports.

What accommodations may an airport provide? What are airports prohibited from providing? How must airports ensure that these accommodations and agreements are consistent with applicable federal law, including any procurement requirements and requirements regarding the use of real property?

Generally, airports have broad authority to accommodate federal agencies, and the FAA takes a generous view of these accommodations. The FAA does state throughout the compliance manual that the airport sponsor is required to negotiate with the federal agency and be cognizant of its grant obligations, and that the FAA will not negotiate on behalf of airports. Particular concerns mentioned are lease terms of a duration that would require the FAA’s consent as a “release” of land, operational restrictions on flight such as prior permission to land requirements, and the lease of space or land for nominal fees that is in excess of what the particular federal agency actually needs. Airport sponsors are not released from complying with applicable federal law, but there are broad exceptions or flexibility provided for use of real property by federal agencies.

How does the fact of emergency use or use pursuant to a state or national emergency change an airport’s obligations and legal requirements, if at all?

The scope of the project team’s research did not address state or local laws related to emergency use of an airport, but a declaration of national emergency could result in a federal agency using some or all of an airport in support of that agency’s mission. This would not be considered a “change” in an airport’s obligations, but would instead likely be consistent with those obligations as set forth in the conveyance documents.

What are the ramifications of failure to comply with a particular agency’s request, or compliance with a request that results in possible non-compliance with an airport’s other legal obligations?

Based upon the research by the project team, we were unable to identify any enforcement action by the FAA taken against an airport sponsor due to that sponsor’s lease of land or facilities to a federal agency. Similarly, we were unable to identify any other enforcement action by a federal agency other than the FAA related to an airport sponsor refusing to accommodate that federal agency.

VIII. APPENDICES

Appendices A through G are available on the National Academies Press website (nap.nationalacademies.org) by searching for ACRP LRD 47: Accommodating Federal Agencies at Airports and Related Contractual Concerns.