What recourse is available to the proponent of a second Fixed Base Operator (FBO) if the city imposes a policy against it?

The correct choice outlines an important mechanism within the federal aviation regulatory framework. When a city imposes a policy that effectively prevents a second Fixed Base Operator (FBO) from operating at an airport, the proponent of that FBO may argue that the airport authority is not complying with the requirements of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) as set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Under federal law, especially those governing AIP funds, airports must ensure fair and equitable access for all qualified operators, including FBOs. If a city policy restricts competition or prevents an FBO from establishing operations, the FAA has the authority to intervene. This could involve seeking enforcement through the courts to uphold federal laws that promote competition and fair access under the AIP.

Such federal oversight is a crucial aspect of the relationship between federal regulations and local policies; it underscores the principle that federal law often supersedes conflicting state or local actions regarding federally funded airports. This recourse is a fundamental protection for those seeking to establish or expand aviation services in an environment where local regulations may impede competition or service availability.

In contrast, the other options do not align with the standard regulatory frameworks or the legal recourse addressed in aviation law regarding compliance with federal requirements