ConHnonwcalth of Massachusetts 

NORWOOD AIRPORT COMMISSION 

Mark P. Ryan, Vice Chairman 

Kevin J. Shaughnessy, Clerk 

Hylie Hutchens 

Leslie W. LeBlanc 

Martin E. Odstrchel 

Paul V. Shaughnessy, Jr. 

July 9, 2015 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

RE: Respondents' Rebuttal to Complainant's Reply 

Part 16 Complaint: Boston Executive Helicopters v. Town of Norwood, 

Massachusetts and Norwood Airport Commission; Docket No. 16-15-05 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Michael Sheehan 

Pursuant to 14 C.F .R. Part 16, please accept this correspondence as the Rebuttal by the 

Respondents, Town of Norwood, Massachusetts ("Town" or "Town of Norwood") and Norwood 

Airport Commission ("NAC" or "Airport Commission") to the June 8, 2015 Reply by the 

Complainant, Boston Executive Helicopters ("BEH"), following the Respondents' Answer to the 

Part 16 Complaint (also referred to as the "Complaint"). For the reasons discussed below, as 

well as those already presented in the May 8, 2015 Answer to the Complaint, the Town and the 

NAC (collectively, "Respondents") respectfully request that the Federal Aviation Administration 

("FAA"): (1) dismiss the Complaint; (2) decline to investigate the Complaint; (3) determine that 

the Respondents have complied with the FAA's Grant Assurances; and (4) take no further action 

in the above-referenced matter. 

In the interests of efficiency and economy, the Respondents generally refer to and 

incorporate herein their Answer, which addresses BEH's arguments on a point-by-point basis, 

accompanied by related supporting documentation. Issues and arguments raised by the 

Respondents in their Answer were necessary to demonstrate the full context of the historical and 

ongoing interactions between BEH and the Respondents, to properly address the incorrect onesided version of events presented by BEH in its Complaint, to explain the justification for the 

Respondents' conduct, and to place the FAA in a proper position to assess the credibility of 

BEH's arguments. Accordingly, the Respondents only address here the additional arguments 

raised by BEH in its June 8, 2015 Reply. 

As explained in the Answer and herein, the actions undertaken by the Respondents have 

been equally supportive of BEH and providing a competitive environment, while at the same 

time applying bona fide requirements necessary to protect the users of Norwood Memorial 

Airport ("Airport") and the general public. The Respondents never solicited for a second fixed125 Access Road, Norwood, MA 02062 

860385vl PH: (781) 255-5616 FAX: (781) 255-5617 
base operator ("FBO'') business at the Airport, and BEH's attempt to establish such an FBO 

business have been after the fact, notwithstanding prior representations made by BEH when it 

first arrived at the Airport. 

Significantly, despite the Respondents' affirmative and proactive efforts to engage BEH, 

BEH to date has not satisfied all of the requirements for issuance of a commercial permit to 

operate an FBO business, under applicable Airport requirements and under the conditional lease 

offer that BEH accepted. In its Reply, BEH somehow suggests that there is an improper motive 

by the Respondents-but this is contradicted by the Respondents' exhibits and amounts to 

nothing more than legally charged hyperbole and unsubstantiated speculation. To the extent that 

BEH' s Complaint and Reply are unsupported by documentation and instead rest upon argument 

or conjecture, BEH has not complied with its obligations under 16 C.F .R. § 16.23(g), which 

requires BEH' s filings to be "accompanied by supporting documentation upon which" BEH 

relies. 

BEH has refused or otherwise failed to provide requested financial, insurance, and fuel 

plan information required by the Respondents, and other information has otherwise been 

submitted by BEH in a dilatory and piecemeal manner-which is the reason that the 

Respondents have not granted BEH' s commercial permit application at the present time, as 

documented in the meeting minutes and other exhibits accompanying the Respondents' Answer 

and this Rebuttal. Contrary to BEH' s suggestion, the Respondents cannot ignore the protection 

of the welfare and safety of the users of the Airport and the general public. 

Final Inspection of BEH Fuel Farm 

In their May 8, 2015 Answer to the Complaint, the Respondents noted that BEH had not: 

(1) submitted the required financial information; or (2) scheduled a mandatory final inspection of 

its fueling facility by the Norwood Fire Department. Regarding the latter requirement-the 

Norwood Fire Department inspection-BEH did finally submit to, and pass, this inspection on 

May 14, 2015, two (2) months after BEH had filed its Part 16 Complaint to the FAA on March 

11, 2015 and eleven (11) months after BEH filed its Part 13 Complaint on June 5, 2014. 

As noted in Exhibits 37, 38, and 39 of the Respondent's Answer, BEH-by express 

statements made by BEH President Christopher Donovan ("Mr. Donovan") at the May 14, 2014, 

June 11, 2014, and July 30, 2014 NAC meetings-led the Respondents to believe that the final 

inspection would be handled one (1) year ago. In all of that time, BEH did not contact and 

coordinate a final inspection with the Norwood Fire Department, even though this had been 

brought to BEH' s attention on any number of occasions. It is a red herring for BEH to have cited 

the dates of completion of the fuel farm-the fuel farm required a final inspection before the 

Volatile and Inflammable Fluids ("VIF") license could be released by the Norwood Board of 

Selectmen ("Board of Selectmen"), the local licensing authority. 

Moreover, contrary to BEH's assertion on page 4 of the Reply that "it was his [i.e., Mr. 

Donovan's] understanding that the VIF inspection required putting fuel in the system," Mr. 

Donovan in fact never bothered to contact the Norwood Fire Department directly to confirm this 

assumption. BEH provides no evidence otherwise, and it is unreasonable for Mr. Donovan to 

2 

860385vl 
have relied upon what he personally perceived as the applicable requirements for obtaining a 

final inspection. Mr. Donovan could have-but did not--contact the Norwood Fire Department 

to confirm the exact requirements for the final inspection, and instead, consistent with his other 

actions in obtaining a commercial permit, he alone was solely responsible for any delay in the 

release of the VIF license. 

For more than a year--concurrent with Mr. Donovan's representations about the status of 

the final inspection to the NAC-Airport Manager Russ Maguire ("Mr. Maguire" or ''Airport 

Manager") checked in regularly with Norwood Fire Chief Anthony Greeley ("Chief Greeley") to 

determine whether BEH had scheduled its final inspection. In fact, Chief Greeley, like the 

Airport Manager and Airport Commission, was mystified that BEH had not, and was not, taking 

the initiative to undergo a final inspection, all the while BEH/Mr. Donovan were complaining 

publicly-and filing legal actions with the FAA (i.e., the withdrawn Part 13 Complaint and the 

present Part 16 Complaint)-that BEH was being held back without cause by the Airport 

Commission. 

Additionally, in a February 12, 2014 email (Exhibit 106) 1

, Chief Greeley actually 

recommended that the Airport Commission not issue a commercial (FBO) permit to BEH until 

BEH had passed its final inspection with the Norwood Fire Department, notwithstanding other 

requirements by the Airport Commission such as the outstanding financial information. In his 

email to the Airport Manager, Chief Greeley stated: 

if you grant the full service commercial permit (to BEH), you may want to 

release that only after final inspection by the NFD (Norwood Fire 

Department) when the job is fully completed. Many times the Board of 

Selectmen grant the VIF [Volatile and Inflammable Fluids] License only to 

release when final inspection is conducted by the Fire Prevention Bureau. NFD 

will communicate to your board when final inspection is complete and accepted. 

See Exhibit 106 (emphasis added). 

Additionally, Chief Greeley stated: "We have all documentation regarding this project 

and we are standing by for inspection when ready." See id. (emphasis added). Thus, the 

Norwood Fire Department was anticipating an inspection in February 2014, some fourteen (14) 

months before BEH actually submitted to that inspection. BEH, and only BEH, was responsible 

for that delay. 

In its Reply, BEH attempts to characterize the final inspection conducted by the Norwood 

Fire Department, by describing the alleged reaction of Chief Greeley during that final inspection. 

See Reply at 4 n.1. In doing so, BEH relies upon hearsay and conjecture in describing Chief 

Greeley's response, which is unsupported and lacks the type of supporting documentation 

required by 16 C.F.R. § 16.23(g). Nonetheless, it is undisputed that BEH received approval from 

the Norwood Fire Department after the final inspection was complete as of May 14, 2015 (see 

1 For purposes of consistency, the Respondents have continued the sequence of numbering from 

the exhibits accompanying their Answer. BEH' s exhibits are referred to as "BEH Exhibit " 

3 

860385vl 
May 14, 2015 Email from Paul Butters to Fran Jessoe contained in BEH Exhibit 159)-and 

anything else argued by BEH about that final inspection is simply incorrect. 

The Board of Selectmen approved the release of the VIF license to BEH at its May 19, 

2015 meeting, following the Board of Selectmen's decision at its January 22,2013 meeting and 

the May 14, 2015 final inspection. See Exhibit 107. However, BEH Exhibit 160 is not an 

official record of the Board of Selectmen's meeting-it was not created or otherwise approved 

by the Respondents. Instead, Exhibit 107 contains the official minutes of the May 19, 2015 

Board of Selectmen meeting. 

BEH's attempt to suggest improper conduct by me at the May 19, 2015 meeting is 

entirely inappropriate, as BEH chiefly cites a truncated copy of an unofficial transcript and 

conjecture (BEH Exhibit 160). Contrary to BEH' s argument, and as reflected in the official 

meeting minutes, the purpose of my attendance at the May 1 9, 2015 Board of Selectmen meeting 

was in my capacity as Norwood Town Engineer, to discuss water and sewer rates, an issue that is 

completely unrelated to BEH. See Exhibit 107 at 2-3. It was not my intention to attend that 

meeting "on [my] own initiative and with no notice to BEH"-which is an example of the type 

of inappropriate and incorrect accusatory allegations and rhetoric contained in BEH' s Complaint 

and Reply. See Reply at 4. 

BEH's VIF license was on the posted agenda for the same May 19, 2015 meeting as the 

water and sewer rates. See Exhibit 107 at 4. For that reason, the Board of Selectmen requested 

that I remain at the meeting for this separate agenda item, to answer any questions that may arise. 

See id. Indeed, the official meeting minutes reflect that I did answer inquiries from the Board of 

Selectmen-which, unlike the Airport Commission, is not charged with oversight of the aviation 

activities at the Airport. Again, the official meeting minutes-not BEH' s unofficial, selfprepared transcript-speaks for itself in terms of the issues deliberated by the Board of 

Selectmen and my own participation. BEH' s unofficial, self-prepared transcript (BEH Exhibit 

160) even contradicts the allegations cast by BEH on page 4 of its Reply. 

More to the point, BEH is simply incorrect about the discussion of its submission for an 

FBO commercial permit and the Airport Commission's request for financial information for that 

commercial permit. Consistent with what I explained to the Board of Selectmen, BEH' s Fiscal 

Year 2014 Commercial Permit Application did not include operation as a "Full-service, fixedbase operator," nor did BEH select ""Fuel Storage and Dispensing" among the categories of 

services it intended to provide. See Exhibit 9. By comparison, BEH did select certain flight 

operations, ground operations, and unique services as the proposed services on its Fiscal Year 

2014 Commercial Permit Application. See id. In other words, BEH did not, in its Fiscal Year 

Commercial Permit Application hold itself out or seek approval as a commercial fueling provider 

or to provide FBO services, which it later sought during Fiscal Year 2014. 

Additionally, as I explained to the Board of Selectmen, BEH had not provided the 

financial information previously requested by the Airport Commission. This is detailed at length 

in the Respondents' Answer and below. Indeed, one of the Selectmen similarly indicated that he 

met with BEH and its attorney regarding this issue, in order to determine how to assist in the 

4 

860385vl 
FBO application process, but BEH "flat out refused to provide the required financial 

documents.'' See Exhibit 1 07 at 5. 

In a May 26, 2015 letter, as Acting NAC Chairman, I notified BEH in writing that the 

NAC was informed by the Norwood Fire Prevention Bureau that BEH's VIF license, approved 

in January 2013, was subsequently released to BEH by the Norwood Board of Selectmen 

following the May 14, 2015 inspection of BEH' s fuel facility and final approval by Chief 

Greeley. See Exhibit 108. This May 26, 2015 letter reminded BEH that it required a 

commercial permit to operate an FBO business in order to engage in or perform commercial 

fueling activities, including the storage, sale and distribution of fuel to or for third parties. See 

id. 

The VIF license means that BEH has obtained the required license to operate its fuel farm 

and, consistent with Section 11.3 of the FAA's Compliance Manual-Order 5190.6B (September 

2009), may engage in self-fueling activities. This was confirmed in the May 26, 2015 letter to 

BEH. See id. 

At present, BEH does not have a commercial permit and therefore is limited to selffueling only. The commercial dispensing of fuel by BEH is predicated on BEH receiving a 

commercial permit from the Airport Commission to operate an FBO. See Exhibit 104 § III 

(requiring a commercial permit to operate an FBO at the Airport). 

Defiance of Commercial Permit Requirement 

BEH objects to the recommendation made to the Board of Selectmen for its May 19, 

2015 meeting to condition the VIF license to only self-fueling activities. This was a 

recommendation consistent with Section 11.3 ofthe FAA's Compliance Manual-Order 5190.6B 

(September 2009), as discussed above. Such a recommendation was in an abundance of caution 

given BEH's prior conduct, including defiance and a lack of transparency, and to avoid BEH 

from using the VIF license as a mechanism to operate an FBO without the required commercial 

permit. 

The Airport Commission's concern with BEH using the VIF license as a means to 

operate an FBO without the necessary commercial permit appears to have been realized. BEH 

does not dispute the requirements of the Airport General Regulations, which require an Airport 

Commission-issued commercial permit to conduct a commercial activity at the Airport, including 

to operate an FBO. See Exhibit 104 §III. Nor does BEH dispute that an FBO commercial 

permit has not been granted by the Airport Commission-as indicated herein and in the Answer, 

BEH has never submitted a complete application for a commercial permit to operate an FBO. 

In yet another seeming act of defiance, BEH has begun to advertise and hold itself out to 

the public as a full-service FBO, as shown on BEH's website as recently as July 2, 2015. See 

Exhibit 109. BEH's website specifically states: "Welcome To Boston Executive Boston's 

newest Full Service FBO." See id. Moreover, BEH's website advertises FBO services, 

including "Jet-A" aviation fuel and aircraft ground handling. See id. BEH's actions are 

egregious and concerning because, instead of fully providing the requested information 

860385v1 

5 
necessary to evaluate BEH' s commercial permit application as an FBO or obtaining the requisite 

commercial permit, BEH has falsely held itself out to the general public as capable of 

functioning as an FBO. 

Submittal of Financial and Other Information for Commercial Permit 

Another FBO requirement imposed on BEH-to provide the Respondent's with the 

requested financial information-remains outstanding. Simply stated, BEH has not submitted 

the required financial information that both BEH and the Respondent mutually agreed for BEH 

to provide. BEH has also not provided a proper insurance certificate or a revised fuel plan 

consistent with issues raised by FlightLevel Aviation a/k/a FlightLevel Norwood, LLC 

C'FlightLevel") on the use of its Lot G leasehold and a court order issued in pending litigation 

between FlightLevel and BEH ("FlightLevel/BEH Litigation"). 

BEH attempts to contradict recommendations communicated by the FAA at the August 5, 

2014 land-use compliance inspection at the Airport-which were referenced in my meeting with 

the Board of Selectmen. No BEH representative was present when these FAA recommendations 

were communicated. FAA's Tom Vick ("Mr. Vick") and Lauren King actually conducted the 

day-long inspection, and this was attended by Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

("MassDOT") officials, the Airport Manager, and, for at least some of the meeting, on behalf of 

the NAC, myself. 

Mr. Vick made it clear from the outset that FAA would follow a check list during the 

August 5, 2014 land-use compliance inspection. Former Airport Commissioner Oulton Hues, Jr. 

("Mr. Hues") insisted on raising a question off-topic and outside the FAA checklist Mr. Vick 

was following. Specifically, Mr. Hues wanted to know whether it was within the jurisdiction of 

an airport authority to ask a prospective business for its business plan and financial information. 

Mr. Vick stated that it was a very good idea and in fact that airport authorities should be 

requiring this (financial) information. That exchange was subsequently captured in the 

approved minutes of the August 13, 2014 Norwood Airport Commission meeting. See Exhibit 

141 at 2. 

The ensuing discussion will show the Respondents' level of effort in attempting to 

cooperate with BEH and facilitate the receipt and review of this information. These efforts have 

been thwarted or complicated in large part because of BEH' s professed concern that the financial 

information be kept confidential and unattainable by a third party through a public records 

request. Moreover, BEH has not provided current and applicable insurance and fuel plan 

information, despite requests by or on behalf of the Respondents? 

2 BEH references its business plan, but the latest iteration of this document was only produced in 

July 2014, following months of repeated requests at Airport Commission meetings for BEH to 

submit a proper business plan. See, e.g. Exhibits 60, 64. 

6 

860385vl 
A. Massachusetts Requirements for Public Records and Public Meetings 

As governmental entities, the Respondents are subject to the Massachusetts Public 

Records Law (Massachusetts General Laws ("Mass. Gen. Laws") ch. 66, § 10 and Mass. Gen. 

Laws ch. 4, § 7(26)) and the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30A, §§ 

18-25). These Massachusetts laws govern third party requests for documents received by the 

Respondents (the Massachusetts Public Records Law), and the conduct of meetings in open 

session or executive (closed) session, including the use of documents (the Massachusetts Open 

Meeting Law). BEH fails to address the applicability of both of these statutes, which are 

relevant to the procedure that the Airport Commission approved to accommodate BEH' s 

professed confidentiality concerns for submitting financial information. 

From the standpoint of the Massachusetts Public Records Law, all documents received by 

a governmental body-the Airport Commission included-are considered "public records," a 

term that is broadly defined by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4, § 7(26). 3 There is a statutory 

presumption that all public records are public, and a governmental body has a burden to 

demonstrate with specificity that an exemption from disclosure applies. See Mass. Gen. Laws 

ch. 66, § 10; Attorney General v. Assistant Commissioner of Real Property Department of 

Boston, 404 N.E.2d 1254, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Exemptions from disclosure (when a 

third party request is made) are stringently and narrowly interpreted. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4, 

§ 7(26); Assistant Commissioner of Real Property Department of Boston, 380 Mass. at 625. 

The Massachusetts Public Records Law contains twenty (20) statutory exemptions, which 

are outlined in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4, § 7(26). None of these statutory exemptions directly 

authorizes the Respondents to withhold BEH' s financial information in the event of a third party 

public records request. 

While Exemption (g) to the Public Records Law applies to trade secrets, commercial 

information, and financial information, this exemption does "not apply to information submitted 

as required by law or as a condition of receiving a governmental contract or other benefit." 

(Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4, § 7(26)(g)) (emphasis added). Exemption (g) also is limited to 

information "voluntarily provided to an agency for use in developing governmental policy .... " 

Exemption (g) does not apply because BEH seeks a benefit vis-a-vis a lease and commercial 

permit, BEH is expected to provide financial information at the request of the Airport 

Commission (rather than voluntarily), and BEH is not providing financial information for the 

development of governmental policy. Thus, the Respondents would likely be required to 

disclose BEH' s financial records in the event of a third party request, under the Massachusetts 

Public Records Law. 

3 The term "public records" is broadly defined as "books, papers, maps, photographs, recorded 

tapes, financial statements, statistical tabulations, or other documentary materials or data, 

regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of 

any agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the 

commonwealth, or of any political subdivision thereof, or of any authority established by the 

general court to serve a public purpose, unless such materials or data fall within the following 

[statutory] exemptions .... " Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4, § 7(26). 

7 

860385vl 
By contrast, the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law applies to the conduct of public 

meetings by public bodies (such as, but not limited to, the Airport Commission). Public bodies 

can only deliberate at a duly posted meeting. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30A, § 18 (containing 

definitions of "deliberation" and "meeting"); id. § 20 (containing meeting requirements). Unless 

any of ten ( 1 0) statutorily defined purposes for executive (closed) session applies, all meetings of 

a public body must be open to the public. See id. § 20(a). None of these ten (10) purposes for 

executive session applies to the review of the BEH' s commercial permit application, including 

the financial information being sought by the Airport Commission, and therefore any 

deliberation ofBEH's commercial permit application must occur in open session. See id. § 21. 

The consequence of an open session is that "all documents and exhibits used at the [open] 

session, shall be public records in their entirety and not exempt from disclosure pursuant to any 

of the exemptions under" Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4, § 7(26), the statutory exemptions for the 

Massachusetts Public Records Law, with two (2) narrow exceptions that do not apply here. See 

id. § 20(e) (emphasis added). Were the Airport Commission to discuss BEH's financial 

information, it not only must occur in open session, but any of the financial information would 

potentially be subject to disclosure, because Section 20( e) of the Massachusetts Open Meeting 

Law overrides the Massachusetts Public Records Law exemptions. 

B. Efforts to Secure BEH's Financial Information 

As described in its Answer, the Airport Commission and Airport Manager advocated on 

BEH' s behalf when BEH sought to extend its assumption of the sublease for Lot F. The Airport 

Commission and Airport Manager corresponded with the FAA about BEH' s stated need to 

amortize its proposed development through a long-term lease. Yet, by April 2014, BEH 

submitted generalized and insufficiently detailed financial information, which conflicted with 

BEH's own representations to the Airport Commission as to the necessity of a long-term lease. 

See Exhibit 110. 

In any event, in an attempt to advance the receipt of repeatedly requested financial 

information consistent with the purpose of and obligations contained in the Airport's Minimum 

Standards, the Airport Commission voted at its February 11, 2015 meeting to conditionally offer 

Parcel A on the West Apron to BEH. See Exhibit 68. This offer was contingent on BEH 

providing detailed financial information (contained in Tab B to a February 12, 2015 letter from 

the Airport Commission's attorney) within thirty (30) days of acceptance of the lease offer. See 

id. Such financial information was to be subsequently approved by the Airport Commission. 

See id. This financial information included: (a) three (3) months of business bank statements; (b) 

a balance sheet; (c) an income statement; (d) a cash flow statement/cash on hand/financial 

reserves; (e) a personal guaranty and financial information from the guarantor (including a credit 

report); (f) a Dunn and Bradsheet Corporation credit report; (g) a Certificate of Good Standing; 

and (h) a Proof of Insurance. See id. BEH timely accepted the conditional West Apron (Parcel 

A) lease offer. 

However, BEH would not provide complete and unredacted financial information as 

required by Tab B to the February 12, 2015 lease offer. See Exhibit 68. In a March 16, 2015 

letter from its attorney, the Airport Commission notified BEH (through its attorney) that the 

860385vl 

8 
financial information previously submitted by BEH was incomplete and insufficient, that the 

Airport Commission was concerned about the completeness of information, that information was 

contained in multiple documents, and that information produced was unnecessary redacted. See 

BEH Exhibit 161. The Airport Commission cited its need to protect itself and the aeronautical 

community against financial risk from a new FBO entrant, and relied upon an FAA Director's 

Determination in Flightline Aviation, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, FAA Docket No. 16-07-05 

(Director's Determination, March 7, 2008) in doing so. See id. 

On March 27, 2015, BEH (through its attorney) submitted an incomplete response to the 

financial information required by Tab B to the February 12, 2015 lease offer. See Exhibit 112. 

Specifically, BEH refused to provide guarantor information or provide three (3) months of 

business bank statements, a balance sheet, or a cash flow statement. See id. BEH also insisted 

upon a confidentiality agreement as a precondition to providing a business bank statements and a 

balance sheet-which conflicted with the foregoing provisions of the Massachusetts Public 

Records Law and Massachusetts Open Meeting Law. At its April15, 2015 meeting, the Airport 

Commission unanimously voted to offer an extension to BEH to provide BEH with more time to 

provide the Airport Commission with the requested financial information. See Exhibit 113.5 

Nearly three (3) weeks after the Airport Commission's April 15, 2015 meeting, BEH 

submitted a proposed Confidentiality Agreement on May 6, 2015. 6 See BEH Exhibit 164. This 

4 BEH Exhibit 161 is reflective of the charged and accusatory approach undertaken by BEH and 

its attorneys. Specifically, BEH Exhibit 161 contains a response to an accusation made by BEH 

Attorney Timothy McCulloch ("Attorney McCulloch") to the Airport Commission's attorney 

about an alleged statement that the latter was accused of making at the Airport Commission's 

March 11, 2015 meeting (which Attorney McCulloch did not even attend). See Exhibit 111. 

This alleged statement involved the sufficiency of BEH' s financial information. See id. In BEH 

Exhibit 161, the Airport Commission's attorney responded that this allegation was meritless and 

that no such statement was ever made by the Airport Commission's attorney about BEH's 

financial information. The Airport Commission's attorney further requested that Attorney 

McCulloch work cooperatively to address the outstanding issues for BEH' s FBO commercial 

permit application. See BEH Exhibit 161. Notably, Attorney McCulloch acknowledged that his 

own accusation was groundless in his March 27, 2015 letter to the Airport Commission's 

attorney. See Exhibit 112. 

5 BEH Exhibit 163 contains an unofficial transcript of the April 15, 2015 Airport Commission 

meeting, apparently prepared from the recording by a Go Pro camera. This is not an official 

transcript or document of the Airport Commission-instead, Respondents' Exhibit 113 contains 

the official, approved April 15, 2015 Airport Commission meeting minutes. 

6 In its Reply, BEH unreasonably criticizes the Airport Commission and its attorney for 

preparing an Answer to BEH's detailed Complaint at the same time that BEH submitted a 

Confidentiality Agreement on May 6, 2015. See BEH Exhibit 164. The Answer was submitted 

two (2) days later, on May 8, 2015. Although the Confidentiality Agreement was discussed at 

the Airport Commission's April 15, 2015 meeting, BEH's attorney waited twenty-one (21) days 

to submit a draft of that Confidentiality Agreement, only days before the next Airport 

Commission meeting on May 13, 2015. See Exhibit 112; BEH Exhibit 164. It is unfair and 

inconsistent for BEH to delay the preparation of that Confidentiality Agreement, but to expect an 

9 

860385v1 
Confidentiality Agreement not only directly conflicted with the Massachusetts Public Records 

Law and Massachusetts Open Meeting Laws, but it was unduly broad and overly burdensome, 

expressly disclaimed any representation or warranty as to the accuracy ofBEH's financial 

records, and imposed improper duties and potential liability upon the Airport Commission. 

These issues included, but were not limited to, the following: 

• BEH defined "Confidential Information" as overly broad in the Confidentiality 

Agreement. While the introductory paragraph referred to "Confidential 

Information" as ''confidential financial and other business and operations 

information," the second paragraph broadly defined the term as "includ[ing], 

without limitation, any information data or knowledge concerning Disclosing 

Party that Disclosing Party regards as confidential or proprietary, regardless of 

form." The foregoing definition not only broadens the term "Confidential 

Information" as extending beyond the financial and business information 

described in the introductory paragraph, but also left it solely up to BEH alone to 

determine what is "financial information" or "business information" without any 

input by the Airport Commission or consistency with Massachusetts law (such as 

the definition of "public records" under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, 

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4, § 7(26)). The term "Confidential Information" also did 

not contain any exclusion for previously submitted information-such as BEH' s 

business plan-which would be subject to potential disclosure under the 

Massachusetts Public Records Law because it had already been received by the 

Airport Commission. 

• The phrase "Confidential Information" in the second paragraph of the 

Confidentiality Agreement included "any analyses, compilations, studies or other 

documents or records prepared by Receiving Party that contain, otherwise reflect, 

are generated from or relate in any way to any of the foregoing." This meant that 

the term "Confidential Information" under the "Confidentiality Agreement" 

would attach to anything that the Airport Commission did in response to the 

document-such as by having the information BEH submits reviewed by an 

outsider (including legal counsel or a financial or business expert, irrespective of 

the attorney-client privilege, work product protection, or other applicable 

privilege or protection). 

• Paragraph 1 of the Confidentiality Agreement stated that the Confidential 

Information would be used "solely for the purposes of evaluating BEH' s FBO 

license application." This limitation would preclude any action from being taken 

by the Airport Commission for any other reason-such as adverse action in 

connection with BEH's FBO commercial permit (e.g., a suspension or 

revocation). If BEH were to provide incorrect or false financial or business 

immediate turnaround on review of that document, which, as noted above, contained significant 

deficiencies and conflicts with Federal and Massachusetts law. Such delay is in addition to 

BEH' s own prior inactions and refusals to provide financial information, prior to and as 

requested in the February 12, 2015 lease offer. 

10 

860385vl 
860385vl 

information, the Airport Commission would not be able to take enforcement 

action accordingly or otherwise exercise its authority to protect Airport patrons 

and the general public. 

• Paragraph 2 of the Confidentiality Agreement provided that BEH shall be notified 

in advance, "with prompt written notice," of any legally compelled disclosure of 

the Confidential Information, which included a public records request under 

Massachusetts law. Such an obligation would create an additional legal 

requirement upon the Airport Commission not contained under applicable lawsuch as, but not limited to, requiring BEH's involvement in responding to a public 

records request. Yet, the obligation of responding under the Massachusetts Public 

Records Law is imposed upon the governmental agency alone, not a private party. 

See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 66, § 10. If disclosure is required under the 

Massachusetts Public Records Law-in whole or in part--Dr by legal process 

(such as a subpoena or investigation) the Airport Commission could be required 

to promptly disclose non-exempt documents, and Paragraph 2 impeded this 

obligation by creating delay through mandatory notification to and potential 

involvement by BEH in a response. 

• Paragraph 2 of the Confidentiality Agreement imposed a burden upon the Airport 

Commission, as "Receiving Party," that it will "exercise its good faith efforts to 

obtain a protective order or other reliable assurance that confidential treatment 

will be accorded such Information." This provision created an obligation over 

and above requirements under a legal process (such as a subpoena or 

investigation) or the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Specifically, this 

provision mandated that the Airport Commission seek a protective order (and 

potentially be subject to liability if such an order is not granted or obtained). By 

contrast, the Massachusetts Public Records Law does involve protective orders 

and instead requires that a government agency produce non-exempt records and 

provide the basis for any withholding or redaction. 

• Surprisingly, Paragraph 3 of the Confidentiality Agreement expressly disclaimed 

any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of Confidential 

Information. This provision created a significant question as to the utility and 

efficacy of BEH submitting complete or accurate information and provided a 

potential difficulty and impediment for the Airport Commission to rely upon any 

submitted information. Through this provision, BEH could rely upon the 

Confidentiality Agreement to insulate itself from providing incorrect or inaccurate 

information, even though such information is necessary in a correct and complete 

form for a review BEH' s FBO commercial permit application. The limitation of 

liability in Paragraph 3-that BEH and BEH' s officers, employees, stockholders, 

members, managers, affiliates, subsidiaries or agents cannot be liable-was 

susceptible to interpretation in a way that no adverse action could be taken against 

BEH (including with regard to disciplining its FBO commercial permit) based on 

the content of the Confidential Information. 

11 
• Paragraph 4 of the Confidentiality Agreement required the Airport Commission to 

return all written materials containing or reflecting Confidential 

Information. This would prevent the Airport Commission from confirming the 

content and accuracy of the Confidential Information, or from using the same in 

response to future action with respect to the FBO commercial permit (such as a 

renewal or any enforcement). A similar concern exists with respect to Paragraph 

6 of the Confidentiality Agreement-the term ''residual knowledge" meant that 

such knowledge could not be used by the Airport Commission subsequent to 

consideration of BEH' s FBO permit application or for any other purpose, such as 

enforcement or to address false or inaccurate financial or business information. 

• In Paragraph 8 of the Confidentiality Agreement, there was a reference to 

"individual members" of the Airport Commission. While Airport Commissioners 

act in their official capacities as Town of Norwood officials, this provision could 

be interpreted as to impose individual liability of the Airport Commissioners. 

• Paragraph 9 of the Confidentiality Agreement created liability for the Airport 

Commission--even though there is no such counterpart provision under 

applicable Massachusetts law, such as but not limited to the Massachusetts Public 

Records Law. This potential liability entailed monetary damages, injunctive 

relief, specific performance, and other equitable remedies for any breach. Also, 

Paragraph 9 of the Confidentiality Agreement would waive any requirement that 

BEH must post a bond if it were to sue and be required to post a bond (which 

potentially exists under the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure). 

• Paragraph 9 is similarly inconsistent with applicable Massachusetts municipal law 

by entitling BEH, if it were deemed a prevailing party, to an award of attorney 

fees, costs, litigation related expenses, and expert witness fees. By comparison, 

such fees and litigated related expenses are not recoverable under the Public 

Records Law. 

• Paragraph 10 of the Confidentiality Agreement was improper because it created 

liability upon the Airport Commission even after BEH' s FBO commercial permit 

application was reviewed. 

• Paragraph 11 (ii) of the Confidentiality Agreement was unreasonable because it 

eliminated any immunity or objection that could be made by the Airport 

Commission, regardless of applicable Federal or Massachusetts Law. For 

example, while there is an immunity under Massachusetts law for torts (Mass. 

Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 1 0), Paragraph 11 (ii) states that such an immunity is 

waived. Similarly, immunities under the Federal and Massachusetts civil rights 

statutes would also be eliminated by Paragraph 11 (ii). 

See BEH Exhibit 164 (emphasis added). BEH's proposed Confidentiality Agreement was so 

excessive and stringent that it could not be rescued by modification. 

12 

860385vl 
By email to BEH's attorney dated May 12, 2015, the Airport Commission's attorney 

explained that the specific terms of BEH' s proposed Confidentiality Agreement were never 

agreed to in principle or otherwise at the Airport Commission's April15, 2015 meeting. See 

Exhibit 114. This Confidentiality Agreement was only discussed as a concept at that meeting, 

and only then as a way of potentially addressing BEH' s professed confidentiality concerns. See 

Exhibit 113. The Airport Commission's attorney also explained that the Confidentiality 

Agreement contained a significant number of issues, that it potentially violated the 

Massachusetts Public Records Law, and that the Airport Commission could not contract out of 

its obligations to comply with the Massachusetts Public Records Law. See Exhibit 114. 

In addition to researching and analyzing whether BEH's proposed Confidentiality 

Agreement violated Massachusetts law, the Airport Commission's attorney communicated with 

the Office of the Massachusetts Supervisor of Public Records and the Office of the Attorney 

General Division of Open Government, the state agencies that administer and enforce the 

Massachusetts Public Records Law and Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, respectively. See 

Exhibit 115. BEH's allegation concerning the timing and content of the research and analysis by 

the Airport Commission's attorney (see BEH Reply at 6) is unfounded. Rather, the outcome of 

this research and these communications was a confirmation that BEH' s proposed Confidentiality 

Agreement, which had been submitted only one (1) week earlier, conflicted with Massachusetts 

law, and that discussion ofBEH's financial records by the Airport Commission must occur in 

open session, with the potential for mandatory disclosure to a third party upon request following 

submission. See id. BEH has never provided any email or written opinion authored by the 

Airport Commission's attorney to the contrary. 

The Airport Commission's attorney addressed his concerns at the Airport Commission's 

May 13, 2015 meeting, along with the confirmatory verbal opinions provided by the 

Massachusetts Supervisor of Public Records and the Office of the Attorney General Division of 

Open Government. See id.; Exhibit 116. BEH did not submit the unredacted financial records at 

the May 13, 2015 Airport Commission meeting, nor did it identify precisely which financial 

records were even brought to that meeting. 

At the May 13, 2015 meeting, the Airport Commission, its attorney, and BEH and BEH's 

attorney discussed and agreed to a proposed alternative involving a review of BEH' s financial 

records by an independent third party consultant, paid for by BEH, who would report the 

outcome of the review to the Airport Commission for its consideration in evaluating BEH' s FBO 

commercial permit application. See Exhibits 115, 116, 120. This alternative would allow a 

meaningful assessment of BEH' s financial records, while at the same time addressing BEH' s 

professed confidentiality concerns and rendering moot the proposed Confidentiality Agreement. 

See Exhibit 115. The Airport Commission's attorney reminded BEH's attorneys about this 

alternative later that day, and he expressed a willingness to discuss the applicable Massachusetts 

Public Records Law and Massachusetts Open Meeting Law issues with BEH' s attorneys and the 

mechanics of the agreed upon financial records review alternative. See id. 

13 

860385vl 
Following up on the request by the Airport Commission's attorney, BEH's attorneys 

participated in a telephone conference on May 19, 2015. 7 See Exhibit 117. During that 

telephone conference, the parties' respective attorneys discussed potential qualifications for a 

third party consultant, and the potential scope of review. See id. The Airport Commission's 

attorney explained that the third party review was being conducted, as agreed to by BEH and the 

Airport Commission at the May 13, 2015 meeting, to address BEH's professed confidentiality 

concerns. See id. 

BEH was also reminded during the May 19,20105 telephone conference that submission 

of financial information to the Airport Commission would potentially be subject to disclosure 

upon request under applicable Massachusetts law. The Airport Commission's attorney further 

explained that the records would be reviewed to determine if BEH had submitted the records 

identified in Tab B to the February 12, 2015 lease offer (which, to date, have not been submitted 

in a complete and unredacted form). In the spirit of the efforts of closure and expediting 

approval, the Airport Commission's attorney also explained-contrary to the allegation in BEH' s 

Reply-that a special meeting of the Airport Commission could be conducted after the third 

party review was completed, without waiting for the regular monthly Airport Commission 

meeting. 

A second telephone conference between the parties' attorneys occurred on May 21,2015. 

See id. During this telephone conference, for the first time, BEH stated that it had no 

guarantor-previously, in its March 27, 2015 letter, BEH simply refused to provide a guarantor 

or guarantor information. See id.; Exhibit 112. Nor did BEH raise any contention at the Airport 

Commission's April 15, 2015 and May 13, 2015 meetings, or during the May 19, 2015 telephone 

conference between the parties' attorneys. See Exhibits 113, 116, 117, 120. There was a clear 

difference between BEH' s refusal to provide information and BEH' s suggestion that there was 

no responsive information to submit. In any event, BEH did not object to providing guarantor 

information at the April 15, 2015 or May 13, 2015 Airport Commission meetings, nor did BEH' s 

attorneys object to providing such information at any time during emails after those meetings or 

the foregoing May 19, 2015 telephone conference. See Exhibits 113, 116, 117, 120. 

The Airport Commission's attorney followed up the May 21, 2015 telephone conference 

by confirming the procedures for retaining a third party consultant, and for confirming that the 

Airport Commission sought financial information about any individual who would be financially 

responsible for BEH, given the full scale FBO activities proposed and to protect the public and 

Airport patrons. See Exhibit 117. The Airport Commission's attorney reminded BEH that a 

complete submission would be necessary, rather than the piecemeal approach undertaken by 

BEH. See id. Further, the Airport Commission's attorney identified Aviation Management 

Consulting Group ('"AMCG") as a potential third party reviewer. See id. 

7 Inexcusably, BEH's Reply generally includes and/or describes a portion of Attorney 

McCulloch's communications to the Airport Commission's attorney, yet fails to include 

responses from the Airport Commission's attorney, which contradict the allegations contained in 

BEH's Reply and BEH's one-sided version of events. 

14 

860385vl 
For example, the Airport Commission sought to ensure that BEH could pay its lease 

obligations and be financially capable for addressing any potential issues with the storage, 

dispensing, handling and sale of aviation fuel-which rendered it necessary to obtain a guarantor 

from BEH or receive information about BEH' s investors or guarantor and their financial ability 

to address such issues. Given the limitations under Massachusetts municipal finance law-such 

as Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 44, § 53-BEH's suggestion of prepayment of the entire West Apron 

(Parcel A) lease was insufficient and unworkable. 

In Flightline Aviation, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, FAA Docket No. 16-07-05 (Director's 

Determination, March 7, 2008), the requirement of a personal guaranty was considered by the 

FAA as part of the appropriate actions undertaken by an airport sponsor to protect itself from 

financial and/or litigation risk. This is relevant here because BEH has not demonstrated 

experience to operate an FBO and, contrary to BEH' s argument, BEH has not demonstrated to 

the Airport Commission that it has sufficient assets and insurance for the proposed FBO 

business, which include but are not limited to the attendant risks for commercial fueling 

activities. 

Notwithstanding BEH's agreement to the third party review at the May 13, 2015 Airport 

Commission meeting, BEH (through its attorney) objected to following through with such 

review in a June 4, 2015 email. See Exhibits 118, 119. While BEH's attorney suggested that I 

conduct this review, this conflicted with the Airport Commission's May 13, 2015 vote and the 

parties' prior agreement, and was deemed inadvisable given BEH's allegations and the necessity 

under Massachusetts law (see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4, § 6(5)) for the Airport Commission to 

deliberate and act as a public body, rather than by a single member. See Exhibit 119. 

During June 2015, the Airport Commission's attorney subsequently contacted AMCG to 

discuss its willingness and ability to undertake the third party review of BEH' s financial records. 

See Exhibits 118, 119, 120, and 121. The Airport Commission's attorney also reminded BEH's 

attorney that BEH could submit complete and un-redacted financial records, but that it would be 

doing so without any protection from disclosure under Massachusetts law. See Exhibits 119, 

120. 

Because of BEH' s wavering and inconsistent responses, by email dated June 16, 2015 

and while waiting for a response from AMCG, the Airport Commission's attorney attempted to 

confirm the specific financial information that BEH expected to provide to AMCG. See Exhibit 

121. This request was renewed on June 18, 2015, at which time the Airport Commission's 

attorney provided BEH' s attorneys with a copy of AMCG' s standard project authorization 

agreement and offered to prepare a scope to address the parties' prior agreement and Tab B to 

the February 12, 2015 lease offer. See Exhibit 122. 

By email dated June 22, 2015, the Airport Commission's attorney prepared the 

aforementioned scope for AMCG's engagement letter. See Exhibit 123. BEH's attorney then 

amended the draft scope for AMCG's engagement letter (see Exhibit 124), but did so in a 

manner that ignored the financial information that the Airport Commission requested in the 

February 12, 2015 lease offer, as well as the parties' agreement at the Airport Commission's 

May 15, 2015 to use a third party review (see Exhibit 125). The Airport Commission has never 

15 

860385vl 
modified the financial information it previously requested under the conditional lease offer for 

the West Apron (Parcel A), nor has it modified its vote to assign review of the financial 

information to a third party as agreed to by the parties. 

Moreover, while the February 12, 2015 lease offer was limited only to Parcel A on the 

West Apron, BEH' s attorney attempted to expanded the scope to include the entire West Apron 

(i.e., Parcels A and B), which was never voted upon, offered by, or otherwise approved by the 

Airport Commission (and remains subject to a potential request for proposals process in the near 

future). See Exhibit 125. BEH also attempted to use the third party review to address "a 

mechanism to ensure full payment of the rents for the entire 5-year term of both the West Ramp 

Parcel and the entire West Ramp," even though the only purpose of the third party review was to 

consider whether BEH had submitted the requested financial records, as a result of its professed 

confidentiality concerns. See id. This suggested mechanism ignored the concerns for ensuring 

that BEH could be financially responsible to operate an FBO and pay rent for the lease term. 

BEH's attorney subsequently responded in a June 25, 2015 letter that mischaracterized 

the Airport Commission's April15, 2015 meeting. See Exhibit 126. However, as explained in a 

letter from the Airport Commission's attorney, the Airport Commission never voted to 

reconsider or modify the financial information identified in Tab B to the February 12, 2015 lease 

offer, and instead the AMCG scope of engagement would need to be consistent with the Airport 

Commission's prior votes (which BEH's proposed revisions were not). See Exhibit 127. 

AMCG's scope of review currently remains unresolved. 

At the present time, BEH' s financial information and business plan have not been 

reviewed by a third party consultant because of BEH' s ongoing refusal to provide the 

information deemed necessary by the Airport Commission, consistent with the stated purposes of 

the Airport's Minimum Standards and as outlined in Tab B to the February 12, 2015 lease offer. 

Nor has BEH agreed to a proper scope of review by AMCG. BEH cannot simply rely upon its 

experience operating a Part 13 5 operation as a proper comparator for its ability to start and 

operate an FBO, which involves an entirely different set of obligations and financial 

requirements. 

The Airport Commission remains willing to work with BEH in addressing these issues 

and permitting a second FBO at the Airport, but it must insist upon receiving proper financial 

records to protect Airport patrons and the general public. The Airport Commission's support is 

demonstrated by repeated votes to extend BEH' s Fiscal Year 2014 and 2015 commercial 

permits--even though BEH' s Fiscal Year 2014 commercial permit application failed to request 

approval for a full scale FBO and such activities were contemplated by BEH during Fiscal Year 

2014. See Exhibits 9, 113, 116, 128.8 

8 At its July 8, 2015 meeting, the Airport Commission approved the draft minutes from its June 

1 0, 2015 meeting, with minor revisions not applicable here. 

860385vl 

16 
C. Other Submittal Issues 

In a June 12, 2015 email, the Airport Commission (through its attorney) noted that BEH 

failed to submit an insurance certificate identifying coverage limits for spills and requested that a 

revised insurance certificate be provided. See Exhibits 119, 121. This was necessary because of 

BEH' s proposed fueling activities, and was consistent with the insurance certificate provided by 

FlightLevel, the existing FBO at the Airport. See id. 

In a letter dated June 17, 2015, BEH (through its attorney) declined to provide evidence 

of spill coverage, citing the Airport's Minimum Standards and summarily contending that 

"BEH's current insurance policies meet the minimum standards and its operation of a FBO will 

as well." See Exhibit 129. BEH also argued that it would be branded and follow the standards 

and insurance coverage requirements for its particular brand. See id. 

BEH' s June 17, 2015 response conflicted with multiple representations made by Mr. 

Donovan to Airport management, in which he stated that he did not intend to sell branded fuel. 

See Exhibit 122. Based on Mr. Donovan's representations, by selling unbranded fuel, BEH 

would not be subject to insurance or other requirements imposed by an outside fuel brand and 

therefore BEH's argument would be illusory. See id. The Airport Commission also reminded 

BEH that Paragraph V (Insurance) of the West Apron (Parcel A) lease offer that BEH accepted 

required BEH to maintained insurance as may be required by the Airport Commission with limits 

in the amount(s) specified by law and/or by the Airport Commission. See id. While BEH cited 

the Minimum Standards, these Minimum Standards did not preclude the Airport Commission 

from requiring evidence of spill coverage. 

The Airport Commission requested evidence of spill coverage from BEH, just as the 

same had been provided by FlightLevel. See id. The Airport Commission even provided BEH 

with a copy of FlightLevel' s insurance certificate to demonstrate its spill coverage, listed under 

"Pollution Liab." See Exhibit 130. To date, BEH has not provided the requested insurance 

certificate for spill coverage, despite prior requests for such a certificate. See Exhibit 127. After 

the Airport Commission's July 8, 2015 meeting, BEH's attorney represented to the Airport 

Commission's attorney that BEH did not want to incur the additional cost for spill coverage at 

the present time, which amounts to an entirely different reason for BEH' s refusal to provide 

evidence of spill coverage. 

In July 2013, BEH submitted a fueling plan, yet BEH never revised this fueling plan to 

reflect FlightLevel's objections over the use ofFlightLevel's Lot G or the court order issued in 

the pending FlightLevel/BEH Litigation. See Exhibit 13 1. Only after being prompted by the 

Airport Commission (through its attorney) did BEH provide a brief narrative to address its 

revised fueling plan-yet it was incumbent upon BEH to have raised this issue on its own 

volition, rather than wait for an inquiry from the Airport Commission. See id. 

While BEH has suggested in its Reply that it has prevailed in the FlightLevel/BEH 

Litigation involving Lot G, this is not the case, because only a preliminary injunction to preserve 

the status quo has been issued and there has been no final adjudication on the merits. See 

Exhibit 87. BEH's attorney even acknowledged as such, because he stated in a June 23, 2015 

17 

860385vl 
email that the issue of BEH fueling on Lot G "will be adjudicated in that action as appropriate'' 

and "[ o ]nee that issue is dealt with in the litigation, BEH will update its fueling plan 

accordingly." See Exhibit 131. 

BEH has recognized that it could not fuel aircraft on Lot G, based on the court order in 

the FlightLevel!BEH Litigation. See id.; see also Exhibit 87. FlightLevel, on the other hand, 

continues to object to BEH's encroachment into Lot G and has criticized BEH's own design of 

its Lot F hangar for resulting in the encroachment. See Exhibit 132. 

BEH's revised fueling plan-described only with brevity in the June 23, 2015 email from 

BEH's attorney-necessitates BEH submitting a scaled depiction, to ensure that BEH is in 

compliance with applicable Object Free Areas and National Fire Protection Association setbacks. 

This scaled version was requested on two (2) separate occasions, but to date has not been 

submitted by BEH. See Exhibits 127, 133. Accordingly, it is unclear whether BEH can submit a 

compliant revised fueling plan, which is necessary given the scope of BEH' s proposed FBO 

activities. While BEH attempts in its Reply to provide a narrative description of Lot F, its failure 

to accompany this narrative with a scaled plan (as the Airport Commission has requested for the 

revised fueling plan) renders that discussion unsubstantiated and speculation. See 16 C.F .R. § 

16.23(g). 

Waltzing Matilda Waiver of Financial Information 

On page 10 of its Reply, BEH alleges that, at the April 15, 2015 and May 13, 2015 public 

meetings, NAC responded to a request from a new airport business, Waltzing Matilda, for a 

waiver of the financial requirements in the Minimum Standards. NAC did issue a waiver of the 

financial requirements for Waltzing Matilda, and conditionally approved the application of 

Waltzing Matilda for a commercial permit at the May 13, 2015 meeting. See Exhibit 116 at 2. 

Here, BEH attempts to show that the Airport Commission gave preferential treatment to 

Waltzing Matilda, while requiring BEH to submit the requested financial information. In fact, 

recognizing that Waltzing Matilda was a start-up Part 135 operator (not an FBO) and thus, did 

not have at that time three (3) months of operating expenses, the Airport Commission waived the 

Minimum Standards requirement to provide financial information until December 2015, so that 

Waltzing Matilda would have adequate time to provide the required information to the Airport 

Commission. See Exhibit 116 at 2. The Airport Commission did not waive the submittal of 

financial information without that condition, and instead determined that an extension of seven 

(7) months would provide Waltzing Matilda adequate time to establish the required financial 

records. 

Prior to the vote at the May 13, 2015 meeting, Waltzing Matilda noted that-because it 

was a new company-the owners had not yet separated their personal financial information from 

their company financial information. In fact, the Airport Commission provided similar leniency 

to BEH in 2010, as evidenced by the limited financial information submitted by BEH (Exhibit 

4 )-which similarly lacked three (3) months of operating expenses and certain other financial 

records. Again, prior to the favorable vote for Waltzing Matilda, this precedent by BEH, among 

other Airport commercial permit holders, was introduced into the discussion and deliberation 

18 

860385vl 
which, with the ensuing favorable vote, allowed Waltzing Matilda to begin its commercial 

operations conditioned on the production of financial records in seven (7) months. 

By contrast, BEH has been a commercial permit holder at the Norwood Airport for more 

than five (5) years. Accordingly, BEH has certainly had sufficient time and experience to obtain 

the financial information required by the Airport Commission, particularly given the FBO it 

proposes to operate. BEH has not provided the Airport Commission with documentation its 

financial ability to operate an FBO, and its arguments to the contrary are unaccompanied by 

evidentiary support. 

Gate 3 Taxi-Lane TOFA 

On page 12 of its Reply, BEH contends that the "taxi-lane markings in front of its hangar, 

which are not required by the FAA in that location, be removed. If those markings are removed 

there is no TOFA."9 (Emphasis in original). This assertion is patently false, as explained at 

length on pages 14-15 and 17-21 of the Respondents' May 8, 2015 Answer and the 

corresponding evidentiary support is contained in Exhibits 33-34, 40-49, 104, and 105. 

Additionally, in the Reply, BEH's assertion-"Ifthose markings are removed there is no 

TOF A''--only reinforces BEH' s unauthorized actions on this matter. In November 2013, the 

Airport Manager notified Mr. Donovan in an email, expressing concern that BEH's ongoing 

construction was causing damage to the gate 3 taxi-lane. See Exhibit 134. As then-Vice 

Chairman of the Airport Commission, as well as a licensed civil engineer, I weighed in on this 

damage with corrective actions I prescribed to restore the pavement, rejecting cracksealing and 

instead recommending sawcutting beyond the subbase failure, removal of the pavement, 

compacting the subbase, new hot mix asphalt, and finally sealing the joint and pavement. See 

Exhibit 135. Exhibit 136 shows the level of damage that was causing concern. This damage was 

brought to Mr. Donovan's attention, and Mr. Donovan provided a response. See Exhibit 137. In 

this response, Mr. Donovan stated: 

[A]ny and all pavement issues even possibly caused by any work we have done 

will be fully addressed and repaired with our Engineers involved as well as Mark 

Ryan as he understands this area. 

However, well after BEH completed its construction, the gate 3 taxi-lane markings were 

never restored by BEH. In a September 14, 2014 email to Mr. Donovan (see Exhibit 138), the 

Airport Manager followed up on this outstanding issue, underscoring to Mr. Donovan: 

While the weather is still warm enough, BEH should plan to restore those gate 3 

taxi-lane edge markings (north of your hangar and apron) lost during your 

9 BEH refers to a settlement discussion on pages 11 and 12 of its Reply, which is inappropriate 

and inadmissible. BEH' s "terms sheet" was so excessive in nature that it precluded the 

Respondents from providing a meaningful counteroffer. 

860385v1 

19 
construction earlier this year. There were four sets of markings, with an inner 

distance of 20 ft. from centerline. Each set should be 15 ft. long; and the 

individual markings should be six inches wide 

See Exhibit 138. 

Mr. Donovan never responded to the September 14, 2014 email, and BEH never restored 

the taxi-lane edge markings that border BEH's Lot F leasehold, as noted in the photos contained 

in Exhibit 139, which were taken on June 26, 2015. It is the Respondents' beliefthat BEH's 

decision not to restore the markings is consistent with BEH's own response, that "'[i]fthose 

markings are removed there is no TOFA." See Reply at 12. 

On July 8, 2015, the Airport Commission reminded BEH that it still had not complied 

with its assurances to restore the gate 3 taxi-land edge markings to their original condition. See 

Exhibit 140. The Airport Commission demanded a plan to restore the markings within seven (7) 

days and for these markings to be restored within twenty-one (21) days. See id. 

From BEH's actions, statements and legal arguments, it appears to be BEH's intent to 

incorporate the gate 3 taxi-lane into its fueling plan due to BEH's inadequate facility planning at 

the time BEH insisted on constructing a large hangar on a small sub-lease lot (i.e., Lot F). In 

fact, the gate 3 taxi -lane, like the gate 2 taxi -lane, is a common way for all of the Airport's users, 

not just BEH, and as noted in the Respondents' Answer (p. 18), the gate 3 taxi-lane is also used 

as an emergency way for Airport fire/rescue equipment and personnel responding to an onairport emergency from the Norwood Fire Department. This designated use pre-dated BEH's 

201 0 advent onto the Airport. 

Moreover, since at least December 2012, long before BEH initiated construction, BEH 

was made aware that it would be required to '"comply with all taxi-lane object-free restrictions 

that apply to the siting of BEH's fueling equipment[,] per the airport's design standards, and 

clarifying guidance from the Federal Aviation Administration." See Exhibit 33. BEH chose to 

defy compliance of the TOFA matter, all the while claiming, on page 15 of its Reply, that '"the 

designation of a taxi-lane in front ofBEH's hangar is arbitrary and unjustified, and is not applied 

to other hangar owners in essentially identical situations on the airport." This in fact is patently 

false. 

On page 14 of its Reply, BEH further pursues its argument regarding the gate 3 taxi-lane 

TOFA, insisting that ''there is no FAA policy direction to have a taxilane on that part of the ramp 

at all." In fact, the taxi-lane designation and relevant markings were a result of this area being 

approved for re-construction and improvement in 2007 with FAA and MassDOT Airport 

Improvement Program funds. Thus, the establishment of the gate 3 taxi-lane TOFA was a 

condition existing as of approximately three (3) years prior to BEH obtaining its first commercial 

permit from the Airport Commission. All of these facts were presented and supported with 

documentation on pages 17 to 21 of the Respondents' Answer. 

Finally, on page 17 of its Reply, BEH asserts that Lot F '"will be sufficient for BEH's 

aircraft fueling and FBO operations." If this is so, why does BEH continue to fight so ardently to 

20 

860385vl 
have the gate 3 TOF A designation changed? The NAC believes that BEH needs the added space 

to fuel aircraft in what is now the common way for all airport users~ since-with the construction 

ofBEH~s large hangar on a relatively small lease lot-BEH~s Lot F is land-constrained. This 

was a direct result of BEH~ s inadequate land planning. 

Lease Offers and Opportunities 

On page 12 of its Reply, BEH claims it has not rejected any NAC offers for space on the 

airport ramp. This assertion is patently false. As chronicled on pages 24 through 34 of the 

Respondents~ Answer, and documented in Exhibit 57, BEH was first offered part of the West 

Apron in March 2014; BEH subsequently turned down this offer (see Exhibit 58) even after 

being cautioned not to do so by the Airport Commission. BEH allegation of a "'preference for 

FBO FlightLevel in granting airport leases" is unsubstantiated and incorrect, in defiance of the 

evidentiary requirements in 16 C.F .R. § 16.23 (g). 10 

On page 13 of its Reply, BEH argues that the DC-3 Apron could have been made 

available for FBO use. Yet, on pages 34 through 36 of the Respondents~ Answer~ this was 

refuted at length, along with the corresponding Exhibits 76 through 78. In short, there were 

several companies showing an interest in the DC-3 Apron, which, to a great extent~ was why the 

Airport Commission chose to advertise this land for lease, and it restricted the use to aircraft 

parking and aircraft ground handling based on countervailing considerations for the most 

appropriate use based on safety, efficiency and planning concerns. BEH chose not to bid on the 

DC-3 Apron, even though it had every opportunity to do so before the deadline for submitting 

proposals. 

Helicopter Operations 

On pages 18 and 19 of its Reply, BEH~s attorney implies that because ""Mr. Donovan has 

more than 8,000 hours of helicopter pilot time, including a tour in Iraq, and has a perfect safety 

record~" he should be allowed to land and take-off wherever he wants on the Airport. In fact, 

over the years, there has been any number of helicopter pilots using the Airport whose flight 

hours and experience far exceed those of Mr. Donovan. These pilots have been more than 

willing to comply with the Airport~s helicopter flight procedures. These are procedures Mr. 

Donovan had complied with-as a pilot for both Wiggins Airways and Helicopters, Inc.-prior 

to Mr. Donovan becoming the president and chief pilot ofBEH. 

On page 19 of its Reply, BEH argues that the helicopter rules changes proposed by the 

NAC in 2010 ""were not made at the time BEH began its Part 135 operation in summer 2010, but 

rather almost immediately after BEH made its initial request for FBO status in October 2010. ~~ 

BEH~ s position here is nothing more than unjustified and egregious suspicion. 

10 While the April 9, 2014 meeting minutes were prepared using the audio recording, that 

recording was inadvertently destroyed by the former NAC Secretary after draft minutes were 

typed--due to human error~ not improper motive. 

860385v1 

21 
In 2010, soon after BEH received its first commercial permit, BEH began helicopter 

operations off FlightLevel' s north ramp. Blue Hill Helicopters, a busy flight school and 

commercial permit holder also based at the Airport, similarly began to operate from 

FlightLevel' s north ramp, after ceasing its operations on the Airport's south quadrant, on the 

helipads located on the south end of the north/south taxi-lane. 

With both BEH and Blue Hill Helicopters now operating off the north ramp, FlightLevel 

began to experience an exponentially higher number of helicopters. This ramp was furthermore 

being shared by corporate jets and maintenance aircraft. It was evident that this was approaching 

too much activity for one (1) relatively small ramp. Compounding this, Airport management 

was becoming concerned about the mixing of fixed wing and rotary-winged aircraft. It was also 

clear that helicopter traffic from the Airport's based operators was creating the need to assess 

whether helipads similar to those already constructed on the south end of the north/south taxilane should also be constructed on the north end of the north/south taxi-lane. As stated in the 

Respondents' Answer (Exhibit 18), in a January 7, 2011 email to FAA's Donna Witte: 

[T]he one and only intent of our proposed procedures, which is to incorporate into 

our regulations a helicopter operating area that-as of right now---is only 

provisionally ok' d for helo operations. 

See Exhibit 18. 

On page 21 of its Reply, BEH asserts that "the NAC Commissioners subsequently voted 

to limit helicopter operations exclusively to the helipads altogether, with no basis in operating 

safety or incident experience." This is false, as evidenced by pages 7 through 10 of the 

Respondent's Answer and accompanying Exhibit 21a. 

BEH also states: "BEH has real issues with the helipads and with changes in airport 

operating rules in recent years that have not been beneficial for a helicopter operation from Lot 

F." See Reply at 21. This statement makes clear that BEH's aim is to operate its helicopters 

from Lot F, adjacent to the gate 3 taxi-lane, and to achieve this objective by discrediting any 

infrastructure changes (e.g., construction of four ( 4) helipads on the north quadrant, to support 

BEH and Blue Hill Helicopters), along with the efforts and costs borne by the Airport 

Commission, MassDOT, and the FAA to accommodate the Airport's north quadrant helicopter 

operators. In fact, for the size of its non-movement area, the Airport has, arguably, the most 

helicopter operating areas of any airport its size in the New England region. 

Characterization of Christopher Donovan 

Page 2 ofBEH's Reply notes "a number of negative and derogatory statements about 

BEH and about BEH President Christopher Donovan in particular." However, an airport sponsor 

may consider financial and/or litigation risk in dealing with airport users, and it can consider a 

history of problems with an airport user. See Jack H. Cox v. City of Dallas, TX, FAA Docket 

No. 16-97-2 (Record of Determination, October 24, 1997); Seasands Air Transport, Inc. v. 

Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority, FAA Docket 16-05-1 7 (Director's Determination, 

August 28, 2006); Flightline Aviation, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, FAA Docket No. 16-07-05 

22 

860385v1 
(Director's Determination, March 7, 2008); Jacquelin R. Ashton and Kent Ashton v. City of 

Concord, NC, FAA Docket No. 16-02-01 (Director's Determination, August 22, 2003; Final 

Agency Decision, February 27, 2004 ). In Seasands Air Transport, the FAA observed as follows: 

An airport sponsor acts as a proprietor with regard to managing its airport to 

certain reasonable levels of service, personal decorum, business professionalism 

and financial responsibility; in addition to safety, security and efficiency. It 

chooses with whom it does business and what parties gain access to the secure 

areas of its airport and under which terms. . . . A sponsor may apply reasonable 

standards of security and personal behavior, and reasonable rules of tenancy. 

The Authority's Federal obligations, including grant assurance 22[,] do not 

require it to continue a business relationship with any corporation that fails to 

exercise management controls or sufficient corporate governance to prevent and 

correct highly unprofessional behavior by its principals or employees. 

FAA Docket 16-05-17 (Director's Determination, August 28, 2006). 

Mr. Donovan has been the key arbiter of the controversy created by BEH. In fact, it is 

documented throughout the Respondents' Answer that Mr. Donovan seems to compulsively 

challenge existing conditions and procedures at the Airport. With BEH, and prior to that, with 

Helicopters, Inc., Mr. Donovan's activities have been at the center of Norwood Police reports 

(Exhibits 1 and Exhibit 85), legal action (see Exhibit 2), and even warnings by FAA (see Exhibit 

27). Mr. Donovan has furthermore tried to make false and meritless accusations of 

discrimination against the Airport Commission (see Exhibit 19). 

Mr. Donovan has attempted to unfairly and unnecessarily involve the FAA through the 

Part 13 and 16 complaint processes (see Exhibit 16), and turning to the local media to present 

false claims that his company is being treated unfairly by the Airport Commission (see Exhibit 

1 00). Mr. Donovan has further created much of the litigious climate and controversy that now 

marks the Respondents' relationship with BEH. In fact, to date, the Respondents are waiting on 

the outcome of a public hearing involving charges filed against Mr. Donovan and fellow BEH 

employee, Robert Silva, which involved the irresponsible dumping of pollutants on the airport's 

federally protected land (see Exhibits 83, 85,and 102). Thus, the NAC's characterization of Mr. 

Donovan is well founded, well documented, relevant, necessary to place BEH' s allegations in 

full context, and consistent with applicable FAA guidance for an airport sponsor to consider the 

actions of principals and employees of airport businesses. 

In describing BEH's owner, Moshe Yanai ("Mr. Yanai"), on page 9 of its Reply, BEH 

states: ''Mr. Yanai is a pilot and aircraft owner, who has maintained aircraft and operated at 

Norwood Airport for two decades." However, contrary to the image that BEH attempts to 

project, BEH's owner, Mr. Yanai is only an unknown figure on the Norwood Airport. This has 

been the case for many years. 

In fact, Mr. Yanai has never attended an Airport Commission meeting. Nor at any time 

has Mr. Yanai ever communicated with, or dealt with, the Airport Commission--either in person 

23 

860385vl 
or in writing. Airport management, which has a full-time presence on the Norwood Airport, has 

only seen Mr. Yanai once in the past several years, and this included no direct communication. 

Significantly, Mr. Yanai's access control security badge expired on June 4, 2012, over three (3) 

years ago, and Mr. Yanai has not since expressed an interest, either directly or indirectly, to be 

processed for a new badge. Because Mr. Yanai has not had an active presence on the Norwood 

Airport for many years, the Airport Commission has had no choice but to deal with Mr. Donovan 

in his stead. 

CONCLUSION 

Regardless of the industry, businesses-by way of their personnel-are judged favorably 

or otherwise, by how they behave, not only to their own customers but to their overseers. This 

business tenet alone forms the basis ofNAC's assessment: that BEH, a company projected solely 

through the temperament and actions of its president, Mr. Donovan, is the antithesis of a model 

tenant. The NAC's conclusion is evidenced by no less than BEH's turbulent five (5) year history 

at the Airport. In that time, BEH has repeatedly and willfully defied not only the NAC but also 

the conventions of sound business practice, responsibility, and goodwill. This, in turn, has 

undermined the Airport Commission's confidence that BEH, even as an FBO, will right itself. 

Mr. Donovan, as the one and only accountable force behind BEH, has made clear on 

countless occasions the litigious and adversarial impulse of his company. In seeking an FBO 

commercial permit, BEH has employed these legal means against the Airport Commission and 

Airport management. Additionally, in adversarial fashion, BEH has used legal means to defy 

airport rules, regulations, and procedures (e.g., those pertaining helicopter operations). 

Ironically, as stated in the Respondents' Answer (p. 43), Mr. Donovan's pattern of behavior is to 

claim discrimination, all the while seeking treatment separate from, and more favorable to, the 

requirements equally applicable to other Airport businesses and pilots. 

Still, the Airport Commission remains willing to entertain and consider BEH's FBO 

commercial permit application. The Airport Commission has not only advocated for BEH, but it 

has granted BEH numerous extensions-including for submitting a business plan, for its Fiscal 

Year 2014 and 2015 commercial permits, and for providing requested financial information. To 

date, BEH simply has not provided the requested financial information, evidence of spill 

coverage, or revised fueling plan, all of which are necessary for the Airport Commission to issue 

a decision on BEH' s commercial permit application. 

For the Airport Commission, BEH's litigious posture has amounted to many man-hours 

dedicated to defending the NAC's position. These are man-hours that could have been more 

fruitfully dedicated to advancing the Norwood Airport. Accordingly, in judging BEH's 

performance thus far, which must be weighed alongside its unyielding, litigious orientation, the 

NAC feels well positioned in its unfavorable evaluation of this business. In this Rebuttal, the 

Norwood Airport Commission stands firm on all other points previously articulated in the 

Respondent's May 8, 2015 Answer, which are appropriately supported with accompanying 

documentation. 

24 

860385vl 
In closing, we respectfully request that the FAA determine BEH' s Part 16 Complaint to 

be unfounded and: (1) dismiss the Complaint; (2) decline to investigate the Complaint; (3) 

determine that the Respondents have complied with the FAA's Grant Assurances; and (4) take 

no further action. 

~-----------

Mark P. Ryan, Chairm 

Norwood Airport Commission 

cc: Timothy I McCulloch, Esquire; Norwood Airport Commission; Norwood General 

Manager; Norwood Town Counsel; Massachusetts Department of TransportationAeronautics Division 

860385v1 

25 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Brandon H. Moss, counsel to the Respondents, Town of Norwood and Norwood 

Airport Commission in Boston Executive Helicopters, LLC v. Town of Norwood, Massachusetts 

and Norwood Airport Commission, FAA Docket No. 16-15-05, hereby certifies that on this ,~:::5 

day of July 2015, a copy of the foregoing document was served via overnight mail and email as 

follows: 

Complainant, Boston Executive Helicopters, LLC (one copy): 

Timothy I. McCulloch, Esquire 

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 

2375 East Camelback Road, Suite 750 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

TMcCulloch@hinshawlaw.com 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (original and three (3) copies): 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Airport Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

9-A WA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov 

860385vl 

Brt5l~ 

26 
APPENDIX A 

INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO RESPONDENTS' REBUTTAL 

(Part 16 Complaint: Boston Executive Helicopters v. Town of Norwood, Massachusetts and 

Norwood Airport Commission; Docket No. 16-15-05) 

Exhibit 106 

Email from Norwood Fire Chief Anthony Greeley to Russ Maguire, dated February 12, 2014 

Exhibit 107 

May 19, 20 15 Norwood Board of Selectmen Meeting Minutes 

Exhibit 108 

Letter from Mark Ryan to Christopher Donovan, dated May 26, 2015 

Exhibit 109 

Printouts from Boston Executive Helicopters, LLC Website, dated July 2, 2015 

Exhibit 110 

Boston Executive Helicopters, LLC Financial Submission, dated April2014 

Exhibit Ill 

Letter from Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch to Attorney Brandon H. Moss, dated March 12, 

2015 

Exhibit 112 

Letter from Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch to Attorney Brandon H. Moss, dated March 27, 

2015 

Exhibit 113 

April 15, 2015 Norwood Airport Commission Meeting Minutes 

Exhibit 114 

Email from Attorney Brandon H. Moss to Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch, dated May 12, 2015 

Exhibit 115 

Email from Attorney Brandon H. Moss to Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch, dated May 13, 2015 
Exhibit 116 

May 13, 20 15 Norwood Airport Commission Meeting Minutes 

Exhibit 117 

Letter from Attorney Brandon H. Moss to Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch, dated June 3, 2015 

Exhibit 118 

Email from Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch to Attorney Brandon H. Moss, dated June 4, 2015 

Exhibit 119 

Email from Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch to Attorney Brandon H. Moss, dated June 11, 2015 

Exhibit 120 

Email from Attorney Brandon H. Moss to Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch, dated June 12, 2015 

Exhibit 121 

Email from Attorney Brandon H. Moss to Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch, dated June 15,2015 

Exhibit 122 

Email from Attorney Brandon H. Moss to Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch, dated June 18, 2015 

Exhibit 123 

Email from Attorney Brandon H. Moss to Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch, dated June 22, 2015 

Exhibit 124 

Edits to Aviation Management Consulting Group Engagement Letter by Attorney Timothy I. 

McCulloch 

Exhibit 125 

Email from Attorney Brandon H. Moss to Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch, dated June 24, 2015 

Exhibit 126 

Letter from Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch to Attorney Brandon H. Moss, dated June 25, 2015 

11 
Exhibit 127 

Email from Attorney Brandon H. Moss to Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch, dated July 8, 2015 

Exhibit 128 

June 10,2015 Norwood Airport Commission Meeting Minutes 

Exhibit 129 

Letter from Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch to Attorney Brandon H. Moss, dated June 17, 2015 

Exhibit 130 

Email from Attorney Brandon H. Moss to Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch, dated June 22, 2015 

Exhibit 131 

Email from Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch to Attorney Brandon H. Moss, dated June 23, 2015 

Exhibit 132 

Letter from FlightLevel Aviation to Norwood Board of Selectmen and Norwood Airport 

Commission, dated June 8, 2015 

Exhibit 133 

Email from Attorney Brandon H. Moss to Attorney Timothy I. McCulloch, dated June 25, 2015 

Exhibit 134 

Email from Russ Maguire to Christopher Donovan, dated November 8, 20 13 

Exhibit 135 

Email from Mark Ryan to Norwood Airport Commission and Christopher Donovan, dated 

November 8, 2013 

Exhibit 136 

Photograph of Gate 3 Taxi-Lane Damage 

Exhibit 137 

Email from Christopher Donovan to Norwood Airport Commission, dated November 10,2013 

111 
Exhibit 138 

Email from Russ Maguire to Christopher Donovan, dated September 14, 2014 

Exhibit 139 

Taxi-Lane Photographs 

Exhibit 140 

Letter from Mark Ryan to Christopher Donovan, dated July 8, 2015 

Exhibit 141 

August 13, 2014 Norwood Airport Commission Meeting Minutes 

860800vl 

IV