RICK SNYDER GOVERNOR STATE OFMICH;IGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LANSING

Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Attn: FAAPart 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20591 April19, 2016 

## RECEIVED APR 

### 202016 PART 16 DOCKETS

Subject: Michael Pelzer and Pegasus Parachuting Service vs. the State ofMichigan Docket No. 16-16-05. Dear Siror Madam: KIRK T. STEUDLE DIRECTOR

Enclosedfor filing, please fmd an original and three copies ofthe response to the complaintin the captioned matter. One copyis unbound, as requestedbythe FederalAviation Administration.

Enclosures

cc: Richard J. Durden

LH-LAN-0 (01/11) Sincerely,

Michael G. Trout Executive Administrator Office ofAeronautics

Aeronautics Building- 2700 Port Lansing Road, lansing, Michigan 48906 www.michigan.gov Q (517} 335·9283

### UNITED STATES OFAMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERALAVIATIONADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL

In the Matter of Michael Pelzer and Pegasus Service DOCKET NO. 16-16-05 Complainant, Vs. The State ofMichigan Respondent 

## RECEIVED APR 20 

### 2016 PART 16 DOCKETS



### STATE OFMICHIGAN 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 ofhis 

### 14 CFR Part 

### 16 Complaint. Respondent denies each and every allegation ofthe Complaint's Reply. Specifically, Respondent denies that it has engaged in any conduct that has the effect ofdenying skydiving access inviolation ofGrantAssurances 5, PreservingRights and Powers, GrantAssurance 

### 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, and GrantAssurance 

### 23, Exclusive Rights.

12 

### RESPONDENTS RESPONSES Pg. 2 Denied. Respondent further explainsthat the StateofMichigan does notprovide temporary agreements for commercial operations at our airports. Romeo Airport Management, Respondent's agent, is continuingto negotiate a lease agreementfor the Complainant. When the Complainant submits itsfinal figure for the amount ofsquare feet that he is wantingto lease atthe airport, Romeo AirportManagementwill 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 Complainanthas 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 Complainantwas to operate the skydiving business from the T-hangar he is currentlyrenting at the airport. Thisrequest was denied, so he requested to move his aircraftto the Community Hangar and operate his skydivinghere. This is reflectedinthe original rentalrate of$950 per month offered to Complainant for the CommunityHangar(Exhibit 3 of Complaint). A similarrate to what the previous tenant was payingto rent 3,500 sqfeet ofthe hangar. All other changes to the monthly rent amount have been based on the changingneeds ofthe Complainant. Pg. 7 Denied. Respondent further explains that all agreedto changes have been made onthe agreements. Some ofthechanges the Complainantrequested3 were not incorporated into the agreement at first because ofa clerical error; but
were eventually entered. Pg 8 Denied. Respondent further explains that having skydiving passengers loaded into an airplane at Romeo StateAirport, departingfrom Romeo StateAirport, and arranges for those passengers to skydive would not be considered a commercial operation at Romeo State Airport. Additionally, having the Complainantperform at an airport event is not considered an airport-based commercial operation. Inthis instance, the sponsor ofthe event, The Romeo Lions Club, was required to have additionalinsurance to cover the skydiving performance. Pg. 8-11 Denied. Respondent further explains that, although the Community Hangar is scheduledfor future demolition, it currently is in a safe condition. The ramp area was repaired in 2015 to fix the drains andpotholes. The man doors were replaced onApril 17, 2016. The Complainant claims that he should not be paying as much rent as other operators atRomeo StateAirport because he will "have to installtemporary structures andportable toilets to make the hangar useable" (Pg. 10 Complainant's Reply). Respondent reiterates thatthe Complainantis requesting an agreementto rent an aircraft storage building. The Community Hangar was not designed to have office space, classrooms and sanitaryfacilities. Complainant isproposingto change the current use ofthe facility, by installingwalls, restrooms, electricaloutlets, and doors without havingto comply withthe state ofMichigan building and fire codes.Complainantwas offered space in the terminal buildingbut, once again declined 

### ' because it was too expensive. The commercial operators renting space inthe terminalbuildingpay $10.98 sq ft for space that includes sanitary facilities, automobile parkingand ramp space (RespondentsAnswer Exhibits M 

### &N). Respondent has never denied access, or discriminated against, Complainant. Respondent only insists that Complainant meet allrequirements publishedin the Airport Rules and Minimum Standards (Respondents Answer Exhibits B 

### & C).

45 CORRECTIONS

Due to a clerical error onpage 14 ofRespondents Answer, a correctedpage is attachedto correctly cite the appropriate section in 49 USC. Respondent incorrectlyreferred to 49 USC 47107(e) instead of49 USC 40103(e). Respondent apologizes for this error. A correctedpage is attached hereto as Exhibit U. Due to a clerical error on page 15 ofRespondent's Answer, Respondent inadvertently left offits signature block as required in 14 CFR 16.13(e). Respondent apologizes for this oversight. A corrected signature page is attached hereto as ExhibitV.6 CONCLUSION Respondent is submittingthe e-mailresponse ofSteve Mazur, Romeo Airport Management, (Exhibit T) describing the level ofengagementby 

### him in attemptingto 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, atits aeronautical facility. Furthermore, Respondent has not engaged in any non-transparent, discriminatorylease 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 LansingRd Lansing, Michigan 48906 517-335-9283 Troutm1@michigan.govCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBYCERTIFYthat on



# ~~)!



# ~ 2oIb ,I causedto be delivered the foregoing RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT cDocketNo. 16-16-5) as follows: VIA UPS Overnight: 1 Original and3 copies Office ofthe ChiefCounsel FAAPart 16Docket Clerk, AGC-600 FederalAviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, SW\ Washington, D.C. 20591
VL4 UPS Overnight: 1 True Copy Richard I. Durden Richard I. Durden, Attorney at Law 27987 Richmond HillRoad Conifer, CO 80433

Michael G. Trout, ExecutiveAdministrator MichiganDepartment ofTransportation Office ofAeronauticsZapata, 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 ofthe hangarfrom what he initially wanted and what it is currently intended for and what itwas built for. His requested change of use ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe airport not including the costs associated with this business. From day one ofthe 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 ofthe 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? Ifthe 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 persquare 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 1big 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 ofthose 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

214 3. Response to Complainants alleged GrantAssurance 23- violation 49 USC 40103(e) states: No Exclusive Rights at CertainFacilities-A person does nothave an exclusive rightto use an air navigation facility on which Government money has beenexpended. However, providing services at an airport by only one fixed-based operatoris not an exclusive right if1. Itis unreasonablycostly, 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 existingon September 3, 1982, betweenthe operator andthe airport. 49 USC 40103(e) clearly states that an airport that receives government money shall not offer to anotherperson an exclusive right at an air navigationfacility. The Romeo StateAirport does not, nor ever has, offered anyperson an exclusive right to use the airport. Romeo StateAirport currentlyhas two flight schools operating onthe grounds and offers aircraft storage facilities to dozens ofindividuals andbusinesses. Although Complainaut alleges a GrantAssurance 23 violationinhis complaint, Complainant fails toprovide any evidence whatsoever to support his claim.CONCLUSION Respondent has not granted any exclusive rights atits aeronautical facility in Romeo, Michigan. Furthermore, Respondent has not discriminated against its tenants at the airport. Finally, Respondent has not engagedin any nontransparent, discriminatorylease negotiations with the Complainant or anyone else. Therefore, Respondent respectfully request that Complainant's Part 16 Complaintbe dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael G. Trout Executive Administrator
Dated: April!, 2016

15 Michael G. Trout 2700 PortLansingRoad Lansing, Michigan 48906 (517) 335-9.568 Troutm!@michigan.gov