RICK SNYDER 

GOVERNOR 

STATE OF MICH;IGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

LANSING 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

April19, 2016 

RECEIVED 

APR 2 0 2016 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

Subject: Michael Pelzer and Pegasus Parachuting Service vs. the State of Michigan Docket 

No. 16-16-05. 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

KIRK T. STEUDLE 

DIRECTOR 

Enclosed for filing, please fmd an original and three copies of the response to the complaint in 

the captioned matter. One copy is unbound, as requested by the Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

Enclosures 

cc: Richard J. Durden 

LH-LAN-0 (01/11) 

Sincerely, 

Michael G. Trout 

Executive Administrator 

Office of Aeronautics 

Aeronautics Building- 2700 Port Lansing Road, lansing, Michigan 48906 

www.michigan.gov Q (517} 335·9283 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 

In the Matter of 

Michael Pelzer and Pegasus Service DOCKET NO. 16-16-05 

Complainant, 

Vs. 

The State of Michigan 

Respondent 

RECEIVED 

APR 2 0 2016 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION REBUTTAL TO 

COMPLAINANT'S REPLY TO 14 CFR PART 16 COMPLAINT 

Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. 16.23, Respondent respectfully submits the following 

Rebuttal to the Complaint's Reply in support of his 14 CFR Part 16 Complaint. 

Respondent denies each and every allegation of the Complaint's Reply. Specifically, 

Respondent denies that it has engaged in any conduct that has the effect of denying 

skydiving access in violation of Grant Assurances 5, Preserving Rights and Powers, 

Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, and Grant Assurance 23, 

Exclusive Rights. 

1 
2 

RESPONDENTS RESPONSES 

Pg. 2 Denied. Respondent further explains that the State of Michigan does 

not provide temporary agreements for commercial operations at our airports. 

Romeo Airport Management, Respondent's agent, is continuing to negotiate a 

lease agreement for the Complainant. When the Complainant submits its final 

figure for the amount of square feet that he is wanting to lease at the airport, 

Romeo Airport Management will issue a lease to the Complainant. Respondent 

has never denied access or discriminated against Complainant. 

Pg. 3-5 Denied. Respondent further explains that the per-square-foot rate 

offered to Complainant has been consistent since the first Concession Agreement 

offered on March 26, 2015. The only changes have been at the request ofthe 

Complainant. The original request by Complainant was to operate the skydiving 

business from the T-hangar he is currently renting at the airport. This request 

was denied, so he requested to move his aircraft to the Community Hangar and 

operate his skydiving here. This is reflected in the original rental rate of $950 

per month offered to Complainant for the Community Hangar(Exhibit 3 of 

Complaint). A similar rate to what the previous tenant was paying to rent 3,500 

sq feet ofthe hangar. All other changes to the monthly rent amount have been 

based on the changing needs of the Complainant. 

Pg. 7 Denied. Respondent further explains that all agreed to changes have 

been made on the agreements. Some ofthe changes the Complainant requested 
3 

were not incorporated into the agreement at first because of a clerical error; but 

were eventually entered. 

Pg 8 Denied. Respondent further explains that having skydiving 

passengers loaded into an airplane at Romeo State Airport, departing from 

Romeo State Airport, and arranges for those passengers to skydive would not be 

considered a commercial operation at Romeo State Airport. Additionally, having 

the Complainant perform at an airport event is not considered an airport-based 

commercial operation. In this instance, the sponsor of the event, The Romeo 

Lions Club, was required to have additional insurance to cover the skydiving 

performance. 

Pg. 8-11 Denied. Respondent further explains that, although the Community 

Hangar is scheduled for future demolition, it currently is in a safe condition. 

The ramp area was repaired in 2015 to fix the drains and potholes. The man 

doors were replaced on April 17, 2016. The Complainant claims that he should 

not be paying as much rent as other operators at Romeo State Airport because 

he will "have to install temporary structures and portable toilets to make the 

hangar useable" (Pg. 10 Complainant's Reply). Respondent reiterates that the 

Complainant is requesting an agreement to rent an aircraft storage building. 

The Community Hangar was not designed to have office space, classrooms and 

sanitary facilities. Complainant is proposing to change the current use of the 

facility, by installing walls, restrooms, electrical outlets, and doors without 

having to comply with the state of Michigan building and fire codes. 
Complainant was offered space in the terminal building but, once again declined 

' 

because it was too expensive. The commercial operators renting space in the 

terminal building pay $10.98 sq ft for space that includes sanitary facilities, 

automobile parking and ramp space (Respondents Answer Exhibits M & N). 

Respondent has never denied access, or discriminated against, Complainant. 

Respondent only insists that Complainant meet all requirements published in 

the Airport Rules and Minimum Standards (Respondents Answer Exhibits B & 

C). 

4 
5 

CORRECTIONS 

Due to a clerical error on page 14 of Respondents Answer, a corrected page is 

attached to correctly cite the appropriate section in 49 USC. Respondent 

incorrectly referred to 49 USC 47107(e) instead of 49 USC 40103(e). Respondent 

apologizes for this error. A corrected page is attached hereto as Exhibit U. 

Due to a clerical error on page 15 of Respondent's Answer, Respondent 

inadvertently left off its signature block as required in 14 CFR 16.13(e). 

Respondent apologizes for this oversight. A corrected signature page is attached 

hereto as Exhibit V. 
6 

CONCLUSION 

Respondent is submitting the e-mail response of Steve Mazur, Romeo Airport 

Management, (Exhibit T) describing the level of engagement by him in 

attempting to resolve the issue with Complainant. 

Respondent continues to rely in its Defenses as set forth in its Answers to 

Complainant's Part 16 Complaint. In addition Respondent has not granted any 

exclusive rights, nor discriminated against its tenants, at its aeronautical 

facility. Furthermore, Respondent has not engaged in any non-transparent, 

discriminatory lease negotiations with the Complainant. Therefore, Respondent 

respectfully request that Complainant's Part 16 Complaint be dismissed. 

April: April19, 2016 

Respectfully submitted, 

Michael G. Trout 

Executive Administrator 

Michael G. Trout 

2700 Port Lansing Rd 

Lansing, Michigan 48906 

517-335-9283 

Troutm 1@michigan.gov 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on ~~ )! ~ 2o I b , I caused to be delivered 

the foregoing RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT cDocket No. 16-16-5) as follows: 

VIA UPS Overnight: 1 Original and 3 copies 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk, AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, SW\ 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

VL4 UPS Overnight: 1 True Copy 

Richard I. Durden 

Richard I. Durden, Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, CO 80433 

Michael G. Trout, Executive Administrator 

Michigan Department of Transportation 

Office of Aeronautics 
Zapata, Juan (MOOT) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Dear Mr. Zapata, 

mbdevelopment@comcast.net 

Monday, April 18, 2016 11:52 AM 

Zapata, Juan (MDOD 

Romeo Airport ManagementFrom day one of our concession contract we have been non-discriminate and safely served the public 

and the State of Michigan. We have accommodated everyone and every business and desire to 

continue to promote and expand the Romeo State Airport services with safety and integrity first and 

respect for all. 

Mr. Pelzer has consistently been treated fairly and honestly throughout the parachute contract 

negotiations just as he has been treated since 2002, without issue, under his current aircraft hangar 

agreement. The problems that have arose stem from the inability of Mr. Pelzer to accurately and 

definitively state his hangar space requirements including the necessary square feet needs for the 

number and size of aircraft(s) that he will store in the hangar. Furthermore, but most important, Mr. 

Pelzer wants us to re-purpose the community hangar and change the use of the hangar from what he 

initially wanted and what it is currently intended for and what it was built for. His requested change of 

use of the community hangar has created more costs to his business than he anticipated including 

the safety issues that the State and I have to enforce. 

Since 2001, the community hangar has always been used for aircraft and equipment storage, not 

ever for a commercial office space or business. We have always and will continue to support Mr. 

Pelzer and any of his business endeavors, but the re-purpose of the community hangar, the 

commercial use and the nature of his business will also increase the liability and safety for all that are 

responsible for the safe and fair operation of the airport not including the costs associated with this 

business. From day one of the negotiations he has been unwilling to accept these facts and will not 

agree to the necessary safety and monetary terms to the contracts that the State of Michigan 

require .. 

In regards to the community hangar rent contract term alone, the last occupant of the community 

hangar paid the following: $750.00/month x 12 months= $9,000.00 annually divided by 3,000 square 

feet (30'x1 00') of community hangar space equals $3.00 per square foot. Mr. Pelzer from day one 

was and still is unwilling to pay this rate. We all have offered a lower rate to him and he still refuses 

to pay a lower rate. Moreover, another problem and question still at hand is how much space does he 

need or want for his combined commercial office needs, bathrooms, parachute folding and storage 

needs, classrooms and his aircraft and what can he afford and is willing to pay? If the State and I 

offer a much lower price per square foot we are in jeopardy of price discrimination to everyone else 

on the airport. In addition, the same occupant who built his own executive hangar on the airport 

leases land for his own hangar and parking needs at $.31 cents per square foot and had to pay for 

and construct his own hangar and hard surface his parking area unlike what we are asking from Mr. 

Pelzer. 

In addition, Mr. Pelzer was also offered commercial office space in the airport terminal building and a 

"big box" hangar at the same rate we currently charge other users. Mr. Pelzer was unwilling to pay 

the going rate of $13.00 per square foot for commercial office space and $3.00 per square foot for the 

1 
big box hangar space. Mr. Pelzer also insisted that having office space, classrooms, parachute 

folding area and bathrooms separate from his hangar space was unacceptable. Finally, what will the 

State of Michigan require from Mr. Pelzer when they allow him to re-purpose the community hangar 

use in regards to building plans, materials and construction of those structures, electrical systems, 

plumbing and ADA bathrooms, fire and safety plans and parking needs? Who will make those 

inspections and insure that this will not increase our exposure and liabilities and will it maintain a safe 

airport as we have maintained since 2002? 

I sincerely hope we can resolve these issues but there are more issues that must be addressed in 

order to enter into a legal contract that is not signed under duress but more importantly does not 

violate the civil rights and liberties to all involved parties. 

Steve Mazur 

Romeo Airport Management 

M&B Development 

248-740-8700 

mbdevelopment@comcast. net 

2 
14 

3. Response to Complainants alleged Grant Assurance 23- violation 

49 USC 40103(e) states: 

No Exclusive Rights at Certain Facilities-A person does not have an 

exclusive right to use an air navigation facility on which Government money 

has been expended. However, providing services at an airport by only one 

fixed-based operator is not an exclusive right if1. It is unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical for more than one 

fixed-based operator to provide the services; and 

2. Allowing more than one fixed-based operator to provide the services 

requires a reduction in space leased under an agreement existing on 

September 3, 1982, between the operator and the airport. 

49 USC 40103(e) clearly states that an airport that receives government 

money shall not offer to another person an exclusive right at an air 

navigation facility. The Romeo State Airport does not, nor ever has, offered 

any person an exclusive right to use the airport. Romeo State Airport 

currently has two flight schools operating on the grounds and offers aircraft 

storage facilities to dozens of individuals and businesses. Although 

Complainaut alleges a Grant Assurance 23 violation in his complaint, 

Complainant fails to provide any evidence whatsoever to support his claim. 
CONCLUSION 

Respondent has not granted any exclusive rights at its aeronautical facility in 

Romeo, Michigan. Furthermore, Respondent has not discriminated against 

its tenants at the airport. Finally, Respondent has not engaged in any nontransparent, discriminatory lease negotiations with the Complainant or 

anyone else. Therefore, Respondent respectfully request that Complainant's 

Part 16 Complaint be dismissed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Michael G. Trout 

Executive Administrator 

Dated: April!, 2016 

15 

Michael G. Trout 

2700 Port Lansing Road 

Lansing, Michigan 48906 

(517) 335-9.568 

Troutm !@michigan. gov