08032010 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AC 150/5190 -6 1/4/2007 aeronautical service provider at the airport. An airport sponsor's refusal to permit a single FBO to expand based on the sponsor's desire to open the airport to competition is not a violation of the grant assurances. Additionally, an airport sponsor may exclude an incumbent FBO from participating under a competitive solicitation in order to bring a second FBO onto the airport to create a more competitive environment. A lease that confers an exclusive right will be construed as having the intent to do so and, therefore, be an exclusive rights violation. Airport sponsors are better served by requiring that leases to a single aeronautical service provider be limited to the amount of land the service provider can demonstrate it actually needs and can be put to immediate productive use. In the event that additional space is required later, the airport sponsor may require the incumbent service provider to compete along with all other qualified service providers for the available airport land. The grant of options or preferences on future airport lease sites to a single service provider may be construed as intent to grant an exclusive right and therefore, the use of leases with options or future preferences, such as rights -of- first refusal, must generally be avoided. This is because a right of first refusal can allow an existing tenant, at little or no cost, to hold a claim on airport land that could be used for a second FBO, then lease that land when there is a prospect of competition. 4. Monopolies Beyond the Airport Sponsor's Control. Certain exclusive franchises exist on public airports that are sanctioned by local or Federal law and do not contravene the FAA's policy against exclusive rights agreements. One such franchise that exists at most public airports is UNICOM, which provides frequencies for air -to- ground communications at airports. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates and authorizes the use of UNICOM frequencies, will not issue more than one ground station license at the same airport. Thus, an exclusive franchise is created. A legally supported franchise, such as UNICOM, grants the recipient licensee an advantage over competitors, but does not result in a violation of the agency's prohibition against exclusive rights. In cases such as this, the FAA recommends that the airport sponsor obtain the subject license in its own name. Using droplines, the airport sponsor can then make the facility available to all fixed base operations on an as needed basis. Regardless of which method the airport sponsor uses, control over the facility must be held by the individual or entity that holds the license. 1.5. THROUGH 1.8. RESERVED. SECTION 2. THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS 2.1. AIRPORT COMPLIANCE PROGRAM. The FAA ensures airport sponsor compliance with Federal grant obligations through its Airport Compliance Program. The Airport Compliance Program arises from requirements in the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 47101, et seq., and the airport sponsor's agreement to comply with the assurances contained in the grant agreement in exchange for Federal airport development assistance. The Airport Compliance Program is designed to maintain a system of safe and properly maintained airports that are operated in a manner that protects the public's interest and investment in a national airport system. a. Under the Airport Compliance Program, any person who believes that an airport sponsor may be in noncompliance with a grant assurance may register their concerns with the local FAA Airport District Office (ADO). ADO personnel may investigate informally under 14 C.F.R. 13.1 the allegations of noncompliance and, in the event that the allegations are confirmed, attempt to persuade the airport sponsor to come back into compliance. Should this measure prove unsatisfactory, the concerned party may file a formal complaint under 14 C.F.R. Part 16, Rules of Practice for Federally-