):^ > UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C
. Certifie dMai l - Retur n Receip t Barbar aE
. Lichman , Ph.D
. Steve n M
. Tabe r CHEVALIER , ALLE N & LICHMAN , LLP 69 5 Tow n Cente r

Drive , Suit e 70 0 Cost aMesa , Californi a9262 6 (714)384-6520(v ) (714)384-6521(1 ) Pete r J
. Kirsc h Davi dI
. Specto r KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWELL , LL P 167 5 Broadway , Suit e 230 0 Denver , Colorad o 8020 2 (303 ) 825-7000(v ) (303 ) 825-7005(f

) Richar dCashma n Jame s Wenze l Count y o f Westcheste r 1 8 Marlin e Avenue , Roo m60 0 Whit e Plains , New York , 1060 1 (914 ) 995-3646(v ) (914 ) 995-2495(f

) Dear Ms
. Lichma n an dMr
. Kirsch an dCashman : 

### 8E P 2 1 200 9

Docke t No
. 16-07-1 3

••^•' 1

Re : 4 1 Nort h 7 3 Wes t

hic , v . Westcheste r

County , Ne w York , FA A Docke t No
. 16-07-1 3 Enclose di s acop y o f

th e Fina l Decisio n an dOrde r o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) with respec t

t o th e above-reference dmatter . Base do n th e recor di n thi s proceeding , FA A finds tha t th e determinatio n mad e b y th e Directo r o f Airport Complianc e an dFiel dOperation s i s supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probativ e an dsubstantia l evidence
. I affir mth e Director' s Determinatio n tha t th e County o f Westchester , Ne w York , wa s not i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a ) an d relate dfederal gran t

assurance s 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination , 23 , Exclusiv e Right s an d 24 , Fe e an dRenta l Structure , an dFedera l la w regardin g th e collectio n an dspendin g o f proceed s froma n approve dpassenge r facility charge
.Th e reason s for upholdin g th e Director' s Determinatio n ar e se t fort h i n th e enclose dFinal Decisio n an dOrder
. Sincerely ,

M l TI P M T .s\n o _ \ / Datp ' Catherin e M
. Lan g ^^ ] \' Date ' Actin g Associat e A

c fo r Airport sUNTTED STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C
4 1 Nort h 7 3 West , Inc
. db aAVITA T Westcheste r

an dJe t System s Complainant/Appellan t V
. Th e Count y o f

Westchester , Ne w Yor k Respondent/Appelle e Docke t No
. 16-07-1 3

FINA L DECISIO N AN D ORDE R I
. INTRODUCTIO N Thi s matte r

i s before th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) Associat e Administrato r for Airport s o n appea l filedb y 4 1 North 7 3 West , db aAVITA T Westcheste r an dJe t System s fro m th e Director' s Determinatio n o f Jun e 12,2008 , issue db y th e Directo r o f th e FA A Offic e o f Airport Safet y an dStandard s , pursuan t t o th e Rule s o f

Practic e for

Federall y Assiste dAirport Enforcemen t

Proceeding s foun di n Title 1 4 Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s (CFR ) Part 16
. Avita t argue s o n appea l t o th e Associat e Administrato r for Airport s tha t

th e Directo r

committe d error s i n conductin g th e investigatio n an dinterpretin g th e evidence
. Avita t raise s th e followin g issue s o n appeal : 1
. Whethe r

th e Director' s Determinatio n i s supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstiintia l evidenc e o r prope r conclusion s o f

la w du e t o th e fac t

that i t i s base do n distinguishabl e precedent , incorrec t assimiptions , misreadin g o f relevan t documents , an domissio n o f critica l facts ? [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 16 ] 2
. Whethe r

th e Airport

Manager allowin g Panoram aan dWestai r t o sel l je t fiiel t o transien t aircraf t unde r 50,00 0 lb s maximu mgros s take-of f weigh t constitute s unreasonabl e and/o r

discriminator y term s and/o r condition s suc h tha t

th e County' s gran t assurance s ar e violated ? [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 16 ] 3
. Whethe r

th e County , b y providin g subsidie s t o Panoram aan dWestai r an dallowin g the mt o sel l je t

fuel t o transien t

aircraf t imde r 50,00 0 lb s MGTO W provide dmor e favorabl e treatmen t

i n amanne r

tha t unjustl y discriminate s agains t Avita t an dth e othe r Je t FBO s i n violatio n o f

Federa l gran t

assuranc e 23 ? [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 16 ]
The FA A Office of

Airpor t Safet y an dStandard s was reorganizedan disjip w calle dAirpor

t Complianc e an dFieldOperation s (ACQ)
. AC Q i s th e office responsibl e fo r Par t 1 6 decisions
.4
. Whethe r th e County burdene dAvitat an dth e othe r

Je t FBO s with th e cos t

o f economicall y supportin g Panoram aan dWestai r an dwhethe r

thi s constitute s unjus t economi c discriminatio n with regar dt o retai l aircraf t service s an dconstructivel y grant s an exclusiv e righ t

o n th e Airport

i n violatio n o f

gran t assuranc e 2 3 an dFederal law ? [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m13 , pag e 16 ] 5
. Whethe r

th e County ha s faile dt o maintai n a n aeronautica l ren t schedul e tha t

make s th e Airport

a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e unde r th e circumstance s existin g at th e Airport , b y providin g mor e favorabl e financial treatmen t t o Panoram aan dWestai r in violatio n o f

gran t assuranc e 24 ? [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 16 ] In arrivin g a t

afinal decisio n o n thi s Appeal , th e FA A ha s reexamine dth e record , includin g th e Director' s Determination , th e administrativ e recor dsupportin g th e Director' s Determination , Avitat' s Appeal , an dRespondent' s Repl y i n ligh t o f applicabl e la w an dpolicy
. Base do n thi s reexamination , th e FA A affirm s th e Director' s Determination
. Th e Associat e Administrato r conclude s tha t

th e Director' s Determinatio n i s supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidence , an di s consisten t with applicabl e law , precedent , an dFAA policy
. Avitat' s Appea l doe s not contai n persuasiv e argument s sufficien t t o revers e an y portio n o f th e Director' s Determination
. I L SUMMAR Y O FTH E DIRECTOR' S DETERMINATIO N In it s initia l Complaint , Avita t argue dth e Responden t

provide dth e small-clas s fixedbas e operator s (FBO ) wit h preferentia l financial treatment , a s compare dt o Avitat , i n breac h o f th e County' s Federa l obligation s regardin g gran t assurance s 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination , 23 , Exclusiv e Rights , an d24 , Fe e an dRenta l Structure ; an dFedera l la w regardin g th e collectio n an d spendin g o f

proceed s fro man approve dpassenge r facility charg e (PFC)
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , ppl-2 ] Th e Directo r

foun dtha t

th e County di dnot

provid e mor e favorabl e treatmen t t o th e Ligh t Genera l Aviatio n (LGA ) FBO s a t tha t Airpor t wit h regar dt o retai l aircraf t service s o r

ren t term s i n amaimer

tha t unjustl y discriminate s agains t Avita t i n violatio n o f

Federa l gran t assuranc e 22
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , p 35 ] Th e Directo r

foun dthat

th e LG A FB O leases , imchange dsinc e 2001 , an dgran t assuranc e 23 , an dth e law s regardin g exclusiv e rights, d o no t protec t a n entit y frommor e effectiv e competitio n emergin g unde r pre-existin g rights. Th e Directo r determine dtha t

th e County was no t i n violatio n o f

gran t assuranc e 2 3 o r

arelate dconstructiv e grantin g o f a n exclusiv e right. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , p p 36-37 ] Th e Directo r

foun dtha t

th e County' s below-marke t renta l rates fo r

specifi c rights an dacces s t o facilitie s unde r

th e LG A FB O lease s t o ensur e servic e t o asegmen t o f th e aeronautica l community i s no t

aviolatio n o f

gran t assuranc e 24 , Fe e an dRenta l Structure
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , p 39 ]



### Pag e 2 o f 5 0III
. PARTIE S

A
. Airpor t Westchester

Count y Airpor t i s apublic-use , ai r

carrier airpor t owne dby Westchester

County , Ne w York
. The Airpor

t ha s propert

y consistin g o f

70 2 acres . Th e Airpor

t i s hom e t o approximatel y 38 9 aircraf t andha dmor e tha n 160,00 0 aircraf

t operation s i

n 2006
. FA

A record s indicate th e plannin g and development

o f th e Aiqx)r

t ha s been financedwit

h ftinds provide db

y the FA A under th e Airpor

t Improvement

Progra m(AIP ) authorize db

y th e Airpor

t an dAirwa

y Improvement

Act o f 1982 , a s amended , 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47101 , e t seq . [See FA

A Exhibi t 1 , Item11 ] Throug h th e County' s Master Grant Agreement

wit h th e FAA , th e Count

y ha s accepte dFederal obligation s under gran t assurance s 22 , 23 , and24
. [FA

A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

10] Th e Airpor

t propert y i s ftjily developed , creatin g a constraine doperatin g environment fo r busines s growt

h o r development
. Th e FBO-leasehold s a t issu e i n thi s Complaint

ar e locate di n th e southwes t

sid e o f th e airfiel di

n proximit y t o eac h other
. [FA

A Exhibi t 1 , Item1 , exhibi t

3 ; also , FA

A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 , exh
. 12
. p . I ] B
. Complainant/Appellan t Complainant

'Avitat ' i s acorporatio n havin g a n offic e an daplac e o f

busines s at

Hanga r "E " a t Westchester

Count y Airport
. Avita

t operate s a s alarger-clas s FB O at th e Airpor

t pursuant t o tw o lease s i t ha s wit h th e County
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Item1 , p . 3 ] Avitat

ha s bee n operatin g at

th e Airpor

t under a leas e sinc e at

leas t 1991
. [FA

A Exhibi t 1 , Item1 , ex . 4 , p . 2 ] IV
. PROCEDURA L HISTOR Y an dFACTUA L BACKGROUN D A
. Procedura l Histor y Avitat filedit s Complain t

wit h th e FA A o n Octobe r

19,2007
. Th e FA A provide daNotic e o f Docketin g t o th e partie s o n Novembe r 5 , 2007
. Th e County filedit s Motio n t o Dismis s an dAnswe r t o Avitat' s complain t

o n Decembe r

27 , 2007
. Avitat submitte dit s Repl y t o County' s Answe r an dMotio n o n January 14 , 2008
. Th e County filedit s Rebutta l t o Avitat' s Repl y o n February 1,2008
. O n Jun e 12,2008 , FA A issue dth e Director' s Determinatio n i n thi s matter . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 16 ] O n Jul y 10,2008 , Avitat

fileda n Extensio n o f

Tim e t o Fil e a n Appeal
. Th e du e dat e wa s extende dt o Septembe r

29,2008
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] O n Augus t

15,2008 , Avita t

filedan Appea l fromth e Director' s Determination
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 ]
Pag e 3 o f 5 0O n Septembe r 23 , 2008 , th e Responden t County o f

Westcheste r

filedit s Repl y t o Avitat' s Appeal
. [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m14 ] B
. Factua l Backgroun d I n Octobe r

1985 , Westcheste r

County Boar do f

Legislator s (Board ) passe daStatemen t o f Airport Polic y tha t

guide s Airport

managemen t

i n th e operatio n an ddevelopmen t o f th e Airport t o thi s day
. I n thi s document , th e County pu t fort h it s vision for

th e us e o f

th e Airport , statin g tha t th e Airport

"ha s bee n designe dfor

us e primaril y b y genera l aviation , bot h privat e an d corporate , ligh t

an dheavy. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 , exh
. U , p . 2 ] A s fa r bac k a s 1985 , th e County aime dt o protec t

th e 'genera l aviation ' characte r o f th e Airport , a s wel l a s serv e th e interest s o f

County resident s wh o ow n an doperat e smal l aircraft , ^ designatin g alocatio n o n th e Airport "t o serve.. . primaril y ligh t genera l aviation. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 , exh
. U , p . 4 ; se e also , FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m6 , p . 10 ] Prio r

airport plannin g document s supporte dthi s Statemen t o f Airport Policy' s focu s o n ligh t

genera l aviation , includin g th e Westcheste r County Airport Maste r Pla n Stud y date dOctobe r 198 0 (198 0 Maste r

Pla n Study)
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 , exhs
. S & T ] Specifically , th e 198 0 Maste r Pla n Stud y calle dfor

developmen t

o f apro n an dhangar s for ligh t genera l aviation
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 , exh
. S , pp.3,4 , 7 , 8 ] In February 1987 , th e Count y continue dt o addres s it s interes t i n protectin g ligh t

genera l aviatio n a t th e Airport

i n it s Maste r

Pla n Update
. In th e Maste r Pla n Update' s Publi c Comment s an d Respons e section , th e County stated ; Th e nee dfo r improve dgenera l aviatio n facilitie s i s clear
. The genera l aviatio n facilitie s currentl y includ e n o individua l hangar s fo r privately-owne daircraft
. The FBO s servin g genera l aviatio n ar e house di n par t i n temporar y space s o r

i n dilapidate dbuilding s use d fo r aircraf t parking
. Some o f

th e apro n area s hav e broke n pavement , whic h coul dcaus e damag e t o aircraft ; othe r aircraf t ar e parke do n th e gras s o r dirt...
. Th e Maste r Pla n analysi s ha s show n tha t th e tw o ne w area s designate dfo r genera l aviatio n developmen t

wil l b e sufficient

t o mee t th e genera l aviatio n need s o f th e airpor t

i n th e future
. I t i s recognize dtha t

i n afre e market , tie-dow n an dhanga r spac e a t th e Westcheste r

Count y airpor t woul dg o t o th e "highes t bidder , " i.e. , tha t

th e pric e woul dincreas e an dtha t th e availabl e spac e woul dg o t o thos e wh o ar e willin g t o pa y th e highes t rate s fo r thes e services
. I t

i s th e County' s desir e that , t o th e greates t exten t possible , th e presen t

mix o f base daircraf

t an dtransien t

commercia l aircraf

t remai n th e same , s o a s t o maintai n th e characte r o f agenera l aviatio n airport
. I t ma y therefor e b e necessar y t o provid e economi c protectio n fo r

th e ligh t genera l aviatio n sector , a s amatte r o f County policy , i n orde r

t o maintai n tha t

mix
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m6 , exh
. V , p . 7-7 ] O n Ma y 9,1991 , Westcheste r Count y official s circulate da n Interna l Mem o forwardin g tw o letter s fromgenera l aviatio n user s o f HP N complainin g abou t

condition s fo r

genera l aviatio n at th e Airpor t

[FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m6 , exh
. RR ]

See FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m6 , exh
. I fo

r alis t o f aircraf t registere din Westcheste

r County , New York
. Pag e 4 o f 5 0O n Apri l 1 , 1992 , Westcheste r County issue daNotic e t o Ai r Carrier s i n pursui t

o f aPassenge r Facility Charg e (PFC ) applicatio n t o th e FAA
. Th e Count y include di n thi s Notic e alis t o f project s tha t

coul db e fimdedwith th e proceed s o f th e PFC , includin g "Ligh t Genera l Aviatio n Infrastructure. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 7 , ex . b ] In Jul y 1992 , Westcheste r Count y submitte dit s PF C application
. Th e Count y include di n thi s applicatio n alis t

o f project s tha t

coul db e funde dwith th e proceed s o f th e PFC , includin g "Ligh t Genera l Aviatio n Infrastructure. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 8 an dIte m6 , exh
. CC ] O n Novembe r

9 , 1992 , th e FA A sen t

alette r t o Westcheste r

Count y approvin g aPFC , includin g approva l t o us e PFC-collecte dmonie s i n th e amoun t o f $8,383,00 0 for

th e constructio n o f

th e LGA facilities
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 9 , p . 6 an dIte m6 , exh
. DD , p . 6 ] Subsequently , th e FAA als o approve daFindin g o f N o Significan t

Impac t with regar dt o th e FAA' s financial participatio n i n ase t

o f projects , includin g th e developmen t o f site s for LG A FBOs. ^ [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 , exh
. X , p.l ] Count y Pursui t

o f LG A FB O Servic e Provider s a t th e Airpor t O n Decembe r

8 , 1997 , Westcheste r

Count y issue daReques t for Proposal s (RFP ) for

th e Operatio n an dManagemen t o f aLigh t Genera l Aviatio n Fixe dBas e Operatio n at th e Airport
. A s wel l a s solicitin g interes t

i n tw o specifi c parcel s o n th e Airport for th e us e o f

Ligh t Genera l Aviatio n fixed-base operator s (LG A FBOs) , th e RF P als o characterize dth e operation s requested : Improvements : Commitmen t fromth e successfu l responden t t o construc t

hangar s an d suppl y necessar y equipmen t a t n o cos t t o th e County o f

Westchester
. Service s t o b e provide dinclude : Tiedow n Hangarin g Aircraf t Maintenanc e Fligh t Schoo l (includin g groun dtraining ) Charte r Aircraf t Managemen t AvGasfue l an doi l sale s Aircraf t sale s [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 12 , p . 5 ] Th e RF P fiirther

list s light , genera l aviatio n service s t o b e allowe dan dprohibited : Service s offere dma

y includ e bu t

ar e no t limite dto : • Aircraf t maintenanc e • Aircraf t sale s

^ Bot h partie s to thi s Complain

t refe r to th e FBO s a

t th e Airpor

t tha t the Count y designate dfo

r ligh t genera l aviation an

drestricte dt o tw o specific location s a t the Airpor

t a s 'LGA FBOs. ' However, the partie s diffe

r i n their respectiv e reference s t o othe r FBO s tha t ar e free b y th e term s o f

their agreement s wit h the Count

y to servic e an

y aircraf t a t an y location a

t the Airport
. Th

e Complainan

t refers t o the unrestricte dFBO s a s 'Je t

FBOs. ' The Responden

t refers to the

ma s 'Larger

G A FBOs. ' The histor

y an d developmen

t o f thes e distinction s ar

e discussedmor

e fiill y below
. - * Pag e 5 o f 5 0• Aircraf t tiedow n • Aircraf t hanga r accommodatio n • Aircraf t T-hangar

accommodatio n •Pilo t Sho p • Fligh t Schoo l (includin g groun dschool )
• Charte r • Aircraf t managemen t
• Aircraf t avga s an dlubrican t

sale s • Weather briefin g facilitie s Service s tha t

ar e prohibite dinclude : • Je t grad e fixel sale s • Accommodatio n o f

aircraf t ove r 12,50 0 lbs
. MGTO W wit h th e exceptio n o f aircraf t manage db y th e successfu l respondent
. Al l exception s ar e subjec t t o th e prio r approva l o f

th e Airpor t

Manager
. • Accommodatio n o f

aircraf t ove r 12,50 0 lbs. , MGTOW , withou t th e prio r consen t o f th e Airpor t

Manager
. • N o outside publi c addres s syste mi s allowed
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 12 , p . 6 ] [Se e Also , FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m6 , exh
. Z ] I n Januar y an dFebruary 1998 , both Westai r an dPanoram asubmitte dthei r RF P Proposal s i n respons e t o th e County' s solicitation
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 , exh
. A A & BB ] Th e Count y ha d determine dt o preclud e existin g large r FBO s a t th e Airport

(such a s th e Complainant , Avitat ) fromparticipatin g i n th e RFP
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 1 3 an dIte m6 , exh
. II ] O n Jun e 11,1998 , Joe l Russell , HP N Manager , wrot e a n Interna l Mem o t o Count y DO T Commissioner , Eri c B
. Langeloh , submittin g apropose dfe e an drenta l structur e for Ligh t Genera l Aviatio n (LGA) FB O Rental
. Th e Mem o stated : Th e goa l o f th e RF P i s t o mee t

th e County' s obligation ^ t o th e ligh t genera l aviatio n community
. Th

e keyston e i s th e establishmen t o f aknowledgeable , viabl e an dhealth y FB O operator . Th

e renta l schedul e mus t

reflec t an drespec t

tha t mission
. Utilizin g atraditiona l renta l base do n squar e footag e woul db e difficult...
. A percentag e o f gros s (receipts ) schem e i s proposed...
. The suggeste drat e i s low
. 1 ) The require dus e o f th e lan dwil l no t develo p significan t

renta l revenue . 2 ) The lo w rat e wil l allo w som e return , but wil l als o shiel dth e County fromth e criticis mo f gougin g th e FB O operato r o r causin g gougin g t o th e flying public
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 1 4 an dIte m6 , exh
. J J ] In Jul y 1999 , th e County execute d3 0 year lease s with Westai r

Aviatio n (Westai r

Lease ) [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibit

6 an dIte m6 , exhibi t

C ] an dPanoram aFligh t

(Panoram aLease ) [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 5 an dIte m6 , exh
. A] , collectively , th e LG A Leases
. Th e LG A Lease s wer e nearl y identica l t o eac h other , exceptin g descriptio n o f parcels , includin g ren t

an dus e requirements
. Regardin g rent. Articl e I I o f th e LG A Lease s state :

* Th e FA A believe s tha

t thi s doe s not

refe r t o th e County' s Federa

l obligations
. Pag e 6 o f 5 0Sectio n 2. 1 Fo r th e purpose s o f

thi s section , "Basi c Busines s Segments " shal l mean th e individua l revenu e generatin g activitie s o f th e operatio n o f

th e Premises , previousl y approve db y th e County , whic h contribut e t o th e Gros s Receipt s o f th e business
. Basi c Busines s Segment s shal l includ e th e followin g activities : Aircraf t Tiedown , Base dan dTransien t Aircraf t Hangaring , Base dan dTransien t Aircraf t Maintenance , includin g airframe , engin e an davionic s Fligh t Schoo l (includin g groun dtraining ) Aircraf t Renta l Aircraf t Charte r Operation s Aircraf t Managemen t AvGa s Fue l an dLubrican t Sale s Aircraf t Part s Sale s Pilo t Sho p Sale s Al l othe r revenu e producin g activitie s excep t a s define di n Sectio n 2. 2 Thi s lis t o f approve dBasi c Busines s Segment s may b e modifie donl y upo n th e prio r writte n approva l o f

th e Airpor t

Manager
. Sectio n 2.1. 1 Tenan t

shal l pa y a s ren t

apercentag e o f

year-to-dat e Gros s Receipt s (measuredfro mth e commencemen t dat e an deac h anniversar y thereafter ) receive db y th e Tenan t

fromth e operatio n o f

th e Basi c Busines s Segment s a s indicate do n Exhibi t C-1
. Sectio n 2.1. 2 Gros s Receipt s shal l mea n al l revenues , exclusiv e o f federal , stat e an dloca l taxes , includin g sale s tax , collecte db y th e Tenan t fromth e operatio n o f

th e Basi c Busines s Segments
. Sectio n 2. 2 Fo r

th e purpose s o f

thi s section , "Specia l Busines s Segments " shal l mean th e individua l specia l revenu e generatin g activitie s o f th e operatio n o f

th e Premises , previousl y approve dby th e County , whic h contribut e t o th e Gros s Operatin g Profi t o f th e business
. Specia l Busines s Segment s shal l includ e th e foUofwin g activities :
• Aircraf

t Sale s
• Aircraf

t Charte r utilizing.
. not

base da t th e Lease dPremises
. • Managemen t

o f aircraft..
. no t

base da t th e Lease dPremises
. Thi s lis t o f approve dSpecia l Busines s Segment s ma y b e modifie donl y upo n th e prio r writte n approva l o f

th e Airpor t

Manager
. Sectio n 2.2. 1 Tenan t

shal l pa y a s ren t

apercentag e o f

year-to-dat e Gros s Operatin g Profi t (measure dfromth e Commencemen t Dat e an deac h anniversar y thereafter ) receive dby th e Tenan t

o r th e Tenant' s subtenant s fromth e operatio n o f th e Specia l Busines s Segment s a s indicate do n Exhibi t C-2
. Shoul dth e Commencemen t Dat e b e othe r tha n Januar y I , th e Gros s Operatin g Profi t fo r th e initia l calenda r

yea r shal l b e proportionall y adjuste da s i f i t wa s collecte dove r

atwelv e (12 ) month period
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhs
. 5 & 6 , pp . 6-7 ] In it s Answer , th e Count y states , "Fo r "Basi c Busines s Segments, " whic h include s th e require d service s t o b e provide dunde r th e leases , i n year s on e throug h te n o f thei r lease s Westai r

an d Panoram amus t

eac h pa y a s rental : 0.5 0 percen t o f thei r Gros s Receipt s u p t o $10,999,000 ; 5.0 0 percen t o f thei r Gros s Receipt s betwee n $11,000,00 0 an d$15,999,000 ; an d8.0 0 percen t o f thei r 

### Pag e 7 o f 5 0Gros s Receipt s ove r $16,000,000. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 , p . 15 ] [Se e Also , FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhs
. 5 & 6 , exhs
. C- 1 an dC-2 ] Regardin g services , th e Articl e III o f th e LG A Lease s state : Sectio n 3. 0 Tenan t

shall ^ occup y an dus e th e Premise s fo r th e followin g purpose s an dfo r

n o othe r purpos e whatsoever : (a ) Fo r th e operatio n o f

aful l servic e Ligh t

Genera l Aviatio n Fixe dBas e Operation , including , but no t limite dto : I
. Storag e an dparkin g o f aircraf t includin g (hangar s an dtie-downs)
. I L Aircraf t maintenance...
. III
. Aircraf

t engin e maintenance..
. IV
. Rental , lease , charte r

an dmanagemen t

o f aircraft
. V
. Fligh t instructio n includin g groun dschoo l an dflight simulation
. V L Pilo t sho p operation
. Vl l .Sal e o f aircraf t AvGa s an dlubricants
. Vlll
. Sal e o f

aircraf t an daircraf

t part s (c ) Th e Tenan t agrees , a s aconditio n o f thi s Agreement , tha t

i t shal l no t bas e (includin g manage dan dleased ) an y aircraf t havin g amaximumgros s take-of f weigh t ove r 12,50 0 lbs
. a t th e Airport , withou t

th e prio r consen t o f th e Airpor t

Manager
. The Airpor t

Manage r hereb y expressl y consent s tha t th e Tenant , a s par t

o f it s manage do r

lease daircraf

t fleet, may base , upo n prio r

writte n notificatio n t o th e Airpor t Manager , u p t o twelv e (12 ) aircraf t havin g amaximumgros s take-of f weigh t ove r 12,50 0 lbs
. an dles s tha n 50,00 0 lbs
. (d ) Th e Tenan t agrees , a s aconditio n o f thi s Agreement , tha t

i t shal l no t accommodat e an y aircraf t havin g amaximumgros s take-of f weigh t ove r 50,00 0 lbs
. a t

th e Airport , withou t

th e prio r consen t o f th e Airpor t

Manager
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exhs
. 5 « & 6 , pp . 11-12 ] Th e LG A Lease s emphasize dth e restrictio n o n 'heavier ' genera l aviatio n aircraf t b y citin g pavemen t limitation s at

Sectio n 24.7 : Tenan t shal l no t overloa dan y floor, structure , structura l membe r o r pave dare ao n th e Premises , o r

pave dare aelsewher e o n th e Airport , an dshal l repai r a t Tenant' s expens e an y floor, structure , structura l member , o r an y pave dare adamage db y suc h overloading
. I t i s understoo db y th e partie s tha t th e ram p are aha s bee n designe dfo r load s u p t o 50,00 0 lbs
. ^ [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m6 , exhs
. A & C , p . 66 ] Additionally , th e LG A Lease s bot h mentio n th e possibilit y o f th e LG A FBO s sellin g je t fiiel. Sectio n 3. 6 o f

th e LG A Lease s state , "I f th e percentag e o f

Tenan t basedaircraf

t unde r 12,50 0 lbs
. tha t utiliz e je t fixel exceed s 10% , th e partie s agre e t o mee t t o discus s th e possibilit y o f th e

' The Count

y i n it s Answe

r interpret s thi s provision t o requir e th e LG A FBO s t o offe

r thes e services
. [FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m6 , p . 14 ] Also , i n a n interna l mem o o f Jul y 30,2001 , di e Count

y state s tha

t a simila r lis t o f service s i s requiredo f

the LG A FBOs
. [FA

A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 37 ] ^ The Director

note dtha t pavements designedfo

r acertain weigh

t (50,00 0 lbs ) ma

y reasonably be manage db y a n airpor t sponso r t o accommodat

e som e leve l o f aircraf t ove r th e design limit , bu

t no t unlimitedus e above the wei^t-bearin g capacit y o f th e pavement . Pag e 8 o f 5 0County grantin g Tenan t th e right t o sel l je t fiiel." [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exhs
. 5 & 6 , p . 13 ] [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , pp.11-13 ; an dIte m6 , pp.6-8,13-16 , 33 ] Event s afte r

LG A FBO s bega n Operation s Afte r th e County signe dit s LGA Lease s o n Octobe r 26 , 2000 , th e Count y hel dameetin g with Westair
. Handwritte n meetin g note s indicat e adiscussio n regardin g th e possibilit y o f Westai r dispensin g je t

fiiel. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

1 6 an dIte m9 , exh
. 8 ] I n January 2001 , th e County passe dalaw authorizin g aleas e amendmen t tha t woul dbegi n implementin g avoluntary restrain t fromnighttim e flying a t

th e Airport
. [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m1 , exh
. 15 ] Althoug h th e la w mention s tha t Panoram aha s agree dt o thi s Voluntar y Restrain t Fro m Flyin g (VRFF ) program . Panorama' s Leas e states : Sectio n 24.1 6 Tenan t

shal l develop , submi t

fo r County approva l an dabid e b y a n aircraf t parkin g progra mwhic h incorporate s safet y an dsecurit y considerations
. A s par t o f thi s program , aircraf

t whic h arriv e o r

depar t durin g th e perio do f

Voluntar y Restrain t

from Flyin g (from1 2 midnigh t t o 6:3 0 am. ) shal l b e parke di n designate darea s only
. I n addition , infrequen t

flyers shal l b e assigne dparkin g space s closes t t o an y off-sit

e residences
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 5 , p . 69 ] In an y case , with regar dt o th e Voluntary Program , th e Count y state s i n it s Answe r Whe n a n FB O leas e i s u p fo r

renewa l o r

negotiation , th e County ask s eac h FB O whethe r i t wil l voluntaril y includ e th e VRFFprovision s i n it s lease
. Whether eac h FBO' s leas e ha s th e VRF Fterm s i s subjec t

t o th e resul t

o f arms-lengt h leas e negotiation s wit h tha t particula r

FBO
. The VRFFprogra mi s completel y voluntary , an deac h FB O may choos e fo r itsel f t o participate
. Th

e County offer s FBO s n o incentive s an dimpose s n o penaltie s i n connectio n wit

h participatio n i n th e program . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 , p . 19 ] More recen t

LG A FB O Leases , includin g Avitat's , includ e aVRF Fprovisio n requirin g lessee s t o us e reasonabl e effort s t o caus e FB O customer s t o compl y with th e voluntar y progra man dt o distribut e informatio n t o user s expressin g th e nee dt o understan dth e concern s o f th e loca l community
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 , exh
. E , p . 38 ; exh
. G , p . 21 ; an dexh
. H
. pp . 24-25 ] Th e Large r G A FB O leases , includin g Avitat' s 200 5 Lease , wer e execute dbetwee n Octobe r 200 5 an dSeptembe r

2006
. I n th e Sprin g an dSunune r o f 2001 , Westai r

bega n reviewin g thei r

operation s an doperationa l need s with th e County , includin g requestin g permissio n t o dispens e je t fiiel t o tenants , a s wel l a s t o retai l fiiel t o transien t

operators . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhs
. 18,20,34-3 6 & Ite m9 , exh s 9,10 ] Like Westair , o n Septembe r 5,2001 , Panoram awrot e t o th e Count y t o reques t th e right t o sel l je t fuel
. [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

2 1 an dIte m6 , ex . KK ] [Se e Als o Panoram aLease , FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 5 , p . 13 ] O n Septembe r 7,2001 , Panoram awrot e t o Joe l Russell , HPN Manager , providin g evidenc e tha t som e o f Panorama' s tenant s requir e je t fiiel fo r then



### Pag e 9 o f 5 0aircraft , triggerin g th e criteri afor discussio n with th e County regardin g je t fiiel sales. ' [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 , exh
. 3 ] In th e Summe r o f 2001 , th e County conducte dsom e interna l deliberatio n regardin g th e interes t o f th e LGA FBO s i n sellin g je t fiiel. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 19 ] A s aresul t

o f thes e conversation s a s se t out i n th e LG A Leases , i n Sectio n 3.6 , th e County di d decid e t o allo w je t

fuel sale s b y th e LG A FBO s i n accordanc e with thei r origina l leeise s for aircraf t weighin g n o mor e tha n 50,00 0 lbs
. Th e letter s sen t t o both Westai r

an dPanoram a(200 1 LG A Approva l Letters) , o n Septembe r 20 , 2001 , stated : Pleas e us e thi s lette r

a s approva l t o provid e Je t fue l a t you r Ne w Facilit y unde r

th e followin g conditions : 1
. (Panorama/Westair ) wil l b e grante d je t fue l sal e authority
. (Panorama/Westair ) wil l b e allowe dt o provid e je t

fue l to : • Base daircraf

t wit h awritte n tiedown , hanga r o r T-hangar

agreemen t

wit h (Panorama/Westair )
• Aircraf

t owne do r

lease db y (Panorama/Westair )
• Transien t

jet s whic h ar e permitte do n th e (Panorama/Westair ) ramp ^ 2
. Procedure s
• A monthl y lis t

o f aircraf t meetin g thes e requirement s wil l b e sen t t o th e Airpor t Manage r
• A curren t

cop y o f th e qualifyin g agreemen t betwee n (Panorama/Westair ) an dth e aircraf t operato r wil l b e sen t

t o th e Airpor t

Manager
. Thi s approva l may b e revoke db y th e County o f Westchester

fo r an y reaso n upo n sixt

y day s notice
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exhs
. 2 2 & 2 3 an dIte m6 , exhs
. B & D ] O n Marc h 12 , 2002 , Westai r announce dje t

aircraf t managemen t

a t th e Airport
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh , 24 ] O n Septembe r

5,2002 , Joe l Russell , HP N Manager , wrot e t o Westai r denyin g it s reques t

t o construc t a n additiona l hangar

o n it s leasehold
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 , exh
. PP ] O n Marc h 10,2003 , Panoram awrot e t o Joe l Russell , HP N Manager , t o reques t a n exemptio n fromth e prohibition o f

Panoram aservicin g transien t aircraf t with aMGTOW ' o f

ove r 50,00 0 lbs , a s prohibite db y th e LG A Lease s withou t prio r consen t o f th e Count y an dlimite db y th e

' Th e LG A Lease s bot

h mention th e possibilit

y o f th e LG A FBO s sellin g je t

fuel
. Section 3. 6 o f

th e LG A Lease s state , "I f

th e percentag e o f

Tenan t basedaircraf

t unde r 12,50 0 lbs
. tha t utiliz e je t fue l exceed s 10% , th e partie s agre e t o mee t to discus s th e possibilit

y o f th e Count y grantin g Tenan

t th e right to sell je t fiiel." [FA

A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhs
. 5 & 6 , p . 13 ] ' Th e LG A Lease s refe

r t o a n aircraf t weigh t limi t o f 50,000 lbs
. o

n th e LG A leaseholds
. The limi

t t o aircraf t unde r 50,000 lbs
. i s mentioneda s arestricte dservic e i n Section 3. 0 c & d
. Also , th e LG A Lease s refe r t o the design limi

t o f th e apron pavemen

t of th e LG A leasehold s a s 50,000 lbs
. a t Section 24.7
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 , exhs
. A & C , pp . 11,66 ] 'MaximumGros s Take-of

f Weight
. Pag e 1 0 o f 5 0desig n weight-bearin g capacity o f th e pavemen t

o f it s leasehold.' ° [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 2 5 an dIte m6 , exh
. NN ] [Se e Also , Sectio n 3. 0 o f LG A Leases , FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhs
. 5 & 6 , pp . 11-12 ] O n Jul y 2 , 2003 , Pete r

Scherrer , Asst
. HP N Manager , wrot e t o Panoram adenyin g it' s reques t t o sel l je t fuel t o transien t

aircraf t ove r 50,00 0 lbs
. Th e County stated : You r reques t was reviewe db y th e Westcheste r County Departmen t

o f Transportatio n an d Airpor t Administration
. Th

e requeste dchang e t o you r leas e limitatio n i s denied , base do n th e fac t tha t th e origina l Reques t

fo r Proposa l (RFP ) an dth e Environmenta l Impac t Statemen t fo r both Ligh t

Genera l Aviatio n Facilitie s prohibit s th e parkin g o r servicin g o f aircraf t i n exces s o f

50,00 0 lbs
. MGTO W [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 2 6 an dIte m6 , exh
. OO ] Th e recor dsupport s th e inferenc e tha t Westai r wrot e t o HPN Managemen t requestin g t o sel l fiiel of f it s ramp . O n May 26 , 2004 , Joe l Russell , HPN Manager , wrot e t o Westai r denyin g it s request , stating : W e ar e i n receip t

o f you r lette r o f May 4 , 200 4 concernin g fuelin g operations
. W e ar e unabl e t o agre e wit

h you r reques t t o fue l of f you r ramp . [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m6 , exh
. QQ \ O n Marc h 14 , 2005 , Westai r wrot e t o Joe l Russell , HP N Manager , wit h a n extensiv e proposa l t o modif y Westair' s Lease. Th e lette r stated : W e woul dlike t o than k

yo u fo r you r effort s i n allowin g u s t o begi n aproces s t o hel p ou r operatio n a t

th e airport
. A

t th e time 9-1 1 happene dw e face dlosin g ou r operatio n i f

no t fo r Count y D.O
. T
. an dyou r office
. Yo

u realize dth e wea

k financial positio n Ligh t

Genera l Aviatio n wa s i n before 9-11 , an dreactin g quickl y t o allo w u s t o sel l turbin e fue l mad e i t possibl e fo r

[sic ] t o hav e thes e fiirthe r conversations...
. W e woul dlike t o ste p bac k

fo r aminut e t o recogniz e majo r financial change s t o date
. The event s o f 9-1 1 cos t ou r operatio n almos t

thre e hundre dthousan ddollar s i n extr adebt...
. Th e numbe r o f Ligh t G.A
. aircraf

t base da t ou r facilit y ha s droppe d3 5 aircraf t sinc e Novembe r

1999
. Thi s declin e i n aircraf t wil l continu e t o happe n sinc e th e averag e ag e o f ou r tiedow n custome r

i s ove r 6 0 year s old
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 28 , p . 1 an dIte m 6 , exh
. LL , p . 1 ] Westai r continue db y listin g propose dmodification s t o th e Westai r Lease , includin g som e discussio n o f

ren t adjustments : 1
. Ou r Maste r leas e ha s provision s t o limi t th e weigh t

o f aircraf t t o b e base do r transi t a t ou r facility
. W

e fee l th e weigh t

restrictio n shoul db e lifte dan daircraf t shoul d hav e th e abilit y t o b e base da t ou r facilit y withou t

referenc e t o bein g manage db y Westair
. 2
. .. . Ou r sal e o f turbin e fue l i s als o limite dt o ou r leasehol dW

e reques t t o hav e tha t restrictio n remove dt o allo w fue l sale s t o b e permitte danywher e a t HPN
. Thi s

" * See footnot

e 7
. Pag e 1 1 o f 5 0woul dincreas e fue l sale s a s wel l a s introduc e othe r base dtenant s an doperator s t o ou r man y services
. 3
. W e hav e aske dt o buil da n additiona l hanga r facility
. Wit

h th e maste r

leas e revision s asecon dhanga r woul dgreatl y benefi t

ou r operation
. Revenue s from subtenant s alon g wit

h adde dservice s woul dals o increas e revenue s t o th e County
. .. . 5
. Th e additio n o f

more T-Hangars
. The deman dfo r thes e unit s ha s no t

dropped..
. Ho w d o w e d o this ? Al l o f th e modification s above requir e certai n restriction s modified , o r non e o f the mwil l wor k

Ou r goa l i s t o creat e lon g ter mfinancia l stability
. W e woul d propos e tha t

w e sectio n of

f certai n area s o f

th e leasehol dt o accommodat e thes e change s an di n essenc e hav e aformul at o pa y ren t fo r tha t area . Thi s situatio n woul dallo w fo r th e majority o f

th e leasehol dt o maintai n Ligh t Genera l Aviatio n operations
. W e realiz e segmentin g th e "facility " lik e thi s woul drequir e man y section s o f th e maste r leas e t o nee drevision s a s wel l a s communication s wit h th e FAA
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 28 , p . 2 an dIte m6 , exh
. LL , p . 2 ] Like Westair , o n Marc h 22 , 2005 , Panoram awrot e t o Joe l Russell , HPN Manage r t o discus s significan t

LG A leas e amendmen t

proposal s fromPanoramj u Th e lette r stated : A s yo u know , muc h ha s change di n ou r industr y an di n particula r ou r airpor t sinc e w e signe dou r

Leas e i n 1999
. Th

e tragi c event s o f

Septembe r

11 , 200 1 sen t

Aviatio n Insuranc e Premiu mrate s t o all-tim e recor dhigh s an ddrasticall y increase dou r overal l cos t

o f doin g business
. Wit

h eac h passin g month ne w obstacle s presen t arduou s challenge s t o th e proces s o f

operatin g aservic e oriente dGenera l Aviatio n FB O Facilit y i n asaf e an dviabl e manner . The rapidl y increasin g cos t t o maintai n aqualifie dlabo r worlrforc e a t

HPN , a s outline di n m

y Augus t II , 200 4 letter , an dth e sk y rocketin g cos t

o f petroleu mbase d product s ar e jus t

tw o mor e factor s tha t

hav e significantl y contribute dt o th e enormou s increas e i n ou r

overal l cos t

o f doin g business
. Genera l Aviatio n operation s conducte di n aircraf t les s tha n 12,50 0 lb s MGTO W continue s t o steadil y declin e a s d o ne w studen t pilo t enrollments
. A s aresul t

o f th e aforementione ddeclin e i n Genera l Aviatio n operations , sale s fo r ancillar y Leas e mandate dsmal l aircraf t service s hav e continue dt o declin e concurrently
. At th e sam e time , w e ar e witnessin g arapidl y growin g numbe r o f transien t busines s je t aircraf t wit h Manhatta n boun dpassenger s wh o formerl y frequentedfTeterboro ] an dar e no w alternativel y utilizin g Whit e Plains
. The tota l gallon s o f Je t A fue l pumpe dannuall y a t HP N continue s t o gro w a t asubstantia l pace . I n orde r fo r Panoram at o b e abl e t o affor d th e conduc t

o f ou r day-to-da y operation s i n asuccessfitl manner , increase drevenue s nee d t o b e generate doutsid e o f an di n additio n t o ou r

Leas e mandate dsmal l aircraf t servic e requirements
. Increase dgrowt h i n Je t fue l sale s i s th e are atha t wil l ensur e Panorama' s futur e viability
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

2 9 an dIte m6 , exh
. MM ] Ne w Leas e Agreement s wit h Avita t O n Octobe r

1,2005 , th e County execute da10-yea r leas e wit h option s t o rene w with Avita t (200 5 Avitat Lease)
. Th e 200 5 Avita t Leas e renewe dAvitat' s occupanc y at th e Airpor t

o n th e sam e leasehold : - » Pag e 1 2 o f 5 0.. . th e Count y an dLesse e previousl y entere dint o aleas e agreemen t date dFebruar y 1 , 199 1 an damende dMay 9 , 199 6 (th e "Initia l Leas e Agreemen t ")fo r spac e i n Hanga r

" E " a t Westchester

County Airport..
. ("Lease dPremises")..
. an d

.. . th e Count

y an dLesse e hav e agree dt o terminat e th e Initia l Leas e Agreemen t an dente r int o ane w Leas e Agreemen t fo r th e us e an doccupanc y o f th e Lease dPremise s fo r

th e renta l an dupo n th e term s an dcondition s herei n se t forth
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 4 , p . Articl e 3 o f

th e 200 5 Avita t

Leas e describe s Avitat' s Us e o f Lezise dPremises : 3. 1 Count y represent s tha t

th e Lesse e ma

y use , an dth e Lesse e shal l occup y an duse , th e Lease dPremise s fo r

th e followin g purpose s an dfo r n o othe r purpos e whatsoever : 3.1. 1 Fo r enterin g int o agreement s wit h privat e owner s (th e "Customers" ) fo r storage , maintenance , servicin g an drepai r o f aircraft , aircraf

t assemblies , aircraf

t accessories , aircraf t radi o an delectroni c equipmen t an dan y componen t

part s thereof ; an d 3.1. 2 Fo r th e sal e o f

aircraf t assemblies , aircraf

t radi o an delectroni c equipmen t an d an y componen t

part s thereof ; an d 3.1. 3 Fo r th e parkin g o f

aircraft ; an d 3.1. 4 Fo r busines s an doperation s office s an dshop s i n connectio n wit h th e purpose s authorize dhereunder..
. 3. 2 I n additio n t o th e foregoin g rights , th e Lesse e shal l hav e th e righ t t o sel l aviatio n fue l an daviatio n lubricant s an dt o delive r suc h fue l an dlubricant s t o an dint o aircraf t a t th e Airport , [emphasi s added ] al l i n accordanc e wit h th e provision s o f

othe r agreement s entere dint o o r

t o b e entere dint o betwee n th e County an dLesse e specificall y regulatin g suc h sale s an ddeliverie s an dprovidin g fo r th e paymen t

o f fee s therefore
. 3.3. 1 Th e Lesse e agrees , a s aconditio n o f thi s Lease , tha t

i t shal l no t bas e an y aircraf

t havin g amaximumgros s take-of f weigh t ove r 120,00 0 lbs. , a t

th e Airport , withou t

th e approva l o f

th e Airpor t

Manager , suc h approva l no t t o b e unreasonabl y withheld , delaye d o r conditioned
. 3.3. 2 The Lesse e agrees , a s aconditio n o f thi s Lease , tha t

i t shal l not operate , o r

caus e t o b e operate da t

th e Airport , an y aircraf

t havin g amaximu mgros s take-of f wei^ t o f 120,00 0 lbs. , withou t

th e prio r approva l o f

th e Airpor t

Manager , suc h approva l no t t o b e unreasonabl y withheld , delaye do r conditione d[FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 4 , pp . 10-12 ] Articl e 4 describe s Avitat' s Rental : 4.1.1 Fo r us e an doccupanc y o f

th e Lease dPremise s an dprivilege s herei n granted , th e Lesse e agree s t o pa y th e County a n annua l ren t Durin g th e initia l yea r

o f thi s Lease , th e annua l ren t

shal l b e SD

C HUNDRE D NINETY-FIVE THOUSAN D SEVE N HUNDRE D TW

O DOLLAR S ($696,702) , payabl e i n substantiall y equa l monthl y installments
. Upo n completio n o f th e improvement s describe di n Schedul e "B" , th e annua l ren t shal l b e EIGH T HUNDRE D SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAN

D ONE HUNDRE D DOLLAR S ($875,100) , payabl e i n substantiall y equa l monthl y installments...
. Pag e 1 3 o f 5 04.1. 2 Durin g th e Initia l Ter m(2 0 years) , th e County wil l perfor magoo dfait h evaluatio n o f th e marke t

ren t a s o f th e fifth anniversar y o f

th e commencemer

U date
. Durin g an y Renewa l Terms , th e County wil l perfor magoo dfait h evaluatio n o f th e marke t

ren t a s o f th e commencemen t

dat e o f th e Renewa l Ter

man dth e fifth anniversar y o f th e commencemen t dat e o f th e Renewa l Ter

musin g th e standard s currentl y i n plac e a t th e Airpor t

fo r determinin g marke t

value , usin g curren t

an dfutur e tenant s locate da t th e Airpor t

a s th e basi s fo r suc h evaluatio n Shoul dth e County determin e tha t Lesse e i s payin g i n exces s o f marke t valu e accordin g t o an y suc h evaluation , the n effectiv e a s o f th e dat e o f

suc h evaluation. Lesse e wil l no t b e subjec t

t o an y increas e i n it s ren t unti l suc h time a s Lessee' s ren t n o longe r

exceed s marke t

value
. Lesse e shal l hav e th e righ t t o disput e suc h evaluation s an dth e County an dLesse e shal l negotiat e i n goo dfait h t o resolv e thei r differenc e wit

h respec t t o th e marke t

rent . I f afte r suc h goo dfait h negotiations , th e County an dLesse e ar e unabl e t o resolv e thei r differences
. Lesse e shal l hav e th e optio n t o terminat e thi s Leas e by givin g thre e (3 ) month s prio r writte n notic e t o th e County o f Lessee' s exercis e o f suc h right
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 4 , pp . 13-14 ; se e als o Ite m6 , exh
. E ] Th e 200 5 Avitat

Leas e include daVRF Fprovision , requirin g Avita t t o us e reasonabl e effort s t o caus e FB O customer s t o compl y with th e voluntar y progra man dt o distribut e mformatio n t o users expressin g th e nee dt o understan dth e concern s o f th e loca l community
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 , exh
. E , p . 38 ] In 200 5 an d2006 , tw o othe r Larg e G A FBO s o n th e Airpor t als o signe dlease s with th e County tha t

include dsimilar

VRF Fprovisions
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 , exhs
. G , p . 2 1 & H , P-24 ] Prio r t o Avitat' s signin g o f

th e 200 5 Avita t

Lease , i t ha dpursue dth e possibilit y o f expansio n at th e Airport

b y purchasin g Westm

r i n 2003
. O n Ma y 1 , 2003 , Avita t wrot e t o Larry Salley , County Transportatio n Commissioner , raisin g th e prospec t tha t Avita t ma y purchas e Westai r

an d seekin g 'appropriat e approvals ' fromth e Count y fo r th e fransaction." [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 , exh

- GG ] O n January 30,2006 , Avita t increase dit s leasehol dsignificanti y b y assumin g adjacen t hangar an dapro n spac e fix)mGenera l Electri c with th e County' s approval
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 6 , exh
. F ] O n Augus t

29,2006 , Westai r

wrot e t o Pete r

Scherrer , Asst
. HP N Manager , re-visiting , word-for

wor dth e Marc h 14 , 200 5 lette r requestin g majo r

modification s t o Westair' s Lease , includin g expande dje t

fuelin g ability for

Westair
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 30 ] [Se e Also , FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

28 , an dIte m6 , exh
. LL ] O n January 11,2007 , Salvator e J
. Carrera , Count y Economi c Development , Rea l Estate , wrot e t o Alfr ^ E
. Donnellan , Panorama , rejectin g Panorama' s repeatedreques t t o modif y it s leas e term s t o allo w Panoram amor e fiieedomt o sel l je t fuel a t an y locatio n a t

th e Airpor t

"lik e Avitat

may do" ; t o bas e heavie r

aircraf t o n it s leasehol d"lik e Avita t may do" ; an dt o remove term s "ligh t genera l aviatio n fixedbase " fromth e Panoram aLease
. Th e County expresse dit s answe r t o thes e requests , emphatically : Panoram arequest s th e right t o fue l aircraf

t a t th e airlin e termina l cm

dothe r prim e tenant' s airpor t location s withou t

restriction...
.

" A s statedby th e County , th e transactio n neve r occurred
. [FA

A Exhibit 1 , Ite m6 , p . 18 ] Pag e 1 4 o f 5 0W

E CANNO T AGRE E T O THI S REQUEST..
. Panoram arequest s tha t

(th e leas e ter mrestrictin g t o 1 2 th e numbe r o f aircraf t weighin g mor e tha n 12,50 0 lbs
. tha t may b e base do n Panorama' s leasehold ) b e lifted...
. W E CANNO T AGRE E T O THI S REQUEST.
. Panoram aRequest : Remov e fromth e Us e Sectio n o f th e Leas e th e word s "ligh t genera l aviatio n fixedbas e " an d"a t aminimum"fro mth e paragrap h tha t describe s th e minimum service s offered...
. Th e Count y wil l absolutel y no t agre e t o thi s request.. . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exh
. 31 , pp . 2- 3 an dIte m6 , exhibit HH , pp . 2-3 ] V
. APPLICABL E FEDERA L LA W AN D FA A POLIC Y Th e federal rol e i n civi l aviatio n ha s bee n augmente db y variou s legislativ e action s that authoriz e program s for

providin g federal fund s an dothe r assistanc e t o local communitie s for th e developmen t

o f Airport facilities
. In eac h suc h program , th e Airport sponso r assume s certai n obligations , eithe r

b y contrac t

o r b y restrictiv e covenant s i n propert y deed s an dconveyanc e instruments , t o maintai n an doperat e it s Airport facilitie s safel y an defficientl y an di n accordanc e with specifie dconditions
. Commitment s assume db y Airport sponsor s i n propert y conveyanc e o r gran t agreement s ar e importan t factor s i n maintainin g ahig h degre e o f safety £in defficienc y i n airport design , construction , operatio n an dmaintenance , a s wel l a s ensurin g th e publi c fair an d reasonabl e acces s t o th e Airport
. Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47101 , e r seq. , provide s for

federal airport

financial assistanc e fo r

th e developmen t

o f public-us e auport s unde r th e Airport

Improvemen t

Progra m(AIP ) establishe db y th e Aiipor t

an dAirwa y Improvemen t Ac t o f 1982 , a s amended
. Titi e 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107 , e t seq. , set s fort h assurance s t o whic h a n airport sponso r agree s a s aconditio n o f

receivin g federal financial assistance
. Upo n acceptanc e o f a n AI P grant , th e assurance s becom e abindin g contractua l obligatio n betwee n th e airport sponso r an dth e federal government . Th e assurance s mad e b y airport

sponsor s i n AI P gran t

agreement s ar e importan t factor s i n maintainin g aviabl e nationa l airport

system . Airpor t Sponso r Assurance s A s aconditio n preceden t

t o providin g airport

developmen t

assistanc e unde r

th e Airport Improvemen t

Program , unde r

th e Airpor t

an dAirwa y Improvemen t Ac t o f 1982 , no w codifie da t 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107 , e t

seq. , th e Secretary o f

Transportatio n and , b y extension , th e FA A receives certai n assurance s fromth e airport sponsor . Titi e 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a ) set s fort h th e statutory sponsorshi p requirements t o ^^Wc h an airport

sponso r receivin g federal financial assistanc e mus t agre e a s aconditio n preceden t t o receiving suc h assistance
. Thes e sponsorshi p requirement s ar e include di n every Airport Improvemen t

Progra mgran t

agreement . Upo n acceptance , thes e assurance s becom e abindin g obligatio n betwee n th e airport sponso r an dth e federal government . Th e FA A ha s astatutory mandat e t o ensur e tha t airpor t owner s compl y wit h thes e sponso r assurances.' ^ FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Airpor t

Complianc e Requirement s (FA A Orde r 5190.6A) ,

' ^ See , e.g. , th e Federa

l Aviation Act

o f 1958 , a s amendedan

drecodified
. Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § § 40101 , 40113,40114,46101,46104 , 46105,46106,46110 ; an dthe Airpor

t an dAirwa

y hnprovemen

t Act o f Pag e 1 5 o f 5 0issue do n Octobe r 2 , 1989 , provide s th e policie s an dprocedure s t o b e followe db y th e FA A i n carryin g ou t

it s legislativel y mandate dfunction s relatedt o federall y obligate dairport owners ' complianc e with thei r

sponso r assurances . Th e FA A consider s i t inappropriat e t o provid e federal assistanc e fo

r improvement s t o airport s wher e th e benefit s o f suc h improvement s wil l not b e fully realize ddu e t o inheren t restriction s o n aeronautica l activities
. Th e gran t assurance s relevan t t o th e issue s raise di n th e Complain t ar e th e following : Gran t Assuranc e 22
. Economi c Nondiscriminatio n Th e owne r

o f an y airport

develope dwith federal gran t assistanc e i s require dt o operat e th e airport for th e us e an dbenefi t

o f th e public
. Federa l gran t assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination , (Assuranc e 22 ) deal s vrit h bot h th e reasonablenes s o f airport acces s an dth e prohibitio n o f

adoptin g unjusti y discriminator y condition s a s apotential for limitin g access . Assuranc e 2 2 o f

th e prescribe dsponso r

assurance s implement s th e provision s o f 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(1 ) throug h (6) , an drequires , i n pertinen t part : [Th e airport

owne r o r sponsor ] wil l mak e th e airport availabl e a s a n airport

for publi c us e o n reasonabl e term s an dwithou t imjus t discriminatio n t o al l types , kind s an d classe s o f aeronautica l activities , includin g commercia l aeronautica l activitie s offerin g service s t o th e publi c a t th e airport
. [Assuranc e 22(a). ] Eac h fixed-base operato r

a t th e airpor t

shal l b e subjec t

t o th e sam e rates , fees , rentals , an d othe r charge s a s ar e uniforml y applicabl e t o all othe r fixed-bas e operator s makin g th e sam e o r similar use s o f suc h airpor t

an dutilizin g th e sam e o r simila r facilities
. [Assuranc e 22(c). ] [Th e airport

owne r o r sponsor ] wil l not

exercis e o r

gran t an y right o r privileg e whic h operate s t o preven t

an y person , firm, o r

corporatio n operatin g aircraf t o n th e airport

from performin g an y service s o n it s ow n aircraf t wit h it s ow n employee s (includin g bu t not limite dt o maintenance , repair , an dfueling ) tha t i t ma y choos e t o perform
. [Assuranc e 22(0. ] Th e sponso r

may establis h suc h reasonable , an dno t unjustl y discriminatory , condition s t o b e me t b y all users o f

th e airport

a s may b e necessar y for

th e saf e an defficien t

operatio n o f th e airport
. [Assuranc e 2 2 (h). ] Th e sponso r

may prohibi t

o r limi t an y give n type , kin do r

clas s o f aeronautica l us e o f

th e airport i f suc h actio n i s necessar y fo r th e saf e operatio n o f

th e airpor t

o r necessar y t o serv e th e civi l aviatio n need s o f th e public
. [Assuranc e 22(i). ] Subsectio n (h ) qualifie s subsectio n (a) , an dsubsectio n (i ) represents a n exceptio n t o subsectio n (a ) t o permi t

th e sponso r

t o exercis e contro l o f

th e airport

sufficien t t o preclud e unsaf

e an d inefficient condition s tha t

woul db e detrimenta l t o th e civi l aviatio n need s o f th e public
. 1982 , a s amende

dan drecodified. Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § § 47105(d) , 47106(d) , 47107(k) , 47107(1) , 47111(d) , 47122

. Pag e 1 6 o f 5 0I n all case s involvin g restriction s o n airport us e impose db y airpor t

owner s fo r

safet y an d efficienc y reasons , th e FA A wil l mak e th e final determinatio n o n th e reasonablenes s o f suc h restriction s whe n thos e restriction s den y o r limi t acces s to , o r

us e of , th e airport
. [FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Sectio n 4-8. ] Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Right s Federa l gran t

assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights , (Assuranc e 23 ) implement s th e provision s o f 4 9 U.S.C
. § § 40103(e ) an d47107(a)(4) , an drequires , i n pertinen t part , tha t th e owne r

o r sponso r o f afederall y obligate dairport : "...wil l permi t

n o exclusiv e right

fo r th e us e o f

th e airport

b y an y person s providing , o r

intendin g t o provide , aeronautica l service s t o th e public. " "...wil l not , eithe r

directl y o r

indirectly , gran t

o r permi t an y person , firm, o r corporation , th e exclusiv e right at th e airport

t o conduc t

an y aeronautica l activities... " "...wil l terminat e an y exclusiv e right t o conduc t

a n aeronautica l activit y no w existin g a t

suc h an airpor t

before th e gran t

o f an y assistanc e unde r

Titl e 4 9 Unite d State s Code. " A n exclusiv e right

i s define da s apower , privilege , o r othe r right excludin g o r

debarrin g anothe r fromenjoyin g o r

exercisin g alik e power , privilege , o r right. A n exclusiv e right ca n b e conferre d eithe r b y expres s agreement , b y th e impositio n o f unreasonabl e standard s o r requirements , o r

b y an y othe r means . Suc h aright

conferre do n on e o r

mor e parties , bu t

excludin g other s from enjoyin g o r

exercisin g asimilar

right o r rights, woul db e a n exclusiv e right. [FA A Advisory Circular 150/5190-6 , Exclusiv e Right s a t Federall y Obligate dAirports , Appendi x I (January 4 , 2007). ] Advisory Circular 150/5190- 6 als o provide s genera l informatio n pertainin g t o FAA' s prohibition o n grantin g exclusiv e rights a t federall y obligate dairports
. I n FA A Orde r

5190.6A , th e FA A discusse s it s exclusiv e rights polic y an dbroadl y identifie s aeronautica l activitie s a s subjec t t o th e statutory prohibitio n agains t exclusiv e rights. Whil e public-us e auport s may impos e qualification s an dminimu mstandard s upo n thos e wh o engag e i n aeronautica l activities , FA A ha s take n th e positio n tha t th e applicatio n o f

an y unreasonabl e requiremen t

o r an y standar dtha t

i s applie di n a n unjustl y discriminator y manne r ma y constitut e th e constructiv e gran t

o f a n exclusiv e right. Court s hav e foun dth e gran t o f a n exclusiv e right wher e asignifican t

burde n ha s bee n place do n on e competito r tha t i s not place do n another
. [Se e e.g . Pompan o Beac h v FAA , 77 4 F2 d152 9 (11 * Cir , 1985). ] A n owne r o r sponso r i s unde r n o obligation , however , t o permi t aircraf t owner s t o introduc e ont o th e airport equipment , personnel , o r practice s whic h woul db e unsafe , unsightly , detrimenta l t o th e publi c welfare , o r whic h woul d affec t th e efficient

us e o f airpor t facilities
. [Se e FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Sectio n 3- 9 (e). ] Leasin g all availabl e airport lan dan dimprovement s plaime dfor aeronautica l activitie s t o on e enterpris e wil l b e construe da s evidenc e o f inten t t o exclud e other s unles s i t ca n b e demonstrate d that th e entir e lease dare ai s presentl y require dan dwil l b e immediatel y use dt o conduc t th e activitie s contemplate db y th e lease
. [Se e FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Sectfo n 3-9(c). ] Pag e 1 7 o f 5 0FA A Orde r

5190. 6 A provide s additiona l guidanc e o n th e applicatio n o f th e statutor y prohibitio n agains t exclusiv e rights an dFA A polic y regardin g exclusiv e rights a t public-us e airports
. [Se e FA A Orde r

5190.6A , Chapte r

3. ] Assuranc e 24 , Fe e an dRenta l Structur e Federa l gran t

assuranc e 24 , Fe e an dRenta l Structure , (Assuranc e 24 ) addresse s fee s th e owne r o r sponso r levie s o n airport

user s i n exchang e for

th e service s th e airpor t

provides
. Sectio n 47107(a)(13 ) o f

4 9 U.S.C
. requires , i n pertinen t part , tha t th e owne r

o r sponso r o f a federall y obligate dairport "wil l maintai n afe e an drenta l structur e for th e facilitie s an dservice s bein g provide dt o airport

users whic h wil l mak e th e airport a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e unde r th e circumstance s existin g a t tha t particular

airport. " I n addition , unde r § 47107(a) , fee s levie d o n aeronautica l activitie s mus t b e reasonabl e an dnot

unjustl y discriminatory
. Assuranc e 2 4 satisfie s th e requirement s o f § 47107(a)(13)
. I t

provides , i n pertinen t

part , that th e owne r o r sponso r o f afederally-obligate dairport agree s tha t

i t wil l maintai n afe e an drenta l structur e consisten t

with assurance s 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination , an d23 , Exclusiv e Rights
. Th e airport

owne r o r sponso r agree s t o establis h afe e an drenta l structur e tha t wil l mak e th e airport a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e unde r th e circumstance s existin g a t th e particular

airport , takin g int o accoun t

suc h factor s a s th e volum e o f fraffic an deconom y o f

collection
. Th e inten t o f th e assuranc e i s for

th e airport

operato r t o charg e fee s tha t

ar e sufficien t

t o cove r a s muc h o f th e airport' s cost s a s i s feasible
. Moreover , FA A Orde r

5190.6 A state s tha t

th e owne r

o r sponsor' s obligatio n t o mak e a n airport availabl e for

publi c us e doe s not

preclud e th e owne r

o r sponso r from recovering th e cos t o f providin g th e facility
. Th e owne r o r sponso r i s expecte dt o recove r

it s cost s throug h th e establishmen t

o f fai r an dreasonabl e fees , rentals, o r othe r use r charge s tha t

wil l mak e th e airport a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e unde r th e circumstance s existin g a t th e particular

jiirpor L [Se e FAA Orde r

5190.6A , Sectio n 4-14(a). ]

Th e FA A Airpor t

Complianc e Progra m Th e FA A discharge s it s responsibilitie s for ensurin g airport

owners ' complianc e wit h thei r federal obligation s throug h it s Airport Complianc e Program
. Th e FAA' s airpor t complianc e effort s ar e base do n th e contractua l obligation s a n airport owne r accept s whe n receivin g federal gran t fund s o r th e transfe r

o f federal propert y fo r

airport purposes . Thes e obligation s ar e incorporate di n gran t

agreement s an dinstrument s o f conveyanc e i n orde r

t o protec t

th e public' s interes t i n civi l aviatio n an dt o ensur e complianc e with federal laws
. Th e FA A Airport

Complianc e Progra mi s designe dt o ensur e th e availabilit y o f anationa l syste m o f saf e an dproperl y maintaine dpublic-us e airport s operate di n amanne r consisten t

wit h th e airport owners ' federal obligation s an dth e public' s investmen t i n civi l aviation
.



### Pag e 1 8 o f 5 0Th e Airport Complianc e Progra mdoe s no t contro l o r

direc t th e operatio n o f

airports
. Rather , i t monitor s th e administratio n o f th e valuabl e rights pledge db y airport sponsor s t o th e peopl e o f th e Unite dState s i n exchang e fo r monetar y grant s an ddonation s o f federal propert y t o ensur e that th e publi c interes t

i s bein g served
. FA A Orde r

5190.6 A set s fort

h policie s an dprocedure s for th e FA A Airport

Complianc e Program
. Th e Orde r

i s no t regulatory an di s no t

confrollin g with regar dt o airport sponso r conduct
. Rather , i t

establishe s th e policie s an dprocedure s t o b e followe db y FA A personne l i n carryin g out

th e FAA' s responsibilitie s for ensurin g airport

compliance
. I t

provide s basi c guidanc e for

FA A personne l i n interpretin g an dadministerin g th e variou s continuin g commitment s mad e t o th e Unite dState s b y airport owner s a s aconditio n o f receivin g agran t

o f federal fund s o r

th e conveyanc e o f

federal property for

airport purposes . Th e Orde r

analyze s th e veiriou s obligation s se t

fort h i n th e standar dairport

sponso r assurances , addresse s th e natur e o f thos e assurances , addresse s th e applicatio n o f thos e assurance s i n th e operatio n o f public-us e airports , an dfacilitate s interpretatio n o f th e assurance s b y FA A p>ersonnel
. Th e FA A Complianc e progra mi s designe dt o achiev e voluntar y complianc e with federal obligation s accepte db y owner s and/o r operator s o f

public-us e airport s develope dwith FAA

administere dassistance
. Therefore , i n addressin g allegation s o f noncompliance , th e FA A wil l mak e adeterminatio n a s t o whethe r a n airport

sponso r i s currentl y i n complianc e with th e applicabl e federal obligations
. Consequently , th e FA A wil l conside r th e successfu l actio n b y th e airport t o cur e an y allege do r

potentia l pas t

violatio n o f

applicabl e federal obligatio n t o b e ground s fo

r dismissa l o f

suc h allegations
. [Se e e.g . Wilso n Ai r Cente r v . Memphi s an dShelb y Count v Airport

Authority , FA A Docke t

No
. 16-99-10 , (Augus t

30,2001 ) (Fin ^ Decisio n an d Order ) (Wilson) ] Enforcemen t o f Airpor t Sponso r Assurance s FA A Orde r

5190.6A , Airpor t

Complianc e Requirements , date dOctobe r 2 , 1989 , cover s al l aspect s o f th e airport

complianc e progra mexcep t enforcemen t

procedures
. Enforcemen t

procedure s regardin g airport complianc e matter s may b e foun dat FA A Rule s o f Practic e for

Federall y Assiste dAirpor t Enforcemen t

Proceeding s (1 4 CF RPart 16)
. Thes e enforcemen t

procedure s wer e publishe di n th e Federa l Registe r (6 1 F R53998 , Octobe r

16 , 1996 ) an dbecam e effectiv e o n Decembe r 16,1996
. Th e Complain t

an dAppea l Proces s Righ t t o Fil e th e Forma l Complain t Pursuant t o 1 4 CFR , Par

t 16 , § 16.23 , aperso n directl y an dsubstantiall y affecte db y any allege d noncomplianc e ma

y file acomplain t

wit h th e FAA
. Th e Complainant shal l provid e aconcis e but complete statement

o f th e fact s relie dupo n t o substantiate eac h allegation
. Th e complain t shal l als o describ e ho w th e Complainant wa s directl y an dsubstantiall y affecte db y th e thing s don e o r omitte d by tile Respondents
. [1 4 CFR , Par t 16 , § 16.23(b)(3,4). ] If , base do n th e pleadings , there appear s t o b e areasonabl e basi s fo r fiirther investigation , th e FA

A wil l investigate th e subjec t matter o f th e complaint
. I

n renderin g it s initial determination , th e FA A Pag e 1 9 o f 5 0ma

y rel y entirel y o n th e complaint an dth e responsive pleading s provided
. Each part y shal l file document s tha

t it consider s sufficient

t o presen t

al l relevan t

fact s an dargument s necessar y fo r th e FA A t o determin e whether

th e sponso r

i s i n compliance
. [1 4 CFR , Par t 16 , § 16.29. ] Th e proponent

o f amotion , request , o r

order ha s th e burde n o f

proof
. A part y wh o ha s asserte da

n affirmativ e defens e ha s th e burde n o f provin g th e affirmativ e defense
. Thi s standardburde n o f proo f i s consistent

wit h th e Administrativ e Procedure Ac t (APA ) an dfedera

l cas e law
. Th e AP

A provisio n states , "[e]xcep t

a s otherwis e provide db

y statute , th e proponent

o f arul e o r order ha s th e burde n o f proof " 5 U.S.C
. § 556(d)
. [See also
. Director , Offic e o f Worker' s Compensatio n Programs , Department

o f Labor v . Greenwic h Collieries
. 51 2 U S 267 , 27 2 (1994) ; Air Canad ae t

al
. v . Department

o f Transportation
. 14 8 F3 d1142 , 115 5 (D C Cir , 1998). ] Titl e 1 4 CFR§ 16.229(b ) i s consisten t wit h 1 4 CF R§16.23 , whic h require s th e complainant t o submi t al l document s the n availabl e to suppor

t hi s o r her complaint
. Similarly , 1 4 CF R§ 16.2 9 state s tha

t "[e]ac h part

y shal l file document s tha

t i t consider s sufficien

t to present

al l relevant

fact s andargumen t

necessar y fo r th e FA A t o determin e whether

th e sponso r

i s in compliance. " Righ t t o Appea l th e Director' s Determinatio n A part y t o thi s decisio n adversel y affecte db y th e Director' s Determinatio n ma y file a n appeal wit

h th e Associate Administrato r withi n 3 0 day s afte

r th e date o f

servic e o f

th e initial determination
. If n o appea l i s filedwithi n th e tim e perio dspecified , th e Director' s Determinatio n become s th e final decisio n an dorder o f th e FA A withou t fiirther action
. A Director' s Determinatio n tha t become s final becaus e there i s n o administrativ e appeal i s no t judiciall y reviewable. [1 4 CFR , Par t 16 , § 16.33 ] Par t 1 6 require s al l relevant

fact s t o b e presente din th e complaint documents
. [1 4 CFR , Par t 16 , § 16.23(b)(3). l Ne w allegation s o r issue s shoul dno t

b e presente do n appeal
. Revie w b y th e Associate Administrato r

i s limite dto an examinatio n o f th e Director' s Determinatio n an dth e Administrativ e Recordupon whic h such determinatio n wa s based
. Under Par t 16 , Complainant s ar e require dt o provid e wit

h th e complaint

an dreply al l supportin g documentatio n upo n whic h i t relie dt o substantiate it s claims
. Failure t o rais e al l issue s an dallegation s in th e original complain t document s ma y b e caus e fo

r such issue s an dallegation s t o b e deeme dwaive dan dno t reviewabl e upo n appeal
. Thi s i s consistent

wit h th e Supreme Court' s recognitio n tha t court s ma

y require administrativ e issu e exhaustio n a s ageneral rul e becaus e i t i s usuall y appropriate under a n [administrative ] agency' s practic e fo

r contestant s i

n a n adversarial proceedin g befor e it t o develo p full

y al l issue s there
. Th e Cour t conclude dtha

t wher e partie s are expecte dt o develo p th e issue s i n a n adversarial administrativ e proceeding , th e rationale fo r requiring issu e exhaustio n i s a t it s greatest . [See Sim s v . Apfel
. 53 0 U S 103,108-11 0 (2000 ) citin g Horme l v . Helvering
. 31 2 U S 55 2 (1941 ) an dU S v . L A Tucke r Truc k Lines , 34 4 U S 33 , (1952). ] FAA' s Responsibilit y with Regar dt o a n Appea l Pursuant t o 1 4 CFR , Par

t 16 , § 16.33 , th e Associate Administrato r wil l issu e afinal decisio n o n appeal fromth e Director' s Determination , withou t ahearing , where th e complain t i s dismisse dafte

r investigation
. I n suc h cases , it

i s th e Associate Administrator' s responsibility t o determin e whether (a ) th e findings o f fact made by th e Directo r

ar e supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable, probative , an dsubstantial evidence , an d(b ) eac h conclusio n o f la w i s made i

n accordanc e wit

h applicabl e law , precedent , an d
Pag e 2 0 o f 5 0publi c policy
. [See e.g . Rick s v Millingto n Municipa l Airport , FA

A Docke t No
. 16-98-19 , (December

30 , 1999 ) (Fina

l Decisio n an dOrder ) pag e 2 1 an d1 4 CFR , Par t 16 , § 16.227. ] ISSUE S O N APPEA L In it s Appeal , Avitat

raise s th e followin g five (5 ) issues : 1
. Whethe r

th e Director' s Determinatio n i s supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidenc e o r prope r conclusion s o f

la w du e t o th e fac t

tha t i t i s base do n distinguishabl e precedent , incorrec t assumptions , misreadin g o f relevan t documents , an domissio n o f critica l facts ? [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 16 ] 2
. Whethe r

th e Airport

Manage r allowin g Panoram aan dWestai r t o sel l je t fuel t o transien t aircraf t imde r 50,00 0 lb s maximu mgros s take-of f weigh t constitute s umeasonabl e and/o r

discriminator y term s and/o r condition s suc h tha t

th e County' s gran t assurance s ar e violated ? [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 16 ] 3
. Whethe r

th e County , b y providin g subsidie s t o Panoram aan dWestai r an dallowin g the mt o sel l je t

fuel t o transien t

aircraf t unde r 50,00 0 lb s MGTO W provide dmor e favorabl e treatmen t

i n amaime r

tha t unjustl y discriminate s agains t Avita t an dth e othe r Je t FBO s i n violatio n o f

Federa l gran t

assuranc e 23 ? [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 16 ] 4
. Whethe r

th e Count y burdene dAvita t an dth e othe r

Je t FBO s with th e cos t

o f economicall y supportin g Panoram aan dWestai r an dwhethe r

thi s constitute s unjus t economi c discriminatio n with regar dt o retai l aircraf t service s an dconstructivel y grant s an exclusiv e right

o n th e Airpor t

i n violatio n o f

gran t assiuanc e 2 3 an dFedera l law ? [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m13 , pag e 16 ] 5
. Whethe r

th e County ha s faile dt o maintai n a n aeronautica l ren t schedul e tha t

makes th e Airport

a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e unde r th e circumstance s existin g a t th e Airport , b y providin g mor e favorabl e financial treatmen t t o Panoram aan dWestai r i n violatio n o f

gran t assuranc e 24 ? [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 16 ] Althoug h Avita t

raise s th e issue s above , it s appea l doe s no t follo w th e numerica l structure . In th e FAA' s analysi s below , th e Associat e Administrato r ha s attempte dt o organiz e th e issue s i n th e genera l framewor

k identifie dabove
. VI
. ANALYSI S AN D DISCUSSIO N Th e Director' s Determinatio n foun dtha t th e Count y di dnot

violat e Gran t

Assurance s 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination ; 23 , Exclusiv e Rights ; an d24 , Fe e an dRenta l Structure , b y maintainin g a n existin g differential i n rights, restrictions , responsibilities , an drents betwee n tw o classe s o f FBO s at th e Airpor t O n appea l from aDirector' s Determination , Avita t mus t demonstrat e tha t

th e Directo r

erre db y (1 ) makin g findings o f

fac t tha t wer e not supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable, probative
. Pag e 2 1 o f 5 0an dsubstantia l evidence , o r (2 ) b y makin g conclusion s o f la w that wer e no t i n accordanc e with applicabl e law , precedent , an dpubli c policy
. Avitat argue s th e Director' s Determinatio n fail s t o addres s Avitat' s arguments . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , p . 2 ] I t

allege s tha t

th e Directo r

incorrectl y assume s withou t substantia l evidenc e tha t b y givin g Panoram aan dWestai r th e right t o sel l je t fiiel, th e County' s polic y o f providin g economi c protectio n for

th e ligh t genera l aviatio n secto r

i s achieved
. [Id
. a t

4 ] Avitat argue s tha t

th e County ha d'blurred ' th e distinctio n betwee n th e tw o classe s o f FBO s b y allowin g Panoram aan dWestai r t o sel l je t fuel i n amanne r

an dt o adegre e not

contemplate di n thei r 199 9 leases ; an dthus , unjustl y discriminate s agmns t th e je t FBO s whe n th e gran t

o f tha t right doe s no t serv e th e Airport' s publi c purpos e o f maintainin g ligh t

generzil aviatio n a t

th e airport
. Specifically , Avitat assert s "(1 ) th e Airport

Manage r ha s allowe dPanoram aan dWestai r t o sel l je t fiiel t o transien t

aircraf t unde r 50,00 0 lbs ; (2 ) Panoram aan dWestai r als o receive subsidie s fromth e County b y payin g substantiall y less-than-fair-marke t renta l rates an db y receivin g th e benefi t

o f facilitie s pai dfor

b y PFCs ; an d(3 ) take n together , thes e tw o action s hav e blurre dth e distinctio n betwee n th e tw o classe s o f FBO s an daltere dth e competitiv e environmen t at th e Airport

i n amanne r

tha t favor s Panoram aan dWestai r ove r Avitat an dth e othe r

Je t FBOs
. Th e County' s action s are , thus , unjustl y discrimmatory an di n violatio n o f Gran t Assurance s 22 , 2 3 an d24. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 2 ] Th e cru x o f

Avitat' s argumen t

i s dependen t

upo n aviolatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 22
. Avitat als o argue s tha t

Part 1 6 doe s not

contai n astandar do f

revie w upo n whic h th e Associat e Administrato r

may rely. A
. STANDAR D O FREVIEW
. 1
. Whethe r

th e Director' s Determinatio n i s supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidenc e o r prope r conclusion s o f

la w du e t o th e fac t

tha t i t i s base do n distinguishabl e precedent , incorrec t assumptions , misreadin g o f relevant documents , an d omissio n o f

critica l facts ? O n Appeal , Avita t

argue s tha t

1 4 CF RPart

1 6 doe s not

contai n astandar do f

revie w for

th e Associat e Administrato r

t o rel y upo n whe n aparty appeal s th e Director' s Determination
. Avitat argues , "th e Associat e Administrato r mus t (a ) revie w all o f

th e pleading s an dth e record ; (b ) mak e hi s ow n fmding s o f fac t tha t ar e supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable, probative , an d substantia l evidence ; an d(c ) make , i n accordanc e with applicabl e law , precedent , an dpubli c policy , hi s ow n conclusion s o f law
. I n arrivin g a t

hi s Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , th e Associat e Administrato r

mus t follo w th e Administrativ e Procedure s Ac t (APA ) an dno t

giv e an y deferenc e t o th e findings o f

fac t an dconclusion s o f

la w containe di n th e Director' s Determination. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 19 ] Th e FA A applies th e 'substantia l evidence ' standar do f revie w t o it s Part

1 6 final agenc y decision s (FAD)
. A s explame di n Airborn e Flyin g Service , Inc
. v . City o f Ho t Springs , 16-07

- 06 , Fina l Agenc y Decisio n (May 2,2008)
. Pag e 2 2 o f 5 0Pursuan t t o 1 4 CFR, Part

16 , § 16.33 , th e Associat e Administrato r issue s afinal decisio n o n appea l fromth e Director' s Determination , withou t ahearing , wher e th e complain t i s dismisse dafter

investigation
. I n suc h cases , i t

i s th e Associat e Administrator' s responsibilit y t o determin e whethe r (a ) th e findings o f

fac t mad e b y th e Directo r

ar e supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidence , an d(b ) eac h conclusio n o f la w i s mad e i n accordanc e with applicabl e law , precedent , an dpubli c policy
. [ Se e e.g . Rick s v Millingto n Municipa l Airport , FA A Docke t

No
. 16-98-19 , (Decembe r 30 , 1999 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder ) pag e 2 1 an d1 4 CF R§ 16.227. ] Althoug h Par

t 1 6 doe s no t

specif y th e standar do f

revie w generally , i t

doe s establis h th e standar d o f proo f fo r administrativ e hearings
. Titl e 1 4 C.F.R
. § 16.227 , "Standar do f proof, " state s that th e "hearin g officer

shal l issu e a n initia l decisio n o r shal l rul e i n aparty' s favo r onl y i f th e decisio n o r

rulin g i s supporte dby , an di n accordanc e with , reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidenc e containe di n th e recor dan di s i n accordanc e wit h law. " Sectio n 16.22 7 i s persuasiv e o f th e standar do f

review applicabl e t o revie w o f Director' s Determinations
. Se e also , 1 4 CF R §16.241(c ) ("I f

a n appea l i s filed, th e Associat e Administrato r reviews th e entir e recor dan d issue s a final agenc y decisio n an dorde r v^dthi n 3 0 day s o f

th e dat e o f

th e reply." ) Th e 'substantia l evidence ' standar do f review i s tha t

applie db y th e federa l court s o f ^peal s i n thei r revie w o f

FA A final agenc y decisions
. Fo r example , i n Flaming o Express , Inc
. v . FAA
. 53 6 F.3 d561 , 56 7 (6 * Cir
. 2008) , th e cour t explaine dtiiat

"[t]h e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t dictate s tha t findings o f

fac t mad e b y th e FA A ar e "conclusive " i f supporte db y substantia l evidenc e .. . Th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t i s silen t a s t o th e standar dtha t

a n appellat e cour t

mus t emplo y i n reviewing th e FAA' s nonfactua l findings, s o "w e mus t loo k t o th e Administrativ e Procedur e Ac t t o suppl y th e appropriat e standar do f review
. Althoug h question s o f la w ar e reviewe dd e novo , 5 U.S.C
. § 706 , "w e mus t

giv e som e deferenc e t o th e agenc y becaus e i t i s charge dwith administerin g th e statute. " Flamingo
. 53 6 F.3 da t 567
. Unde r

th e APA , "th e FAA' s interpretatio n o f

it s ow n regulation s "mus t b e give n controllin g weigh t unles s i t i s 'plainl y erroneou s o r

inconsisten t

with th e regulation. ' " Al l othe r findings an dconclusion s ar e reviewe d t o determin e whethe r

the y ar e "arbitrary , capricious , a n abus e o f discretion , o r

otherwis e not

i n accordanc e witi i law. " Se e als o Wilso n Ai r Cente r v . FAA , 37 2 F.3 d80 7 (6'* ' Cir
. 2004) , Penobsco t

Ai r Services , Ltd
. v . FAA , 16 4 F.3 d71 3 (1' ' Cir
. 1999)
. Th e Associat e Administrato r doe s i n fac t

conduc t areview o f

th e Director' s Determinatio n an d recor dd e nov o bu t

i s require dt o determin e i f th e Director' s Determinatio n wa s supporte db y a preponderanc e o f

reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidence , an dwa s consisten t with applicabl e law , precedent , an dFA A policy
. Again , thi s i s th e standar dapplie db y th e court s o f appeal s i n thei r

revie w o f

FA A final agenc y decisions
. Unde r Part 16 , th e Associat e Administrato r

nee dno t "mak e hi s ow n findings o f fact. " Base dupo n Flaming o an dothe r Part 1 6 court o f appeal s precedent , i t

i s enoug h tha t

th e Associat e Administrato r mak e certai n tha t

th e findings o f

fac t mad e b y th e Directo r

ar e supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable, probative , an dsubstantia l evidence
. Finally , Avita t argue s tha t

"[i] n arrivin g a t

hi s Fina l Decisio n an d Order , th e Associat e Administrato r mus t follo w th e Adminisfrativ e Pfbcedure s Ac t (APA ) an d Pag e 2 3 o f 5 0no t

giv e an y deferenc e t o th e findings o f fac t an dconclusion s o f

la w containe di n th e Director' s Determination. " Thi s argumen t ha s n o merit
. A s indicate dabove , base dupo n th e Federa l Aviatio n Act , th e court s o f appeal s hol dtha t

finding s o f

fac t ar e t o b e evaluate dbase dupo n a substantia l evidenc e standard
. Thi s standar di s deferentia l an d"give s th e agenc y th e benefi t o f th e doubt. " Flamingo
. 53 6 F.3 dat 567
. Ther e i s n o reaso n wh y th e Associat e Administrato r shoul dno t

b e abl e t o utiliz e asimilar standard
. Fo r

nonfactua l findings, i t

i s appropriat e t o appl y an AP A standar d(i.e. , d e nov o review) , however , "[u]nde r th e Adminisfrativ e Procedur e Ac t [] , th e FAA' s interpretatio n o f it s ow n regulation s "mus t b e give n controllin g weigh t unles s i t i s 'plainl y erroneou s o r

inconsisten t

wit h th e regulation. " Flamingo , 53 6 F.3 dat 567.
. Th e AP A itsel f provide s fo

r deferenc e t o agenc y interpretation s o f agenc y regulations
. Again , ther e i s n o reaso n for th e Associat e Administrato r not t o b e abl e t o provid e similar deferenc e t o nonfactual findings. Concernin g revie w o f FAA' s "othe r

agenc y action , findings, an dconclusions, " th e AP A require s th e reviewing court t o hol dthe munlawfti l an dse t the masid e i f

the y ar e foun dt o b e arbitrary , capricious , a n abus e o f discretion , o r

otherwis e not

i n accordanc e with law
. Penobscot , 16

4 F.3 da t 719
. In thi s case , o n an appea l from aDirector' s Determination , th e Associat e Administrato r for Airport s appropriatel y reviewe dth e entir e recor dt o determin e whethe r th e Director' s findings ar e supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidence , an dwa s consisten t with applicabl e law , precedent , an dFA A policy
. B
. GRAN T ASSURANC E 22
. ECONOMI C NONDISCRIMINATIO N Th e issue s wher e Avita t

allege s th e Directo r

committe derro r

ar e addresse dbelow
. Th e basi c issu e i s whethe r th e Count y i s providin g mor e favorabl e treatmen t t o certai n Fixe d Bas e Operator s (FBOs ) with regardt o retai l aircraf t service s tha t

vmjustl y discriminate s agains t Avitat i n violatio n o f

Federa l Gran t

Assuranc e 22 , Ecorwmi c NonDiscriminatio n (Gran t Assuranc e 22)
. Avita t

argue s tha t

b y givin g Panoram aan dWestai r th e right t o sel l je t fuel t o transien t aircraf t unde r 50,00 0 lbs , combine dwith "subsidized " rent , th e Count y i s no t protectin g th e ligh t genera l aviatio n sector , bu t creatin g an economi c advantag e for Panoram aan dWestai r ove r th e othe r Je t FBO s an di s therefor e i n violatio n o f it s obligation s unde r

Gran t Assuranc e 22.' ^ Avitat state s th e Director' s Determinatio n fail s t o addres s thi s argument . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 13 , pg . 2. ] Th e Associat e Administrato r disagrees
. Th e Director' s Determinatio n careflill y addresse dth e issue s raisedb y Avita t i n regardt o it s claim s o f economi c non-discriminatio n o n page s 20-3 6 o f

th e Director' s Determination
. Mor e specifically , th e Director' s Determinatio n addresse dth e issue s o f

preferentia l treatmen t

with regardt o restriction s o n operations , preferential freatment

wit h regardt o aprio r

reques t for proposal s for

th e LG A FB O leaseholds , an dth e questio n o f

reeisonablenes s unde r

gran t assuranc e 22.' ^

" Avita t assert s tha

t b y paying substantially les s tha n fai r marke t rental rates an

db y receivin g th e benefi

t o f facilitie s paidfo

r by PFCs , Panoram

aan dWestai r ar e "subsidized " by th e County
. '• * The Director' s Determination analyzedAvitat' s allegation s o f non-discriminatio n i

n th e contex

t of similarly situatedpartie s an dequitabl e treatment .

Pag e 2 4 o f 5 0I n addition , Avitat argue s tha t

it s "charg e o f

gran t assuranc e violation s goe s t o th e inequitabl e treatmen t o f Je t FBO s an dth e contraventio n o f th e County' s polic y o f

supportin g ligh t

genera l aviation. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m13 , pg . 3. ] Th e owne r

o f an y airport

develope dwith federal gran t assistanc e i s require dt o operat e th e airport for th e us e an dbenefi t

o f th e public
. Gran t

assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination , (Assuranc e 22 ) deal s wit

h both th e reasonablenes s o f airport acces s an dth e prohibitio n o f adoptin g unjustl y discriminatory condition s a s apotentia l for limitm g access . In thi s cas e th e County mus t mak e th e airport

availabl e a s a n airport

for publi c us e o n reasonabl e term s an dwithou t

unjus t discrimmatio n t o all types , kind s an dclasse s o f aeronautica l activities , includin g commercia l aeronautica l activitie s offerin g service s t o th e publi c at th e airport
. [Assuranc e 22(a). ] Eac h fixed-base operato r

a t th e airport

shal l b e subjec t

t o th e sam e rates , fees , rentals , an dothe r charge s a s ar e uniforml y applicabl e t o all othe r fixed-base operator s makin g th e sam e o r simila r use s o f suc h airpor t

an dutilizin g th e sam e o r simila r facilities , [emphasi s added]
. [Se e Assuranc e 22(c). ] Avitat argue s o n appea l tha t

(1 ) "...th e Directo r

doe s not discus s ho w Avitat' s comin g t o term s with th e County affect s th e othe r Je t FBO' s rights an dexcuse[s ] th e County' s imjusti y discriminatory action s vis-a-vi e th e othe r Je t FBOs... ; (2 ) th e Directo r relying o n inapposit e precedent...cite dcases , whos e [complainants ] goal s wer e t o ge t abette r deal.... ; (3 ) [objects ] t o th e way th e rights grante di n [Panorama' s o r Westair' s origina l 199 9 leases ] ...expande dove r tune , away from....ligh t

genera l aviation... ; an d(4 ) [th e Directo r erre dmaking ] certm n assumption s concernin g Avitat' s lease s whic h wer e no t i n th e Recor dan di n fac t not correc t an d the n dre w conclusion s fro mthos e assumptions. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 19-20. ] 1
. Whethe r

Th e Directo r

Committe dErro r

Becaus e Avita t

Does No t

Believ e Th e Directo r Sufficientl y Addresse s Ho w Avitat' s Comin g T o Term s Wit h Th e Count y Affecte dTh e Othe r Je t FBO' s Rights
. Avita t state s it s ".
. .complain t

concern s th e effec t

o f th e County' s discriminatio n agains t th e clas s o f Je t FBO s o f whic h i t i s apart.. . [and ] [t]h e fac t tha t Avita t cam e t o term s with tiie Count y i n 200 5 an d200 6 o n it s lease s ha s n o bearin g o n whethe r th e County ha s unjustl y discriminate d agains t Avita t an dth e othe r

Je t FBO s ...b y ...allowin g Panoram aan dWestai r t o sel l je t fuel t o transien t aircraf t unde r 50,00 0 lbs. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 20 ] Avita t als o state s tha t thos e leas e negotiation s d o not exonerat e th e Airport

Management' s discriminator y behavio r agains t th e othe r Je t FBOs ' individua l rights o r thei r rights a s aclass
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 21 ] Avitat implie s i t

i s representative o f

aclas s o f complainants
. Th e Responden t correctl y point s ou t i n it s Repl y t o Appeal , "Th e rights o f th e othe r je t [sic ] FBO's , o r

an y othe r

FB O for tha t matter , ar e not

at issu e i n thi s proceeding
. Avitat , a s th e Complainan t i n thi s proceeding , represent s onl y itsel f

an ddoe s no t

stan di n th e shoe s o f

an y othe r

tenan t o r FB O a t HP N a s a clas s representative. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m14 , pag e 7 ] - * Pag e 2 5 o f 5 0Th e Associat e Administrato r doe s no t se e an y othe r

name s alongsid e Avitat' s o r liste do n th e pleadings
. Non e o f

th e othe r airport FBO s hav e filedPart

1 6 complaint s o r

joine di n thi s proceeding
. Regardless , th e Director' s Determination' s analysi s include s discussio n generall y applicabl e t o al l FBO s a t

th e Airport

an dth e County' s legitimat e two-clzis s syste mo f FBOs
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 6 pgs . 21 , 25-30 , 31-35. ] Th e Directo r properl y di dno t

mak e findings specifi c t o th e othe r

FBOs , o r a s t o ho w othe r

entitie s a t

th e Airpor t

wer e affecte db y allegation s brough t b y Avitat
. Suc h conduc t woul dhav e bee n beyon dth e scop e o f Part 1 6 an dth e specifi c investigatio n i n thi s instan t case.' ^ T o th e exten t

that Avita t cam e t o term s with th e Coimty i n 200 5 an d200 6 i n regar dt o it s ow n leases , th e comin g t o term s ha s n o bearing o n whethe r th e Count y unjustl y discriminate dagains t Avitat whe n Westai r

an dPanoram aperformi n accordanc e wit h thei r leases
. Avitat

i s a voluntary party t o it s leas e an dth e issu e turn s o n whethe r th e FBO s ar e similarl y situated
. Avitat argue dtha t

Panoram aan dWestai r

provid e substantiall y th e sam e type s o f service s a s thos e currentl y provide db y Avita t an dthat federal requirement s woul dsubjec t Avitat t o th e sam e rates, fees , rental s an dothe r charge s o f

th e LG A FBOs
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , pg . 20-21. ] Avitat als o provide dexhibit s whic h demonstrat e th e comparativ e service s provide db y al l FBO s at th e airport
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhs
. 4 , 5,6 , 2 2 an d23 ; se e als o summary chart at Ite m 16 , pg . 23. ] Amon g thos e document s wer e th e leases
. After review , th e FB O lease s als o ar e specifi c t o th e FB O rights an drestrictions
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

4 , 5 , 6 an dIte m6 , exhibit s A , C , E , F , G , H ] Avita t doe s no t hav e an y T-hangar

spac e o r tie-dow n space . Westai r an dPanoram acanno t

sel l fuel t o aircraf

t ove r 50,00 0 lbs
. Westai r

an dPanoram aar e require dt o provid e AvGa s an dservic e t o th e smal l genera l aviatio n community , Avita t i s not subjec t t o thes e terms . Avita t

comin g t o term s with th e Count y i n 200 5 an d200 6 ha s n o direc t bearin g o n Westm r an dPanorama' s leas e responsibilitie s an drestrictions
. Th e Associat e Adminisfrato r note s tha t th e Directo r

pointe dout

that Avita t appear s t o hav e bee n awar e o f Westai r an d Panorama' s term s prio r

t o enterin g it s ow n lease
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 6 a t

27. ] A t on e point , Avitat was intereste di n purchasin g Westair
. Arguably , i t i s possibl e tha t

Avita t use dit s knowledg e i n it s negotiatio n o f it s terms . That

said , Avitat' s negotiation s i n 200 5 an d200 6 ar e wholl y independen t

o f whethe r th e FBO s ar e similarl y situate do r requir e th e sam e treatment . Th e documentatio n i n th e recor di s clear , an dsupport s th e Director' s analysis
. Avita t ha s no t show n i t make s th e sam e o r

similar us e o f th e Aiipor t

o r tha t i t utilize s th e sam e o r

similar facilities
. Thus , Avita t

i s not similarl y situate dt o Westai r o r Panorama
. Th e Count y i s no t require dt o freat

thes e FBO s th e same . [Se e FA A Exhibi t 1 , Item s 16 , pag e 30-31. ] [Se e als o discussio n belo w regardin g cas e precedent. ] Th e Associat e Adminisfrato r finds th e Directo r

reasonabl e i n hi s refusal t o engag e i n speculatio n a s t o ho w action s take n b y th e Coimty specificall y affecte dothe r entitie s a t

th e Airport
. Speculatio n i s n o substitut e for fact , an dthu s th e Directo r di dno t err ' mhi s refusal t o bas e hi s findings o n speculativ e consideratio n o f thir dpartie s i n makin g hi s determinatio n tha t County di dnot violat e Gran t

Assuranc e 22
.

" Th e othe r FBO s situate da

t th e airpor t wer e not partie s t o thi s case , ha

dn e opportunit

y to presen

t evidenc e o r b e hear don th e issue s examinedherein
.

Pag e 2 6 o f 5 02
. Avita t

Allege s Tha t

Th e Preceden t

Relie dUpo n I n Th e Director' s Determinatio n Doe s No t Appl y T o Th e Cas e A t

Hand
. I n it s Appeal , Avitat

argue s tha t

th e Director , "relyin g o n inapposit e precedent , analogize d Avitat' s Complain t

t o thos e o f

th e complainant s i n th e Director' s cite dcases , whos e goal s wer e t o ge t abette r dea l tha n originall y agree dt o b y renegotiatin g thei r ow n leases
. Avitat , however , i s no t complainin g abou t

it s ow n lease s i n thi s action. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 19. ] Avitat attempt s t o distinguis h th e cas e at bar an dargue s that , Th e Directo r

relie s primaril y o n four

cases . Adventure , Aerodynamics , Penobscot , an d Sant aMonic aAirpor t

Authority . . .Ther e i s n o connectio n betwee n th e preceden t cite d an dth e Director' s position
. Th e preceden t cite db y th e Directo r

refer s t o situation s wher e a n FB O faile dt o tak e advantag e o f a n opportunit y t o negotiat e for itsel f aleas e with a s advantageou s term s a s thos e i n it s competitor' s leases , an dthe n develope dacas e o f buyer' s remorse.. . Indicativ e o f th e Director' s erro r

o f analysi s i s hi s emphasi s o n a sentenc e i n Penobsco t

tha t states,.. . [t]h e cour t

reasone dtha t

acommercia l enterpris e canno t negotiat e arenta l agreemen t tha t require s aparticular

paymen t an drat e schedule , commenc e doin g busines s an dearnin g profits , an dthe n complai n tha t th e dea l was unfair.' ^ [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m13 , page s 21-23 ] Avita t als o argue s that
. Sinc e th e preceden t

th e Directo r

relie s o n almos t

exclusivel y i s distinguishable , that preceden t mus t b e discounte da s support fo r th e Director' s Determination
. B y basin g hi s decisio n o n th e distinguishabl e precedent , th e Directo r ha s focuse do n Avitat' s actio n with respect

t o it s negotiatio n o f

it s 200 5 an d200 6 leases , whe n i n fac t th e Directo r shoul dhav e focuse do n th e unjustl y discriminatory effec t o f th e Airport

Management' s action s i n enterin g int o arrangement s with Panoram aan dWestai r tha t g o fa r beyon dth e circumscribe drigh t

t o sel l je t fue l originall y allowed
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 23

- 24. ] I n thei r Repl y t o th e Appeal , th e County responded , "Notwithstandin g Avitat' s unsubstantiate d claim s t o th e contrary , th e Director' s relianc e o n prio r par t 1 6 preceden t

wa s entirel y appropriate
. Avitat' s argumen t

that th e Directo r

erroneousl y reliedo n preceden t i s b£ise do n th e fault

y assumptio n that , t o b e relevant, preceden t mus t hav e fact s identica l t o th e instan t case . Th e la w i s not , however , s o clea n an dsimple
. N o tw o case s ar e identical , an dapplicatio n o f preceden t

i s base do n analogy , no t

exac t matches
. Tha t

Avitat may disagre e wit h th e preceden t relie dupo n

' * Avita t refers t o th e followin

g case s i n it s appea l a t pg . 21 : Aerodynamic s o f

Reading , Inc , v. Reading Regiona l Airpor t Authority , FA

A Docke t No
. 16-00-03,(Fina

l Decision an dOrder

) (July 23 , 2001) , Adventur

e Aviatio n v . Cit y o f La s Cruces , NM

, FA A Docke t No
. 16

- 01-1 4 (Final Decision an dOrder) (Septembe r 15 , 2003) , Penobsco t

Air Service , Ltd , v . Count

y o f Kno x Boar do f Commissioners , FA

A Docke t No
. 16-97-0

4 (Final Decision an dOrder ) (Januar y 20 , 1997) , Sant aMonic aAirpor

t Association v . Cit

y o f Sant aMonica , FA

A Docke t No ? 16-99-2 1 (Fin dDecision an dOrder ) (Februar y 4 , 2003 ) Pag e 2 7 o f 5 0b y th e Directo r doe s no t mea n tha t

th e Directo r

erre di n applyin g suc h precedent. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m14 , page s 7-8 ] Avitat i s nustaken
. Th e Director' s Determinatio n discusse dpreviou s Part 1 6 case s analogous t o thi s Complaint
. Th e Directo r di ds o i n par t

a s arespons e t o th e County' s us e o f thes e ceises
. Th e Directo r noted , "Th e Count y present s numerou s par t 1 6 precedent s tha t

suppor t th e contentio n that th e partie s i n thi s cas e may not b e similarl y situate dfor

th e purpos e o f

determinin g unjus t discrimination..
. Avitat , agree dt o term s tha t differedfro

mthos e o f

acompetito r

already o n th e airport. " [FA

A Exhibi t I , Item16 , DD , pg . 24. ] Th e Directo r

als o use dPar

t 1 6 precedent

t o illustrate tw o point s a

t issu e i n thi s Complaint : (1 ) tha

t th e LG A FBO s an dth e Je t

FBO s are no t

similarl y situated ; an d(2 ) that a n entit y canno t g o back i n time t o renegotiate already existin g leases
. I t i s als o important

to point ou t that th e burden fall s on Avita t t o sho w tha

t it i s similarl y situate dt o th e othe r FBOs
. Aerodynamic s support s thi s propositio n an dAvita t ha s no t satisfie dthat

burden
. Th e Director' s us e o f precedent , particularl y Adventure , summarize s prio r

FA A polic y regardin g asimila r situatio n in circumstance s o f pas t negotiate d agreements . Long-standin g FA A polic y an dprecedent

tha t hav e withstoo djudicia l challeng e establis h that

gran t assuranc e 2 2 doe s no t

require that

airpor t sponsor s charg e al l FBO s identical leas e rate s i

n orde r t o avoi dunjus t

economi c discrimination
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Item16 , pag e 25 ] Aeordynamics , Penobscot , andSMAA recognize th e airport' s abilit y t o distinguis h betwee n lessees
. Th e right s an drestriction s applicabl e t o Westai r an dPanoram awer

e i n plac e prio r

t o Avita t comin g t o term s wit

h th e Count

y in 200 5 an d2006
. Contrar y t o Avitat' s assertio n o n pag e 2 4 o f it s appeal , th e lease s provide dth e FBO s wit h th e right

t o sel l je t fue l under limite dcircumstance s in th e future
. [FA A Exhibi t I , Item1 , exhs. 5 & 6. ] Thos e lease s were no t u p fo r negotiatio n by athirdpart y and Avita t make s n o suc h claim
. Avitat kne w o f th e other FB O leas e term s an ddifference s at th e time it entere dit s ow n leases
. Th e distinctio n in th e FBO s andthei r purpos e i s clear
. [Id
. se e als o FA A Exhibi t 1 , Item16,pg
. 28. ] Th e Director' s Determinatio n als o acknowledge dtha t difference s in busines s model , strategy , negotiatio n choice s an daggressivenes s ca n alon e resul t

i n dissimilarity
. [FA

A Exhibi t I , Item16 , pg . 27. ] "Avitat' s argument—tha t th e LG A FBOs ' focu s o n competin g wit h Avitat , functionally

— make s the msimilarl y situate di s unconvincin g an dunsupporte dby Par t 1 6 precedent
. Rather , Par t 1 6 precedent support s th e conclusio n that leas e terms , negotiations , agreement s an dtimin g o f agreement s matter

when determinin g similarl y situate dcompetitors
. A s state din Adventure , Aerodynamics , Penobscot , an dSMAA , agreein g t o difference s i n rights, restrictions, responsibilitie s an drent s i n agreement s amon g existin g FBO s necessaril y support s th e conclusio n tha t

th e partie s ar e not

similarl y situate dfor

th e purpose s o f

finding imjus t

economi c discrimination
. Thi s i s a n importan t concept , becaus e n o gran t assuranc e protect s a n aeronautica l servic e provide r frommor e effectiv e competition. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 6 pag e 30 ] Th e Directo r

recognize dth e difference s betwee n th e FBO s her e an dexplore dwhat was equitable
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 6 pg . 28-31. ] Th e preceden t i n Aerodynamics , Adventur e Aviation , Penobscot , an dSant aMonic aAirpor t Associatio n a s applie db y th e Directo r was o n poin t i n th e cas e a t

hand
. Th e Directo r

di dnot rel y o n thes e previou s Determination s t o th e exten t tha t th e fact s o f

thi s instan t

Complain t

wer e ignored
. Althoug h Avita t disagree s with th e Director' s analysi s an dfindings i n thi s case , th e cas e preceden t was,applie dappropriatel y i n ligh t o f th e fact s an dspecifi c circumstemce s relate dt o thi s Complain t Th e conclusion s mad e b y th e Pag e 2 8 o f 5 0Directo r

stan do n th e specifi c analysi s o f th e fact s an dsupportin g documentatio n presente d therei n an dd o not

simpl y res t

o n precedent
. Accordingly , th e Associat e Administrato r finds tha t th e Director' s Determinatio n di dno t er r i n th e applicatio n o f

cas e precedent
. 3
. Di dTh e Directo r

Er r B y Makin g Certai n Assumption s Concernin g Avitat' s Lease s Whic h Avita t

Alleges Wer e No t

I n Th e Record
. Avitat argue s o n Appea l that , "Th e Directo r relie s heavil y o n th e propositio n tha t Avitat faile dt o addres s th e issue s raise di n it s Complain t i n it s leas e negotiation s i n 200 5 an d2006
. I n doin g so , th e Directo r

assume s areasonabl y leve l playin g fieldi n whic h suc h issue s coul db e negotiated
. Suc h an assumptio n i s not supporte db y an y fact s i n th e record.
. .Th e Directo r als o assume s that Avitat wa s awar e o f

th e "rights , restriction s an dresponsibilities " o f th e LG A FBO s i n th e contex t o f thei r dispensin g je t

fuel a t th e tim e i t

entere dint o it s 200 5 an d200 6 leases
. Whil e Avita t was awar e that

LG A FBO s wer e sellin g je t fiiel , i t di dno t hav e knowledg e o f

th e Septembe r

20 , 2001 , lette r

fromth e Airpor t

Manage r grantin g permissio n t o Panoram aan dWestai r t o sel l je t fuel o r th e detail s o f

th e LG A FBOs ' 'rights , restriction s an dresponsibilities ' at th e tim e i t

wa s negotiatin g it s leases. " [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 25. ] Th e County' s Repl y states , "Th e Director' s fmdin g that Avita t wa s awar e o f

th e LG A FBO s rights, restrictions an dresponsibilities was base dupo n apreponderanc e o f evidenc e i n th e record , includin g fact s showin g tha t Avita t admit s i t kne w th e LG A FBO s wer e sellin g je t fuel sinc e 2001 ; tha t

Avita t attempte dt o acqiur e Westaf r wit h knowledg e o f

Westair' s busines s operations ; an dtha t

Avita t i s locate dadjacen t

t o th e LG A FBO s an dca n se e th e typ e an dmanne r o f activity occurrin g o n th e LG A FBO' s premises
. Thus , contrary t o Avitat' s assertion s i n it s Appeal , th e Directo r

appropriatel y relie do n th e recor dt o support hi s Determinatio n an ddi dno t mak e an y 'assumptions ' tha t grantin g th e LG A FBO s alimite dright t o sel l je t fuel woul dhel p achiev e th e County' s policie s o f providin g adequate , cost-effectiv e facilitie s for ligh t genera l aviation. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m14 , pag e 9. ] I n th e Determination , th e Directo r stated , "...Avita t

agree dt o difference s in rights, restrictions , responsibilitie s an drent

betwee n th e tw o differen

t classe s o f

FBO s a t th e Airpor

t in it s 200 5 Avitat Lease
. Thi s agreement

make s thes e difference s sufficien t t o mak e Avita t dissimilarl y situate dt o th e LG A FBOs , in par

t becaus e Avita

t ha s no t an di s no t requesting simila

r treatmen t t o th e LG A FBO s fromth e County , an di s no t seekin g acces s t o additional aeronautical business , but i s onl y seekin g a limitatio n on existin g aeronautical businesse s (th e LG A FBO ) whos e agreement s existe dbefor e th e Complainant' s curren t

agreement. " [FA

A Exhibi t 1 , Item16 , pag e 30 ] I n th e Determination , th e Directo r create databl e fromth e pleading s i n thi s cas e tha

t identifie dth e difference s betwee n th e LG A FBO s an dAvitat' s lease
. Th e tabl e compare dth e service s eac h clas s o f FB O wa s requiredt o provide ; wha t service s were permitted , weight restrictions, an dth e square footag e o f th e lease dpremises
. Th e Directo r als o cite daquote fromAvita t tha t went into detai l on th e rent s pai db

y Avitat an dth e LG

A FBOs , permi t

fee s an dth e amount

o f percentag e o f

gros s sale s that eac h entit y wa s require dt o pa

y th e County
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Item16 , pag e 23 ] Th e detai l provide db y Avita

t wa s sufficien

t fo r th e Directo r

t o mak e alogica l assumptio n that

Avita t hadi n dept h informatio n about

th e LG A FB O leases
.

Pag e 2 9 o f 5 0However , th e primar y issue s d o no t

rest on when Avita

t became aware o f

th e leas e term s o f

th e LG A FBOs
. Avita

t negotiate dit s ow n leas e agreemen t wit h th e Count

y in goo dfait

h an ddi dno t

objec t to it s ow n leas e term s i

n th e Complaint
. Th e material fact in th e instant

Complaint

i s tha t th e tw o classe s o f FBO s ar e no t

similarl y situate db

y agreement . The Directo r devote dseveral page s o f analysi s t o th e questio n o f

whether Avita t an dth e LG

A FBO s were similarl y situated
. Th e analysi s conclude dthat

Avita t an dth e LG

A FBO s were purposefiilly dissimila r an dtherefore it

wa s acceptabl e under

th e grant assurance s fo

r th e Count

y t o hav e different

term s fo r th e rights , restrictions , responsibilitie s an dren t fo r each
. Long-standin g FA

A polic y an dprecedent

establis h that

grant assuranc e 2 2 doe s no t

require tha

t airpor t sponsor s charg e al l FBO s identical leas e rates in order t o avoi dunjus t

economi c discrimination
. [FA

A Exhibi t 1 , Item16 , pag e 25. ] Th e fact that th e LG A FBO s ma

y hav e amarket share o f th e je t fue l sale s o n th e Airport , withi n th e limitation s o f thei r leas e agreements , doe s no t rise t o a n unjustly discriminator

y actio n towardAvitat.' ^ Accordingly , th e Associate Administrato r finds tha t th e Directo r

di dno t er r an ddi dno t

mak e incorrec t assumption s fromth e record
. Th e recordi s straightforwardin it s identificatio n o f th e difference s betwee n th e tw o classe s o f FB O an dther e i s n o ambiguit y i n th e Director' s analysi s whic h wa s base din relevant par t o n documentatio n provide db y Avitat
. 4
. Avita t Argue s Tha t

N o Connectio n Exist s Betwee n Th e Airpor t Manager' s Gran t

O f Th e Righ t T o Sel l Je t

Fue l An dAvitat' s Acceptanc e Oflt s Leas e Agreemen t I n 200 5 An d2006
. Avita t claim s "B y Airpor t

Management' s permittin g Panoram aan dWestai r t o sel l je t fiiel t o transien t aircraf t unde r 50,00 0 lbs , th e Count y ha s allowe dPanoram aan dWestai r t o establis h an dove r tim e increas e marke t

shar e - marke t

shar e whic h ha s bee n take n fromth e Je t FBOs
. Th e County , thus , ha s dfrectl y interfere di n th e marke t fo r je t fiiel, placin g th e subsidize d Panoram aan dWestaf

r i n dfrec t competitio n with th e Je t FBO..
. Th e Count y ha s favore d Panoram aan dWestafr..
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pag e 26. ] Th e County defend s it s decisio n t o allo w th e LG A FBO s alimite dauthorit y t o sel l je t fiiel a s reasonabl e give n th e cfrcumstance s a t th e Airpor t

becaus e th e LG A FBO s ar e mor e constraine d tha n th e Je t

FBO s i n term s o f

financia l ability an dabilit y t o tak e busines s risks.'* [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 , p p 32-33. ] Additionally , th e Count y state s "contrar y t o Avitat' s assertion , th e sal e o f je t fuel ha s alway s bee n 'allowed ' b y th e LG A FB O lease , an di t shoul db e n o surpris e t o Avitat that th e LG A FB O wer e grante daright i n accordanc e with th e term s o f thei r leases
. Sectio n 3. 6 o f eac h leas e contemplate dtha t eac h LG A FB O coul db e grante da n unqualifie d'righ t t o sel l je t fiiel' i f thei r percentag e o f

based , smal l G A afrcraf

t tha t use dje t fiiel exceede d1 0 percent.. . th e contemplate dright

t o sel l je t fiiel existe di n eac h leas e an dwa s no t qualifie di n an y manner , whethe r with regar dt o transien t

aircraft , weigh t

o f afrcraf t o r otherwise. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 6 , p p 32-33 ]

' ^ The addedabilit

y o f Westai r an dPanoramat o sell je t

fue l t o lowe r weigh t aircraf t doe s no t i n an do f itself mak e the man dth e larg e aircraf

t Jet FBO' s similarly situated
. ' * Th e Director als o notedtha

t the Count y grante dth e LG

A FBO s permissio n to retai l je t fiiel o n Septembe r 20,2001 , afte

r th e change s i

n the marke

t i n par t du e t o th e aftermat

h o f th e attack s o f

9/11
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pg . 34, ] Pag e 3 0 o f 5 0Th e County als o remind s u s that , "Th e Directo r reviewe dth e record...an dcorrectl y determine d tha t th e County' s limite dauthorizatio n [to ] th e LG A FBO s t o sel l je t fiiel 'di dno t

impos e a significan t

burde n o n Avitat. ' Moreover , th e Directo r rejecte dAvitat' s assertio n that th e tw o classe s o f FB O ar e distinguishe db y jus t on e trai t (i.e. , th e authorizatio n t o sel l je t fuel) ; rather , h e foun dtha t

th e tw o classe s ar e differen t becaus e o f

alon g lis t

o f differin g rights, restriction s an dresponsibilities." [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m14 , pag e 10 ] Avita t i s not subsidizin g th e othe r

leaseholds
. Avitat' s leas e appear s t o b e basedo n reasonabl e rental rates . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibit s 4-5-6 ] I f Avita t wer e payin g disparatel y highe r renta l rates tha n th e othe r FBOs , i t coul db e see n a s subsidizin g othe r airpor t tenant s o r

airport activities
. Avitat

ha s no t provide dan y documentatio n o r suggeste dtha t

it s rent s ar e unreasonable
. Moreover , th e Director' s Determinatio n foun dtha t "County' s belo w marke t rental rate s for specifi c rights an dacces s t o facilitie s unde r th e LG A FB O Lease s t o ensur e servic e t o a segmen t o f th e aeronautica l communit y i s no t aviolatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 24. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m16 , pg . 39. ] It

i s als o not

aviolatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 22
. A s se t

fort h above , th e Director' s Determinatio n provide dlength y analysi s o n competitio n an dlong-standin g FA A polic y an dprecedent

establishin g tha

t gran t assuranc e 2 2 doe s no t

require tha

t airpor t sponsor s charg e al l FBO s identical leas e rates in order t o avoi dunjus t

economi c discrimination
. [See FA A Exhibi t 1 , Item16 , page s 20-38. ] The fact that th e LG A FBO s ma

y hav e amarke t

share o f th e je t fiie l sale s on th e Airport , withi n th e limitation s o f thei r leas e agreements , doe s no t ris e t o a n unjustly discriminator

y actio n towardAvitat
. Finally , arevie w o f

th e landavailabl e t o Westair , Panoram aan dAvita t show s tha

t Avita t ha s significantly mor

e are ato provid e fiiel service s t o transien t aircraf t tha t eithe r Westair o r Panorama
. Additionally , Westair

an dPanoram aar

e restrictedt o fiiel sale s o n thei r leasehold s wherea s Avita t ma y sel l fue l t o aircraf t a t any locatio n o n th e Airpor t excep t fo r Westair an dPanorama' s lease darea . Facilitie s Westair Panoram a Avita t T-hanga r spac e Tie-dow n spac e Larg e hanga

r spac e Apro n spac e 58,20 0 sq . ft.

11 5 15,00 0 sq.ft
. 35,00 0 54,87 6 sq . ft. 10 0 19,95 0 sq . ft. 35,00 0 sq . ft. Non e

Non e 63,03 2 combine dsq . ft 225,52 7 combine dsq . ft. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 6 p g 23 ] Th e Associate Administrato r finds th e Directo r

wa s correc t

i n concludin g that

th e Count y i s no t i n violatio n o f

Grant Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. Avita t ha s no t presente dany evidenc e o n Appea

l that permissio n grante db y th e Count y t o allo w Panoram aan dWestair alimite d abilit y t o sel l je t

fue l i s aviolatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 22
. Avitat' s proffere dargument that i t ha s los t market share becaus e o f

Westair an dPanorama' s limite dabilit y t o sel l je t

fue l i s unpersuasive
. Avita t fail s t o acknowledg e an dtake into accoun t it s direc t competitio n fromth e other tw o larg e FBOs
. Avita

t doe s no t predic t any impac t

o n marke t

share (u p o r

dow n in light

o f Westair an d Panorama' s curren t

situatio n o r

th e on e that

Avitat desire s fo r Westair an dPanorama ) wit

h regardt o it s direc t competition , on e o f

whic h sell s fue

l belo w Avitat' s rate . Additionally , th e LG A FB O Lease s are clea

r i n tha t permissio n t o sel l je t

fiie l o n alimite dbasi s wa s apossibility
. Th e fact tha t th e Coimt y acte do n thi s leas e provisio n an dgav e permissio n t o Panoram aan dWestair t o sell je t fiie l Pag e 3 1 o f 5 0to aircraf

t weighin g les s than 50,00 0 lbs
. di dno t trigge r a n unjustly discriminator

y situatio n fo

r Avitat
. Accordingly , base don th e record, th e Associate Administrato r finds Westair

an dPanoram a hav e no t been unreasonabl y favore dover Avita t by th e County , no r

ha s Avita t subsidize dth e LG

A FBOs , an dtherefore th e Count y i s no t in violatio n o f

it s federa l obligations
. 5
. Avitat' s Miscellaneou s Claim s O n Appea l
a . Avita t Allege s Change s Wer e Mad e An dDevelopment s Occurre dAfte r Avitat' s Signin g O f

200 5 An d200 6 Lease s Which Constitut e Continue dUnjus t Discriminatio n (1 ) Wit h Panorama' s reques t fo r leas e change s th e count y change dth e rule s fo r Westai r an dPanoram ai n 200 7 an d(2 ) Panoram aAn dWestai r hav e aggressivel y markete dthemselve s a s Je t FBO s an dhav e no t

'protected ' th e ligh t genera l aviatio n sector . The Associate Administrato r note s tha t th e argument

Avitat present s o n th e 200 7 Letter wa s no t argue di n thi s manner

t o th e Director , bu t

it coul db e viewe da s avariatio n o f argumen t presente d durin g th e Par

t 1 6 process . Th e Associate Administrato r als o note s that

Avitat doe s no t explai n ho w thes e claim s relate t o any erro r i n th e Director' s £)etermination
. Specifically , Avita

t no w argue s o n appeal , "I n January , 2007 , th e County' s Directo r o f Real Estate agree dt o modif

y Panorama' s leas e t o includ e th e term s o f th e 200 1 Letter

Agreement..
. Such a

n amendment

woul dsolidif

y th e interi mqualifie dapproval granted...b y th e airpor t manager . Thi s i s a majo r concessio n o n th e par

t o f th e County...b y includin g i t i n th e lease , th e right

become s transferabl e t o athirdparty. . .an dsecon dbecaus e i t i s aright unde r th e lease , i t

i s no t subjec t t o bein g revoke d'upo n 6 0 days ' notic e a s wa s previousl y th e case. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Item13 , pag e 27 ] I n response, th e Count

y state s tha

t th e 200 7 letter

doe s no t involv e Westair
. Second , Avita t concede s i n it s Appea

l a t pag e 2 7 tha

t th e 200 7 letter

solidifie s th e interi mqualifie dapproval grante dby th e Count y i n 2001
. Third , th e 200 7 letter simpl y confirme dth e statu s qu o that hadexiste dsinc e 200 1 andfinally, th e term s o f

th e letter d o no t impac t th e revocation claus e o f

th e lease
. [FA

A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m14 , pg . 14. ] Westair

an dPanorama' s lease s consis t o f substantiall y th e same term s an d conditions
. Avita t als o argue s tha

t sinc e Avita

t signe dit s 200 5 an d200 6 leases , th e LG A FBO s "hav e bee n aggressivel y marketin g themselve s a s Je t FBO s an dabandonin g th e light general aviatio n sector...Thus , th e justificatio n fo r providin g Panoram aan dWestair wit h significant

subsidie s an d permissio n t o sel l je t

fiiel i s n o longer

valid. " [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Item13 , pag e 27-28 ] The Director' s Determinatio n note dthat Avitat "...specificall y acknowledge s th e reasonablenes s o f th e County' s action s t o preserv e th e economi c viabilit y an dservice s offere db y th e LGA FBOs
. Wha t Avita t object s t o i s th e right

grante dth e LG

A FBO s in 200 1 t o fiiel some je t aircraf t o n thei r lease dpremises
. Avita

t seek s t o hav e th e Count

y revoke thi s limite dright fo r th e LG A FBO s t o fue

l je t aircraf t notwithstandin g th e fact

that thi s practic e commence dbefor e Avita t accepte dit s leas e agreement s i

n 200 5 an d2006. " [FA

A Exhibi t 1 , Item16 , page s 34-35 ] I n January , 2007 , th e Count y refiisedt o allo w Panoram at o remov e th e term , "ligh t general aviatio n fixedbase " fromit s Lease , noting , "Th e Count y wil l absolutel y no t

agre e t o thi s request " "Furthermore , whil e Panorama' s suggeste dalteratio n t o th e agreement...coul dconceivabl y resul t in Pag e 3 2 o f 5 0greater

compensatio n pai dt o Panorama.
. .thes e alteration s woul drun directl y counte r t o th e County' s goa l o f maintainin g an dsupportin g Light General Aviatio n a

t th e Westchester

Count y Airport. " [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m1 , ex . 31 , p p 2- 3 andItem6 , ex . HH , p p 2-3 ] Th e Associate Administrato r doe s not findth e County' s modificatio n o f th e Westair

o r Panoram a lease s to resul t

i n any ne w rights o r

obligation s fo

r th e LG A FBOs
. Th e partie s d o no t gai n additional benefit s tha

t were no t already contemplated
. Th e Directo r foun dthat th e Count

y wa s no t actin g i n a n unjustly discriminator

y manner b y administerin g th e LG

A FB O leases
. [FA

A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m16 , pag e 35 ] (Even thoug h Avita t dispute s th e fac

t tha t th e LG A FBO s are allowe dunder thei r leas e agreement s t o sel l je t fiiel, it doe s no t mea n tha t th e Count y i s actin g contrar

y t o it s grant assurance s o r

i s unjustly discriminatin g agains t Avitat. ) The LG

A FB O lease s allowe dfo

r potential je t fue l sale s i n 1999 ; the y obtaine dpermissio n t o actuall y sel l je t fue l in 2001
. [FAA Exhibi t

I , Item 1 , exhibit s 4-5-6 ] Between 200 1 an d2005 , Avita t ha dth e opf>ortunit

y t o discover

that th e LG A FBO s were sellin g je t

fue l an dmak e appropriate change s t o thei r busines s pla

n hadthey wishe dt o d o so . Th e 200 7 letter

ha s n o impac t

on Avitat' s lease
. Th e gran t assurance s ar e no t

in plac e t o protec t an y busines s fromfai

r competitio n an dthey ca

n no t b e use dt o retroactively restrict th e contrac t right s grante dt o competin g an dother busines s entities
. The Associate Administrato r finds that Avitat' s allegatio n that

th e Count y ha s faile dt o "protec t

th e ligh t general aviatio n sector ' at th e Airport, " ha s no merit
. Th e fac t that th e LG A FBO s hav e a limite dright

t o sel l je t fue l fromthei r

existin g leasehold s doe s no t diminis h thei r

obligation s under th e leas e agreement s t o provid e extensiv e service s t o th e light general aviatio n marke t

at th e Airport
. Th e Associate Administrato r finds tha t th e 200 7 Letter

hadn o impac t

o n th e leasehold s an daffirm s th e Director' s Determinatio n that th e Count y i s no t unjustly discriminatin g agains t Avita t becaus e th e LG A FBO s hav e alimite dright t o sel l je t fiiel. (3 ) Avita t Allege s Th e Directo r

Misread s Panorama' s an dWestair' s Leases , Makin g Assumption s tha t

Ar e No t Ther e an dEliminatin g Significan t Portions
. I n it s Appeal , Avita

t argue s that

th e Directo r

made severa

l error s in hi s reading o f

th e 199 9 ligh

t genera l aviatio n FB O leases
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Item14 , pgs . 28-31. ] Specifically , Avita t allege s tha

t th e Directo r

misreadth e leas e provision s regarding th e type s o f aircraf t that th e LG A FBO s ar

e permitte dt o bas e o n thei r

leasehold s an dfuel , an dtha t th e Directo r

mus t loo k t o th e request

fo r proposal s (RFP ) fo

r a n interpretatio n o f

th e LG A FB O leases
. [Id. ] Th e Directo r

reviewe dth e recordan danalyze dth e LG A FBO' s leas e term s an dth e RFP
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Item16 , pgs . 4-9,23 , 28 , an d3 4 n.9. ] Upo n review , th e lease s ar e clea r a s t o th e permissibl e rights an drestrictions. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Item1 , exhibit s 4-5-6 ] O n it s face , th e lease s ar e clear tha t th e tenan t

ma y bas e u p t o twelv e aircraf t belo w 50,00 0 lbs
. Th e FB O leases , not

th e RFPs , ar e th e controllin g document s unde r evaluatio n tha t

gran t wha t rights an dcondition s FBO s t o may exercis e t o operat e a t thi s Airport
. Ther e hav e bee n n o allegation s that

th e LG A FBO s ar e basin g mor e tha n twelv e aircraft
. Avitat' s concer n i s no t abou t th e numbe r

o f basedafrcraf

t o n th e LG A FB O leaseholds , but abou t th e ability o f

th e LG A FBO s t o sel l je t

fiiel t o transien t

aircraf t u p t o 50,00 0 lb s a s aresult o f permissio n grante di n th e Septembe r

21 , 200 1 Letter
. Thi s ha s bee n discusse dpreviously
. Th e Airpor t grante dthi s limite d ability t o sel l je t

ftiel t o th e LG A FBO s i n 2001 , an do n Januar y 11,2007 , agree dt o modif y th e Leas e v^th Panorama
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

31 ] However,*eve n i f

th e leas e with Pag e 3 3 o f 5 0Panoram ai s no t amended , th e bas e leas e stil l give s ane w operato r assigne dth e leas e th e right t o petitio n th e Airport

t o sel l je t fuel a s Panoram adid
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

5 ] A n airport

wil l ofte n modif

y leas e term s with it s ten^it s t o serv e apurpose . Incorporatio n o f term s negotiate di n letter s o f agreemen t

o r othe r interi mdocument s modifyin g aleas e durin g it s termint o ane w leas e doe s no t necessaril y constitut e aviolatio n o f th e gran t assurances . Th e Associat e Administrato r

finds tha t

th e Directo r

di dnot misrea do r

misinterpre t

th e leas e term s fo r di e LGA FBOs
. I n th e Director' s Determination , th e Directo r stated , "RFP s ar e no t

controllin g documents , under th e grant assurances . The FA

A doe s no t

enforc e pas t

policies , practice s o r

interest s o f

airpor t management , a s expresse di n a n RFP
. RFP s are solicitation s t o intereste dpartie s t o conduc t a busines s on a

n airport
. The FA

A expect s airpor

t sponsor s t o chang e an devolv e t o addres s th e bes t interest s o f

th e aeronautical public. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Item16 , pag e 33 ] Th e Directo r

als o state dtha t

th e FA A wa s unabl e t o determin e tha t th e Count y i s responsibl e for Avitat' s ow n choic e t o rely o n th e languag e o f a10-yea r ol dRFP , instea do f

relying o n th e obviousl y know n an dtransparen t practice s o f

th e County an do f

th e LG A FBO s o n th e airfiel di n 2001 , 2002 , 2003 , 200 4 an di n 200 5 whe n Avita t agree dt o tiie 200 5 Avita t Lease
. An y lac k

o f due-diligenc e o n Avitat' s part i s Avitat' s responsibility , no t th e County' s responsibility
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m16 , pag e 33. ] I n hi s Determination , th e Directo r correctl y conclude dtha t

"a n allegatio n o f

unreasonabl e denia l o f acces s b y mean s o f

a n unreasotiabl e term. . .als o fall s o n th e basi s tha t Avita t agree dt o th e competitiv e situatio n a t

th e Airport , i n existenc e sinc e 2001 , i n it s 200 5 Avita t Leas e an dagai n i n 2006. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m16 , pag e 35. ] Furthermore , sinc e ther e i s n o lega l basi s o r support t o dee man RF P acontrollin g documen t unde r th e gran t assurances , asponso r

canno t b e hel dt o it s language , particularl y whe n th e document s ar e te n year s ol da s i s th e cas e i n thi s Complaint
. Th e Associat e Administrato r concur s with th e Dfrector' s Determinatio n an dfinds tha t languag e i n th e FB O lease s i s clear an dareasonabl e an dproperl y applie di n acontrac t execute db y th e partie s t o th e contract , thu s ther e i s n o error . C
. GRAN T ASSURANC E 23 , EXCLUSIV E RIGHT S Avitat' s appea

l allege s tha

t th e County' s action s are i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 23
. [FA

A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pg . 2 an d16. ] Avitat' s complaint

argues : "I n thi s matter , th e Count

y ha s impose dasignificant burde n o n th e Je t

FBO s by allowin g th e LG A FBO s th e right

t o sel l je t fiiel whil e no t

payin g marke t

rent I t i s asignificant

burde n sinc e th e Je t

FBO s hav e no t

received, amon g othe r

things , th e PFC subsidie s an dth e substantiall y belo w marke t ren t Thi s allow s th e LG

A FBO s t o sel l thei r

je t fiiel at pric e much lowe

r tha n th e Je t FBOs
. Thus , becaus e o f

al l o f th e financial benefit s tha

t th e LG A FBO s hav e receive dfromth e County , the y hav e effectively receive da n exclusiv e right : th e Pag e 3 4 o f 5 0County' s financial benefit s allo w th e LG A FBO s t o pric e thei r je t fiie l a t a n uncompetitivel y lo w rat e i n violatio n o f

th e Airport' s gran t

Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights. " FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m16 , pg . 36. ] Avita t allege s tha t

aconstructiv e gran t

o f a n exclusiv e righ t

i s conferre do n Panoram aan dWestai r sinc e th e Count y ha s burdene dAvita t an dothe r

Je t FBO s wit h th e cos t

o f economicall y supportin g Panoram aan dWestair
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pg . 16. ] Avita t theorize s tha t

th e allege dsubsidie s permi t Panoram aan dWestai r

"t o discoun t

th e pric e o f

je t fiiel t o aleve l substantiall y belo w tha t whic h ca n b e supporte db y Je t FBOs. " Furthermore , Avita t allege s th e burde n o f

thos e subsidie s i s born e o n "th e shoulder s o f Avita t an dth e othe r

Je t FBOs. " [I d a t pg . 34. ] Th e Count y rejects Avitat' s argumen t becaus e i t

reflite s th e premis e tha t th e LG A FBO' s ren t

i s bein g subsidized
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , pg . 14. ] I n addition , th e Count y denie s Avitat' s clai m arguin g tha t

ther e i s n o causa l relationshi p betwee n th e County' s action s an dth e pric e a t whic h LG A FBO s sel l je t

fuel
. Moreover , th e Count y ha s no t exclude dAvita t

fromperformin g an y on-airpor t activities
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m3 , pg . 36. ] Th e Director' s Determinatio n attempte dt o mak e sens e o f Avitat' s argument s linkin g unjus t economi c discriminatio n t o aconstructiv e grantin g o f a n exclusiv e right

i n th e analysi s o n page s 3 6 an d3 7 o f th e Determination
. Th e Directo r reasons "Avitat' s argumen t fail s o n di e fac t

tha t th e Count y di dno t

impos e asignifican t

burde n o n Avitat
. Rathe r Avita t agree dt o awholl y differen t se t o f rights , restrictions , responsibilitie s an drents i n th e 200 5 Avita t Leas e whil e th e LG A FB O Lease s ha dexiste dfo r

year s prio r

t o 2005
. Th e Directo r

examine dth e Complain t i n ligh t o f Avitat' s lease s an dth e applicatio n o f

severa l Par t

1 6 case s argue db y th e parties"
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m16 , pg . 37. ] Agains t thi s backdrop , th e Associat e Administrato r rejects Avitat' s argumen t fo r aviolatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 23
. Th e applicabl e la w an dpolic y regardin g Exclusiv e Right s an dGran t Assuranc e 2 3 i s applie d here
. [Se e pgs . 15-2 0 infra. ] A n exclusiv e right

i s define da s apower , privilege , o r othe r right excludin g o r

debarrin g anothe r fromenjoyin g o r

exercisin g alik e power , privilege , o r right. A n exclusiv e right ca n b e conferre d eithe r b y expres s agreement , b y th e impositio n o f unreasonabl e standard s o r requfrements, o r

b y an y othe r means . Suc h aright

conferre do n on e o r

mor e parties , bu t

excludin g other s from enjoyin g o r

exercisin g asimila r

right o r rights, woul db e a n exclusiv e right. [FA A Advisor y Circula r 150/5190-6 , Exclusiv e Right s a t Federall y Obligate dAirports , Appendi x 1 (Januar y 4 , 2007). ]

'^ Aerodynamic s o f

Reading , Inc , v . Readin g Regiona l Airpor t Authority , FA

A Docke t No
. 16-00

- 03,(Fina l Decisio n an dOrder ) (Jul y 23 , 2001) , Adventur e Aviatio n v . Cit y o f La s Cruces , NM , FA

A Docke t No
. 16-01-1 4 (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder ) (Septembe r 15 , 2003) , Penobsco t

Ai r Service , Ltd , v . Coimt y o f Kno x Boar do f

Commissioners , FA

A Docke t No
. 16-97-0 4 (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder ) (Januar y 20 , 1997) , Sant aMonic aAirpor t Associatio n v . Cit

y o f Sant aMontca , FA

A Docket-No
. 16-99

- 2 1 (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder ) (Februar y 4 , 2003)
. Pag e 3 5 o f 5 0Avitat' s appea l allege s tha t th e County' s action s ar e i n violatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 23
. [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m13 , pg . 2 an d16. ] Th e allegatio n suppose s that aconstructiv e gran t

o f a n exclusiv e right

i s conferre do n Panoram aan dWestai r i f th e County ha s burdene dAvita t an d othe r Je t FBO s with th e cos t

o f economicall y supportin g Panoram aan dWestair
. [Id
. a t pg . 16. ] I n Platinu mAviatio n an dPlatinu mJe t Center BMI v . Bloomington-Norma l Airport Authority , FAA Docket No
. 16-06-0 9 (Nov
. 28 , 2007) , Complainants ' asserte dth e inabilit y t o mak e ful l us e o f it s "Priorit y Us e Area " violate dgran t assuranc e 23
. ^

° Complainants ' cite dFAA' s positio n that "an y unreasonabl e requirement

o r any standardtha

t i s applie din a

n unjustly discriminator

y manner ma y constitute th e constructiv e grant o f a n exclusiv e right." [See I da t p . 39. ] Th e Complainants ' construe dth e airport' s refusa l to permi t

i t t o par k aircraf t an dvehicle s in th e "Priorit y Us e Area " a s unjustly discriminatory
. [I dat pg . 39. ] The Platinu mDirector' s Determinatio n affirmedb y th e Fina l Agenc y Decisio n agree dthat parkin g aircraf t an dvehicle s o n taxiway s an dmovement area s compromise dsafet

y an dundermine dth e utilit y o f th e Airport
. Allowin g th e Complainant s t o shu t dow n activ e taxiway s woul dcaus e th e airpor t t o violate grant

assurance s 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPowers ; 19 , Operatio n an dMaintenance ; 23 , Exclusiv e Rights ; an d2 9 Airport Layout Plan
. Thus , Airport' s preventin g Complainant s fix)m parkin g aircraf

t i n a n are atha t interfere s wit

h th e us e o f

activ e taxiway s an dmovement area s wa s no t a n unreasonable'requirement
. [Idat pg . 39. ] I n addition , th e Complainant s i n Platinu mdi dno t

demonstrate that

th e competin g FB O wa s allowe d t o par k aircraf t tha t interfere dwit

h th e us e o f

activ e taxiway s an dmovement areas . Complainant s and th e competin g FB O wer

e no t similarl y situated
. Th e competin g FBO' s lease dpremise s di dno t encroac h o n publi c acces s taxiway s an dmovement area s whil e Complainants ' Priorit y Us e Are a encroache do n publi c acces s taxiway s an dmovement areas . Thus , there wa s n o finding o f unjus t economi c nondiscriminatio n upo n whic h t o bas e afinding o f aconstructiv e exclusiv e right. [Idat pg . 39. ] Th e cas e at

ba r i s similar i n regar dt o leas e application
. Lik e Complainant s i n Platinum , Avita t argue s th e LG A FBO s ar e indirectl y enjoyin g abenefi t not give n t o Avitat
. Avitat

argue s it i s debarre dfromenjoyin g th e same dea l a s th e LG

A FBOs
. Lik

e th e FBO s i

n Platinum , th e FAA ha s determine dtha

t Avita t i s not similarl y situate dt o th e LG A FBOs
. Avitat

ha s no t demonstrate dtha

t th e LG A FBO s are doin g anythin g other tha n wha t i s permitte dunder

thei r leasehold s an d agreements . Th e Airpor

t ha s no t unpose dany unreasonabl e requirement o r treate dAvitat

in a n unjustly discriminator

y fashion.^ ' Avita

t i s no t entitle dt o th e same dea

l a s th e LG

A FBO s an dth e Airpor t ha s no t grante dan

y constructiv e exclusiv e benefit t o any FBO
. Avita t als o theorize s tha t

th e allege dsubsidie s permi t Panoram aan dWestai r

"t o discoun t

th e pric e o f je t fuel t o aleve l substantiall y belo w that whic h ca n b e supporte db y Je t FBOs. " Furthermore , Avitat

allege s th e burde n o f

thos e subsidie s i s born e o n "th e shoulder s o f Avita t an dth e othe r

Je t FBOs. " [I dat

pg . 34. ] I t

woul dappear

tha t Avitat' s argumen t

i s simpl y tha t wha t i t perceive s a s afinancial benefi t t o th e LG A FBOs , i s don e s o a t Avita t an dth e othe r

Je t

^ ^ I n Platinum , th e "Priorit

y Us e Area " wa s comprisedo f publi c taxiway s an

dmovemen

t areas . ^ ' I n fact , the Director' s Determination note s tha t Avita t admit s i t ca n offe r fff i service s offere

db y th e LG A FBOs , bu

t choose s no

t to . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pg . 34. ] Pag e 3 6 o f 5 0FBO s expens e an dthu s create s an exclusiv e right. [Se e FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , p . 2 5 an dIte m9 at pg . 5 ; Ite m1 6 pg . 36. ] Th e Associat e Administrato r note s tha t

Avitat provide s th e following : FB O Avita t Panoram a Westair Je t FB O 2 * Je t FB O 3 * Pric e per

$8.4 1 $6.2 2 $6.2 2 $7.41 * $ 8.5 6 * gallo n 200 6 gallon s sol d 9,107,67 1 2,108,51 6 1,577,20 4 6,085,380/11,649,91 1 6,085,380/11,649,91 1
* Avitat' s appea l doe s no t specif y Signatur e o r

Landmark' s rate s b y name . Signatur e sol d 6,085,38 0 gallo n i n 2006
. Landmark sol d11,649,91 1 gallon s i n 2006
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pgs . 1 5 an d16. ] Beyon dth e genera l allegation , Avita t ha s provide dinformatio n tha t woul dsugges t

Panoram a an dWestaf

r ar e no t Avitat' s mai n sourc e o f

competition
. Moreover , th e number s i n th e abov e tabl e sugges t

tha t Panoram aan dWestaf

r ar e merel y providin g fiiel t o th e limite daeronautica l users the y ar e permitte dt o servic e o n thei r lease dpremises
. Avita t

doe s no t elaborat e o r

explai n th e exclusiv e right

allegedl y conferred
. I n fact , Avita t admit s ther e ar e five FBO s at th e airport , eac h o f whic h sell s je t

fiiel. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 pg . 18. ] Avita t assert s tha t

th e County shift s th e cos t o f maintainin g genera l aviatio n a t th e Airport

with Panoram aan dWestair' s lease s throug h ren t

deferral s o r

deb t forgiveness
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pg . 33. ] I n compariso n t o th e Je t FBOs , Panoram aan dWestai r d o not appear t o b e competin g with Avita t for sal e o f je t fiiel. I n addition , an da s discusse dabove , ther e i s n o evidenc e i n th e recor dt o support Avitat' s allegatio n tha t

Panoram aan dWestaf

r ar e subsidize db y Avita t an dth e othe r

Je t FBOs
. Th e FBO' s ar e no t

similarl y situate dan dth e Airport i s not i n violatio n o f

gran t assuranc e 22
. FA A ha s take n th e positio n tha t th e applicatio n o f

an y umeasonabl e requiremen t o r an y standar d tha t i s applie di n a

n unjustl y discriminator y manne r may constitut e th e constructiv e gran t o f a n exclusiv e right. Court s hav e foun dth e gran t o f a n exclusiv e right

wher e asignifican t

burde n ha s bee n place do n on e competito r tha t i s not place do n another
. [ Se e e.g . Pompan o Beac h v FAA
. 77 4 F2 d152 9 (ll" ' Cir , 1985). ] "Th e FA A consider s i t inappropriat e t o provid e Federa l assistanc e for

improvement s t o airport s wher e th e benefit s o f suc h improvement s wil l no t b e fiilly realize ddu e t o inheren t restriction s o n aeronautica l activities. " Kg. , Boc aRato n Je t Center , Inc
. v . Boc aRato n Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

No
. 16-97-0 6 a t

7 (Fina l Agenc y Decisio n incorporatin g Director' s Determination , Augus t 20 , 1999 ) (citin g FA A Orde r 5190.6 A a t sec . 3-8(a))
. Here , Avitat

mistakenl y applie s th e logi c o f Pompan o Beach
. Avita t need s t o understan d"i t

i s wel l establishe dtha t

i n orde r t o sho w th e constructiv e gran t o f an exclusiv e right, aclaiman t mus t sho w tha t

i t actuall y ha s bee n barre dfromconductin g a'particula r aeronautica l activity ' at th e airport" , throug h th e impositio n o f umeasonabl e standards
. Id
. a t 1541
. (Th e authorit y i s withi n it s rights t o mak e suc h agrant , provide di t doe s no t den y othe r

airline s th e opportunit y for similar treatmen t

unde r asimilar situation
. It

i s i n denyin g other s asimilar right tha t create s a violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 23. ) Th e tw o LG A FBOs , Westaf r an dPanorama , d o not

provid e th e sam e service s a s Avita t an dar e not

similarl y situated
. Avitat , however , provide s th e sam e commercia l service s a s tw o othe r Je t FBOs
. Al l i n all , competitio n exist s a t thi s Airport

an dn o Pag e 3 7 o f 5 0on e FB O enjoy s aright no t grante dt o at

leas t on e othe r

FB O a t th e Airport
. Avita t

wa s no t an d doe s no t clai mit wa s denie dth e right

t o fuel aircraf

t o r an y othe r opportunitie s t o provid e aeronautica l service s at

th e Airport
. It

i s i n denyin g other s asimilar right tha t create s aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 23
. Avita t

ha s no t show n th e County ha s denie dthe masimilar right i n usin g th e Airport
. Avitat' s allegatio n that

th e Count y discriminate dagains t it , by it s applicatio n o f

dissimilar

leas e provisions , discriminatory enforcement , an dretaliatory , harmfu l act s ha s implication s for th e gran t assuranc e prohibitin g th e grantin g o f an exclusiv e right, a s discusse dabove
. However , at th e very leas t

th e FA A woul dhav e t o determin e tha t th e County ha destablishe dsuc h inequity i n it s leases , standard s and/o r practice s a s t o violat e aprovisio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 22
. A s discusse dabove , th e Associat e Administrato r i s no t persuade db y th e recor dan dthi s i s th e cas e fo r th e reason s discusse dabove
. Th e Complainan t

doe s no t presen t an y evidenc e o r

argumen t o f circumstance s beyon dwhic h i s discusse dabove t o establis h an exclusiv e right. Therefore , th e Associat e Administrato r finds tha t

th e County ha s no t

grante da n exclusiv e right. Avitat ha s not demonstrate dtha t

th e Directo r

erre db y (1 ) makin g findings o f fac t tha t wer e no t supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidence , o r (2 ) b y makin g conclusion s o f

la w that wer e not i n accordanc e with applicabl e law , precedent , an dpubli c policy
. A s discusse dabove , ther e i s n o cos t connectio n born e b y Avitat i n relatio n t o Panoram ao r Westair
. Ther e i s n o exclusiv e right conferre ddirectl y o r

indirectl y t o Panoram ao r Westair
. Th e Dfrecto r

reliedupo n th e substantia l evidenc e i n th e recor dan dals o base dhi s decisio n o n a prope r applicatio n o f

precedent
. Accordingly , th e Associat e Administrato r affirm s th e Director' s Determinatio n an dfinds that th e County ha s no t

violate dgran t

assuranc e 23
. D
. GRAN T ASSURANC E 24 , FE E AN D RENTA L STRUCTUR E Avitat raise s th e issu e o n appea l o f whethe r th e Count y ha s faile dt o maintai n a n aeronautica l rent schedul e tha t

make s th e Airpor t

a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e unde r th e circumstance s existin g at

th e Airport , b y providin g mor e favorabl e financial treatmen t t o Panoram aan dWestai r i n violatio n o f

gran t assuranc e 24
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , pg . 17. ] Avitat doe s no t argu e specific s a s t o wha t i f an y erro r th e Dfrecto r

mad e i n hi s determinatio n regardin g Gran t

Assuranc e 24
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m16 , pgs . 37-39. ] Avita t make s onl y on e referenc e o n pag e 2 4 o f

it s appea l tha t

"Airpor t Management' s agreemen t i n 200 7 t o amen d Panorama' s leas e t o allo w substantiall y unlimite dright t o sel l je t fiiel t o al l aircraf

t unde r 50,00 0 lb s both base dan dtransient , whil e i t retaine dth e subsidie s grante dt o it
. Thi s create s a n anti

competitiv e envfronmen t

not permitte db y th e gran t

assurances . Se e Gran t

Assurance s 2 3 an d 24. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m13 , pg.24. ] Th e Associat e Administrato r wil l no t attemp t t o mak e sens e o f Avitat' s unformulate dargumen t i n regar dt o Gran t

Assuranc e 24
. Avita t

ha s no t pointe dt o an y informatio n o r fact s tha t indicat e tha t

th e informatio n provide di n th e recor d concernin g th e County' s action s ar e incorrect , o r inconsistent

with th e gran t

assurances . Avitat' s mer e allegation s provid e n o support upo n whic h t o justif

y reversin g o r

correctin g th e Director
. Pag e 3 8 o f 5 0Titi e 4 9 o f

th e U.S.C
. Sectio n 47107(a)(13 ) requfre s tha t th e owne r

o r sponso r o f afederall y obligate dairport

"wil l maintai n afe e an drenta l structur e for th e facilitie s an dservice s bein g provide dt o airport

user s whic h wil l mak e th e airpor t a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e unde r th e cfrcumstance s existin g at tha t particular

airport. " I n addition
. Sectio n 47107(a ) require s fee s levie do n aeronautica l activitie s t o b e reasonabl e an dno t unjustl y discriminatory
. Federa l gran t assuranc e 24 , Fe e an dRenta l Structur e (Gran t Assuranc e 24 ) satisfie s th e requirement s o f § 47107(a)(13)
. Th e airport owne r o r sponso r agree s t o establis h afe e an drenta l structur e tha t wil l make th e airport

a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e unde r th e circumstance s at

th e particular

airport , takin g int o accoun t

suc h factor s a s th e volum e o f traffi c an deconom y o f

collection
. Th e inten t o f th e assuranc e i s for

th e airport

operato r t o charg e fee s tha t

ar e sufficien t

t o cove r a s muc h o f th e airport' s cost s a s i s feasible
. Moreover , FA A Orde r

5190.6 A state s tha t

th e owne r

o r sponsor' s obligatio n t o mak e an airport availabl e for

publi c us e doe s not

preclud e th e owne r

o r sponso r fro mrecoverin g th e cos t o f providin g th e facility
. Th e owne r o r sponso r i s expecte dt o recove r

it s cost s throug h th e establishmen t

o f fai r an dreasonabl e fees , rentals , o r othe r use r charge s tha t

wil l mak e th e airport a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e unde r th e circumstance s existin g a t th e particular

airport
. [Se e FA A Orde r

5190.6A , Sectio n 4-14(a). ] In an y event , revie w o f

th e recordindicate s tha t

Avitat' s ren t

i s base do n reasonabl e renta l rates . I f Avita t wer e require dt o pa y apremiu move r faf r marke t rates, i t coul db e sai dtha t

Avita t may b e subsidizin g othe r

tenants . However , Avita t provide s n o evidenc e tha t th e renta l an dfee s i t pay s ar e highe r

tha n woul db e th e cas e becaus e o f wha t th e LG A FBO s pay . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m14 , pag e 12. ] I n th e Director' s Determination , th e Directo r noted,".
. .th e Complainan t re-enforce s tha t

i t doe s no t alleg e tha t

th e County' s actio n t o suppor t LG A a t th e Airpor t

ar e i n violatio n o f

th e County' s gran t assurances . I n fact , Avita t states : Avitat doe s no t challenge..
. (th e "County' s " ) polic y callin g fo r differentia l financial treatmen t fo r LG A FBOs , th e purpos e o f

whic h i s t o encourag e thei r continue deconomi c viability aru i servic e t o th e Ligh t Genera l Aviatio n ("LGA ) community
. O n th e contrary , Avitat strongl y support s it..
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m16 , pag e 34. ] Th e Directo r

point s out

"I n it s Reply , th e Complainan t specificall y acknowledge s th e reasonableness o f

th e County' s actio n t o preserv e th e economi c vitalit y an dservice s offere db y th e LG A FBOs
. Wha t

Avita t objects t o i s th e right

grante dth e LG A FBO s i n 200 1 t o fiiel som e je t aircraf t o n thef r lease dpremises
. Avita t

seek s t o hav e th e Count y revok e thi s limite dright fo r th e LG A FBO s t o fue l je t aircraf t notwithstandin g th e fac t tha t thi s practic e commence dbefor e Avitat accepte dit s leas e agreemen t i n 200 5 an d2006. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m16 , page s 34-35. ] Th e Associat e Administrato r i s no t persuade dtha t

th e limite dabilit y o f

th e LG A FBO s t o sel l je t fuel o n thef

r lease dpremises , aright

i n plac e sinc e 2001 , impose s an y financial burde n o n Avitat
. Ther e ha s bee n n o evidenc e presente dtha t Avita t ha s bee n unjustl y burdene dwith an y rates o r fee s tha t shoul dhav e rightfiilly bee n assesse dagains t th e LG A FBOs. * I t

i s clear that-th e fitiancial burde n tha t

Avita t i s referring t o i s th e perceive dmarke t shar e i t believe s i t

may hav e Pag e 3 9 o f 5 0los t

t o th e LGA FBOs , i f

th e limite dright

t o fiiel je t

aircraf t wer e no t grante di n th e Septembe r 20,200 1 letters
. However , th e amoun t o f los s i n marke t

shar e woul db e speculativ e a s ther e ar e tw o othe r Je t FBO s a t th e Airport , i n additio n t o Avitat
. A s can b e see n fro mth e chart below^^ , th e LGA FBO s eac h hav e approximatel y 4 % o f th e marke t shar e o f je t fiiel sale s a t

th e Airport
. Signatur e ha s decrease dit s je t fiiel sale s from a hig h o f 9,918,07 1 gallon s i n 200 1 t o 6,085,38 0 gallon s i n 2006
. fri contrast , Avitat ha s increase dit s je t

fuel sale s ove r

thi s sam e perio dfro m8,794,96 4 t o 9,107,67 1 gallons , an increeis e o f

312,70 7 gallons
. Landmark ha s increase dit s je t

fiiel sale s from8,507,56 2 t o 11,649,91 1 gallons
. Signatur e Avitat Landmar k Westai r Panoram a Total s 200 1

9,918,07 1 8,794,96 4 8,507,56 4 117,83 0 217,69 2 200 2

9,413,86 4 9,183,61 5 8,716,84 8 845,08 7 848,16 1 200 3

5,368,77 0 8,275,63 2 11,291,63 6 1,277,83 6 1,151,00 8 200 4

5,734,54 8 8,282,02 4 12,653,34 7 1,454,46 1 1,435,38 6 200 5

5,915,77 1 8,155,74 2 11,756,21 7 1,382,91 8 1,876,78 9 200 6

6,085,38 0 9,107,67 1 11,649,91 1 1,577,204 2,108,51 6 Total s

42,436,40 4 51,799,64 8 64,575,52 2 6,655,33 6 7,637,55 2 173,104,46 2 %

25 % 30 % 37 % 4 % 4 % 100 % Avitat' s allegatio n tha t

th e January 11 , 200 7 lette r gav e ne w rights t o Panoram ai s unsupporte d b y th e evidenc e i n th e record
. Panorama' s bas e leas e (Sectio n 3.6 ) provide dpermissio n t o sel l je t fuel i f certai n condition s wer e met . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

5 ] I n January 2001 , th e County provide dpermissio n t o th e LG A FBO' s t o sel l je t fiiel t o base dan dtransien t aircraf t o n thei r leasehold s tha t

weighe dles s tha n 50,00 0 lbs
. Th e January 200 7 lette r reiterate dthat Panoram aha dth e right

sel l je t fuel o n it s leasehol dan dnote dtha t i f Panoram aassigne dth e leas e t o anothe r party , th e leas e woul db e modifie dt o reflec t th e right t o sel l je t fuel
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exhibit

31 ] Th e recorddoe s not

contai n evidenc e tha t

Panorama' s leas e wa s formall y modifie dt o includ e je t

fiiel sale s a t

th e time
. A s discusse di n th e Dfrector' s Determination , Avitat ha dampl e opportunit y t o mak e itsel f awar e o f th e term s an dcondition s tha t applie dt o th e LG A FBO s before extendin g it s ov mlease s i n 200 5 an d2006
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m16 , pag e 27 ] Th e FAA' s Rate s an dCharge s Polic y addresse s th e allocatio n o f commo n cost s no t

los t revenues . I n allocatin g commo n costs , airport sponsor s mus t

us e asyste mtha t

doe s not requir e an y aeronautica l use r

o r use r grou p t o pa y cost s properl y allocabl e t o othe r users o r use r groups . [FA A Polic y Regardin g Rate s an dCharges , 6 1 Fed
. Reg
. 31994,3202 1 (Jun e 21,1996). ] Moreover , th e polic y i s specifi c tha t airport sponsor s undertak e reasonabl e effort s t o mak e thei r particular airport s a s sel f

sufficien t a s possibl e unde r

th e cfrcumstance s existin g a t th e airport
. That said , an airport

sponso r ma y not establis h fee s for

th e us e o f

th e airfiel dtha t

excee dth e airport sponsor' s airfiel dcosts , bu t no r doe s th e FA A requfre th e us e o f fair marke t valu e t o establis h fees
. Id
. Here , th e Airport' s marke t condition s for

ligh t genera l aviation , d o no t

permi t th e sponso r

t o equaliz e th e sam e fe e schedul e for th e Je t FBO s an dth e LG A FBO's
. Suc h hig h fee s woul d mea n losin g th e commercia l service s offere dligh t genera l aviatio n operator s b y th e LG A FBOs
. FAA' s Rate s an dCharge s Polic y states : "I n suc h circumstances , a n airport proprietor' s decisio n t o charg e rates tha t

ar e belo w thos e neede dt o achiev e self-sustainability i n orde r t o assur e that
22 [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , pag e 18] Pag e 4 0 o f 5 0service s ar e provide dt o th e publi c i s no t inherentl y inconsistent

with th e obligatio n t o make th e airport a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e i n th e cfrcumstances
. Id
. Avita t continue s t o rel y o n Je t

I Center , Inc. , v . Naple s Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

No
. 16

- 04-03
. Th e Director' s Determinatio n i n th e cas e a t bar note dtha t

th e Je t 1 Cente r Director' s Determinatio n discusse dth e possibilit y o f assessin g a n airport-wid e fiiel flowage fee : acommo n cost , not apercentag e o f

th e gros s receipt s o f

a n FBO' s busines s o r

an FBO' s exclusive-us e rent . Fue l flowage fee s traditionall y provid e acost-allocatio n for th e commo n us e o f

th e airfield
. Thi s typ e o f rat e schem e i s but

on e methodolog y employe dt o provid e revenu e t o th e airport
. I t i s assesse do n th e pe r

gallo n flow o f

fiiel o f a/ / aeronautica l users , jus t

lik e th e fiiel flowage fe e impose db y th e County
. Th e Associat e Administrato r note s tha t

Avita t make s n o argumen t

o r commen t regarding th e assessmen t o f fiiel-flowage fee s at

th e Airport
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m16 , pag e 38. ] Th e Associat e Administrato r reject s Avitat' s inferenc e tha t gran t assuranc e 2 4 ha s bee n violate d b y th e Airport
. Ther e was evidenc e presente dtha t Avita t wa s payin g reasonabl e renta l rates fo r it s leasehol dan dth e LG A FBO s wer e charge drates an dapercentag e o f thef r gros s earning s that woul denabl e the mt o maintai n aviabl e servic e t o th e genera l aviatio n community
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m16 , page s 21-24 ] Additionally , th e LG A FBO s ar e require dt o provid e service s t o th e ligh t genera l aviatio n publi c tha t Avita t i s not , includin g afrcraf

t parkin g an dstorag e (hangars) , aircraf t maintenance , aircraf

t rental , lease , an dcharter , flight instruction , sal e o f

Av-ga s an dsal e o f aircraf t an dafrcraf

t parts . Thes e service s mus t b e performe dwithi n th e LG A FB O leaseholds
. Th e fac t tha t th e LG A FBO s ar e unde r adifferen t

rate structur e tha n Avita t i s acceptabl e unde r th e gran t assurance s becaus e the y ar e no t similarl y situated , a s discusse dabove
. Accordingly , th e Associate Administrato r finds th e Directo r

correctl y conclude dthat

th e Respondent

di dno t impos e afee an drenta

l structure that

disparatel y shifte dth e burde n o f makin g th e Airpor

t a s self

sustainabl e a s possibl e t o th e Je t FBO s in violatio n o f

grant assuranc e 24
. Th e fact

that ful l service , unrestricte dFBO s suc h a s Avita t pa y higher rent s an dfee s than restricte dLG A FBO s i s no t

contrar y t o th e Respondent' s federa l obligations
. That

Avitat faile dt o provid e financial dat ai n suppor t o f it s contention s tha

t th e Count y o r tha t Avita t i s subsidizin g th e LG

A FBOs , th e Associat e Administrato r canno t legally o r logicall y arriv e at

that conclusion
. Consequenriy , base do n th e above , th e Associate Administrato r reject s Avitat' s appeal an dth e implicatio n tha

t th e Director' s decisio n o n thi s issu e wa s in error . VII
. CONCLUSIO N Upo n a n appea l o f

aPart 1 6 Director' s Determination , th e Associat e Administrato r mus t determin e whethe r

(a ) th e finding s o f

fac t mad e b y th e Directo r

ar e supporte db y a preponderanc e o f

reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidence , an d(b ) eac h conclusio n o f la w i s mad e i n accordanc e with applicabl e law , precedent , an dpubli c policy
. [Se e e.g . Rick s v Millingto n Municipa l Airport , FA A Docke t No
. 16-98-1 9 (Decembe r 30 , 1999 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder) , pag e 21 , an d1 4 CF R§ 16.227. ] I n arrivin g a t

afinal decisio n o n thi s appeal , th e FA A ha s reexaminedeth e record , includin g th e Director' s Determination , th e Administrativ e Recor dsupportin g th e Director' s Determination , 

### Pag e 4 1 o f 5 0an dth e appea l an drepl y submitte db y th e parties , i n ligh t o f applicabl e la w an dpolicy
. Base do n thi s reexamination , th e Associat e Administrato r conclude s tha t

th e Director' s Determinatio n i s supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstantial evidence , an di s consisten t with applicabl e law , precedent , an dFA A policy
. Th e Appea l doe s not contai n persuasiv e argument s sufficient

t o revers e an y portio n o f th e Director' s Determination
. Th e Associat e Administrato r affirm s th e Director' s Determination
. Thi s decisio n constitute s th e final decisio n o f

th e Associat e Administrato r for Airport s pursuan t

t o 1 4 CF R§ 16.33(a)
. ORDE R ACCORDINGLY , i t

i s hereb y ORDERE D tiiat (1 ) th e Director' s Determinatio n i s affirmed , an d(2 ) th e Appea l i s dismissed , pursuan t t o 1 4 CF R§ 16.33
.

RIGH T O FAPPEA L A party t o thi s decisio n disclosin g asubstantia l interes t i n th e final decisio n an dorde r o f th e Federal Aviatio n Administratio n ma y file apetitio n fo r review pursuan t

t o 4 9 U.S.C
. § 46110 , i n th e Unite dState s Court

o f Appeal s for

th e Distric t

o f Columbi aCfrcui t

o r i n th e court

o f appeal s o f th e Unite dState s for

th e Cfrcui t

i n whic h th e perso n resides o r ha s it s principa l plac e o f business
. Th e petitio n mus t

b e filed not

late r tha n 6 0 day s after

aFina l Decisio n an dOrde r ha s bee n serve d o n tiie party . [1 4 CFR , Part 16 , § 16.247(a). ]

Catherin e M
. Lane ^ Dat / Actin g Associat9^(\9mlmst^ato r Fo r Airport s



### Pag e 4 2 o f 5 0FA A Exhibi t 1 Docke t No
. 16-07-1 3 Inde x o f Administrativ e Recor d Fina l Decisio n an dOrde r
4 1 NORT H 7 3 WEST , Inc
. DBA AVITA T WESTCHESTE R COMPLAINAN T
WESTCHESTE RCOUNTY , NE W YOR K RESPONDEN T
Ite m1 Avitat' s Complaint , date dOctobe r 19 , 2007
. exhibi t 1 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibi t O ] 10/18/2007 , webpag e fromAirNav.co mregardin g HP N data
. exhibit 2 January 1995 , Federa l AI P gran t assurances . exhibit 3 10/25/2007 , tIP N Airport Uyout
. exhibi t 4 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibi t E ] 10/01/2005 , Leas e betwee n Westcheste r Co
. an dAvitat
. exhibi t 5 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibi t A ] 07/30/1999 , Leas e betwee n Westcheste r Co
. an d Panoram aFlight
. exhibit 6 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibi t C ] 07/14/1999 , Leas e betwee n Westcheste r Co
. an dWestai r Aviation
. exhibit 7 04/01/1992 , Notic e t o Ai r Carrier s issue db y Westcheste r Count y i n pursui t

o f a Passenge r Facilit y Charg e applicatio n t o th e FAA
. exhibit 8 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibi t CC ] Jul y 1992 , Passenge r Facilit y Charg e applicatio n from Westcheste r

Co
. exhibit 9 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibi t DD ] 11/09/1992 , Lette r

fromFA A t o Westcheste r Co
. approvin g Passenge r

Facilit y Charg e fo r

HPN
. exhibit 1 0 04/10/1997 , FAA' s Maste r AI P Gran t

Agreemen t

wit h Westcheste r

Co
.
Pag e 4 3 o f 5 0exhibi t

1 1 08/02/2002 , emai l fromRobert Bracchitta , Asst
. Commissione r o f Airport Operation s fo

r Westcheste r

Co
. t o Thursto n Hartford
. exhibi t 1 2 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibi t Z ] 12/08/1997 , Reques t

fo r Proposal s for

th e Operatio n an d Managemen t

o f aLigh t Genera l Aviatio n Fixe dBas e Operatio n at Westcheste r

Co
. Airport
. exhibit 1 3 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibi t II ] 07/24/2001 , hitema l Mem o fromJoe l Russell , HPN Manager , t o Sal Carreni , Westcheste r Co
. Directo r

o f Rea l Estat e abou t

Panoram a data
. exhibit 1 4 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibit JJ ] 06/11/1998 , hitema l Mem o fromJoe l Russell , HPN Airport Manager , t o Westcheste r Co
. DO T Commissioner , Eri c B
. Langeloh
. exhibit 1 5 01/22/2001 , Westcheste r Co
. Local La w institutin g 'Voluntary ' aircraf t fiieling an d servic e restriction s o n Panorama , a s agree dt o i n aleas e agreement . exhibi t 1 6 [Also , Ite m9 , exhibi t 8 ] 10/26/2000 , Handwritte n Note s an dsupportin g document s involvin g ameetin g with Westafr
. exhibit 1 7 05/14/2001 , Lette r fromJoe l Russell , HP N Manager , t o Westafr
. exhibi t 1 8 05/15/2001 , Handwritte n meetin g note s o f ameetin g includin g Westair
. exhibit 1 9 08/01/2001 , hitema l Mem o fix)mJoe l RusseU , HP N Manager
. exhibit 2 0 [Also , Ite m9 , exhibit 9 ] 08/2 1 /2001 , Lette r

fromWestaf

r t o Joe l Russell , HPN Manager
. exhibi t 2 1 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibi t KK ] 09/05/2001 , Lette r

fromPanoram at o Westcheste r Co
. exhibi t 2 2 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibit B ] 09/20/2001 , Lette r

fromJoe l Russell , HP N Manage r t o Panorama
. exhibit 2 3 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibi t D ] 09/20/2001 , Lette r

fromJoe l Russell , HP N Manage r t o Westair
. exhibi t 2 4 03/12/2002 , Lette r fromWestaf

r aimouncin g je t

aircraf t management . exhibi t 2 5 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibi t NN ] 03/10/2003 , Lette r

fromPanoram at o Joe l Russell , HPN Manager
. exhibi t 2 6 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibi t OO ] 07/02/2003 , Lette r

fromPete r

Scherrer , Asst
. HP N Manage r t o Panorama
.

Pag e 4 4 o f 5 0exhibi t

2 7 09/12/2005 , Lette r an ddocumentatio n fromWestai r t o Joe l Russell , HP N Manager
. exhibi t 2 8 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibit LL ] 03/14/2005 , Lette r

fromWestai r

t o Joe l Russell , HP N Manager
. exhibi t 2 9 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibi t MM ] 03/22/2005 , Lette r fromPanoram at o Joe l Russell , HP N Manager
. exhibi t 3 0 08/29/2006 , Lette r fromWestaf

r t o Pete r Scherrer , Asst
. HP N Manager
. exhibi t 3 1 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibi t HH ] 01/11/2007 , Lette r

fro mSalvator e J
. Carrera , Westcheste r

County Economi c Development/Rea l Estate , t o Alfre dE
. Dormellan (Panorama)
. exhibi t 3 2 10/18/2007 , Declaratio n o f Steve n M
. Taber
. exhibit 3 3 [Also , Ite m6 , exhibit FF ] undated , faxe do n 04/30/1999 , Draf t speec h b y Commissioner

Church
. exhibi t 3 4 06/04/2001 , Lette r fromWestaf

r t o Joe l Russell , HP N Manager
. exhibi t 3 5 06/19/2001 , Lette r fix)mJoe l Russell , HP N Manager , t o Westair
. exhibi t 3 6 [Also , Ite m9 , exhibi t 5 ] 06/27/2001 , Lette r

fromWestaf

r t o Joe l Russell , HP N Manager
. exhibit 3 7 07/30/2001 , fritemal Mem o fromJoe l Russell , HP N Manager , t o Sa l Carrera , Westcheste r

Co
. Directo r

o f Rea l Estat e abou t

Panoram adata
. exhibit 3 8 09/27/2007 , We b article , HPN' s Westaf r throw s it s lo t

i n witi i Millio n Afr , www.Ainonline.com , NBA A Conventio n News
. Ite m2 Notic e o f

Docketin g date dNovembe r 5 , 2007
. Ite m3 Respondent' s Unoppose dMotio n for Extensio n o f

tim e t o file Answer , date d Novembe r

15,2007
. Ite m4 Lette r

fromFA A counse l grantin g reques t for extension , date dNovembe r 19 , 200 7 Ite m5 Respondent' s Motion t o Dismiss , date dDecembe r 27 , 2007
.

Pag e 4 5 o f 5 0Ite m6 Respondent' s Answer , date dDecembe r 27,2007
. exhibit A [Also , Ite m1 , exhibit 5 ] 07/30/1999 , Leas e betwee n Westcheste r Co
. an d Panoram aFlight
. exhibit B [Also , Ite m1 , exhibit 22 ] 09/20/2001 , Lette r

fromJoe l Russell , HPN Manager t o Panorama
. exhibi t C [Also , Ite m1 , exhibit 6 ] 07/14/1999 , Leas e betwee n Westcheste r Co
. an dWestai r Aviation
. exhibit D [Also , Ite m1 , exhibi t 23 ] 09/20/2001 , Lette r

fromJoe l Russell , HP N Manage r t o Westair
. exhibit E [Also , Ite m1 , exhibit 4 ] 10/01/2005 , Leas e betwee n Westcheste r Co
. an dAvitat
. exhibit F01/30/2006 , Firs t Amendmen t

t o Avita t Leas e wit h Westcheste r

Co
. exhibi t G 07/01/2006 , Leas e betwee n Westcheste r Co
. an dSignatur e Fligh t Support
. exhibi t H 12/08/2005 , Leas e betwee n Westcheste r Co
. an dLandmark

Aviatio n (Piedmont)
. exhibit I 12/11/2007 , FA A Aircraf t Registry for

Westcheste r

County an dAircraf

t Registratio n Maste r

File
. exhibit J Novembe r

2007 , HP N Base dAircraf t Lis t b y FBO
. exhibi t K Septembe r

2007 , Westcheste r

Count y Airpor t

Monitor
. exhibit L 12/31/2006 , Westcheste r County Comprehensiv e Annua l Financia l Report fo r th e Yea r Endin g Decembe r

31 , 2006
. exhibi t M 2007-202 0 FA A Aerospac e Forecasts
. exhibit N 2005-201 6 FA A Aerospac e Forecasts
. exhibit O [Also , Ite m1 , exhibi t 1 ] 10/18/2007 , webpag e fromAirNav.co mregardin g HP N data
. exhibit P 12/08/2007 , webpag e fromAirNav.co mregardin g Danbury Municipa l Airport , Danbury C T data
. exhibi t Q 12/08/2007 , webpag e fromAirNav.co mregardin g LaGuardi aAirport , Ne w Yor k City , N Y data

Pag e 4 6 o f 5 0exhibi t

R12/08/2007 , webpag e fromAirNav.co mregardin g JF K Internationa l Airport , Ne w Yor k City , N Y data
. exhibit S Octobe r

1980 , HPN Maste r

Plan Sttidy , Phas e Reports
. exhibit T Octobe r

1980 , HPN Maste r

Plan Sttidy , Phas e II Reports
. exhibi t U 10/07/1985 , Westcheste r Co
. Resolutio n 266-1985 , Statemen t o f Airport Policy
. exhibit V Febmary 1987 , HP N Maste r Plan Update
. exhibit W 01/24/1977 , Westcheste r Co
. Administrativ e Code , Articl e E X Westcheste r

County Airport Advisory Boar dan dWes t Co
. Resolutio n No
. 1977
. exhibi t X 07/09/1997 , FA A Findin g o f N o Significan t

hnpac t an dRecor do f

Decision , HP N Airport Projects
. exhibit Y undated , HP N Rule s an dRegulations
. exhibit Z [Also , Ite m1 , exhibi t 12 ] 12/08/1997 , Reques t for Proposal s for

th e Operatio n an d Managemen t

o f aLigh t Genera l Aviatio n Fixe dBas e Operatio n a t Westcheste r

Co
. Airport
. exhibit A A 02/09/1998 , RF P Proposa l submitte db y Panorama
. exhibi t B B January 1998 , RF P Proposa l submitte db y Westair
. exhibit C C [Also , Ite m1 , exhibi t 8 ] Jul y 1992 , Passenge r

Facilit y Charg e applicatio n fro m Westcheste r

Co
. exhibit D D [Also , Ite m1 , exhibi t 9 ] 11/09/1992 , Lette r

fromFA A t o Westcheste r Co
. approvin g Passenge r

Facility Charg e for

HPN
. exhibi t E E 10/12/2004 , Avitat Presentatio n Slide s from200 4 Nationa l Busines s Aviatio n Associatio n Conferenc e an dConferenc e Agenda
. exhibit FF[Also , Iteml , exhibi t 33 ] undated , faxe do n 04/30/1999 , Draf t speec h b y Commissione r

Church
. exhibit G G 05/01/2003 , Lette r fromAvita t

t o Larry Salley , Transportatio n Commissioner , Westchester , Co
. exhibit H H [Also , Ite m1 , exhibi t 31 ] 01/11/2007 , Lette r

fromSalvator e J
. Carrera , Westcheste r

County Economi c Development/Rea l Estate , t o Alfre dE
. Donnella n (Panorama)
. _.

Pag e 4 7 o f 5 0exhibit

II [Also , Ite m1 , exhibi t 13 ] 07/24/2001 , hitema l Mem o fromJoe l Russell , HPN Manager , t o Sal Carrera , Westcheste r Co
. Directo r

o f Rea l Estat e abou t

Panoram a data
. exhibi t J J [Also , Ite mI , exhibi t 14 ] 06/11/1998 , hitema l Mem o fix)mJoe l Russell , HPN Airport Manager , t o Westcheste r Co
. DO T Commissioner , Eri c B
. Langeloh
. exhibit K K [Also , Ite m1 , exhibi t 2 1 ] 09/05/2001 , Lette r

fromPanoram at o Westcheste r Co
. exhibit LL [Also , Ite m1 , exhibi t 28 ] 03/14/2005 , Lette r

fromWestai r

t o Joe l Russell , HPN Manager
. exhibit M M [Also , Ite m1 , exhibi t 29 ] 03/22/2005 , Lette r

fromPanoram at o Joe l Russell , HPN Manager
. exhibit N N [Also , Ite m1 , exhibi t 25 ] 03/10/2003 , Lette r

fromPanoram at o Joe l Russell , HPN Manager
. exhibit O O [Also , Ite m1 , exhibi t 26 ] 07/02/2003 , Lette r

fromPete r

Scherrer , Asst
. HP N Manage r t o Panorama
. exhibit P P 09/05/2002 , Lette r fromJoe l Russell , HPN Manage r t o Westafr
. exhibi t Q Q 05/26/2004 , Lette r fromJoe l Russell , HP N Manage r t o Westair
. exhibi t R R05/09/1991 , Intema l Mem o forwardin g letter s fromgenera l aviatio n user s o f HPN
. Ite m7 Declaratio n o f Lawrenc e C
. Salley , Commissione r o f th e Westcheste r

Count y Departmen t

o f Transportation , date dDecembe r 26 , 2007
. Ite m8 Declaratio n o f Pete r Scherrer , HP N Manager , date dDecembe r 26 , 2007
. Ite m8 A Complainant' s Unoppose dMotion for Extensio n o f

tim e t o file Reply , date d January 2 , 2008
. Ite m8 B Lette r

fromFA A counse l grantin g reques t for extension , date dJanuary 4 , 2008
. Ite m9 Complainant' s Reply , date dJanuar y 14 , 2008
. exhibi t 1 05/15/2001 , Handwritte n Note s attribute dt o Harry Stanton , Assistan t Commissione r

o f Transportation
. exhibi t 2 12/07/2000 , Handwritte n Note s attribute dt o Harry Stanto n Assistan t Commissione r

o f Transportation
.

Pag e 4 8 o f 5 0exhibi t

3 09/07/2001 , Lette r fromPanoram at o Joe l Russell , HPN Manager , enclosin g tenan t list
. exhibi t 4 exhibit 5
exhibi t 6 exhibi t 7 exhibit 8
exhibit 9
exhibit 1 0 exhibi t 1 1 exhibi t 1 2

Ite m1 0 exhibit S S Ite m1 1 Ite m1 2
Ite m1 3 Ite m1 4
Ite m1 5 01/14/2008 , FA A Aircraf t Registratio n databeis e report . [Also , Ite m1 , exhibit

36 ] 06/27/2001 , Lette r

fromWestaf

r t o Joe l Russell , HPN Manager , enclosin g custome r lists
. 01/14/2008 , FA A Aircraf t Registratio n databas e report . 01/14/2008 , FA A Aircraf t Registratio n databas e report . [Also , Ite m1 , exhibi t

16 ] 10/26/2000 , Handwritte n Note s an dsupportin g document s involvin g ameetin g with Westair
. [Als o Ite m1 , exhibit

20 ] 08/21/2001 , Lette r

fromWestaf

r t o Joe l Russell , HP N Manager
. 08/10/2001 , Lette r

fromJoe l Russell , HPN Manager , t o Westafr
. 09/19/2007 , Annua l FB O Fue l Volum e analysis
. 01/13/2008 , Affidavi t

o f Michae l W
. Dolphin
. exh
. A : 01/10/2008 , emai l fromExxon/Mobil e t o Mik e Dolphi n reportin g ftiel volum e o f

Landmark

Aviatio n a t

HPN
. exh
. B : Report s fromJetnet.co m exh
. C : 2004-2006 , Complainant' s analysi s o f Je t Fue l sale s shar e at

HPN
. Responden t

County o f

Westchester' s Rebuttal , date dFebruary 1 , 2008
. 01/25/2008 , Report

o f Avitat' s fuel dat a& service s fromwww.acukwik.com
. FA A Form501 0 fo

r Westcheste r

County Airport , effectiv e Apri l 10 , 2008
. Extensio n o f

Tim e t o Fil e Appeal , date dJul y 10 , 2008
. Extend s th e tim e perio d for th e Complaman t

t o file a n appea l t o Augus t 14 , 2008
. Complainant' s Appea l fro mth e Director' s Determination , date dJun e 12,2008
. Respondent' s Count y o f

Westchester' s Repl y t o Complainant' s Appeal , date d Septembe r

23,2008
. Notic e o f Extensio n o f

Time , date dDecembe r

2 , 2008
. Extend s th e tim e perio dfor th e Agenc y t o issu e aFina l Decisio n t o February 23 , 2009
.

Pag e 4 9 o f 5 0Ite m1 6 Director' s Determination , date dJun e 12,200 8

Pag e 5 0 o f 5 0CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I HEREB Y CERTIF Y tha t o n t>&nk>M ^ ( ? 7 \2009, 1 cause dt o b e place di n th e Unite dState s mai l (firs t clas s mail , postag e paid ) atm e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t addresse dto : Barbar aE
. Lichman , Ph.D
. Steve n M
. Tabe r CHEVALIER , ALLE N & LICHMAN , LL P SE P 2 1 200

9 69 5 Tow n Cente r

Drive , Suit e 70 0 Cost aMesa , Californi a9262 6 Pete r J
. Kirsch Davi dI
. Specto r KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWELL , LL P 167 5 Broadway , Suit e 230 0 Denver , Colorad o 8020 2 Richar dCashma n Jame s Wenze l Count y o f Westcheste r 1 8 Martin e Avenue , Roo m60 0 Whit e Plains , Ne w Yor

k 1060 1 Han dDelivere dto : Part 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docke t

Ir aBrook s Airport Complianc e Division Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n

. j m