Springfield Flight Acad. v. City of Springfield -- No. 16-10-03 -- No. FAA-2011-1099

Director's Determination (08/25/2011) [Determination No.232].

View Document

FAA Docket No:

16-10-03

Author:

Fiertz, Randall S., Director

Author Title:

Director

Complainant(s):

Springfield Flight Academy

Respondent(s):

Springfield (Ohio)

Airport(s):

Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport (SGH)

Holding:

Dismissing complaint.

Abstract:

Respondent, City of Springfield, owner and operator of the Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, and Complainant, Springfield Flight Academy, entered into a general FBO agreement permitting Complainant to offer flight instruction, hangar space rental, and airframe and power plant repair services at the Airport. Sometime thereafter, Respondent rejected Complainant’s proposal to also sell fuel, noting that another FBO operating at the airport was selling fuel and that it was not “in the best interest of the Springfield airport to have two separate individuals providing fueling services.” (p. 5). Complainant informed Respondent that it intended to offer fuel for sale. In response, Respondent terminated Complainant’s tenancy (which was then month-to-month).Complainant filed a Complaint alleging that Respondent’s actions were in violation of Grant Assurances 22 and 23. The Director disagreed on both counts.|Grant Assurance 22:|Complainant alleged that Respondent violated Grant Assurance 22: (1) by failing to make the Airport available to Complainant on reasonable terms; and (2) by unreasonably limiting Complainant’s ability to self-service its aircraft.|As to the first, the Director found that, while the Minimum Standards for fueling operations were vague, and while Respondent may have departed from them, “this alone is not a violation of the Federal Grant Assurances.” A “Complainant must establish that the standard was unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory or applied in an unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory manner.” (p. 18). Here, Complainant had not met its burden of showing that “it requested similar terms and conditions as other similarly situated airport users and was denied for unjust reasons.” (p. 18). In fact, a number of factors pointed to Complainant not being similarly situated to other entities operating at the Airport. (pp. 20-26).|Likewise, the Director found that the Airport’s termination of Complainant’s lease was not unreasonable. Respondent had “provide[d] persuasive evidence to document valid reasons for terminating the Complainant’s tenancy.” Also, eviction proceedings are outside the scope of the Part 16 process. (p. 29).|As to the second alleged violation of Grant Assurance 22, the Director found that Complainant misconstrued the protections of Grant Assurance 22(d), which “protects an air carrier’s right to service its own aircraft; it does not create a right to sell fuel to other aircraft owners.” (p. 30). Complainant did not have an air carrier certificate and was therefore not an air carrier, so the provision was not applicable. (p. 30).|Grant Assurance 23:|The Director dismissed Complainant’s allegation that Respondent limited the right to sell fuel to a single provider in violation of Grant Assurance 23 by prohibiting Complainant from using the Respondent-owned fuel farm. The Director found that Complainant had not shown discrimination as none of its fuel-sale proposals to Respondent had requested the use of the Respondent-owned fuel tank (which was used by the other FBO). In short, “[t]he fact that Complainant ha[d] not been permitted to sell fuel on the terms it deem[ed] to be sufficiently advantageous [did] not result in the constructive granting of an exclusive right.” (p. 32).|Burden of Proof:|More broadly, the Director noted the inadequacy of the record submitted by Complainant, stating that “neither the six-page Complaint, nor the 11 accompanying exhibits, offer[ed] a substantial chronological history to explain the nature of the Complainant’s relationship with the Respondent and how the alleged violations occurred.” (p. 14).

Index Terms: