The Right to Self-Fuel (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 25-78
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 25... ...
27 APPENDIX D Self-Fueling and Related Abstracts The following abstracts through December 2007 are excerpted, in alphabetical order, from Transportation Research Board, Compilation of DOT and FAA Airport Legal Determinations and Opinion Letters Through December 31, 2007, ACRP Legal Research Digest 4, CD-ROM, prepared by Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP, Washington, D.C. (principal contributors were Pablo O
|
From page 26... ...
28 ISSUE INDEX PRESERVING RIGHTS AND POWERS (GRANT ASSURANCE 5) Thermco Aviation, Inc.
|
From page 27... ...
29 EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS (GRANT ASSURANCE 23) Airborne Flying Serv., Inc., v.
|
From page 28... ...
30 Airborne Flying Serv., Inc., v. City of Hot Springs, Ark.
|
From page 29... ...
31 of the Respondent's federal obligations under Grant Assurance 22. The Respondent denied the allegation, stating it did not unreasonably restrict the Complainant's ability to self-fuel, because the Complainant proposed a method of self-fueling that was unacceptable.
|
From page 30... ...
32 Requiring secondary containment of refueler trucks was not, necessarily, unreasonable. Respondent did not act unreasonably by applying to Complainant the EPA requirement that fuelers build a containment area while allowing self-fuelers with existing facilities additional time to comply, where the EPA guidance permitted this and Complainant was actually self-fueling along side other operators by special permission of Respondent.
|
From page 31... ...
33 Holding: Affirming Director's Determination of Mar.
|
From page 32... ...
34 parked his experimental aircraft on the ramp at the Airport. A year later he became dissatisfied with the services offered by airport management.
|
From page 33... ...
35 able and not unjustly discriminatory basis, by establishing general liability insurance requirements for users of the airport…." (pp.
|
From page 34... ...
36 Ashton v. City of Concord, N.C.
|
From page 35... ...
37 Respondent: Concord (N.C.)
|
From page 36... ...
38 FAA Docket No.
|
From page 37... ...
39 Complainant FBO filed a complaint against the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, owner and operator of Ann Arbor Municipal Airport, alleging that Respondent was engaged in economic discrimination and had granted another FBO an exclusive right in violation of Grant Assurances 22 and 23 by permitting the other FBO to operate at the Airport in violation of the Airport's Minimum Standards. The Director found the City not to be in violation of either Grant Assurance 22 or 23 and dismissed the Complaint.
|
From page 38... ...
40 BMI Salvage Corp.
|
From page 39... ...
41 aircraft, have any chance of returning to aeronautical-use within a reasonable period of time, or need to be removed from aeronautically-designated leaseholds." (p.
|
From page 40... ...
42 Complainant Blueside and Miami Executive Aviation were not similarly situated in the context of Grant Assurance 22, because Miami Executive was a current tenant operating an established FBO business and Blueside was proposing to introduce a new FBO business.
|
From page 41... ...
43 Pre-Complaint Resolution: Complainant's effort to resolve the dispute informally prior to filing a complaint by seeking assistance from its ADO was sufficient to fulfill the requirements of Section 16.21, even though it occurred before Respondent took the action alleged to be in violation of its Grant Assurances.
|
From page 42... ...
44 Petition for review denied sub nom. Boca Airport, Inc.
|
From page 43... ...
45 Operation and Maintenance (Grant Assurance 19) : Respondent's plan to convert land previously committed to aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and not to construct certain facilities did not conflict with Grant Assurance 19 (Operation and Maintenance)
|
From page 44... ...
46 Affirmed by Final Decision and Order of Mar.
|
From page 45... ...
47 the FAA in the airport's Airport Layout Plan file. Interim use may also be designated through attached maps, overlays, or pencil notations to the Plan, among other methods.
|
From page 46... ...
48 interest to tenants on the airport. These property interests may restrict the sponsor's ability to preserve its rights and powers to operate the airport in compliance with its federal obligations.
|
From page 47... ...
49 The FAA does not dispute the right of the Appellant to lease the property, only the failure to retain the absolute right of access and the right to grant utility easements and to maintain and install utilities.
|
From page 48... ...
50 Because an airport user was able to meet a particular requirement for use of the airport did not necessarily mean that the requirement was reasonable under the grant assurances.
|
From page 49... ...
51 Holding: Finding violation in part. Abstract: Complainant Cedarhurst Air Charter, Inc.
|
From page 50... ...
52 Complainant: Cedarhurst Air Charter, Inc. Respondent: Waukesha County (Wis.)
|
From page 51... ...
53 use of the main hangar alone with the combined rental rate it paid for the main hangar and office space.
|
From page 52... ...
54 plemented a cyclical preventive maintenance program; and (iii) has made arrangements to implement its maintenance program." (p.
|
From page 53... ...
55 Respondent did not unjustly discriminate against Complainant in violation of Grant Assurance 22 by imposing restrictions on Complainant's fueling operations that it did not impose on itself where the reason for the different standards was that Complainant's facility was built later than Respondent's facility and was subject to fire and building codes to which Respondent was not subject.
|
From page 54... ...
56 Respondents: Naples (Fla.) Airport Authority.
|
From page 55... ...
57 Respondent was in violation of Grant Assurance 22 by allowing one tenant to pay a fuel flowage fee of 16 cents per gallon while other similarly situated tenants operating under the same type of fuel permit were paying a fee of 40 cents per gallon.
|
From page 56... ...
58 Director's Determination (November 25, 2005)
|
From page 57... ...
59 Record of Decision ([No date]
|
From page 58... ...
60 Complainant: Maxim United, LLC. Respondent: Jefferson County (Colo.)
|
From page 59... ...
61 Miller v.
|
From page 60... ...
62 Miller v.
|
From page 61... ...
63 Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22) : When Respondent offered Complainant a permit to use a fuel truck to service Complainant's aircraft or a land lease for the installation of a private fuel farm at the existing, centralized fuel storage facility, Respondent satisfied its obligation to protect Complainant's self-service rights.
|
From page 62... ...
64 "The Respondent's Federal obligations do not require it to provide a specific level of service, level of convenience or amount of cost savings, simply because a specific proposal might be reasonable. Rather, the standard is that any sponsor will provide a reasonable opportunity to self-fuel…." (p.
|
From page 63... ...
65 Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23) : The fact that Respondent had only one full service FBO at the Airport did not mean that it had granted an exclusive right.
|
From page 64... ...
66 Complainant: Royal Air, Inc. Respondents: Shreveport (La.)
|
From page 65... ...
67 Respondent did not grant Complainant's competitors an exclusive right in violation of Grant Assurance 23 by prohibiting Complainant from building a fueling facility at its preferred site where Respondent allowed Complainant to install its own fuel tanks at Respondent's centralized fuel farm.
|
From page 67... ...
69 It was not unreasonable for Respondent to require Complainant to provide insurance to protect the Airport in the event of a fuel spill at a level that would be sufficient to protect the potential environmental damage that could result from a fuel spill from Complainant's operation.
|
From page 68... ...
70 Abstract: The Complainant, Self Serve Pumps, Inc. has filed this action against the Respondent, Chicago Executive Airport alleging violations of 49 U.S.C.
|
From page 69... ...
71 Grant Assurance 23, (Exclusive Rights)
|
From page 70... ...
72 The fact that the lease rate for Malloy, Complainant's competitor, was not based on fair market value was not unjustly discriminatory where Malloy's rate was a result of a competitive request for proposal (RFP) process at a time when Respondent found itself without an FBO at the Airport.
|
From page 71... ...
73 year lease offer where the RFP states that Respondent must receive fair market value for the structures, because Respondents retained the proprietary right to make such decisions.
|
From page 72... ...
74 that they were denied a lease at any time because Respondents favored a nonaeronautical tenant or that they were denied a lease because aeronautical space was not available.
|
From page 73... ...
75 Airport: Kokomo Municipal Airport (OKK)
|
From page 74... ...
76 The Complainant's allegation that enforcement actions were taken against him because he is AfricanAmerican was referred to the FAA Office of Civil Rights for review.
|
From page 75... ...
77 Respondent did not unjustly discriminate against Complainant by requiring all airport users to refuel at a designated self-fueling area where any additional cost borne by Complainant in taxiing his aircraft to the designated area was equally borne by all members of his class of airport users.
|
From page 76... ...
78 Past Violations: Because the Part 16 process is not intended to punish past transgressions, no resolution of Complainant's allegations concerning past actions were necessary.
|
From page 77... ...
79 In calculating the rent that the competing FBO would pay for its leasehold, it was permissible to consider the leasehold improvements upon which future rent would be assessed.
|
From page 78... ...
80 Abstract: In the original complaint, Complainant, Wilson Air Center, LLC, alleged that Respondent, Memphis and Shelby County Airport Authority, sponsor of Memphis International Airport, violated Grant Assurances 22 and 23 by providing preferential treatment to AMR, a competing FBO. The Director's Determination found no violation and Complainant appealed.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.