There's no FAR per se, but Advisory Circular 150/5190-5. However, it
says:

"An airport owner is under no obligation to permit aircraft owners to
introduce on the airport equipment, personnel or practices which would
be unsafe, unsightly, detrimental to the public welfare,..."

This sounds doubtful FAA would do anything, and when FAA ever does
something to enforce grant assurances, it has to do with protecting
against waste the money which taxpayers have invested in the airport,
not the convenience of one or a few airport tenants. You would need to
consult the FAA office which manages the grants for the airport, which
usually is not associated with the FSDO.

There's another growing reality, in that while they'll argue safety,
monopoly is really at its root. But if there's only one FBO on the
field, both FAA and the City may feel that survival of the airport
(and therefore protection of taxpayer investment) could depend upon
survival of the FBO. Or if there's two FBO's and one fails, then a
monopoly remains. Our City has to periodically threaten our one FBO
with lawsuit over routine business matters but not push too hard.
When the County considered taking over, which would send City fathers
into orgasm, the first thing they did was put out RFP's for an FBO.
The only qualified applicant was the present guy; it's still a City
airport. Welcome to general aviation in the new millennium.

Fred F.

"Ben Smith" wrote:
...
I've heard it mentioned here that an airport that receives federal
funds
cannot make rules like this, and must designate an area on the
airport for
self fueling. Of course, they can require a paid 'self fueling'
permit, and
charge a flowage fee. But that's a fair compromise, IMO.

Does anyone have a specific FAR reference that I can print out and
provide
to a board member? TIA