Roadhouse Aviation v. City of Tulsa-130 – ACRP Legal Research Digest 21

FAA Docket No:

16-05-08

Lexis Cite:

2007 FAA LEXIS 240

Westlaw Cite:

2007 WL 1966160

Author:

Shaffer, D. Kirk, Associate Administrator for Airports

Author Title:

Associate Administrator for Airports

Complainant(s):

Roadhouse Aviation

Respondent(s):

Tulsa (Okla.)|Tulsa (Okla.) Airports Improvement Trust

Airport(s):

Richard Lloyd Jones Jr. Airport (RVS)|Riverside Airport, alternatively

Holding:

Affirming Director's Determination of Dec. 14, 2006. See Determination No. 167.

Abstract:

In the original Complaint, Complainant Roadhouse Aviation alleged that Respondents, City of Tulsa and Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust, owner of the Richard Lloyd Jones Jr. Airport, violated Grant Assurances 5, 19, 22, and 23 by giving another FBO special treatment and permitting a monopoly on the Airport. The Director’s Determination found no violation and Complainant appealed. The Associate Administrator affirmed all findings of the Director’s Determination and additionally found the following:|Complainant’s seven appeal exhibits consisting of new evidence were not considered in the Appeal, because Complainant was required to submit all its documentation in support of its case prior to the Director’s Determination pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.23(b)(2), and the Complainant did not show why the exhibits were not available or could not have been discovered before the Director’s Determination was issued. (p. 14).|Respondents were not obligated to convert Complainant’s tie-down leasehold in front of the competing FBO's hangar into an exclusive use area, because “Federal law does not prohibit public-use taxilanes on private leaseholds.” (p. 21). The Director did not arbitrarily and capriciously support Respondents’ refusal to turn Complainant’s tie-down leasehold into an exclusive area, because Respondents had “a right to maintain public access through tie down blocks to the airfield. . . . [and] determine how space on the airport will be best utilized." (p. 21).|Respondents’ lack of participation in the negotiation of the terms of a sale of privately owned improvements on public property did not rise to the level of a grant of an exclusive right. An airport sponsor “is not a party to the sale but must address the issues tangential to the leasehold and its assignment.” (pp. 22-23).|The Director did not err when he failed to consider the comments from the FAA Southwest Region Compliance Officer, because the Officer was not a participant in the Part 16 proceeding. (pp. 25-26).

Index Terms:

Roadhouse Aviation v. City of Tulsa -- No. 16-05-08 -- No. FAA-2005-22368