# r r UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C 

# r f f Aer o Ways , Inc. , Complainant , V . Delawar e Rive r

& Ba y Authority , Respondent . 

# iPESWE p FE B 4/iui U PAR T1 6 DOCKETS FA A Docke t

No . 16-09-1 2

C D

RESPONDEN T DELAWAR ERIVE RAN D BA Y AUTHORITY' S MEMORANDU M O FPOINT S AN D AUTHORITIE S I N SUPPOR T

O FIT S ANSWE RAN D MOTIO N T O DISMIS S i o £ 2 

# r r MORRIS , NICHOLS , ARSH T & TUNNEL LLL P R . Judso n Scaggs , Jr . Lesli e A . Polizot i Paulett aJ . Brow n Albert J . Carrol l 120 1 N . Marke t

Stree t P.O . Bo x 134 7 Wilmington , D E19899-134 7 (302 ) 658-920 0 Attorney s fo r

th e Delawar e Rive r

& Bay Authority 

# r Februar y 3 , 201 0



# F 

# r

# F F F F TABL EO FCONTENT S Pag e

PRELIMINAR Y STATEMEN T 1 STATEMEN T O FFACT S 3 I . TH EPARTIE S 3 A . Th e DRB A & Th e Ne w Castl e Airport 3 B . Aer o Ways , Inc . 4 II . TH EDRBA-AER O WAY S RELATIONSHI PBEFOR EAER O WAY S BECAM EA N FB O 6 A . Aer o Way s Mad e Fuelin g Request s Year s Ago , Whe n It Emerge dFro mBankruptc y 6 B . Aer o Way s Accuse s Th e Authorit y O f Improperl y Allowin g Othe r

Tenant s T o Self-Fuel , Eve n Thoug hThos e Tenant s Wer e Properl y Self-Fuelin g An dWer e No t Similarly-Situate dT o Aer o Way s 7 C . Th e DRB A Solicit s Aer o Ways ' Inpu t O n Th e Curren t g i Draf t Oflt s Minimu mStandard s 8 * D . Th e DRB A Hire s Specialize dFA A Counse l T o Assis t With 

# P Revision s T o Th e Rule s & Regulation s An dTh e Minimu m Standards , An dDecide s T o Allo w Self-Fuelin g Onl y B y Owner s O r

Sol e Lessee s 1 1 WE . Th e DRB A Worke dWithAer o Way s T o Fin dA Wa y T o Allo w Aer o Way s T o Fue l It s Larges t Customer , Bu t

Aer o Way s Abandone dTh e Proposa l T o Becom e A n FB O 1 3 

# F F

F III . TH EDRBA-AER O WAY S RELATIONSHI PAFTE RAER O WAY S BECAM EA N FB O 1 5 A . X O Je t

Become s A Tenan t

A t Ne w Castl e Airport

An d Exercise s It s Righ t

T o Self-Fue l 1 5 B . Th e Authorit y Has Treate dPartie s Similarl y Situate dT o Aer o Way s I n Th e Sam e Manne r 1 8

# F F F F F F F F F F F F F F TABL EO FCONTENT S (Continued ) n . Pag e C . Th e DRB A Di dNo t Discriminat e Agains t

Aer o Way s Whe n Aer o Way s Violate dDRB A Rule s An dDamage d Th e Car dReade r

A t Th e FA A Gat e 1 8 D . Aer o Ways ' Remainin g Allegation s Concer n Issue s O n Whic hTh e Partie s Appear T o Agre e Bu t

Whic hHav e No t Ye t Bee n Implemented , An dAr e Thu s No t Cognizabl e In A Part 1 6 Actio n 2 0 IV. AER O WAYS ' PAR T 1 6 COMPLAIN T 2 1 ARGUMEN T 2 3 I . TH EFA A I S ONL Y CONCERNE D WIT H A N AIRPOR T SPONSOR' S CURREN T COMPLL\NC EWIT H TH EGRAN T ASSURANCES , AN D AER O WAYS ' COMPLAIN T DOE S NO T RAIS ECURREN T COMPLD^C EISSUE S 2 3 II . AER O WAY S HA S FAILE D T O SUBMI T SUFFICIEN T EVIDENC ET O SUPPOR T IT S COMPLAIN T 2 5 III . TH EAUTHORITY' S RESPONS ET O TH ESPECIFI C COUNT S 2 6 A . Aer o Way s Ha s Faile dT o Demonstrat e Tha t Th e Authorit y Ha s Violate dGran t

Assuranc e 22(f) , Becaus e Th e DRB A Allow s Aircraf

t Owner s T o Fue l Thei r

Ow n Aircraf

t Usin g Thei r Ow n Employee s An dAer o Way s Neve r Owne dAn y Aircraf t 2 7 B . Aer o Way s Has Faile dT o Demonstrat e Tha t Th e DRB A Ha s Violate dGran t

Assuranc e 22(d) , Becaus e Th e DRB A Permit s Ai r

Carrier s T o Self-Serv e An dAer o Way s Neve r Hel dA n Ai r

Carrie r Certificat e 2 8 C . Aer o Way s Ha s Faile dT o Demonstrat e Tha t Th e DRB A Ha s Violate dGran t

Assuranc e 22(h) , Becaus e Aer o Way s Ha s No t Show n That

Th e DRB A Impose s Unreasonabl e O r Discriminator y Condition s O r That Th e DRB A Ha s No t Selectivel y Applie dIt s Standard s O r Regulation s 3 0 D . Aer o Way s Ha s No t Demonstrate dTha t

Th e Authorit y Has Violate dGran t

Assuranc e 22(a) , Becaus e Aer o Way s Ha s No t Allege do r

Show n Unjus t

Discriminatio n O r

That Th e Airport I s No t Available O n Reasonabl e Term s 3 1

# F 

# F m . TABL EO FCONTENT S (Continued ) Pag e 

# F 

# F F F E . Aer o Way s Ha s No t Demonstrate dThat

Th e Authorit y Ha s Violate dFA A Orde r

5190.6A , Chapte r

7-26(e)(l) , Becaus e It Does No t

Exis t An dI n An y Event , Orde r 5190.6 A Wa s No t Regulator y An dDi dNo t Govern Airport

Sponso r Conduc t 3 2 IV. AER O WAYS ' REMAININ GCLAIM S D O NO T STAT E CAUSE S O FACTION , AR EPUREL Y SPECULATIVE , O R AR EOTHERWIS ESIMPL Y WRON G3 3 A . Aer o Way s Has No t Supporte dIt s Clai mThat Th e Authority' s Dealings Wit hAer o Way s Regardin g X O Jet' s Right s Wer e Inappropriat e O r Misleadin g 3 3 B . Aer o Way s Ha s No t Show n Tha t

Allege dInstance s O f Non-communicatio n Ar e Gran t Assuranc e Violation s 3 4 C . Aer o Way s Ha s No t Demonstrate dTha t

Th e Authorit y Amende dIt s Policie s I n Orde r T o Affec t

Aer o Way s 3 5 D . Aer o Way s Ha s No t Demonstrate dTha t

Th e Authorit y Discriminate dAgains t

Aer o Way s Regardin g th e 200 8 Car dReade r

Inciden t 3 7 CONCLUSIO N 3 7 

# F F F 

# r F F F

# F 

# F

F IV . TABL EO FAUTHORITIE S Page(s ) CASE S Adventur e Aviatio n v . Cit y o f La s Cruces , FA A Docke t

No . 16-01-14 , 200 3 W L2269692 3 (FA A Sept . 9 , 2003 ) 2 5 Airborn e Flyin g Serv. , Inc. , v . Cit y o f Ho t Springs , Arkansas , FA A Docke t

No . 16-07-0 6 (FA A Dec . 18 , 2007 ) 3 2 AmAv, Inc . v . Marylan dAviatio n Administration , Docke t No . 16-05-1 2 (FA A Marc h16 , 2006 ) 15,16,28-2 9 Appalachia n Sta r

Ventures , Inc . v . Tri-Citie s Airpor t Com m'n , FA A Docke t

No . 16-96-02,199 7 W L112073 5 (FA A Oct . 22,1997 ) 2 3 Ashevill e Jet , Inc . v . Ashevill e Reg' l Airpor t Auth . etal. . Docke t No . 16-08-0 2 (FA A Oct . 1,2009 ) 26-2 7 

# F 

# F F F p i BM I Salvag e Corp . v Miami-Dad e County , J FA A Docke t No . 16-05-1 6 (FA A Jul y 25 , 2006 ) 33-3 4 

# r Boc aAirport , Inc . v . Boc aRato n Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-04-02 , 200 4 W L528475 1 (FA A Nov . 29 , 2004 ) 2 6 FA A Airpor t Complianc e Manual , FAAOrder5190.6 B 27,32,3 3 

# F 

# r i n th e Matte r o f th e Cit y o f Sant aMonica , FA A Docke t

No . 16-02-08 , FA A Orde r No . 2009-1 , p.26-2 7 (FA A Jul y 8 , 2009 ) 2 5 Je t 1 Center , Inc . v . Naple s Airpor t Auth. , f FA A Docke t No . 16-04-0 3 (FA A Jan . 4 , 2005 ) 2 7 JetAway Aviation , Inc . v . Montros e County , Colorad o & th e Montros e Count y Bldg . Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-08-01 , 200 9 W L213662 2 (FA A Jul y 2 , 2009 ) 25 , 2 6 M . Danie l Care y an dClif f Davenpor t

v . Afton-Lincol n Count

y Mun . Airpor t

Join t Power s Bd. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-06-0 6 (FA A Jan . 19 , 2007 ) 25 , 2 7 Monac o Coac hCorporatio n v . Eugen e Airpor t an dth e Cit

y o f Eugen e Oregon , Docke t No . 16-03-1 7 (FA A Jul y 24 , 2004 ) 2 8 Richar dE . Steer e v . County o f San Diego , California , FA A Docke t

No . 16-99-15 , 200 4 W L319820 9 (FA A Dec . 7 , 2004 ) 23 , 2 4

# F F 

# F F F 

# r F f F F 

# F F p 

# F F 

# r V . TABL EO FAUTHORITIE S (Continued ) Page(s ) Ric k Aviation , Inc . v . Peninsul aAirpor t Com m'n , FA A Docke t

No . 16-05-18 , 200 7 W L145039 8 (FA A Ma y 8 , 2007 ) 2 5 Roadhous e Aviatio n v . Cit y o f Tulsa , FA A Docke t

No . 16-05-08 , 200 7 W L196616 0 (FA A Jun e 26 , 2007 ) 2 6 Thermc o Aviation , Inc . v . Count y o f Lo s Angeles, FA A Docke t

No . 16-06-0 7 (FA A Dec . 17 , 2007 ) 2 4 Wilson Ai r

Cente r LLC , v . Memphi s an dShelb y Count y Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-99-10 , 200 1 W L108534 8 (FA A Aug . 30 , 2001 ) 2 4



# F

# F f 

# F F F F F F 1 . PRELIMINAR Y STATEMEN T Aer o Ways , Inc . ("Aer o Ways" ) filedit s Complain t pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . Part

1 6 o n Septembe r

29 , 2009 , allegin g tha t

th e Delawar e Rive r

an dBa y Authority (th e "DRBA " o r th e "Authority" ) has , sinc e 2002 , unjustl y discriminate dagains t Aer o Ways . Al l o f

th e claim s i n th e Complain t

shoul db e dismissed . Virtuall y every on e involve s purporte dpas t violation s that

- eve n i f the y wer e violations , whic hthe y are no t - ar e not

cognizabl e i n aPart

1 6 proceeding . Som e claim s fai l t o stat e cause s o f action . Som e ar e entirel y unsupporte d- withou t an y basi s i n th e record . Som e allegation s ar e actuall y contrar y t o th e record . Som e allegation s ar e "supported " onl y b y unswor n statement s that are largel y hearsa y an dmad e withou t persona l knowledge . Non e o f

th e claim s warran t

further actio n b y th e FAA . FAer o Ways ' Complain t relate s t o allegation s o f pas t violations , eve n thoug hth e focu s o f aPart 1 6 proceedin g i s o n curren t compliance . Th e DRB A permit s Aer o Ways , no w tha t i t i s a n FBO , t o fixel an y aircraf t a t th e Airport ; i t

permit s X O Jet , Inc . ("X O Jet") , a s aPart F13 5 Ai r

Carrier , t o self-fiie l th e aircraf t o n it s certificate . Th e allegation s i n th e Complain t are simpl y improven .

In addition , th e DRB A ha s bee n i n pas t complianc e withth e Gran t Assurances . Aer o Ways ' Complain t

i s almos t exclusivel y abou t

historica l occurrences , a s demonstrate db y it s reques t for ove r $1 0 millio n i n "damages " - obviousl y inappropriat e i n thi s proceeding ' - an db y it s incorporatio n o f

Aer o Ways ' interpretatio n o f mos t o f it s busines s histor y wit hth e DRB A datin g bac k

t o 2002 . On e o f

Aer o Ways ' theorie s o f allege dpas t

discriminatio n concern s th e prohibitio n agains t

Aer o Way s fiieling th e aircraf t o f it s customer s prio r

t o becomin g a

n FBO . 

# F F F F

FA A Notic e o f Docketin g a

t 1 n. l (DRB A Ex . ("DX" ) 1) . Al l "DX " exhibit s ar e attache dhereto .

# r F F F F 2 .

Unde r DRB A regulations , onl y aircraf t owner s o r

sol e lessees , usin g thei r ow n employee s an d equipment , hav e "self-fiieling " rights. No t bein g th e owne r

o r sol e lesse e o f

an y aircraf

t - an d seekin g instea dt o fuel th e aircraf t owne db y it s customer s - Aer o Way s wa s prohibite dfi-om 

# F f self-fiieling . Th e Authorit y repeatedl y informe dAer o Way s o f thes e regulation s an dworke d Wwit hAer o Way s t o tr y t o findothe r way s t o satisf

y it s customers ' fuelin g needs . A t th e en do f 2005 , Aer o Way s chos e t o becom e a n FB O t o achiev e it s busines s goa l o f fiielin g it s customers ' aircraft . Th e DRB A i n n o wa y force dthi s decision , no r coul dit . Despit e th e Authority' s effort s W

- t o wor

k wit hAer o Ways , an ddespit e Aer o Ways ' ow n decisio n t o becom e an FBO , Aer o Way s recklessl y accuse s th e DRB A o f discriminator y motive s an dlabel s th e Authority' s positio n a s ill

wil l an dFB O protectionis mwhe n i t simpl y i s not . Th e fac t

tha t Aer o Way s becam e a

n FB O - W ' abl e t o compet e wit hexistin g FBO s - i s itsel f evidenc e that

th e Authorit y di dnot

see k t o protec t th e existin g FBO s fro mcompetition .

Anothe r o f Aer o Ways ' theorie s o f

unjus t discriminatio n i s it s allegatio n that th e DRB A treate dAer o Way s differentl y fi-omX O Jet . Aer o Way s an dX O Jet , however , ar e different entitie s that

ar e not similarl y situated . Aer o Way s was aPart 9 1 operato r

that di dno t ow n o r solel y leas e th e aircraf

t i t managed , hel dn o Ai r

Carrie r Certificates , an ddi dnot operat e a s a n FB O (unti l 2007) . Aer o Ways , therefore , coul dno t self-fue l (o r

sel l fuel t o thir dparties , for that matter) . X O Jet , i n contrast , wa s aPart 13 5 certificat e holde r

seekin g onl y t o fuel th e aircraf t o n it s certificat e - whic hth e Gran t Assurance s an dapplicabl e federal law requir e th e Authorit y t o allo w X O Je t t o do . Aer o Way s doe s no t disput e X O Jet' s right

t o fuel th e aircraf

t o n it s certificate , bu t

instea dsuggest s tha t

Aer o Way s coul dhav e "piggybacked " o n on e o f it s customers ' Part

13 5 certificate s i n orde r t o fue l it s customers ' aircraft . That suggestio n i s irresponsibl e an dimproper . It woul dhav e bypassed , for example , th e increase dsafet y 

# F F F F F F F F F

# F F

F F 3 .

regulation s require do f

Part 13 5 certificat e holders , jus t t o allo w Aer o Way s t o fiiel whateve r aircraf t i t wante dt o fiiel . Therefore , X O Je t an dAer o Way s wer e no t (an dare not ) similarl y situated , an dth e Authorit y di dnot discriminat e agains t

Aer o Way s b y allowin g X O Je t to exercis e it s right

(guarantee dunde r

th e Gran t

Assurances ) t o self-handle . T o th e contrary - th e DRB A woul dhav e bee n at risk o f violatin g th e Gran t

Assurance s an ddiscriminatin g agains t X O Je t i f th e DRB A ha ddenie dX O Je t it s right t o self-servic e aircraf

t o n it s certificate . Aer o Ways ' remainin g allegations , includin g th e 200 8 car dreade r incident , ar e Wno t

cognizabl e claims . Far

frombein g unjus t

discrimination , the y ar e largel y example s o f Aer o Way s bein g overl y litigious , an dhav e n o plac e i n aPart 1 6 action . Th e Directo r

shoul ddismis s Aer o Ways ' Complain t i n it s entirety , an ddetermin e T tha t

Aer o Way s faile dt o sho w tha t th e DRB A (i ) discriminate do r i s discriminating , agains t Aer o Ways ; (ii ) improperl y denie dAer o Way s th e opportunit y t o fuel it s customers ' aircraft ; an d(iii ) impose do r

i s imposing , unreasonabl e restriction s o n Aer o Way s i n violatio n o f Gran t f Assurance s 22(a) , (d) , (f) , (h) , o r an y othe r applicabl e FA A Assurance s o r federal requirements . 

### STATEMENT O F FACT S I . TH E PARTIE S A . Th e DRB A & Th e New Castl e Airpor t Th e DRB A i s abi-stat e governmen t agency , create di n 196 2 b y acompac t betwee n th e State s o f

Delawar e an dNew Jersey . It operate s th e Delawar e Memoria l Bridge ; th e Cap e May-Lewe s Ferr y system ; th e Thre e Fort s Ferr y Crossing ; an dth e Ne w Castle , Cap e May , Millville , Delawar e Airpark an dDove r

Civi l Ai r

Termina l Airport s (D X 2 , William s Decl . ^4) . Th e DRB A ha s operate dth e Ne w Castl e Airport (th e "Airport" ) sinc e Jun e 1995 , whe n th e FA A formall y approve dth e DRBA' s thirt y year leas e o f th e airport

fromNe w Castl e County , 

# F F

# F F F F F F 4 .

Delawar e (zJ.) . Th e Ne w Castl e Airport i s aClass- I certifie dFA A facility (id.) . I t i s hom e t o four FBOs : Aero-Taxi , Aer o Ways , Atlanti c Aviation-Wilmingto n an dDassaul t Falco n Je t

(id.) . Do n Rainear

wa s th e DRBA' s Deput y Executiv e Directo r from200 2 unti l hi s retiremen t

fi-omth e DRB A i n Ma y 2009 . Hi s dutie s include dplannin g Authority-relate d economi c developmen t

initiatives ; interna l an dexterna l communicatio n strategies ; handlin g governanc e matters ; fosterin g on-goin g workin g relationship s withstat e an dlocal officials ; an d supervisin g all DRB A marketin g activitie s (se e D X 3 (Oct . 2 , 200 2 DRB A New s Release , Wavailabl e a t http://www.drba.net/press/releases/files/021022execdirec.pdf)) . Stephe n Williams , th e DRBA' s curren t

Directo r o f Airports , wh o worke dwit hRainear . WilUam s cam e t o th e Airport i n Januar y 2005 , after

seventee n year s o f

managin g othe r

airports , includin g th e Republi c WAirport

a t Lon g Island , Atlanti c Cit y Internationa l Airport , an dBade r Fiel dAirport

i n Atlanti c City (D X 2 , William s Decl . 112) .

Morris , Nichols , Arsh t

& Tunnel l LL P("Morri s Nichols" ) ha s represente dth e I DRB A for

ove r thirt y years . Michae l Houghton , apartne r a t Morri s Nichols , ha s acte da s Delawar e genera l counse l t o th e DRB A for 1 0 years . Th e DRB A ha s als o periodicall y retaine d speciaUze dFA A counse l a s appropriat e fro mtim e t o time . A s relevan t t o thi s proceeding , th e DRB A retaine dThoma s Devine , the n apartne r at Palme r & Dodg e an dno w apartne r at Kapla n Kirsch& Rockwel l LLP , t o assis t wit hth e draftin g an dadoptio n o f th e Airport' s revise d Minimu mStandard s an dRule s an dRegulation s i n 200 5 (D X 2 , William s Decl . 1(7) .

B . Aer o Ways , Inc . Aer o Way s bega n operation s a t th e Airport

i n 1999 , a s acorporat e aircraf t managemen t

provide r (se e D X 4 (Aer o Ways ' website , www.aerowaysinc.com/about.html , las t visite dJan . 10 , 2010)) . Before i t becam e an FB O i n 2007 , Aer o Way s "provide[d ] corporation s 

# F F F F F F F

# F 

# r r r r 5 .

an daircraf

t operator s wit hacos t

effectiv e alternativ e t o a n i n hous e flight

department, " actin g a s "a n outsource dflight

departmen t

for corporation s an daircraf

t operator s which , whe n contracted , plans , maintains , staffs , administers , prepare s an dpilot s corporat e aircraft " (D X 5 (Aer o Ways ' Octobe r 9,200 2 Propose dBusines s Pla n Summary)) . f * Aer o Way s manage dit s customers ' aircraf t (primaril y a s anon-exclusiv e manager ) - bu t

i t di dnot ow n o r solel y leas e an y aircraft . Aer o Way s ha s operated , an ddoe s operate , unde r

th e Rule s o f

Part 9 1 o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s (th e "FARs") , i.e . th e Fgenera l operatin g rule s that appl y t o al l aircraf

t (id.) . It di dnot an ddoe s no t

operat e an y aircraf

t unde r FA RPart

91 , subpart

K a s afractional owner . It ha s neve r

hel dan y Ai r

Carrie r Certificates . I n Marc h200 7 - followin g it s decisio n t o becom e a n FB O s o i t

coul dsel l fuel t o it s customer s - Aer o Way s becam e th e fourt hFB O a t Ne w Castl e Airport

(D X 6) . A s a

n FBO , Aer o Way s ca n no w fuel an y aircraf t at th e Airport . I Charles Belmon t i s Aer o Ways ' Chie f

Executiv e Officer

an dfounder . Ronal d Beckso n i s it s Chie f

Financia l Officer , an dEdwar dBoh n i s it s Chie f Operatin g Officer . Aer o Ways ' outsid e counse l ar e Willia mMaimin g o f Sau l Ewing , LL P(formerl y o f Klett Roone y Liebe r & Schorlin g an dBuchana n Ingersol l & Roone y PC) , an dJosep hLamonac ao f Josep h Michae l Lamonaca , Attorne y at Law , PC . 

# f 

# F F F F 

# r F F F F

# F 

# r F F F F F F F F F 

# F F F II . TH EDRBA-AER O WAY S RELATIONSHI PBEFOR EAER O WAY S BECAM EAN FB O A . Aer o Way s Mad e Fuelin g Request s Year s Ago , Whe n I t Emerge dFro mBankruptc y Aer o Way s filedfo r

bankruptc y i n 2002 , withth e DRB A a s it s onl y creditor . Accordin g t o th e recollectio n o f it s counsel, ^ Aer o Way s filedbankruptc y s o "tha t i t coul dget ou t o f it s lease s wit hth e DRB A (D X 7 , Compl . Ex . D) . After Aer o Way s emerge dfrom bankruptc y i n Marc h200 3 (D X 8 , Compl . Ex . F.24) , i t sough t t o achiev e tw o busines s objective s

- t o obtai n th e right

t o fuel th e aircraf

t i t manage dfor

it s customers an dt o lowe r it s occupanc y cost s (see , e.g. , D X 9 , Compl . Ex . F.4 ; D X 10 , Compl . Ex . F.44) . A s describe dbelow , th e DRB A worke dwit hAer o Way s t o attemp t t o findway s that

Aer o Way s coul dfuel th e aircraf t o f f * it s customers , whil e als o tryin g t o accommodat e Aer o Ways ' changin g spac e needs . Th e fuelin g issu e was problemati c for Aer o Ways . A t

th e time , th e Airport' s Rule s an dRegulation s provide dthat "[sjelf-fiielin g b y aircraf t owner s o r

lessee s i s permitte db y f th e DRB A onl y t o th e exten t require db y Federa l law " (D X 1 1 a t p . 15 , § 5.1 6 (200 0 Rule s & Regulations)) , an dals o provide dthat "[a] n FB O i s th e onl y aeronautica l use r tha t shal l hav e th e right t o sel l fiiel , oil , o r

othe r petroleu mproduct s t o othe r aeronautica l user s o n th e Airport " (id . a t § 1.18)." ' Then-effectiv e FA A Gran t Assurance s gave : (i ) aircraf t owner s th e right

t o self-fiie l usin g thei r

ow n employee s an dequipmen t (22(f ) (owners) ) an d(ii ) Ai r Carrie r Certificat e 

# r ^ Thi s counsel , WiUia mManning , wa s not

th e sam e counse l wh o advise dAer o Way s t o file for bankruptcy . Mannin g "go t involved " wit hAer o Way s a t th e reques t

o f Richar d Siegal o f Bi-Stat e Oi l Company , th e Aer o Ways ' custome r wh o wante dhi s plane s fuele d b y Aer o Way s (D X 7 , Compl . Ex . D) . ^ Additionally , som e Ne w Castl e Airport tenant s ha dfuelin g rights writte n int o thei r leases . Thes e lease s ha dbee n execute dove r te n (10 ) year s ag o (mos t befor e th e DRB A gaine d 

# P contro l o f th e airport

from New Castl e County) . Th e DRB A ha s bee n honorin g thes e lease s (D X 2 , William s Decl . \5) . Sinc e then , th e DRB A ha s no t extende do r

grante dan y ne w civilia n lease s containin g fuehn g rights t o an y non-FBO s (id.) .

# F 

# r F F f ! 

# F F F



# F F F F 7 .

holder s th e right

t o fuel th e aircraf

t include do n thei r

certificat e (22(d ) (ai r

carriers)) . Therefore , non-FBO s that

manage daircraf

t - suc ha s Aer o Way s - coul dnot self-flie l thos e manage d aircraf t at th e Airport . B . Aer o Way s Accuse s Th e Authorit y O f Improperl y Allowin g Othe r

Tenant s T o Self-Fuel , Eve n Thoug h Thos e Tenant s Wer e Properl y Self-Fuelin g An dWer e No t Similarly-Situate dT o Aer o Way s I n Marc h2004 , Aer o Way s sough t t o purchas e lan dat

th e Airport

for constructio n o f ane w hangar , an di n connectio n withthi s request , sough t th e ability t o fuel th e aircraf t o f it s customers - primarily , Siegal.' * I n Manning' s words , durin g ameetin g wit hAer o Way s an dth e PDRB A abou t thi s fuelin g request , Rainear indicate d"tha t

th e curren t

Authorit y polic y woul db e maintained.. . bu t

that thi s migh t

b e asubjec t

considere di n aproces s le db y th e ne w directo r wheneve r h e o r sh e take s office " (D X 12 , Compl . Ex . F.8) . Consisten t wit hwhat

Rainear said , Wth e DRB A sen t aTer mShee t

for th e purchas e o f

th e lan dt o Aer o Way s that stated : "[s]elf

fiielin g requeste d- wil l reac hfinal determinatio n withNe w Airport Director " (D X 13) . I n respons e t o th e TermSheet , Aer o Way s agai n indicate dtha t i t "initiall y seek s Wonl y th e right t o fuel it s ow n customers, " allege dtha t "th e fuelin g preferenc e give n t o other s a t p , th e Airport

i s unfair, " an dnote dit s belie f that th e tenan t

i n anothe r

hanga r wa s exercisin g self



# f fuelin g rights (D X 12 , Compl . Ex . F.8) . Aer o Way s cite dt o on e o f th e Gran t

Assurance s i n th e I Airport' s Maste r Agreement , that

th e DRB A wil l no t

"preven t an y person , firmo r

corporatio n

r '

^ Aer o Ways ' 200 4 reques t t o purchas e lan dcam e after it s 200 3 reques t

t o leas e o r purchas e th e Hercule s hangar fromth e DRB A (se e D X 14 , Compl. , Exs . F.2 ; D X 15 , Compl . Ex . F.3 ; D X 9 , Compl . Ex . F.4 ; D X 12 , Compl . Ex . F.8 . Whe n th e DRB A put th e hangar

out for bid , however . Aer o Way s decide dnot t o mak e an offe

r becaus e i t

felt th e biddin g pric e wa s to o hig h(D X 9 , Compl . Ex . F.4 ; D X 1 6 Compl . Ex . F.22) .

# F F F F F F F 8 .

operatin g aircraf

t o n th e airport

fromperformin g an y service s o n it s ow n aircraf t withit s ow n employee s [including.. . fueling] " (id. ) (emphasis added) .

However , Aer o Ways ' inabilit y t o fuel it s ow n customer s i s clear fromth e very quot e that Aer o Way s cited , whic hi s fromGran t Assuranc e 22(f) . Aer o Way s di dnot ow n an y aircraf t an dclearl y wa s seekin g t o fuel it s customers ' aircraft . It therefor e di dnot

hav e self

fiielin g rights unde r

applicabl e FA A requirements . A s for Aer o Ways ' allegatio n abou t th e tenan t at th e Annenber g hangar

- that tenan t wa s self-fiielin g aircraf

t tha t i t owne d(William s 

### f Decl . 1|6) . Th e DRB A contacte dth e FA A i n respons e t o Aer o Ways ' lette r an dth e DRB A ha dafollow-u p meetin g withManning . I n Marming' s words . Aer o Way s indicate dthat i t W"continue s t o believ e tha t th e Authorit y shoul dno t prohibi t Aer o Way s fromsellin g fuel t o it s ow n manage daircraf

t customers, " an dthat

"base do n today' s conversatio n [betwee n Aer o Way s an dth e DRBA ] abou t

th e FA A meetin g [betwee n th e DRB A an dth e FAA] , I doub t that th e FA A woul ddisagre e (D X 17) . I n othe r words , whateve r

'reasonable ' condition s th e Authorit y can put o n th e sal e o f

fuel , I can' t

imagin e th e FA A woul dagre e withaprohibitio n agains t an aircraf

t managemen t

compan y fuelin g it s ow n manage daircraft " (id.) . Base do n th e conversatio n wit hth e FAA , th e tex t o f Gran t Assuranc e 22(f) , an d th e Airport' s Minimu mStandard s an dRule s & Regulations , th e Authorit y disagree dwit hAer o Way s an dmaintaine dit s positio n tha t Aer o Way s coul dnot

"self-fiiel " manage daircraf t owne d b y it s customers .

C . Th e DRB A Solicit s Aer o Ways ' Inpu t O n Th e Curren t Draf t O f It s Minimu mStandard s Aer o Way s continue dt o see k th e right t o fiiel it s customers ' aircraft . Durin g " a very goo dmeeting " (D X 16 , Compl . Ex . F.22 ) o n Apri l 28 , 200 5 that include dManning , 

# F F F F F

# F 9 .

William s an dRainear , th e partie s agai n discusse dAer o Ways ' reques t t o fuel t o it s customers ' aircraft. ^ Accordin g t o Maiming , William s explaine dtha t "Aer o Way s ma y onl y fuel planes that ar e owne do r

lease db y it " an dindicate dthat "th e non-discriminatio n provision s o f th e FA A agreemen t

d o not requir e th e Authorit y t o permi t Aer o Way s t o fuel plane s i n it s care , custod y an dconfrol " (D X 18 , Compl . Ex . F.ll) . In attemptin g t o work wit hAer o Ways , William s agree dt o provid e Aer o Way s withth e curren t draf t o f th e propose drevision s t o th e Airport' s Minimu mStandard s (D X 16 , Compl . F.22) .

William s sen t

acop y o f

th e draf t Minimu mStandard s for

Aeronautica l Service s a

t Ne w Castl e Airport

(th e "Minimu mStandards" ) t o Manning , an daskedAer o Way s fo r "an y comment s yo u ma y hav e o n it s regulatory content , o r an y question s regardin g it s philosophica l an dpolic y intent " (se e D X 19 , Compl . Ex . F.13 ; D X 20 , Compl . Ex . F.14) . Thi s draf t clearl y state dthat

i t wa s adraft , a s di dWilUams ' emai l (se e D X 21 , Compl . Ex . F.12 ; D X 19 , Compl . Ex . F.13) . Th e self-fuelin g provisio n i n thi s draf t state dthat

self-fuelin g "shal l onl y b e allowe d Pb y aircraf

t owned , lease do r

manage dunde r

awritte n contract " an drequire d" acop y o f th e FAA' s aircraf

t registratio n certificat e for al l aircraf

t verifyin g sol e ownershi p b y th e Permittee , o r proo f o f bein g th e sol e operato r

unde r aleas e o r

managemen t

confrac t for sai daircraft " (D X 21at33 , Compl . Ex . F.12) . 

# F F F F F F F F

Becaus e Aer o Ways ' immediat e nee dwas space , betwee n Jun e 200 4 an dthi s Apri l 28 ,

200 5 meeting , th e Authorit y foun dtemporar y hangar spac e for Aer o Ways , an dresolve d a n issu e wit hth e lengtho f lease s tha t

i t coul dgran t

(se e D X 22 , Compl . Ex . F.IO) . A s Mannin g late r

explained , "[th e Authority ] coul dnot offe r alan dleas e lon g enoug ht o satisf y lender s (i t

propose da5 year

termwit hthre e 5 year

extension s - not

enoug h[to ] amortiz e th e cos t

o f ane w hangar) . I n that

regard , though , th e Authority' s hand s wer e tie d- it s maste r

leas e from New Castl e Count y wasn' t lon g enoug ht o giv e longe r term deals " (D X 16 , Compl . Ex . F.22) .

# F F F F F F F F F F F F F 10 . Aer o Way s di dno t

commen t

o n th e draft . Instead , Mannin g "responde db y agreein g t o thos e draf

t standards " (D X 16 , Compl . Ex . F.22) . A s Mannin g wrot e t o WilUams : "[i] n orde r

t o mak e sur e that

Aer o Way s qualifie s for fiieling rights unde r

you r ne w minimu m standards , w e hav e revise dit s standar dfor magreement s withit s customers " (D X 23 , Compl . Ex . F.15) . Mannin g als o attache dadraft , un-execute d"exclusiv e managemen t agreement " - i n draf

t for mbecaus e Aer o Ways ' existin g managemen t contract s wer e non-exclusiv e - an drequeste d Williams ' confirmatio n that th e agreemen t

was sufficient

unde r th e propose ddraf

t Minimu m Standard s (id) .

Surprise db y Aer o Ways ' response , th e DRB A reiterate dthat th e draf t was unofficial an dnon-bindin g (i n fact , th e Authority' s Boar do f Commissioner s ha dnot

eve n see n th e draft , le t

alon e adopte dit) . I n alette r date dAugus t

22 , 2005 , Rainear

remindedAer o Way s that : [T]hi s i s an ongoin g proces s an dfinal tex t [o f th e Minimu m 

# F Standards ] ha s no t bee n complete do r

adopte db y th e Boar do f Commissioner s o f

th e Authority . A s acourtes y t o you , at ou r las t meeting , w e provide dyo u withth e mos t recen t draf t o f th e 

# r Minimu mStandards ; however , th e draf t wa s jus t that - adraf t o f a work i n progress . Th e conten t o f that draf t doe s not reflec t final decision s o r

policie s o f

th e Authorit y an di s not bindin g o n th e Authority . (D X 24 , Compl . Ex . F.20) . 1 ^ Rainea r an dBelmon t

spok e agai n abou t

fiieling i n Septembe r

2005 . Whe n Rainear indicate dtha t

th e Airport

ma y decid e t o allo w onl y owner s o f plane s t o self-fiiel , Belmon t responde dthat

Siegal (Aer o Ways ' customer ) migh t decid e t o leas e o r

purchas e a f hangar

an dfuel hi s plane s usin g hi s employee s (D X 25 , Compl . Ex . F.29) . Notwithstandin g thi s conversation , th e nex t

day , Belmon t

emaile dRainear

that "w e hav e als o redraw n ou r custome r agreement s t o ensur e tha t the y mee t

th e requirement s for

fiieling rights tha t

wer e i n th e

# F F F F F F F F F F F 

# F F F F 11 .

Authority' s draf

t minimu mstandards... " an daske dthat th e DRB A "confirmthat th e relationshi p betwee n Aer o Way s an dit s manage daircraf t meet s th e Authority' s standards " (id. ) (emphasi s added) . Rainear agai n reiterate dtha t

"th e draf t that yo u receive dwas avery earl y DRAFT[; ] i t

i s no t ou r curren t draf t no r doe s i t reflec t ou r curren t thinkin g o n som e o f

th e issue s containe dtherein " (id.) .

D . Th e DRB A Hire s Specialize dFA A Counse l T o Assis t Wit hRevision s T o Th e Rule s & Regulation s An dTh e Minimu mStandards , An dDecide s T o Allo w Self

Fuelin g Onl y B y Owner s O r Sol e Lessee s I n 2005 , th e DRB A hire dDevin e a s specialize dFA A counse l t o assis t withth e revision s t o th e draf

t Minimu mStandard s an dRule s an dRegulations . After considerin g Devine' s advic e an ddiscussion s withth e FAA , th e DRB A decide dtha t i t woul dno t

permi t operator s o f

manage daircraf

t - exclusiv e o r

otherwis e - t o fliel others ' aircraf t (WilUam s Decl . W1f9) . Th e rational e was that permittin g aircraf

t manager s t o fuel others ' aircraf t withou t havin g t o compl y wit hth e substantia l requirement s withwhic hFBO s nee dt o compl y t o fuel others ' aircraf t coul damoun t

t o economi c discriminatio n an dcoul dsubjec t th e DRB A t o aPart

1 6 Fcomplain t

b y th e FBOs . Th e DRB A was als o concerne dwit ha"slipper y slope " whereb y allowin g manager s t o fiiel thei r manage daircraf

t woul dcreat e aproliferatio n o f manager s doin g so , creatin g safety an denvironmenta l concern s (id) . T Thus , th e Octobe r 200 5 draft s o f

th e Minimu mStandard s an dth e Rule s an d Regulation s for

Ne w Castl e Airport

("th e Rule s an dRegulations" ) indicate dthat onl y owner s o r sol e lessee s o f

aircraf t coul dself-fiiel , an dremove dth e provisio n i n th e Ma y 200 5 draf t tha t woul dhav e allowe doperator s o f exclusivel y manage daircraf t t o self-flie l (D X 2 1 at

33 , Compl . Ex . F.12) . Upo n receivin g thes e drafts . Mannin g wrot e t o th e DRBA' s counsel , Michae l

# F f Houghton , an dallege dtha t "th e propose dregulation s [are ] intende dt o prohibi t Aer o Way s from

12 .



# F F F F fuelin g th e aircraf t that i t manage s o n th e behal f

o f aircraf t owners " (D X 26 , Compl . Ex . F.33) . Houghto n explaine dthat

ther e was n o intentio n t o singl e out Aer o Ways , an dthat th e change s t o th e draft s wer e mad e becaus e o f apoUc y an dlega l revie w conducte db y th e DRB A an dit s counsel :

th e regulation s are no t

'intende dt o prohibi t

Aer o Ways ' from fuelin g aircraf

t i t manage s o n behal f

o f aircraf t owner s bu t

rather , reflec t decision s made , after

length y polic y an dlega l review , addressin g th e manne r

i n whic hal l partie s operatin g a t th e airport wil l b e conductin g busines s i n complianc e withapplicabl e federal standards . (D X 26 , Compl . Ex . F.33) .

Mannin g retreate dfromhi s characterization , an dacknowledge dboththat th e change s mad e t o th e draf t wer e not intentionall y directe dt o Aer o Way s an dthat unde r th e self

fiielin g provisio n o f

th e Octobe r

200 5 draf

t - whic hwa s subsequentl y enacte d- Aer o Way s ha d n o ability t o fiiel it s customers : 

# F F F F 

# F F F F 

# r

• M y commen t abou t th e intentio n behin dth e Min . Standard s wa s not intende dt o b e pejorative . Instead , I wa s merel y confirmin g m y p imderstandin g that Aer o Way s woul dnot

b e permitte dt o ftiel it s ' customers ' aircraft , whic happear s t o b e th e case . .. . Whil e Aer o Way s disagree s withth e polic y decision , I amattemptin g t o sta y T awa y fromthat differenc e o f

vie w i n attemptin g t o resolv e a significan t

practica l problem . T (id.) . Nevertheless , Aer o Way s stil l allege s i n paragrap h2 2 o f th e Complain t

that "th e DRB A undertoo k

t o amen dthei r

minimu mstandards.. . a s aresul t o f negotiation s withAer o Ways " and that th e DRB A "fail[ed ] t o amen dth e minimu mstandard s a s wa s represente d.... " That clai m I i s incorrec t

i n severa l significan t

ways . Th e DRB A undertoo k t o revie w it s Minimu mStandard s an dRule s an dRegulation s independentl y o f Aer o Way s (D X 2 , William s Decl . 1f8) ; provide d Aer o Way s wit hmultipl e draft s o f thos e document s a s acourtesy ; sough t Aer o Ways ' comment s

# F F F F F F F F F F F F F F 13 .

o n th e draft ; an dclearl y indicate d- numerou s time s - that thos e draft s wer e onl y draft s an dwer e subjec t t o change . Simpl y put , th e DRB A di dnot an dcoul dnot

bin dth e Commissioner s a s t o th e ultimat e outcom e o f th e Minimu mStandard s an dRule s an dRegulation s review/revisio n process . E . Th e DRB A Worke dWit hAer o Way s T o Fin dA Wa y

T o Allo w Aer o Way s T o Fue l It s Larges t Customer , Bu t Aer o Way s Abandone dTh e Proposa l T o Becom e A n FB O Rainear , William s an dBelmon t soo n agree dthat

the y coul dfigure ou t

away t o resolv e th e "significan t

practica l problem " i n Manning' s Octobe r 200 5 emai l an dallo w Aer o Ways ' larges t

customer , Siegal , t o fiiel hi s plane s (D X 2 , William s Decl . I f 10) . Mannin g an d Houghto n discusse dth e specifics . On e propose darrangement was that Siegal woul dow n th e fliel tan k an d"shared " employee s (o f bothAer o Way s an dSiegal ) woul dfliel th e planes (e.g. , f D X 26 , Compl . Ex . F.33 ; D X 27 ; D X 28) . Th e DRB A worke dwit hAer o Way s t o develo p thi s

proposa l (se e id. ; D X 2 , WilUam s Decl . I f 10) . After th e Minimu mStandard s an dRevise dRule s an dRegulation s wer e adopted , f

- th e DRB A an dAer o Way s me t o n Decembe r

21 , 200 5 (se e D X 29 ; D X 30) . Durin g that meeting , anothe r

proposa l wa s floated - that Siegal woul dleas e hi s plane s t o Aer o Way s (D X 30) . B y Januar y 6 , 2006 , Rache l Dwares , a n attorne y a

t Morri s Nichols , responde dt o Mannin g Wtha t

Devin e ha dchecke dwit hth e FAA , an dpasse dalon g th e FAA' s guidanc e that "th e FA A doe s not hav e aproble mwit hasubleas e provide dthat ther e i s asingl e sublesse e an dth e leas e i s alon g termleas e - a

t leas t on e year . I n addition , th e ren t pai dfor th e subleas e mus t

b e roughl y I equivalen t

t o th e ren t

tha t atru e lesse e woul dpa y . .. " (D X 30) . Als o durin g th e Decembe r 21 , 200 5 meeting , Mannin g an dBelmon t informe dth e DRB A that

Aer o Way s wa s i n negotiation s t o manag e multipl e plane s owne db y anothe r

# F 14 . f company . Aer o Way s understoo dthat i t woul dhav e t o becom e an FB O t o sel l fliel t o thos e plane s (eve n if

, i n th e meantime , somethin g coul db e worke dou t s o Aer o Way s coul dfuel Siegal' s planes) . I n fact , durin g aJanuar y 26 , 200 6 meetin g withAer o Ways , Manning , DRBA , an dMorri s Nichols , Mannin g state dthat "Aeroways ' plan s ar e th e sam e a s the y wer e i n Decembe r

- Aeroway s i s intereste di n offerin g fuel t o al l manage daircraf t customer s an di s willin g t o becom e a n FB O i n orde r t o d o so " (D X 31 , Compl . Ex . F.37 ) (emphasi s added) . Aer o Way s chos e tw o hangar s fo r it s permanen t

FB O home , an dwa s ultimatel y th e winnin g bidde r

for them . A n issu e the n aros e becaus e Aer o Way s sough t confirmatio n from th e Authority that , o n th e da y o f closin g o f

th e hangar

purchase . Aer o Way s coul dope n for busines s a s an FBO . Th e DRB A coul dnot giv e suc hconfirmation , becaus e Aer o Way s ha dnot ye t me t th e othe r

requirement s t o becom e an FB O - whic hothe r requirement s wer e relate d amon g othe r

things , t o safet

y an denvironmenta l concern s (D X 32 , Compl . Ex . F.45 ; D X 33 , Compl . Ex . F.50) . Th e DRB A did , however , certif y that th e purchas e o f

th e hangar s gav e Aer o WWay s enoug hspac e t o satisf y that FB O requirement , an dtol dAer o Way s th e remainin g requirement s for

becomin g a

n FBO . I n Augus t

2006 , William s me t

withAer o Way s an d discusse doperationa l an dprocedura l aspect s o f th e fiiture Aer o Way s FB O operatio n (D X 2 , 1 ^ William s Decl . IfH)

- WilUam s als o identifie di n writin g for Belmon t th e requirement s for becomin g an FB O that

Aer o Way s ha dsatisfie dan dth e requirement s that wer e outstandin g (D X 32 , Compl . Ex . F.45) . FMannin g indicate do n Augus t 3 1 tha t th e DRBA' s lette r

informin g Aer o Way s o f what i t ha dt o d o befor e becomin g an FB O "i s not enough " (D X 34 , Compl . Ex . F.46) . However , withi n amonth . Aer o Way s sen t th e execute dhangar

purchas e agreement s t o th e ¥ DRB A an dpropose daproces s for resolvin g th e remainin g FB O item s (D X 33 , Compl . Ex . 

# F F F F F F F F F F F F

# F F F F F F F F F F 

# F F F F F 15 .

F.50) . Thi s resulte di n an amendmen t t o th e agreement s fo

r th e hangars , t o exten dth e closin g dat e an dt o pu t

int o th e agreemen t

th e remainin g lis t

o f item s that

Aer o Way s ha dt o satisf y t o becom e a

n FBO . Althoug hAer o Way s mad e alast-minut e chang e o f th e identity o f

th e acquisitio n entity , whic hdelaye dth e closin g date , th e Authorit y accommodate dth e chang e an d th e closin g occurre do n Februar y 9 , 2007 . Aer o Way s satisfie dth e remainin g requirement s an d becam e an FB O o n Marc h12,200 7 (D X 6) . III . TH EDRBA-AER O WAY S RELATIONSHI PAFTE RAER O WAY S BECAM EA N FB O A . X O Je t

Become s A Tenan t

A t Ne w Castl e Airpor t

An d Exercise s It s Righ t

T o Self-Fue l I n lat e 2007 , X O Jet , aprivat e aviatio n company, becam e atenan t at th e Airport . Unlik e Aer o Way s - anon-ai r carrie r Part 9 1 operato r

- X O Je t

i s an ai r carrie r an dholde r

o f a Part 13 5 certificat e (D X 35 , Compl . Ex . F.71) . A s such , accordin g t o federal requirements , X O Je t ha s th e optio n t o self-handle , includin g t o self-fiiel ; or , i t ma y choos e t o confrac t

ou t t o thir d partie s providin g thes e service s (Gran t Assuranc e 22(d) ; AmAv, Inc . v . Marylan dAviatio n Administration , FA A Docke t No . 16-05-1 2 (FA A Marc h20 , 2006 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrde r a t p.5 ) (affirmin g Director' s Determinatio n that AmA v was allowe dt o self-fiie l aircraf t operate d unde r it s Part 13 5 certificat e an dstatin g that "[t]h e FA A finds that

[th e Airport ] ma y no t

preven t AmA v fromprovidin g fiielin g service s t o thei r Part 13 5 operation...")) . Part 13 5 certificat e rule s d o not

requir e th e ai r

carrie r t o hav e actua l ownershi p o f th e aircraf

t i n questio n i n orde r

t o Wself-fuel , an downershi p i s not arequiremen t

for self-handlin g rule s t o appl y (FA R§ 135.25(c)) . However , th e aircraf

t mus t b e operate da s par t

o f th e company' s commercia l ai r carrie r busines s for thi s right t o b e recognize dan dexercise db y th e certificat e holde r (FA R§135.77) .

# F F F F 

# r r I * 

# F 16 . X O Je t electe dt o exercis e it s optio n t o self-handl e a t th e Airport . It

therefor e ha s th e right t o dispens e it s ow n fuel int o aircraf t operate dunde r

it s Part 13 5 certificate , but

ma y not sel l o r transfe r fuel t o an y thir dpart y operato r (e.g. , AmAv , FA A Docke t No . 16-05-1 2 a

t 5 ("Th e FA A finds that

[th e Airport ] ma y not

preven t AmA v fromprovidin g fiielin g service s t o thei r Part 13 5 operation....") ; D X 3 6 at p . 12 , §IV A ("A n FB O i s th e onl y Perso n allowe dt o sel l fiiel t o othe r Person s a

t th e Airport.")) . I n doin g so , X O Je t o f cours e mus t

compl y wit hth e Airport' s self-fiielin g rules , a s se t

fort hi n Sectio n 5.1 6 o f

th e Rule s an dRegulations , whic hi t doe s (D X 2 , William s Decl . ^12) . Aer o Way s allege s that X O Je t doe s no t hav e a500 0 gallo n fiiel tan k o f Avga s o n it s lease dproperty , whic hAer o Way s say s i s require dunde r Sectio n 5.16(d ) (Compl . ^1 6 n.3) . X O Jet , however , doe s not us e Avga s i n it s aircraf t (D X 2 , William s Decl . |12) . FTherefore , i t nee dnot (anddoe s not ) hav e a500 0 gallo n fuel tan k o f Avgas o n it s lease dpropert y (id.) . I n confrast . Aer o Ways , a s a n FBO , i s subjec t

t o th e requiremen t

t o provid e Avgas for

sal e (D X 36 , III.8.a) , an dthu s mus t hav e an Avga s tank . Ther e woul db e n o purpos e t o requir e aself

Ffueler

lik e X O Je t

t o hav e atan k

for ga s i t doe s no t use ; however , i t

i s entirel y reasonabl e - and , i n fact , require db y th e Airport' s Minimu mStandard s - t o requir e an FB O lik e Aer o Way s t o hav e atan k

for ga s tha t i t i s require dt o provid e for sale . X O Je t signe daleas e wit hth e DRB A o n Novembe r 20 , 2007 . Confrar

y t o Aer o Ways ' assertio n (Compl . ^ 9) , X O Je t wa s no t give n fiieling rights pursuan t t o it s lease . Th e leas e provide s that

X O Je t ma y us e th e fuel far

mo n it s lease dproperty , grantin g X O Je t "th e exclusiv e possessio n an dfiill confro l o f th e tw o (2 ) 12,00 0 gallo n fliel tank s ("Fue l Tanks" ) tha t compris e th e fuel far

mlocate do n th e southeastern come r o f th e Premises) " (D X 37 , ( § 1(a) o f X O Je t Lease) . X O Jet' s ability t o fuel th e aircraf t o n it s Par t

13 5 certificat e come s fromit s statu s a s a

n ai r carrier . Aer o Way s allege s aconversatio n betwee n it s CE O an dth e Manager o f 

# F F F F F F f 

# F F

# F F F F F 17 .

X O Je t abou t th e term s o f

X O Jet' s confrac t

withth e DRB A (Compl . T f 15) , but a s th e DRB A wa s not apart y t o tha t

conversation , i t

canno t speak t o what wa s discussed . Th e critica l fact however , i s that

X O Je t i s aPart 13 5 certificat e holde r

withth e federally-guarantee dright t o self

fiiel. FAfter signin g it s lease , X O Je t issue daReques t

for Proposa l for

Aviatio n Fue l ("RFP" ) o n Januar y 15 , 2008 , solicitin g th e Airport' s FBOs , includin g Aer o Way s (D X 38) . Thi s RF Pprompte dAer o Way s t o as k th e DRB A wh y X O Je t coul dfuel it s aircraf

t withou t r bein g a

n FB O (see , e.g. , D X 39 , Compl . Ex . F.58) . O n January 28 , William s correctl y informe d Aer o Ways ' Beckso n tha t X O Je t wa s aPart

13 5 operato r

wit hth e right

t o self-handl e (zJ. ; D X 35) . Beckso n the n wrot e t o Williams , stating : "[a] s pe r ou r conversatio n o n Monday , January \28th , yo u advise dChuc k [Belmont ] an dI that

documentatio n yo u possesse dwil l sho w that 13 5 operator s qualif

y for sel f fuelin g rights" (zcf.) . William s aske dt o discus s X O Je t withAer o Way s o n Januar y 31 , 200 8 (id) , bu t Aer o Way s provide dn o writte n respons e unti l April . A t that time . Mannin g wrot e t o William s that "[m] y clien t

ha s bee n advise dthat

X O Je t i s currentl y fuelin g o r plannin g t o fuel aircraf

t that i t manage s withou t

havin g ha dt o qualif

y it s facility a s a

n FBO . [ ] I amwritin g t o as k

ho w i t i s that X O Je t ca n compl y withapplicabl e Authorit y rule s i n providin g fuel t o it s aircraft . I conced e a t th e outse t

that th e answe r

ma y wel l b e that

ou r fact s are incorrec t o r that othe r fact s distinguis hth e tw o situations " (D X 40 , Compl . Ex . F.64) . In response , William s agai n explaine dthat X O Je t an dAer o Way s are "significantl y different" : 

# r F F F F 

# r F F F F F Mor e specifically , wherea s Aeroway s i s primaril y a n aircraf t managemen t

company , X O Je t

i s certifie db y th e FA A t o operat e a s a n ai r carrie r unde r FA RPart

13 5 rules . Muc hlik e owner operator s o f

aircraf t unde r FA RPart

91 , ai r carrier s certifie dunde r Part 12 1 o r Part 13 5 ar e give n th e optio n t o self-handl e o r the y ma y elec t t o confrac t

ou t t o thir dpartie s fo

r suc hservice(s) .

# r r f 

# r r r r r r r r r r r 

# r 18 .

(D X 35 , Compl . Ex . F.71) . WilUam s als o attache dacop y o f X O Jet' s certificat e (se e id) . Twenty day s after

th e DRBA' s letter , Josep hLamonac awrot e t o William s initiatin g Pre

Complain t

Resolutio n unde r

1 4 C.F.R . § 16.2 1 (D X 41 , Compl . Ex . F.72) . B . Th e Authorit y Ha s Treate dPartie s Similarl y Situate d T o Aer o Way s I n Th e Sam e Manne r After th e parties ' correspondenc e above . Aer o Way s contacte dth e DRB A abou t a Jun e 200 8 emai l i n whic hRe dEagl e Avionics , LL C ("Re dEagle") , anothe r airport tenan t - no t a n FB O - purporte dt o offe r fuel for sal e t o thir dpartie s (D X 42) . Th e DRB A ha dnot give n Re d Eagl e permissio n t o sel l fuel t o others , an di n fact , ha dmad e clear t o Re dEagl e that

(onc e i t me t Fdi e requirement s i n th e Rule s an dRegulation s an dth e Minimu mStandards ) i t coul donl y self

fuel aircraf

t that i t owne do r

solel y lease d(D X 2 , William s Decl . I f 13) . Th e issu e wa s ultimatel y resolved , wit hRe dEagl e agreein g t o abid e b y th e Rule s an dRegulation s an dMinimu m FStandard s (id) . Th e DRB A enforce dth e Airport' s fuelin g rule s agains t Re dEagl e - anon-ai r carrier , non-FB O - i n th e sam e way a s th e DRB A enforce dth e rule s agains t Aer o Ways , before Aer o Way s becam e an FB O (id) . FC . Th e DRB A Di dNo t Discriminat e Agains t

Aer o Way s Whe n Aer o Way s Violate dDRB A Rule s An dDamage d Th e Car dReade r

A t Th e FA A Gat e O n Septembe r

19 , 2008 , an Aer o Way s employe e damage daDRB A car dreade r Wb y makin g a n imprope r

tiu n whil e attemptin g t o driv e amotor-hom e throug hon e o f th e Airport' s gates int o th e midfiel d(D X 2 , WilUam s Decl . IfH ; D X 43) . Accordin g t o th e DRBA' s PoUc e Report , th e Aer o Way s employee , Dwayn e Lenker , "advise dthat h e wa s facin g north(paralle l t o R t 13 ) prio r t o turnin g lef

t t o acces s th e gate , whe n h e di dnot properl y negotiat e hi s lef t turn " (D X 4 3 a t 3) . Th e officer

observe dtha t

th e moto r

home' s "lef

t sid e collide dwithth e confro l pane l an dbrok e i t

of f th e mount " (id ) an dprovide dadiagramo f th e acciden t

(id . a t 4) . Aer o

# F F F F F F F 

# r F 19 .

Way s als o violate dtw o DRB A rule s whil e movin g th e moto r home . Th e Aer o Way s drive r was movin g anothe r

tenant' s moto r

hom e t o park

i t i n ahangar

for storage , eve n thoug hparkin g moto r vehicle s i n hangar s for

storag e i s prohibite db y th e DRB A (D X 2 , William s Decl . ^14) . I n addition , th e moto r

hom e that

wa s bein g drive n wa s to o lon g for entry throug hthat

gate ; signag e wa s clearl y place do n th e fenc e disallowin g vehicle s o f that siz e (se e id. ; D X 44 , Compl . Ex . F.87) . Th e DRBA' s Benjami n Clendanie l (the n th e Actin g Senio r Airport Manager ) emaile dLenke r

o n Septembe r

23 , requestin g additiona l informatio n (D X 45) . Neithe r Lenke r no r anyon e els e at

Aer o Way s responde d(D X 2 , William s Decl . I f 15) . Therefore , o n Septembe r 26 , Clendanie l revoke dAer o Ways ' acces s t o th e gat e (D X 45 ; D X 2 , WilUam s Decl . I f 15). ^ FAer o Ways ' Belmon t responde do n Septembe r 29 , tellin g th e DRB A that "balanc e o f th e damag e t o th e car dreader " occurre dafter th e drive r

wa s instructe dt o bac k

ou t throug hth e gat e b y a n Authorit y employe e becaus e th e Secre t Servic e wa s prohibitin g entry t o th e airfiel d Fdu e t o th e fac t that Senato r Biden' s aircraf

t wa s o n th e groun dther e (se e id. ; D X 46 , Compl . Ex . F.84) . Thes e additiona l assertion s are simpl y incorrec t (an dno t wha t th e Aer o Way s Fdrive r

tol dth e DRB A Polic e a t th e tim e o f

th e accident) . Th e car dreade r coul dnot

hav e bee n damage dwhe n Aer o Way s backe dthroug hth e gate , becaus e th e car dreade r wa s bent-ove r forwar d(D X 4 3 (DRBA Polic e Report) ; D X 2 , WilUam s Decl . I f 15) . No r wa s Biden' s aircraf

t I ther e - i t

ha dlef t th e airport

hour s befor e th e inciden t occurre d(se e D X 2 , William s Decl . I f 16) . 

# r O n Septembe r 30 , th e nex t

day , William s responde dt o Belmon t indicatin g that

h e unsuccessfull y 

# F" " F F F F

Aer o Way s ma y stil l acces s th e midfield , a s othe r tenant s do , b y crossin g anothe r portio n o f th e airfiel d(WilUam s Decl . I f 15) .

# F F F F F F 

# r F F P F F F F F F 20 .

attempte dt o contac t

Belmon t an dthat h e wishe dt o discus s an dquickl y resolv e th e cardreade r issu e (D X 46 , Compl . Ex . F.84) .

Aer o Ways ' onl y respons e t o Williams ' e-mai l was t o file aFOI A reques t abou t th e arrival an ddepartur e time s o f Biden' s aircraf

t (D X 47) . Thi s i s wha t Aer o Ways ' overly

dramati c allegatio n i n it s Complain t - that th e car dreade r

inciden t require d"th e interventio n o f th e Unite dState s Governmen t b y wa y o f

th e Freedo mo f

Informatio n Act " (Compl . T f 32 ) - reall y means. ^ FAer o Way s ha s not provide dth e respons e t o it s FOI A reques t (se e D X 48 , Compl . Ex . F.8 5 (Aer o Ways ' FOL \request) ; D X 49 , Compl . Ex . F.8 6 (U S DO T acknowledgemen t o f receip t o f FOI A request)) . Instead , Aer o Way s include dthi s "claim " i n thi s Part 1 6 action , Fallegin g - withou t citatio n o r

support - that th e DRB A ha s no t

revoke dacces s t o th e gat e fo r other s wh o hav e disobeye dth e rule s (D X 46 , Compl . Ex . F.84) . No t onl y i s ther e n o discrimination , but

Aer o Way s misconstrue s wh y th e DRB A revoke dit s acces s t o th e gate . N o Won e els e ha s violate dAirport rules , whil e causin g damag e t o DRB A property , an dthe n refuse dt o respon dt o th e DRBA' s inquirie s (D X 2 , William s Decl . ^15) . Th e DRB A appropriatel y exercise dit s authorit y t o enforc e it s rules .

D . Aer o Ways ' Remainin g Allegation s Concer n Issue s O n Whic hTh e Partie s Appea r T o Agre e Bu t

Whic hHav e No t Ye t Bee n Implemented , An dAr e Thu s No t Cognizabl e I n A Par t

1 6 Actio n Th e Complain t

als o allege s that

th e DRB A ha s discriminate dagains t Aer o Way s o n othe r issue s o n whic hth e partie s hav e ahead y reache dagreement , but , for variou s reasons . Eve n i f Aer o Ways ' versio n o f

th e fact s i s correc t

- whic hi t

i s not - Aer o Way s stil l violate dDRB A rules , damage dDRB A property , an dfaile dt o answe r aDRB A inquiry . Th e DRBA' s action s i n revokin g Aer o Ways ' gat e acces s wer e appropriate .

# F F 21 .

hav e not yet bee n implemented . A s such , the y are simpl y not th e prope r

subjec t o f aPart 1 6 Complaint , an dther e i s n o basi s for finding th e Authorit y i n violation . Aer o Way s assert s that

th e DRB A agree dt o leas e Aer o Way s lan dnear Taxiway A 7 i n lat e 200 8 an dha s refuse dt o tak e Aer o Ways ' call s regardin g enterin g int o aleas e (Compl . T f 21) , that i t i s th e onl y FB O no t

t o hav e asig n o n taxiwa y Alpha , an dthat th e DRB A agree dthat Aer o Way s coul dhav e suc hasig n (Compl . T f 19) . Aer o Way s ha s bee n illegall y parkin g aircraf t outsid e o f

it s leasehol d(o n DRB A property ) near

Taxiwa y A 7 (e.g. , D X 50 ; D X 2 , WilUam s Decl . I f 17) . Th e DRB A ha s informe d Aer o Way s o f

thi s issue , but

Aer o Way s ha s continue dit s imprope r conduc t (e.g. , D X 50 ; D X 2 , William s Decl . Tfl7) . Th e DRB A ha s attempte dt o work withAer o Way s t o leas e th e additiona l lan dnear Taxiwa y A 7 - th e lan dthat i s th e subjec t

o f on e o f Aer o Ways ' allegation s - t o solv e thi s issu e (D X 2 , WilUam s Decl . Tfl7 ; D X 51) . I n connectio n withthi s negotiation , th e DRB A ha s indicate dthat

i t wil l als o provid e a

n FB O sig n o n taxiwa y Alph a(id) . Ther e i s n o disput e here : th e DRB A remain s wilUn g t o negotiat e withAer o Way s abou t leasin g thi s land . It

i s disappointin g that

Aer o Way s ha s chose n t o includ e thi s issu e i n a Part 1 6 complaint , rathe r

tha n workin g wit hth e DRBA . Aer o Way s shoul dno t misus e th e Part 1 6 procedur e for

issue s tha t

ar e no t i n dispute . IV . AER O WAYS ' PAR T 1 6 COMPLAIN T O n Jun e 25 , 2008 , Aer o Way s informe dth e DRB A tha t i t woul db e initiatin g th e Pre-Complain t

Resolutio n procedure s unde r 1 4 C.F.R . 16.2 1 (D X 41 , Compl . Ex . F.72) . Th e DRB A an dAer o Way s me t i n Octobe r

200 8 wit hpersonne l an dcoimse l for bot hAer o Way s an d th e DRB A (D X 2 , William s Decl . Tfl8) . Aer o Way s raise dth e issu e abou t becomin g a

n FB O t o fuel it s customer s whil e X O Je t di dnot hav e t o becom e a

n FB O t o self-fliel , an dindicate dthat

# F 

# f F F F F 

# r 22 .

Aer o Way s wa s seekin g milUon s i n damage s (id) . Th e meetin g conclude dwit hAer o Way s agreein g t o provid e supportin g documentatio n abou t it s assertion s (id) . Instea do f providin g th e documentatio n abou t

it s claims , however . Aer o Way s instea dsen t th e DRB A aNovembe r 4 , 200 8 lette r

that itemize dAer o Ways ' purporte dmonetar y damage s relate dt o it s Part 1 6 clai m (D X 52) . Th e DRB A reiterate dit s reques t for amemorandu maddressin g Aer o Ways ' claims , statin g that , i n orde r

for th e DRB A t o "provid e awel l reasone drespons e t o th e lis t o f [alleged ] damage s .. . i t

wil l b e necessar y for

th e Authorit y t o fully understan dth e specifi c natur e an d Fscop e o f

th e allege dAer o Ways ' claims.. . an dho w thos e claim s specificall y relat e t o th e damage s outline di n you r letter " (D X 53) . Almos t hal f ayear later , o n Apri l 8 , 2009 , Aer o Way s supplie damemorandu mt o th e DRB A providin g som e additional specificity abou t it s allegation s Fan ddamag e claim s (D X 54 , Compl . Ex . B) . Th e DRBA' s response , amon g othe r things , agai n * explaine di n detai l tha t X O Je t hel daPart

13 5 certificat e an dthu s wa s entitle dt o self-fue l aircraf t o n that certificat e (an dattache dsupportin g cas e law , includin g th e AmA v cas e discusse d supr aa t III.A.) , an dcontraste dX O Je t t o Aer o Ways , whic hhel dn o ai r carrie r certificate s and , prio r t o becomin g a

n FBO , ha dth e right

t o self-fue l onl y aircraf

t i t owne do r

solel y lease d(D X 55 , Compl . Ex . C) . Aer o Way s di dnot respon dt o that

letter , but

filedthi s Part

1 6 Complain t withth e FA A o n Septembe r 29 , 2009 , allegin g that

th e DRB A ha s unjustl y discriminate dagains t Aer o Way s sinc e 2002 .

O n Octobe r

22 , 2009 , th e FA A issue dnotic e that i t ha ddockete dth e Complaint . I n th e Notic e o f

Docketing , th e FA A clarifie dthat "i t ha s n o authorit y t o awar ddamage s t o person s subjecte dt o an airport sponsor' s non-complianc e wit hit s gran t assurances, " an dmad e clear that it s "rol e i n thi s Part

1 6 proceedin g wil l b e t o revie w th e airport sponsor' s curren t complianc e withit s Federa l obUgation s an dnot adjudicat e damages " (D X 1 , a t p. l n.l) . Muc h

# F 

# F F F F F F F F F F

F F F 23 .

o f Aer o Ways ' Complain t i s base do n pas t

occurrence s an dallege dviolation s no t actionabl e imde r FA RPart

16 . Aer o Way s sough t damage s i n exces s o f

$1 0 million , including , amon g othe r items , th e cost s o f

th e tw o hangar s Aer o Way s purchase dfromth e Authorit y whe n i t becam e a n FBO , it s attorneys ' fees , an daUegedeconomi c har mfromit s los t opportunity t o fuel it s customers . Thes e amount s reflec t th e cost s o f

Aer o Ways ' busines s decision s i n it s pursuit t o fuel it s customers ' aircraft , not an y damag e fromaction s b y th e DRBA . Withdamage s bein g unavailabl e t o Aer o Ways , i t i s unclear

wha t relie f Aer o Way s seek s i n thi s proceeding . ARGUMEN T I . TH EFA A I S ONL Y CONCERNE D WIT H A N AIRPOR T SPONSOR' S CURREN T COMPLIANC EWIT H TH EGRAN T ASSURANCES , AN D AER O WAYS ' COMPLAIN T DOE S NO T RAIS ECURREN T COMPLIANC EISSUE S Th e FA A ha s mad e clear tha t it s "rol e i n thi s Part

1 6 proceedin g wil l b e t o revie w th e airport

sponsor' s curren t

complianc e withit s Federa l obUgations " (Oct . 22 , 200 9 Notic e o f Docketing ) (emphasis added) . Thi s i s th e FAA' s long-standin g positio n o f it s rol e i n adjudicatin g Par t

1 6 Complaints : 

# r [I] n addressin g allegation s o f noncompUance , th e FA A wil l mak e a determinatio n a s t o whethe r an airport

sponso r i s currentl y i n compUanc e wit hth e applicabl e federal obUgations . Consequently , Fth e FA A wil l conside r a s ground s for

dismissa l o f

suc hallegation s ' th e successfu l actio n b y th e airport sponso r t o cur e an y allege do r 

# r potentia l pas t violatio n o f

applicabl e federal obligations , subsequen t

t o FA A receip t

o f th e allegation s an dprio r t o th e issuanc e o f

afinal FA A compUanc e decision . FRichar dE . Steer e v . County o f San Diego , California, ^PJK Docke t No . 16-99-15 , 200 4 W L 3198209 , at

* 9 (FA A Dec . 7 , 2004) ; se e id . a t * 16 , 21 , 22 ; se e als o Appalachia n Sta r Ventures , Inc . V . Tri-Citie s Airpor t

Comm'n , FA A Docke t

No . 16-96-02 , 199 7 W L1120735 , a t * 5 (FA A FOct . 22 , 1997 ) ("A s th e FA A ha s previousl y foun dth e purpos e o f th e FA A complianc e progra m

# r 24 . f i s t o assur e that sponsor s o f

obligate dairport s are currentl y i n compUanc e withthei r gran t 

# F F F F F F obUgation s - not t o penaliz e pas t

occurrence s o f

noncompliance . After

th e passag e o f

2 8 months , th e action s complaine do f d o no t appear t o qualif y a s curren t

airport sponso r action.") . Althoug hAer o Way s ha s not demonsfrate dthat

th e DRB A has , i n th e past , violate dan y Gran t Assurances , eve n i f

ther e wer e suc haviolation , ther e i s n o curren t violatio n a s lon g a s th e violatio n ha s bee n correcte db y th e tim e th e FA A make s it s determination . Id . a t *9 , *1 6 (citin g Wilso n Ai r Cente r LLC , v . Memphi s an dShelb y Count y Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-99

- 10 , 200 1 W L108534 8 at

* 4 (FA A Aug . 30 , 2001 ) (Final Agenc y Decisio n an dOrder ) (actio n b y th e airport

t o cur e an y violatio n o f

federal obligation s i s ground s for dismissa l o f

th e case)) . Th e purpos e o f

FAA' s complianc e program , o f whic hth e Part

1 6 proces s i s apart , i s t o ensur e airport Fsponso r

complianc e wit hit s federal obligations , not t o provid e relie f

t o an y specifi c complainant . Thermc o Aviation , Inc . v . Count y o f Lo s Angeles, FA A Docke t No . 16-06-0 7 (Dec . 17 , 2007 ) (Fina l Agenc y Decisio n an dOrde r at pp . 15,25 , 26) . FTh e Complain t shoul db e dismisse dbecaus e th e onl y relevan t determinatio n i n a Part 1 6 actio n i s curren t

compliance , an dAer o Ways ' allegation s rais e issue s relate dto pas t complianc e (which , a s explaine dbelow , di dnot amoun t t o violation s i n an y event) . Se e Richar d r E . Steere , FA A Docke t No . 16-99-1 5 (Dec . 7 , 2004) , 200 4 W L3198209 , at *9 ; se e also , Wilso

n Ai r Cente r v . Memphi s an dShelb y Count y Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-99-1 0 (Augus t

30 , 2001 ) (Final Agenc y Decision ) an d(Augus t 2 , 2000 ) (Director' s Determination) . Aer o Way s Fno w operate s a s an FBO . A s an FBO , i t ca n fue l an y aircraf

t at th e Airport . Accordingly , Aer o Ways ' allegation s concernin g it s ability t o fuel it s customers ' aircraf t are moo t

an dcurren t complianc e i s not

at issue . Th e onl y allegatio n b y Aer o Way s that th e DRB A i s not

i n curren t complianc e i s th e clai mthat th e DRB A require s Aer o Way s t o compl y withSectio n 5.1 6 o f th e 

# F F F F F F F

# F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F 25 .

Rule s an dRegulations , bu t doe s not requir e X O Je t

t o d o so . Thi s allegatio n i s baseless , a s discusse dbelo w i n Sectio n D . II . AER O WAY S HA S FAILE D T O SUBMI T SUFFICIEN T EVIDENC ET O SUPPOR T IT S COMPLAIN T It i s well-establishe dthat

aPart 1 6 Complainan t

ha s th e burde n o f

pleadin g an d provin g it s case . 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.229(b) ; Ric k Aviation , Inc . v . Peninsul aAirpor t Com m'n , FA A Docke t No . 16-05-18 , 200 7 W L145039 8 a t *1 4 (FA A Ma y 8 , 2007 ) (Director' s Determination ) ("Th e proponen t

o f amotion , reques t

o r orde r ha s th e burde n o f

proof") ; Adventur e Aviatio n v . Cit y o f La s Cruces , FA A Docke t No . 16-01-14 , 200 3 W L2269692 3 a t *1 5 (FA A Sept . 9 , 2003 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder) . I n thi s context , th e burde n o f proo f mean s th e burde n o f

persuasion . I n th e Matte r

o f th e Cit y o f Sant aMonica , FA A Docke t No . 16-02-08 , FA A Orde r No . 2009-1 , p.26-2 7 (FA A Jul y 8 , 2009 ) (Fina l Agenc y Decisio n an dOrde r at p.26-27) . Aer o Way s ha s th e Fburde n o f

provin g eac han devery on e o f it s claim s that

th e DRB A violate dth e Gran t Assurances , an dAer o Way s ha s faile dt o d o so .

Further , Part

1 6 Complainant s "shal l provid e aconcis e bu t complet e statemen t

o f Fth e fact s reliedupo n t o substantiat e eac hallegation. " 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(b)(3) . Complainant s

canno t mee t thi s burde n b y simpl y submittin g "volume s o f page s i n exhibit s i f

the y hav e faile dt o explai n ho w th e individua l exhibit s support specifi c allegations. " JetAwa y Aviation , Inc . v . r Montros e County , Colorad o & th e Montros e Count y Bldg . Auth. , FA A Docke t No . 16-08-01 , 200 9 WL213662 2 at

*4 6 n. 7 (FA A Jul y 2 , 2009 ) (Director' s Determination ) (citin g M . Danie l Care y an dClif

f Davenpor t

v . Afton-Lincol n Count

y Mun . Airpor t

Join t Power s Bd. , FA A Docke t No . 16-06-0 6 (FA A Jan . 19 , 2007 ) (Director' s Determinatio n at 55)) . 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.2 3 require s that th e Complainan t

submi t al l document s availabl e t o support it s complaint . "Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(b)(2) , th e Complainan t [is ] require dt o

# F F F F 

# r F F 26 .

submi t al l o f it s pleading s an dothe r

documentatio n i n support o f it s cas e s o that

i n renderin g th e Director' s Determination , th e FA A woul dhav e th e entir e recor dbefor e it. " Roadhous e Aviatio n V . Cit y o f Tulsa , FA A Docke t

No . 16-05-08 , 200 7 W L1966160 , at *1 1 (FA A Jun e 26 , 2007 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder) ; se e als o Boc aAirport , Inc . v . Boc aRato n Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t No . 16-04-02 , 200 4 W L528475 1 a t * 9 (Nov . 29 , 2004 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder). Also , 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.29(b)(1 ) require s eac hpart y t o file document s that i t consider s sufficient

t o presen t al l relevan t

fact s an dargumen t

necessary for

th e FA A t o determin e whethe r th e sponso r i s i n compliance , an dspecificall y provide s tha t i n renderin g th e Director' s Determinatio n "th e FA A ma y rel y entirel y o n th e complain t an dresponsiv e pleading s provide dunde r thi s subpart. " Id . FTh e Complain t shoul db e dismisse dbecaus e Aer o Way s faile dt o mee t it s burde n o f pleadin g an dprovin g it s case . Complainant s mus t put fort hth e fact s t o "substantiat e eac h aUegation " an dcanno t

d o s o b y submittin g "volume s o f page s i n exhibit s i f

the y hav e faile dt o Fexplai n ho w th e individua l exhibit s support specifi c allegations, " a s Aer o Way s ha s done . Se e JetAway Aviation , Inc. , FA A Docke t No . 16-08-0 1 (FA A Jul y 2 , 2009 ) (Director' s Determination) . Aer o Way s cite s t o alength y compilatio n o f exhibits , withou t

an y attemp t

t o describ e it s contents , pu t th e relevan t

communication s int o context , o r sho w ho w th e individua l exhibit s support

it s allegations . Accordingly , Aer o Way s ha s faile dt o mee t it s burde n o f

proo f III . TH EAUTHORITY' S RESPONS ET O TH ESPECIFI C COUNT S Aer o Way s allege dvariou s violation s o f Gran t Assiu-anc e 22 , "Economi c Nondiscrimination. " Generally , that sectio n concern s "th e reasonablenes s o f airport acces s an d th e prohibitio n o f

adoptin g unjustl y discriminatory condition s a s apotentia l for limitin g access. " Se e Ashevill e Jet , Inc . v . Ashevill e Reg' l Airpor t Auth . e t al. , Docke t

No . 16-08-0 2 (FA A Oct . 1 , 

# F F

# r F 27 .

2009 ) (Director' s Determinatio n at pp . 7-8) . Th e FA A recognize s tha t ho w th e "airport

sponso r choose s t o manag e it s airport i s withi n it s ow n discretio n absen t violatin g federal la w o r

policy, " an dth e FA A "doe s no t

normaU y interven e i n th e busines s decision s o f th e airport

sponsor s wher e gran t

assuranc e violation s ar e not a t issue. " Se e Ashevill e Jet , Inc. , Docke t No . 16-08-02 , at 8 (Director' s Determinatio n a t p . 18 ) (citin g Je t

1 Center , Inc . v . Naple s Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t No . 16-04-03 , (FA A Jan . 4 , 2005 ) (Director' s Determination) ; M . Danie l Care y & Clif f Davenpor t

v . Afton-Lincol n County Mun . Airpor t Join t Power s Bd. , FA A Docke t No . 16-06-0 6 F(FA A Jan . 19 , 2007 ) (Director' s Determination)) . A s se t fort hbelow . Aer o Way s ha s faile dto support th e claim s i n it s Complain t that th e Airport

ha s violate dan y o f

th e Gran t

Assurance s - whic hi s not , i n an y event , th e focu s o f thi s proceeding . 

# F F F 

# F FA . Aer o Way s Ha s Faile dT o Demonstrat e Tha t Th e Authorit y Ha s Violate dGran t Assuranc e 22(f) , Becaus e 

# r Th e DRB A Allow s Aircraf t Owner s T o Fue l Thei r Ow n Aircraf t Usin g Thei r

Ow n Employee s An dAer o Way s Neve r Owne dAn y Aircraf

t FAer o Way s allege s that th e DRB A violate dFA A Gran t Assuranc e 22(f

) "relatin g t o th e DRBA' s failure t o allo w Aer o Ways , Inc . th e right t o servic e itsel f

(Compl . \28 ) o n th e basi s that th e DRB A prohibite dAer o Way s fromfuelin g th e aircraf t o f it s customers . Grant f ^ Assuranc e 22(f ) states : 

# F F 

# r [Th e airport sponsor ] wil l not

exercis e o r

gran t an y right

o r privileg e whic hoperate s t o preven t an y person , firm, o r corporatio n operatin g aircraf t o n th e airport

fromperformin g an y service s o n it s ow n aircraf t withit s ow n employee s (includin g bu t not limite dt o maintenance , repair , an dfiieling) that i t ma y choos e t o perform . I Gran t Assuranc e 22(f) , however , require s that airport s allo w apart y t o self

servic e th e aircraf

t tha t i t own s (se e Gran t

Assuranc e 22(f) ; se e als o FA A Orde r 5190.6B , Sec . 11-2 ; FA A Advisor y Circular 150/5190- 7 (Aug . 28 , 2008 ) ("Self-fiielin g mean s th e fiieling o r 

# F F F

# F 

# r F F F 

# F F 28 .

servicin g o f

a n aircraf t (i.e . changin g th e oil , washing ) b y th e owne r o f th e aircraf

t withhi s o r he r ow n employee s an dusin g hi s o r he r ow n equipment." ) (emphasi s added) ; see , e.g. , AmAv, Inc . V . Marylan dAviatio n Administration , Docke t No . 16-05-12 , (FA A Marc h16 , 2006 ) (Director' s Determinatio n a t p . 3 , 10 , n.lO ) ("AmA v als o cite s gran t assuranc e 22(f

) bu t AmA v present s n o evidenc e o r

argumen t

that i t own s an y o f

th e aircraf

t i t operates . Evidenc e i n th e recor destablishe s that

i t doe s not ow n al l o f

th e aircraf

t i t wishe s t o self-fiiel . Thus , MA A i s no t require db y gran t

assuranc e 22(f

) t o allo w AmA v t o self-fue l thes e aircraft.")) . Th e Gran t FAssurance s provid e n o right for aircraf t manager s t o fuel customers ' aircraft . Aer o Way s doe s no t

ow n an dha s not

owne dan y aircraft ; i t

onl y manage s them . Th e Authorit y ha s n o obligatio n t o gran t aircraf t manager s th e right

t o fuel thei r

customers ' Faircraft . Accordingly , Aer o Way s ha s faile dt o stat e o r prov e aclai mfor

aviolatio n unde r

22(f) . B . Aer o Way s Ha s Faile dT o Demonstrat e Tha t Th e FDRB A Ha s Violate dGran t Assuranc e 22(d) , Becaus e ' Th e DRB A Permit s Ai r Carrier s T o Self-Serv e An d 

# f Aer o Way s Neve r Hel dA n Ai r

Carrie r Certificat e Aer o Way s allege s that

th e DRB A violate dGran t Assuranc e 22(d ) "relatin g t o th e FDRBA' s failure t o allo w Aer o Ways , Inc . th e right t o servic e itsel f

(Compl . I

f 27) . O n it s face ,

_Gran t

Assuranc e 22(d ) appUe s onl y t o ai r carrier s (emphasi s added) : 

# F Eac hai r carrie r usin g suc hairport

shal l hav e th e right

t o servic e 

# r itsel f o r t o us e an y fixed-basedoperato r that i s authorize do r permitte db y th e airport

t o serv e an y ai r

carrie r at suc hairport . Se e als o Monac o Coac hCorporatio n v . Eugen e Airpor t an dth e Cit

y o f Eugen e Oregon , Docke t No . 16-03-1 7 (FA A Jul y 24 , 2004 ) (Director' s Determinatio n at p . 18 ) ("[T]her e ca n b e n o Fviolatio n o f [Gran t Assuranc e 22(d) ] whic happlies onl y t o ai r carriers.") . Thus , Gran t Assuranc e 22(d ) require s that airport sponsor s allo w Ai r

Carrie r Certificat e Holder s - includin g Part 13 5 certificat e holder s lik e X O Je t - t o self-handle . Se e AmAv , Docke t No . 16-05-12 , 

# F F F F

# F 

# r F F F F F F 29 .

(Marc h16 , 2006 ) (Director' s Determinatio n a t p . 16 ) ("AmA v i s correc t tha t MA A i s require dt o allo w AmA v t o servic e itsel f a s aPart 13 5 Ai r Carrier.") . Th e Authorit y clearl y ha s not violate dAssuranc e 22(d) . Throughou t th e relevan t period . Aer o Way s ha s no t hel dan Ai r

Carrie r Certificate . Accordingly , Aer o Way s ha s faile dt o stat e aclai mfor

aviolatio n o f

Assuranc e 22(d) . Aer o Ways , however , assert s a n Assuranc e 22(d ) violatio n b y complainin g tha t i t informe dth e DRB A tha t i t "wa s managin g aFA A Par t 13 5 certifie daircraft, " an dthat th e DRB A di dno t

conside r o r discus s thi s wit hAer o Way s (se e Compl . \6) . Aer o Way s doe s not alleg e tha t

i t hel daPar t

13 5 certificat e relatin g t o th e aircraf t - becaus e i t

di dnot . Thus , i t

fail s t o plea dfact s that

coul dsupport

th e claime dviolatio n o f

Assuranc e 22(d) . FAer o Way s appear s t o b e referrin g t o Manning' s statemen t that "[t]h e DRB A kne w that

Aer o Way s ha dapplie dfo r it s ow n Part

13 5 certificat e an dthat i t ha danother' s certificat e availabl e for

it s use " (D X 7 , Compl . Ex . D) . Aer o Ways ' suggestio n that i t coul d Fpiggybac k

o n th e Part

13 5 certificat e o f

someon e els e i s inappropriat e - i f carrie dout , woul db e a shampimishabl e b y FA A fines, certificat e suspensions , o r revocations , a s 13 5 Certificat e holder s mus t maintai n operationa l contro l (D X 56 , FA A Notic e N 8900.95 , Octobe r 19 , 2009 , availabl e f a t

http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/notices/n8900_95.htm) ; se e als o FA RPart 135.77 , Part

13 5 Operating Requirements ) ("Eac hcertificat e holde r i s responsibl e for

operationa l contro l [].")) . Moreover , base do n X O Jet' s Part 13 5 certificate . Part

13 5 certificate s ar e no t

fransferable (D X 35 , Compl . Ex . F.71) . Furthermore , Aer o Ways ' implicatio n that acompan y that

ha s applie dfor aPart 13 5 certificat e mus t

b e freateda s i t

ha s obtaine dsuc hacertificat e i s mor e tha n absurd , an d i t intrude s o n th e FAA' s processe s for determinin g i f

an applican t

i s qualifie dt o operat e a s an ai r carrier . 

# F F F F F F 

# r F

# r F F F F F F F F F

F F F 30 . C . Aer o Way s Ha s Faile dT o Demonstrat e Tha t Th e DRB A Ha s Violate dGran t Assuranc e 22(h) , Becaus e Aer o Way s Ha s No t

Show n Tha t

Th e DRB A Impose s Unreasonabl e O r

Discriminator y Condition s O r Tha t Th e DRB A Ha s No t

Selectivel y Applie dIt s Standard s O r Regulation s Aer o Way s contends that th e DRB A violate dGran t Assuranc e 22(h ) "b y unreasonably , arbifrarily , an dcapriciousl y enforcin g it s rule s an dRegulation s o n Aer o Ways , Inc. , bu t not o n othe r similarl y situate dentitie s at [Ne w Castl e Airport] " (Compl . T f 31 , I f 29) . Specifically , th e Complain t challenge s th e DRBA' s enforcemen t o f Sectio n 5.1 6 o f

it s Rule s an d Regulations . Sectio n 5.16(d ) place s a500 0 gallo n fuel tan k requiremen t

o n airport

tenant s wh o self-fue l usin g Avga s (D X 5 7 (Rule s an dRegulations , § 5.16(d))) : " A minimu mabove groun d storag e tan k

capacity for

self-fuelin g shal l b e 12,00 0 gallon s for Jet- A an d5,00 0 gallon s fo r Avgas.") . FGran t Assuranc e 22(h ) give s th e Airport th e flexibility t o estabUs hcondition s that ar e reasonabl e an dnot

unjustl y discriminatory t o ensur e th e saf e an defficient

operatio n o f

th e Airport : FTh e sponso r ma y establis hsuc hreasonable , an dno t unjustl y discriminatory , condition s t o b e me t b y al l user s o f

th e airport

a s

_ma y b e necessar y for th e saf e an defficient

operatio n o f

th e airport . 

# r Aer o Way s allege s that th e DRB A improperl y enforce s Sectio n 5.16(d ) o f th e FRule s an dRegulation s o n Aer o Ways , bu t not o n X O Je t

(Compl . ^ 16 , n.3) . Aer o Way s i s incorrect . X O Jet , a s aself-fuelin g Part 13 5 certificat e holde r

mus t compl y wit hSectio n 5.1 6 - an di t doe s (D X 2 , William s Decl . tl2) . X O Je t doe s no t hav e a n Avga s tan k

becaus e X O Je t f doe s no t

us e Avgas . Therefore , i t doe s not hav e t o mee t

th e Avga s tan k

requiremen t

i n Sectio n 5.16(d) . I n confrast . Aer o Ways , a s an FBO , mus t provid e Avga s for

sal e (D X 3 6 at

p . 12 , Ill.S.a) , an dals o mus t

compl y withSectio n 5.1 6 o f th e Rule s an dRegulation s (id . a t III.7) .

# r F F F F F 31 .

Therefore , Aer o Way s mus t hav e th e Avgas tan k

reference di n Sectio n 5.16(d) , bu t X O Je t nee d not . Ther e woul db e n o purpos e t o requir e aself-flieler lik e X O Je t

t o hav e atan k

for ga s i t doe s no t use ; however , i t

i s entirel y reasonabl e t o requir e a n FB O like Aer o Way s t o hav e atank for ga s that i t i s require dt o provid e fo r sale . I n fact , requirin g aself-flieler t o hav e an Avgas tank whe n th e self-fueler

doe s not us e on e coul db e viewe da s discriminatory agains t th e self-fiieler . Finally , Aer o Way s make s th e genera l allegatio n that X O Je t doe s not compl y wit hSectio n 5.16(b ) throug h(e ) (Compl . T f 1 6 n.4) . Thi s allegatio n i s completel y unsupporte d f * elsewher e i n th e complain t o r i n Aer o Ways ' exhibits . X O Je t complie s wit hal l applicabl e section s o f

Rul e 5.1 6 (D X 2 , William s Decl . ^12) . Accordingly , Aer o Way s ha s faile dt o sho w tha t th e DRB A ha s selectivel y o r discriminatoril y applie dan y o f it s rules . 

# F F F D . Aer o Way s Ha s No t Demonstrate dTha t

Th e Authorit y Ha s Violate dGran t

Assuranc e 22(a) , Becaus e Aer o Way s Ha s No t

Allege do r

Show n Unjus t

Discriminatio n FO r Tha t Th e Airpor t

I s No t Availabl e O n Reasonabl e ^ Term s WAer o Way s allege s tha t th e DRB A violate dGran t Assuranc e 22(a ) "relatin g t o th e DRBA' s failur e t o mak e [Ne w Casti e Airport ] availabl e for reasonabl e term s an dwithou t unjus t discriminatio n t o Aer o Ways , In c .. . " (Compl . I f 26) . Subsectio n (a ) o f

Gran t Assuranc e 2 2 Ftha t

require s that

th e airport

sponso r mak e th e airport

availabl e withou t

unjus t discrimination : [Th e airport

sponsor ] wil l mak e th e airport availabl e a s a

n airport Ffor publi c us e o n reasonabl e term s an dwithou t unjus t discriminatio n t o al l types , kind s an dclasse s o f aeronautica l 

# r activities , includin g commercia l aeronautica l activitie s offerin g service s t o th e publi c a

t th e airport . FA A Gran t

Assurances , 4 9 U.S.C . § 47107 . Gran t Assuranc e 22(a ) guarantee s that th e sponso r wil l mak e th e airport

availabl e o n reasonabl e term s withou t unjus t discriminatio n regardin g Faeronautica l activities . Th e FA A recognize s that 22(a ) i s bothqualifie db y subsectio n (h ) 

# F F F32 .

permittin g Airport s t o impos e reasonabl e restrictions , an dsubsectio n (i ) permittin g Airport s t o prohibi t certai n activitie s for

safety an defficienc y purposes . Airborn e Flyin g Serv. , Inc. , v . Cit y o f Ho t Springs , Arkansas , FA A Docke t No . 16-07-0 6 (FA A Dec . 18 , 2007 ) (Director' s Determination) .

Th e DRB A di dnot

violat e 22(a) . A s explaine dabove , Aer o Way s ha s not sufficientl y allege do r

establishe dunreasonabl e term s o r unjus t discriminatio n because : (i ) th e DRB A neve r

infringe do n Aer o Way s self-flielin g rights, becaus e Aer o Way s wa s neve r i n a positio n t o exercis e "self-fuelin g rights (eithe r a s an aircraf

t owne r o r Ai r Carrier) ; (ii ) th e DRB A neve r

discriminate dagains t

Aer o Way s b y permittin g X O Je t t o exercis e it s self-fuelin g rights, no r

coul dit , becaus e X O Je t i s a n ai r carrie r an dAer o Way s i s not ; (iii ) Aer o Way s ha s not claime dan y o f

th e DRBA' s restriction s an dcondition s place do n fuelin g ar e unreasonabl e o r discriminatory ; (iv ) Aer o Way s ha s not demonsfrate dthat

th e DRB A ha s selectivel y applie dan y o f it s standard s o r

regulations ; an d(v ) Aer o Way s ha s bee n accorde dfull fiieling rights a t th e Airport sinc e i t becam e an FBO , a s describe dabove . E . Aer o Way s Ha s No t Demonstrate dTha t

Th e Authorit y Ha s Violate dFA A Orde r 5190.6A , Chapte r

7-26(e)(l) , Becaus e I t

Doe s No t

Exis t An dI n An y Event , Orde r 5190.6 A Wa s No t

Regulator y An dDi dNo t Gover n Airpor t Sponso r Conduc t Aer o Way s allege s that "th e DRB A faile dt o compl y wit hth e FA A Orde r 5190.6A , th e Airport s Complianc e Handbook , Chapte r 7-26(e)(l ) [b y denyin g Aer o Way s it s right t o sel f fuel]. " Th e FA

A Airport

Complianc e Manual , FA A Orde r 5190.6 B (whic h supersede dFA A Orde r

5190.6A) , provide s th e polic y an dprocedure s that th e FA A follow s i n carryin g ou t

it s compliance-ensurin g function . Aer o Ways ' allegatio n fail s t o stat e aclaim . First , FA A 5190.6 A i s n o longe r33 .

effectiv e an dha s bee n supercede db y 5190.6 B (Orde r 5190.6B , § 1.4) . Second , Chapte r 7

- 26(e)(1 ) doe s no t

exis t i n Orde r 5190.6A , no r

i n th e ne w Orde r

5190.6B . Finally , ther e i s n o caus e o f actio n for

violatio n o f

th e Order , whic hstate s that i t "i s not regulator y an di s not confrollin g wit hregar dt o airport sponso r conduct ; rather , i t

establishe s th e policie s an d procedure s for

FA A personne l t o follo w i n carryin g ou t th e FAA' s responsibilitie s for ensurin g airport compUance " (Orde r

5190.6B , ^ 1.1 ; se e als o Orde r 5190.6A , Forewor da

t 1 ("Thi s Orde r provide s th e policie s an dprocedure s t o b e followe di n carryin g ou t th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration' s (FAA ) function s relate dt o airport compliance.")) . IV . AER O WAYS ' REMAININ GCLAIM S D O NO T STAT E CAUSE S O FACTION , AR EPUREL Y SPECULATIVE , O R AR EOTHERWIS ESIMPL Y WRON G Throughou t

it s Complaint , Aer o Way s make s severa l claim s regardin g th e DRBA' s conduc t

that d o not stat e cause s o f

actio n bu t

whic hunnecessaril y an dfalsel y malig n th e Authorit y an dit s personnel . Th e Authorit y therefor e respond s t o eac hclai mindividually .

A . Aer o Way s Ha s No t Supporte dIt s Clai mTha t Th e Authority' s Dealing s Wit hAer o Way s Regardin g X O Jet' s Right s Wer e Inappropriat e O r Misleadin g Aer o Way s makes severa l allegation s concernin g X O Jet . First , Aer o Way s make s muc ho f

it s allege ddiscussion s wit hth e DRB A personne l regardin g X O Jet' s fuelin g rights (se e Compl . TfTf9-13) . Aer o Way s claim s that th e DRB A acte dmisleadingl y i n it s explanation s abou t

X O Jet' s self-fuelin g rights out o f ill-wil l toward s Aer o Way s (se e id) . That i s incorrec t

(D X 2 , William s Decl . Tfl9) . Regardless , th e FA A recognize s that "motiv e o r

il l wil l doe s not , alone , amoun t t o non-compliance , eve n i f establishe db y th e Complainant . Suc h evidenc e mus t

b e accompanie db y a

n actua l unreasonabl e denia l o f acces s for

a n aeronautica l activity o r

unjus t economi c discrimination . Motiv e alon e doe s not establis hnon-compUance. "

# F 34 . PBM I Salvag e Corp . v Miami-Dad e County , FA A Docke t No . 16-05-1 6 (FA A Jul y 25 , 2006 ) 

# F F F F F F (Director' s Determination) . Th e Authorit y indisputabl y informe dAer o Way s that X O Je t was , at al l relevan t times , aPart

13 5 operato r

wit hth e FA A guarantee dright t o self-serv e (se e e.g. , D X 35 , Compl. , Ex . F.7 1 (formall y supplyin g X O Jet' s 13 5 certificate) ; D X 39 , Compl . Ex . F.5 8 (WilUam s tol d Aer o Way s that

X O Je t wa s a13 5 i n January 2008 , month s befor e X O Je t bega n fueling) ; D X 58 , Compl . Ex . F.6 6 (X O Je t di dno t begi n fiieling unti l Apri l 2008)) . Second , Aer o Way s claim s tha t X O Je t wa s improperl y give n fuelin g rights unde r it s leas e (se e Compl . T

f 9) . X O Jet , however , wa s no t grante dfuelin g rights unde r it s lease ; it s self-fuelin g rights ar e aresul t o f it s Part 13 5 certificat e holde r

statu s (se e supr aa

t III.A) . Aer o Ways ' refusal t o accep t th e Authority' s legitimat e basi s for allowin g X O Je t t o self-flie l doe s not

provid e an y support

fo r finding aGran t

Assuranc e violation . B . Aer o Way s Ha s No t Show n Tha t

Allege dInstance s O f Non-communicatio n Ar e Gran t Assuranc e Violation s Aer o Way s allege s tw o event s that occurre dyear s ag o wher e aDRB A commissione r

wa s tol dt o not

t o tal k t o Aer o Way s an dthat

Rainear di dno t contac t Aer o Way s a s promise d(se e Compl . 1f t 17 , 18) . First , Aer o Way s allege s that DRB A personne l wer e tol d no t t o tal k t o Aer o Ways ' attorne y (Compl . ^ 17) . Th e lega l professio n recognize s that client s shoul dnot

speak withth e opposin g counse l abou t a n ongoin g matte r

withou t it s counse l present . Indeed , i t i s ethicall y imprope r

for opposin g counse l t o directl y contac t apart y i t

know s t o b e represented , withou t

th e consen t

o f that party' s attorney . Se e Mode l Rule s o f Pro f 1 Conduct , Rul e 4.2 ; Delawar e Rul e o f Pro f 1 Conduc t

4.2 . Th e document s tha t Aer o Way s itsel f

attache dt o it s Complain t

sho w that

DRB A attorney s wer e i n contac t withAer o Ways ' attorney , an dthat DRB A personne l wer e i n contac t wit hAer o Ways ' personne l (e.g. , D X 25 , Compl . Ex . F.29 ; D X

# F 35 .

31 , Compl . Ex . F.37 ; D X 32 , Compl . Ex . F.45 ; D X 34 , Compl . Ex . F.46 ; D X 59 , Compl . Ex . F.47) . Aer o Way s als o allege s that DRB A Deput y Executiv e Directo r Rainear di dno t contac t Aer o Way s a s promise dregardin g apotentia l leas e (Compl . I f 18) . Aer o Way s doe s no t support thi s clai mwit han y evidence . Regardless , accordin g t o Aer o Ways , thi s discussio n was suppose dt o occu r

i n 200 6 an dwa s relate dt o Aer o Way s becomin g an FBO . Aer o Way s becam e a n FB O i n 2007 , after

continuou s discussion s betwee n th e DRB A an dAer o Ways . Thus , an y communicatio n issue s that allegedly existe dwer e clearl y resolved . Next , Aer o Way s claim s that th e DRB A promise dt o leas e certai n lan da t Taxiway A 7 (Compl . t

21 ) an dthat

i t i s th e onl y FB O t o not

hav e a n FB O sig n o r

fuel sig n o n taxiway Alpha , despit e aDRB A representative' s promis e (Compl . f 19) . A s discusse dsupr aa t III.D. , th e DRB A remain s willin g t o continu e it s negotiation s withAer o Way s abou t leasin g thi s lan d o n fair an dreasonabl e term s an dprovidin g thi s sign . C . Aer o Way s Ha s No t Demonstrate dTha t

Th e Authorit y Amende dIt s Policie s I n Orde r T o Affec t

Aer o Way s Aer o Way s claim s that

th e DRB A undertoo k

t o amen dit s Minimu mStandard s a s aresul t o f negotiation s wit hAer o Ways , an dfaile dt o amen dth e standard s a s represente d (Compl . T f 22) . A s explaine dabove , th e Authorit y amende dit s Minimu mStandard s an dRule s an dRegulation s i n Decembe r 2005 . Aer o Way s claim s that th e amendment s occurre dbecaus e o f it s reques t

t o fuel it s customers ' aircraft . Tha t i s simpl y no t

true , a s Houghto n tol dMannin g a t th e time : "[Th e Minimu mStandard s an dRule s an dRegulations ] reflec t decision s made , afte

r length y polic y an dlega l review , addressin g th e manne r i n whic hal l partie s operatin g a t th e airpor t wil l b e conductin g busines s i n complianc e withapplicabl e federal standards " (^ee e.g. , D X 26 , Compl . Ex . F.33) . Aer o Ways ' assertio n no w that th e DRB A amende dth e Minimu m

# r F 36 .

Standard s becaus e o f

Aer o Way s i s further

belie db y Aer o Ways ' counsel' s ow n statement s a t th e time : "M y commen t

abou t th e intentio n behin dth e Min . Standard s [i.e . that "th e propose d regulation s [are ] intende dt o prohibi t Aer o Way s fromfuelin g th e aircraf t tha t i t manage s o n th e behal f o f aircraf t owners" ] wa s not

intende dt o b e pejorative . Instead , I wa s merel y confirmin g m y understandin g tha t

Aer o Way s woul dnot

b e permitte dt o fuel it s customers ' aircraft , whic h appear s t o b e th e case " (id) .

Further , th e Authorit y di dno t fai l t o "amen dth e minimu mstandard s a s was represented " becaus e th e Authorit y neve r represente dthat

th e standard s woul ddefinitel y b e amende di n an y particula r wa y - an dno r

doe s Aer o Way s poin t

t o an y suc hrepresentation . Indeed , a s apubU c body , th e DRB A mus t ac t b y avot e o f

it s Commissioners . DRB A personne l di dnot - an dcoul dno t

- represen t

t o Aer o Way s that

th e DRB A woul db e boun db y draf t standard s that

ha dno t eve n bee n presente dt o th e Commissioners . Th e DRB A provide dAer o Way s withadraf

t for comment s (no t

a s a n offe r o r promise) , clearl y marke da s adraft , represente dt o b e adraft , an dreinforce da s unbindin g draf t (^e e D X 21 , Compl . Ex . F.1 2 (marke ddraft) ; D X 19 , Compl . Ex . F.1 3 (represente da s draft) ; D X 20 , Compl . Ex . F.1 4 (same) ; D X 24 , Compl . Ex . F.2 0 (reiteratin g draf t nattire) ; D X 25 , Compl . Ex . F.2 9 (same)) . Aer o Way s als o claim s that th e DRB A force di t

t o becom e an FB O (Compl . T f 22) . Thi s i s simpl y incorrect . Aer o Ways , not th e DRBA , mad e th e decisio n that Aer o Way s woul d becom e a n FBO . Th e essentia l poin t her e i s tha t

Aer o Way s decide dt o becom e a n FB O becaus e Aer o Way s wante dt o fuel aircraf t that i t di dno t ow n (D X 31 , Compl . Ex . F.3 7 ("Aeroways ' plan s are th e sam e a s the y wer e i n Decembe r - Aeroway s i s intereste di n offerin g fiiel t o al l manage daircraf

t customer s an di s willin g t o becom e a n FB O i n orde r

t o d o so . Aeroway s . . . agree s tha t

i t shal l serv e an y custome r wantin g service s sinc e thi s i s actuall y ver y goo dfo r37 .

business.") ; D X 18 , Compl . Ex . F.l l ("Whe n w e [Aer o Ways ] suggeste dthat Aer o Way s migh t becom e an FB O . . . .")) . Contrary t o Aer o Ways ' assertio n i n it s Complaint , th e DRB A di dno t "dictate[] " that

Aer o Way s becom e an FB O (Compl . T f 22) . Aer o Way s mad e it s ow n busines s decisio n t o becom e a

n FB O (D X 31 , Compl . Ex . F.37 ; D X 18 , Compl . Ex . F. l 1) . D . Aer o Way s Ha s No t Demonstrate dTha t

Th e Authorit y Discriminate dAgains t

Aer o Way s Regardin g th e 200 8 Car dReade r

Inciden t Aer o Way s claim s tha t

DRB A managemen t

ha s discriminate dagains t Aer o Way s regardin g th e car dreade r incident . A s describe dsupr aa t III.C , a n Aer o Way s employe e damage daDRB A car dreade r b y makin g a

n imprope r

tiu n whil e attemptin g t o driv e amoto r hom e throug hagat e clearl y marke dt o prohibi t entry b y avehicl e o f

suc hsiz e t o tak e th e vehicl e t o stor e i t - agains t DRB A polic y - i n amidfiel dhangar , an dthe n faile dt o respon dt o aDRB A inquiry abou t

th e incident . Consequently , th e DRB A revoke dAer o Ways ' acces s throug hthat gat e (bu t no t t o th e relevan t

are ao f th e airfield , whic hAer o Way s ma y stil l acces s viaanothe r entryway ) (supr aat

III.C) . Acces s throug hth e relevan t gat e i s aprivileg e an dno t aright. Th e DRB A appropriatel y exercise dit s authority t o enforc e it s rules . CONCLUSIO N Fo r th e foregoin g reasons , th e Directo r shoul ddismis s th e Complain t i n it s entirety .38 . MORRIS , NICHOL^-ARSH T & TUNNEL LLL P

R . Judso n Scaggs , Lesli e A . Polizot i Paulett aJ . Brow n Albert J . Carrol l 120 1 N . Marke t

Sfreet P.O . Bo x 134 7 Wilmington , Delawar e 19899-134 7 Telephone : (302 ) 658-920 0 Attorney s fo r

Responden t

Delawar e Rive r

& Bay Authority Februar y 3 , 201 0CERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E Th e undersigne dhereb y certifie s that o n th e 3rdda y o f

February , 2010 , sh e cause dt o b e serve dth e RESPONDEN T DELAWAR ERIVE RAN D BA Y AUTHORITY' S MEMORANDU M O FPOINT S AN D A UTHORITIE S I N SUPPOR T O FIT S ANSWE RAN D MOTIO N T O DISMIS S o n th e followin g i n th e manne r indicated : B Y FEDERA LEXPRES S Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Attti : FA A Part

1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docket , AGC-61 0 Roo m92 5 Federa l Aviatio n Adminisfratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Origina l an dthre e copie s ElizabethNewma n Airport s Law Branch , AGC-61 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Adminisfratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , R M 92 3 Washington , D C 2059 1 On e cop y B Y EMAI LAN D FEDERA LEXPRES S Josep hMichae l Lamonaca , Esq . Attorne y for

Aer o Ways , Inc . Ne w Castl e County Airport P.O . Bo x 1058 3 Wihnington , D E19850-058 3 Email : avlaw@prodigy.ne t On e cop y