Adventure Aviation v. City of Las Cruces, N.M.-114

FAA Docket No:

16-01-14

Lexis Cite:

2003 FAA LEXIS 426

Westlaw Cite:

2003 WL 22696923

Author:

Woodward, Woodie, Associate Administrator for Airports

Author Title:

Associate Administrator for Airports

Complainant(s):

Adventure Aviation

Respondent(s):

Las Cruces (N.M.)

Airport(s):

Las Cruces International Airport (LRU)

Holding:

Affirming Director's Determination of Aug. 7, 2002. See Determination No. 105.

Abstract:

In the original complaint, Complainant Adventure Aviation, an FBO, alleged that Respondent, City of Las Cruces, New Mexico, sponsor of Las Cruces International Airport, violated Grant Assurances 19, 22, 23 and 24 through preferential treatment of one FBO over another. Incumbent FBO had a lease pre-dating adoption of the Airport's Minimum Standards that provided for ground rent, percentages of gross income, and fuel flowage fees. Complainant entered into a lease following Respondent's adoption of Minimum Standards that required payment of ground and facilities rents, percentages of some fees, but no fuel flowage fees. Incumbent had obligation to maintain buildings and pay utilities; Complainant did not. The Director found Respondent not in violation of the Grant Assurances and dismissed the Complaint. Complainant appealed. The Associate Administrator affirmed all findings of the Director’s Determination and additionally found the following:|FAA Investigation:|The Director did not err in reaching its conclusion without the FAA conducting its own, independent investigation. "The FAA is under no obligation to investigate the complaint beyond what is provided in the complaint, answer, reply and rebuttal." (p. 16).|Opportunity to Supplement the Record:|The Director did not err in not allowing Complainant the opportunity to supplement findings and information cited in the Director's Determination with more recent and congruous appraisals since the Director found fault with the economic analysis and appraisals provided by the Complainint originally. "If the parties could supplement the Director's Determination after it is issued, the administrative process would be endless and contrary to the expedited procedures provided under Part 16." (p. 17) If Complainant had new evidence not previously available that could not have been discussed or presented before the Director's Determination was issued, it may have been considered on appeal. (p. 17).|Evidentiary Hearing:|"The FAA rules . . . do not provide for an evidentiary hearing during an investigation or prior to the Director's Determination. A hearing is only provided if the Director's Determination finds the respondent in noncompliance and proposes the issuance of a compliance order, neither of which occurred in this case." (p. 18).

Index Terms:

Adventure Aviation v. City of Las Cruces, N.M. -- No. 16-01-14 -- No. FAA-2002-13416