Author:
Fornarotto, Christa, Associate Administrator for Airports
Author Title:
Associate Administrator for Airports
Complainant(s):
Desert Wings Jet Center, LLC|Spirit Flight Inc. d/b/a Wings of the Cascades|Schu, Mary A.
Respondent(s):
Redmond (Ore.)
Airport(s):
Redmond Roberts Field Municipal Airport (RDM)
Holding:
Affirming Director's Determination of Nov. 10, 2010. See Determination No. 223.
Abstract:
Complainant, Mary Schu, was a commercial aeronautical service provider at the Airport and the President and Owner of Desert Wings Jet Center LLC, a flight training and aircraft charter service, and of Spirit Flight, Inc. d/b/a Wings of Cascades, which Complainant described as an FBO. Complainant alleged that the Respondent, City of Redmond, Oregon, the owner, sponsor, and operator of the Airport, had violated Grant Assurances 19, 22, 23, 29 and 30 by failing to correct wastewater and drainage problems on Complainant’s leasehold by failing to define the Complainant’s leasehold boundaries, by preventing the Complainant from expanding its leasehold and becoming an FBO, and by implementing unreasonable standards and changing the leasehold requirements. The Director dismissed the complaint, and Complainant appealed. The Associate Administrator affirmed the Director’s findings and additionally held as follows:|Burden of proof:|“In an appeal, the Complainant must show that the Director erred by making findings of fact that were not supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence or made conclusions of law that were not in accordance with applicable law, precedent, and public policy.” (p. 1).|“[W]hen the Complainant alleges that the sponsor unreasonably denied access, the Complainant must show that the sponsor actually denied access, unreasonably. It is not enough to show that the Complainant’s preferred development did not occur and that the Respondent was somewhat not helpful or was difficult or inconsistent.” (p. 19).|“When a Complainant alleges unjust economic discrimination, the Complainant must show that the Respondent granted some preferential treatment to a similarly situated entity, that the Complainant also requested that same treatment, and the Respondent unreasonably denied that treatment to the Complainant.” (p. 19).|Ex parte communication:|The Associate Administrator found no evidence of communication between the FAA and Respondent that was not part of the record. The Associate Administrator further found that the ex part communication rules of 14 C.F.R. § 16.303(a) did not apply in this case since it had not been set for hearing. Moreover “[b]ecause of the contractual relationship between the FAA and the airport sponsor, the FAA may contact the sponsor at any time to discuss sponsorship issues, subject to 14 C.F.R. part l6, subpart I.” (p. 20).|Missed deadlines:|The Director issued its determination one month after the deadline provided for in the last written extension. The Associate Administrator found that this was a procedural error, not an error in findings of fact or conclusions of law, and had no bearing on the outcome of the Final Decision. (p. 21).|Evidence:|Complainant claimed the Director’s Determination “appear[ed] to have no investigation or discussion with anyone outside the [R]espondent and [C]omplainant to verify information.” (p. 21). The Associate Administrator found that “[t]here is no obligation on the part of the Director or the Associate Administrator to conduct additional research to support either party’s position in a part 16 action.” Rather it is the Complainant’s responsibility to substantiate her own claims and present the evidence that FAA should rely upon in making its decision. (p. 21, citing 14 C.F.R. §§ 16.23(3), 16.29).|Hearings:|Complainant objected to the absence of a hearing. The Associate Administrator found “[t]he FAA offers a hearing to Respondents found in noncompliance with their Federal obligations only when the FAA contemplates withholding funds. Hearings are not offered to Complainants.” (p. 22).
Index Terms:
Airport Layout Plan (Grant Assurance 29)|Burden of proof|Civil Rights (Grant Assurance 30)|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22)|Ex parte communication|Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23)|Hearing|Operation and Maintenance (Grant Assurance 19)|Procedure