R.L.S. Rental Company, Inc. d/b/a Mizzou Aviation v. City of Joplin, Missouri – No. 16-13-06
FAA Docket No:
FAA Docket No. 16-13-06
Author:
Robin K. Hunt, Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis
Complainant(s):
R.L.S. Rental Company, Inc. d/b/a Mizzou AviationRespondent(s):
City of Joplin, MissouriAirport(s):
Joplin Regional Airport (JLN)
Holding:
Complaint dismissed (summary judgment).Abstract:
The Complainant, which had operated as a full service Fixed-Base Operator (“FBO”) continuously at JLN for almost six decades, filed a complaint against the City alleging that it violated its federal obligations under 49 U.S.C. §§ 40103(e), 47107(a)(1), and Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination. The Complainant specifically contended that the City failed to equally enforce the airport’s minimum standards for FBOs, and further alleged that the City was in violation of its federal obligations by allowing a competitor to emerge and continue to operate, despite not meeting minimum standards.
Soon after learning of the new entrant’s intentions to operate a second FBO at the airport, the Complainant voiced concerns that “it would be unfair and discriminatory to allow Alpha Air to sell fuel at the Airport without a basis to evaluate whether Alpha Air was qualified to do so.” (p. 3.) The Complainant also contended that it urged the City to create minimum standards for commercial businesses selling fuel at the airport and that it would be unjustly discriminatory for the City to allow a new FBO to primarily sell fuel without being required to offer the other services required of the incumbent FBO. (p. 3.)
The City contended that Alpha Air made good faith efforts to meet the minimum standards, but that the process was subject to the schedule of the FAA, which is ultimately responsible for issuing the necessary certificates. (p. 19.)
The Director questioned the airport’s conduct in conditionally approving the new FBO pending its certification under Parts 135 and 141, however: “the City and Airport’s actions were in this specific instance contrary to the minimum standards. However, the Director is not persuaded that the evidence indicates a competitive advantage was given to Alpha Air during the period it awaited approval of its Part 135 and Part 141 certificates. Nonetheless, the sponsor is advised to be more consistent in enforcing established minimum standards.” (p. 18.)
The Director, in finding no violation of Grant Assurances 22 or 23, also noted: “the lack of minimum standards in itself is not, per se, a violation of an airport sponsor’s grant assurances. Although the FAA considers minimum standards the most effective way for airport sponsors to impose restrictions on aeronautical service providers intended to conduct business on an airport, not having them in place when a second FBO comes into the airport is no an ‘automatic’ violation, nor is some flexibility in their application … the Grant Assurances do not impose direct FAA oversight of the local or state process (including timeliness) governing the adoption of rules or requirements.” (p. 25.)