Lexis Cite:
2011 FAA LEXIS 37
Westlaw Cite:
2011 WL 381953
Author:
Fiertz, Randall S., Director
Complainant(s):
Ricks, James Vernon, Jr.
Respondent(s):
Greenwood-Leflore Airport|Greenwood-Leflore Airport Board|Greenwood (Miss.)|Leflore County (Miss.)
Airport(s):
Greenwood-Leflore Airport (GWO)
History:
Remanded due to procedural error by Order of Remand of Dec. 20, 2011. See Determination No. 234.
Holding:
Dismissing complaint.
Abstract:
Complainant, James Vernon Ricks, Jr., alleged that Respondent, the Airport Board of the Greenwood-Leflore Airport, unjustly discriminated against him by terminating his lease in order to expand the leasehold of another tenant. The Director reviewed Complainant’s claims as pleading violations of Grant Assurances 2, 5, 19, 22 and 29.|Co-Sponsorship of Airport:|Complainant alleged that the co-sponsorship of the Airport by the City and the County meant that the Airport was operating without proper authority in violation of Grant Assurance 2. The Director found that there was no evidence that the co-sponsorship had “in any way affected [Complainant’s] ability to do business on the airport.” (p. 22). Moreover, there was nothing objectionable about co-sponsorship in and of itself. (p. 22).|Grant Assurance 5; Burden of Proof:|Complainant alleged that Respondent’s bank security agreement allowed a lender to enter Respondent’s premises in case of a default and “had the effect of diluting the Airport’s rights and powers” in violation of Grant Assurance 5. The Director found that Complainant “had failed to provide a preponderance of evidence showing that the Respondent transferred any of its rights and powers” to another entity. (p. 24).|Grant Assurance 19:|Complainant alleged that Respondent allowed a large amount of foreign objects to remain at the Airport, creating a hazard and violating Grant Assurance 19. Quoting Order 5190.6B, at 7.5, the Director noted that a sponsor is in compliance with its federal maintenance obligation when it “[f]ully understands that airport facilities must be kept in a safe and serviceable condition,” it “[m]akes available the equipment, personnel, funds, and other resources, including contract arrangements, to implement an effective maintenance program,” and it “[a]dopts and implements a detailed program of cyclical preventive maintenance to carry out this commitment.” (p. 25). Here, Complainant had “presented no evidence that debris or other material in the public areas of the airport, or on his leasehold, caused him any danger or damage to his aircraft” and thus did not show a violation of Grant Assurance 19. (p. 25).|Grant Assurance 22:|Complainant alleged that Respondent’s attempt to move Complainant to a different location on the Airport constituted economic discrimination in violation Grant Assurance 22. The Director found that an airport sponsor has the right to “exercise its proprietary rights and powers to develop and administer the Airport’s land in a manner consistent with the public’s interest,” and that, here, Respondent had made a good faith effort to accommodate Complainant at an alternate site. (p. 29).|Complainant also alleged that Respondent had granted FBO status to a non-aeronautical group operating at the Airport, which constituted economic discrimination against Complainant. The Director, found, however, that Complainant had “provided no evidence whatsoever that he is similarly situated to the [non-aeronautical group] or that he has been harmed” by the non-aeronautical group’s alleged operations. (p. 35).|Complainant alleged that Respondent had denied tenants the right to self-service aircraft. The Director found that Respondent might have halted aircraft washing while it came into compliance with its Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, but such action was legitimate, particularly as the moratorium was applied uniformly to all airport tenants. (p. 36).|Grant Assurance 29:|Complainant alleged that Respondent failed to maintain an up-to-date Airport Layout Plan in violation of Grant Assurance 29. The Director found that “[i]nadvertently failing to depict a particular leasehold on the ALP” is not a violation of the Grant Assurance, and that merely identifying inconsistencies in the ALP “and implying some level of consequences without any evidence” is not the basis for a violation of the grant assurance. (pp. 40, 41).
Index Terms:
Airport Layout Plan (Grant Assurance 29)|Burden of proof|Denial of access|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22)|Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23)|Fee and Rental Structure (Grant Assurance 24)|Land lease|Non-aeronautical use|Operation and Maintenance (Grant Assurance 19)|Order 5190.6[A/B]|Preserving Rights and Powers (Grant Assurance 5)|Proprietary Power|Remedied past violations|Responsibility and Authority of the Sponsor (Grant Assurance 2)|Similarly situated|Unjust economic discrimination