Sun Valley Aviation, Inc. v. Valley Int’l Airport-254

FAA Docket No:

16-10-02

Author:

Fiertz, Randall S., Director

Author Title:

Director

Complainant(s):

Sun Valley Aviation, Inc.

Respondent(s):

Harlingen (Tex.)

Airport(s):

Valley International Airport (HRL)

Holding:

Dismissing complaint.

Abstract:

Complainant, Sun Valley Aviation, Inc., alleged that Respondent, City of Harlingen, sponsor of Valley International Airport, delayed, obstructed, and frustrated attempts by the Complainant to establish an FBO at the Airport in violation of Grant Assurances 22, 23, and 24.|Grant Assurance 22:|Complainant alleged that Respondent’s “continually changing requirements” during lease negotiations prevented it from establishing an FBO at the Airport in violation of Grant Assurance 22. (pp. 37, 51). The Director found that some of the Respondent’s delays during negotiations were troublesome, but that those delays were no longer ongoing. At the time of the decision, Respondent had “come to understand its obligations, [had] identified and pursued a plan to fulfill its obligations,” and achieved voluntary compliance. (pp. 51, 55). Thus, it was currently in compliance with Grant Assurance 22.|Grant Assurance 23:|Complainant alleged that Respondent attempted to deny Complainant access to the Airport “to protect the monopoly on fuel and aviation services at VIA by the incumbent FBO” in violation of Grant Assurance 23. (p. 56). The Director found that Respondent’s decision to re-lease all existing Airport facilities appeared to grant an exclusive right. However, because Respondent and Complainant had reached agreement on and executed a lease for Complainant’s facilities, Respondent was now in compliance with Grant Assurance 23. (p. 65).|Grant Assurance 24:|Complainant alleged that Respondent had “created an environment that prevented it from becoming as self-sustaining as possible” thereby violating Grant Assurance 24. (p. 65). In particular, Complainant argued that the Respondent made the decision to improve portions of the Airport that could not be a suitable location to host a second FBO. The Director agreed, but found that because “the Respondent ha[d] commenced construction [of an additional location] and executed a lease with the Complainant” the Respondent had since “embraced the purpose of Grant Assurance 24 . . . and taken steps to achieve a compliant posture.” (p. 68).|“Grant Assurance 24 does not require the sponsor to establish a fee and rental structure designed to maximize the Airport's profit potential.”|Continued Compliance:|The Director encouraged—but did not require—Respondent to “provide quarterly updates to the FAA Office Airport Compliance Division” in order to “ensure the Respondent continues to maintain the status of current compliance.” (p. 69).

Index Terms:

Sun Valley Aviation, Inc. v. Valley Int'l Airport -- No. 16-10-02 -- No. FAA-2011-0598