Lexis Cite:
2003 FAA LEXIS 143
Westlaw Cite:
2003 WL 1963859
Author:
Woodward, Woodie, Associate Administrator for Airports
Author Title:
Associate Administrator for Airports
Complainant(s):
Boca Airport, Inc.|Boca Aviation
Respondent(s):
Boca Raton (Fla.) Airport Authority
Airport(s):
Boca Raton Airport (BCT)
Holding:
Affirming Director's Determination of Apr. 26, 2001. See Determination No. 85.
Abstract:
In its original complaint, Complainant Boca Aviation, and FBO, filed a complaint against Respondent, Boca Raton Airport Authority, owner and operator of the Boca Raton Airport alleging that Respondent's change to a previously accepted Corrective Action Plan and subsequent lease of the only undeveloped parcel of land to a competing FBO violated Grant Assurances 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 22, 24, 25, and 29.
The Complainant argued on appeal that the Director (a) failed to make findings of fact supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence; and (b) made conclusions of law not in accordance with applicable law, precedent, and public policy. Specifically, Complainant appealed the findings with respect to minimum standards for an FBO and Grant Assurances 1, 5, 19, 25 and 29.|Associate Administrator affirmed the Director's Determination with one exception which amounted to harmless error.|Exception to the Director's Determination:|Director's Determination held that by giving conditional approval for the Airport Layout Plan, the FAA had given implied approval for the interim non-aviation use of a portion of the parcel at issue. Associate Administrator disagreed and found that "explicit FAA approval for interim non-aviation use of aeronautical property is required." (pp. 4, 44). This was harmless error and therefore did not affect the outcome of the decision.|The Director did err in finding that the temporary parking facility had already been implicitly approved by the FAA, because Respondent did not, in fact, make a formal request for approval. However, when the ADO became aware of Respondent's interim use it did not object because it found no adverse impact to the safety, utility, or efficiency of the Airport. Therefore, the Director's error was harmless. (p. 44).|Airport Layout Plan (Grant Assurance 29):|Grant Assurance 29 (Airport Layout Plan) did not require a costly revision to the approved Airport Layout Plan for each interim use anticipated. It is common FAA practice to permit temporary, interim use without annotating such use directly on the Airport Layout Plan. Rather, such use is generally annotated through supporting documents such as letters, emails, records of telephone conversations, and notes maintained by the FAA in the airport's Airport Layout Plan file. Interim use may also be designated through attached maps, overlays, or pencil notations to the Plan, among other methods. (p. 46).
Index Terms:
Airport Layout Plan (Grant Assurance 29)|Corrective Action Plan (CAP)|General Federal Requirements (Grant Assurance 1)|Minimum Standards|Operation and Maintenance (Grant Assurance 19)|Jurisdiction - Part 16|Unjust economic discrimination|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22)|Fee and Rental Structure (Grant Assurance 24)|Self-sustainability|Airport Revenues (Grant Assurance 25)|Preserving Rights and Powers (Grant Assurance 5)|Request for Proposal (RFP)|Bids|Demonstrated immediate need|Non-aeronautical use|Revenue diversion|State litigation|Fixed-base operator (FBO) agreement