Lexis Cite:
2003 FAA LEXIS 162
Westlaw Cite:
2003 WL 21002099
Author:
Bennett, David L., Director
Complainant(s):
Martyn, Jim
Respondent(s):
Anacortes (Wash.), Port of
Airport(s):
Port of Anacortes Airport (74S)
Holding:
Finding violation. See Director's Determination: Partial Dismissal and Notice of Docketing of Apr. 29, 2002 (Determination No. 100).
Abstract:
Complainant, Jim Martyn, filed a complaint against Respondent, the Port of Anacortes, owner and operator of the Port of Anacortes Airport, alleging that Respondent was in violation of Grant Assurances 22, 23, 5, and 29 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for denying Complainant access to the Airport for the purposes of constructing and operating a hangar facility to be made available to the public for aeronautical use. The Director found Respondent in violation.|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22):|Respondent's denial of Complainant's proposal to build a hangar facility based on Respondent's intent to delay hangar construction until design and mitigation standards acceptable to the Port, the City and a citizens group publicly opposed to airport development were approved was unjust and unreasonable, since total acceptance from such a group is unrealistic and unnecessary. (p. 31).|It was unreasonable for Respondent to deny Complainant's proposal to build and offer for lease aircraft hangars where there was a need for hangars at the Airport, as documented through a long waiting list, and Respondent did not show that Complainant lacked the qualifications to provide the needed services. Although a sponsor is not obligated to build hangars, a sponsor "does have the obligation to make suitable areas or space available on reasonable terms to those who are willing and otherwise qualified to offer the needed services." (p. 31).|It was unreasonable for Respondent to deny Complainant's proposal to build and offer for lease aircraft hangars on the basis that it wanted to make sure that hangar leases were offered first to those who are on its wait list, because the Complainant was not an agent of Respondent and was not obligated to meet Respondent's commitments to those on the wait list. (p. 32).|Respondent violated Grant Assurance 22 by denying Complainant's proposal to build and offer for lease aircraft hangars where the evidence demonstrated Respondent's objection to his proposal was not based on a desire to complete the planning process, but rather a desire to limit growth of the Airport. (p. 32).|Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23):|Respondent granted an impermissible exclusive right where it permitted another aeronautical user to lease space for the same purpose and under similar conditions to those requested by, and denied to, Complainant for unjustifiable reasons. (p. 35).|Preserving Rights and Powers (Grant Assurance 5):|Respondent did not violate Grant Assurance 5 by denying Complainant's proposal based on a desire to delay any type of hangar development until the planning process, which includes approval by a community group, was completed because there was insufficient evidence to suggest Respondent actually relinquished any decision-making powers to the City, local community, or special interest group. (p. 36).|Airport Layout Plan (Grant Assurance 29):|Respondent did not violate Grant Assurance 29 by leasing Airport land to a non-aviation business while the land was needed for its primary purpose where there was no evidence that Complainant's lease was denied or delayed as a direct result of this lease. (pp. 38-39).|Respondent did not violate Grant Assurance 29 by converting aeronautical-use property to a vegetation zone on an interim basis where Complainant provided no evidence that the land was currently needed for aeronautical development. (p. 40).|Respondent was not improperly engaging in converting Airport property through the proposed construction of security fencing where the security fence had yet to be constructed and the FAA Airport District Office was working with Respondent to establish the appropriate placement of the fence. (p. 41).|Procedural Issues:|Complainant satisfied the requirement of demonstrating attempts at precomplaint resolution where he provided a description of how he was directly and substantially affected by the things done or not done by Respondent and declared and certified that he made substantial and reasonable good faith efforts to resolve the dispute informally and that there appeared to be no reasonable prospect for timely resolution. (p. 43).|Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Complainant's submittal was unsworn was denied, because the Director concluded that Complainant's submittal was credible in light of supporting evidence. (pp. 44-45).|Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Complainant asked for compensatory and punitive damages, remedies which are not available under Part 16, was denied. Director refused to abdicate its responsibility to address alleged noncompliance with federal grant assurances on the argument that Complainant requested a remedy not available from the FAA. (p. 46).|The fact that Complainant was not currently paying fees or rentals to the Airport did not preclude him from being directly and substantially affected by any alleged noncompliance; Complainant provided a brief description of how he was affected and thereby met his burden to show standing to file this complaint. (p. 47).
Index Terms:
Unjust economic discrimination|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22)|Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23)|Preserving Rights and Powers (Grant Assurance 5)|Airport Layout Plan (Grant Assurance 29)|Consideration of Local Interest (Grant Assurance 7)|Pre-complaint resolution|Hangar lease|Standing|Demand for aeronautical services|Unreasonable restriction|Procedure|Affirmative defenses|Delay by airport sponsor