^

U.S

. Departmen t offic e o f Airpor t Complianc e 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , SW

. o f Transportatio n an d Fiel d Operation s Washington , D C 2059 1 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n

Certifie dMai l - Retur n Receip t


### OCT- 9 200 9 Mr
. Glen n A
. Barfiel d Pos t Offic e Drawe r

7 Gol.dsboro , N C 27533-000 7 Mr
. W
. Harrel l Everett , Jr
. Everett , Womble , Lawrenc e & Brown , LL P 50 7 B Nort hSpenc e Avenu e Goldsboro,N C 2753 2 Mr
. Pabl o O
. Niiesc h' > Ms
. Elain e C
. Lippman n ; , Spiege l & McDiarmid , LL P ' 133 3 Ne w Hampshir e Ave. , N W: Washington , D C 2000 5 ; Dea r Messrs
. Barfield , Everett , Nuesc han dMs
. Lippmann : • Re : Delber t

Johnso n d/b/ aTw o Dog s Aviatio n v . Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

No
. 16-08-1 1 Enclose di s acop y o f

th e determinatio n o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) withrespec t t o th e above-reference dmatter . • -. , , W e fin dtha t

th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Auth?aity v owne r

an doperato r

o f th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport , i s no t

currentl y i n violatio n o f it s federal xftiligation s regardin g unjus t economi c discrimination , exclusiv e rights , preservin g right s an dpowers , airport revenues , o r

fe e an drenta l structur e a s se t fort hi n it s airpor t gran t assurance s an dexistin g federal statute s withrespec t t o thi s complaint
. Accordingly , th e above-reference dmatte r i s dismissed
. Th e reason s fo r

dismissa l ar e se t

fort hi n th e enclose dDirector' s Determination
. Sincerely ,

Randal l S
. Fiert z Director , Offic e o f

Airport Complianc e an dFiel dOperation s^ /

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

WASHINGTON , D C
Delber t Johnso n d/b/ aTw o Dog s Aviatio n

COMPLAINAN T
Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y RESPONDEN T Docke t No
. 16-08-1 1

DIRECTOR' S DETERMINATIO N
I
. INTRODUCTIO N Thi s matte r

i s befor e th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) base do n aformal complain t file di n accordanc e wit hth e Rule s o f Practic e fo r

Federally-Assiste dAirpor t Enforcemen t Proceedings , Titl e 1 4 Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s (CFR ) Part 16 ^ Delber t Johnso n d/b/ aTwo Dog s Aviatio n (Complainant ) filed aformal Complain t pursuan t t o 1 4 CF RPart

1 6 agains t

th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y (GWAA , Authorit y o r Respondent) , sponso r

an doperato r

o f th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport (Airport o r GWW)
. Th e Complainan t

allege s th e Responden t

denie dit s reques t

t o establis haself-servic e fuelin g facility at th e Airport

i n orde r t o protec t

th e exclusiv e right

o f it s existin g fiael provider
. Th e Complainan t

als o allege s tha t

th e Responden t

ha s cede dit s contro l o f

th e Airport

an dillegall y divertedAirport

revenue , violatin g it s requiremen t t o operat e i n afinancially self-sufficien t manner . Thes e allegation s regardin g Gran t Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPowers , Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination , Gran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights , Gran t Assuranc e 24 , Fe e an dRenta l Structure , an dGran t Assuranc e 25 , Airpor t

Revenue s ar e construe da s th e five issue s liste di n Sectio n I V belo w an dfully discusse dherein
. Withrespec t

t o th e allegation s presente di n thi s Complaint , unde r th e specifi c circumstance s a t th e Airpor t

a s discusse dbelo w an dbase do n th e evidenc e o f recor di n thi s proceeding , th e FA A finds th e Airport

i s no t i n violatio n o f

it s Federa l obligations
. Th e FAA' s decisio n i n thi s matte r i s base do n applicabl e Federa l law an dFA A policy , revie w o f th e pleading s an dsupportin g

' Enforcemen t

procedure s regardin g airport complianc e matter s ma y b e foun dat FA A Rule s o f

Practic e fo r Federall y Assiste dAirpor t Enforcemen t

Proceedins s (1 4 CF RPar t 16)
. Thes e enforcemen t

procedure s wer e publishe di n th e Federa l Registe r (6 1 FR53998 , Octobe r

16 , 1996 ) an dbecam e effectiv e o n Decembe r 16 , 1996
.documentatio n submitte db y th e parties , reviewe db y th e FAA , whic hcomprises th e

Administrativ e Recor dreflecte di n th e attache dFA A Exhibi t 1
. II
. PARTIE S Th e Complainant , Delbert Johnson , i s th e sol e proprieto r o f Two Dog s Aviation
. H e propose dt o establis haflight

schoo l an dself-servic e avga s fiieling facility at th e Airport
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

A ] Althoug hth e Airport Authorit y approve dth e Complainant' s reques t t o establis haflight

school , th e dispositio n o f hi s reques t

t o establis hth e self-servic e fuelin g facility remain s i n dispute
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

T ] Th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Municipa l Airport (Airport ) i s apublic-us e airport owne dan doperate d b y th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y (GWAA)
. Th e Airport , thre e nautica l mile s nort ho f Goldsboro , Nort hCarolina , i s classifie da s agenera l aviatio n airport with4 0 basedaircraf

t an d 16,20 0 aimual operations
. Th e Airport ha s on e runway , Runwa y 5-23 , a5,50 0 foo t lon g b y 100

- foo t wid e asphal t

runway . Th e plannin g an ddevelopmen t o f th e Airport

ha s bee n financed, i n part , wit hfund s provide db y th e FA A unde r th e Airpor t

Improvemen t

Program(AIP) , authorize d b y th e Airpor t

an dAirwa y Improvemen t Ac t o f 1982 , a s amended , 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47101 , e t seq . [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m12 ] III
. BACKGROUN D AN D PROCEDURA LHISTOR Y Factua l Backsroun d Som e tim e prio r

t o Jul y 1 , 2002 , th e Airport' s the n sol e fixedbas e operator ^ (FBO ) an dairport managemen t

contractor , Wayn e Aviation , approache dSI GAviation , LL C (SIG ) t o discus s SIG' s assumptio n o f

th e FB O an dairport

manage r dutie s at th e Airport
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , % 2 7 an dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

A , ^ 5 ] O n Jul y 1 , 2002 , th e GWA A an dSI Gente r int o a n airport

managemen t

agreemen t

fo r ater mo f five years . Pe r

th e contract , th e GWA A pay s SI G$20,00 0 ayear t o performcertai n managemen t service s an dac t

a s th e airport

manager . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

J ]

^ Th e Recor di s unclear

a s t o whe n th e Complainan t bega n offerin g flight

instructio n at

th e Airport
. A n Octobe r 24 , 200 7 lette r

fromth e Respondent' s attorne y t o th e Complainant' s attorne y states : "Mrs
. Johnso n [th e Directo r assume s thi s i s th e Complainant' s wife ] wa s presen t a t th e las t Airpor t Authority meetin g an dsh e wa s advise dtha t th e Airpor t

Authority ha dapprove dthei r applicatio n fo r

afligh t schoo l an dtha t

it wa s onl y necessar y fo r

he r to provid e th e Authority wit h evidenc e tha t

thei r airplane(s ) fo r

fligh t instructio n hav e liabilit y insuranc e an dtha t th e Goldsbor o Wayne Airpor t Authority wa s name da s a n additiona l insured
. Mrs
. Johnso n advise d m e a t th e Airpor t

Authority meetin g an do n asubsequen t occasio n whe n sh e cam e to m y offic e tha t 'Tw o Dog s Aviatio n woul dno t provid e th e Authority wit hacop y o f

it s liability polic y namin g th e Authority a s th e additiona l insured'
. " [ FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

T , p . 1 ] Th e Recor di s unclear

a s t o whe n th e Complainan t provide dthi s documentatio n an dwa s permitte dt o begi n offerin g flight instruction
. FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , p . 1 1 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 3 demonstrate s that th e Complainan t currentl y offer s flight

instructio n an daircraf

t rental a t GWW
. ' A fixed-base operato r

(FBO ) i s acommercia l entity providin g aeronautica l service s suc ha s fueling , maintenance , storage , ground , an dflight instruction , etc. , t o th e public
. [FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Appendi x 5 ]O n Jul y 24 , 2002 , th e GWA A an dSI GAviation , LL C execut e afive-year Fixe dBas e Operatio n Agreement
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

G ] I n conjunctio n wit hth e FB O Agreement , th e GWA A an dSI GAviation , LL C execut e afiveyea r facilitie s leas e agreemen t o n Jul y 24 , 2002
. Th e term s o f th e leas e requir e SI Gt o pa y th e GWA A $1,11 5 pe r

monthfor

th e 2 0 enclose dhangar s an deigh t sheltere dhangar s an d$50 0 pe r mont hfor

spac e i n th e termina l building
. Th e tota l monthl y ren t i s $1,615
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

H ] O n Januar y 23 , 2006 , th e GWA A an dSI GAviation , LL C execut e an amendmen t t o th e leas e agreement . Unde r

thi s agreement , SI Gpay s th e GWA A $4,80 0 pe r monthfor

3 6 enclose d hangar s an deigh t

sheltere dhangar s an d$50 0 pe r mont hfor

spac e i n th e termina l building
. Th e tota l monthl y ren t

i s no w $5,300
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

I ] O n Februar y 22 , 2007 , th e Complainan t attend s th e GWAA' s meeting
. Th e minute s state : "Tom[To mKimbrough , FB O manager ] introduce dCindy an dDelJohnso n wh o hav e aproposa l fo r

afligh t schoo l a t

th e airpor t

wit hasingl e airplane
. The

y wil l nee doffic e space , an dar e lookin g a t th e spac e in th e ne w T-hangar building
. Ott o Keeslin g [GWA

A Membe r

an dChai r

o f th e Board' s Building s an dGround s Committee ] wil l mee t

wit hthemt o work

out th e detail s o f

a n office
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

C , p . 2 ] O n Marc h22 , 2007 , th e GWA A amends th e Airport' s Rule s an dRegulation s t o limi t self

fiieling. Th e minute s state : "H e [Ji mSteele , Airpor t

Manager ] requeste dachang e in th e curren t Rule s an d Regulation s t o includ e th e following : 'Self-fuelin g by an y metho di s prohibite d withou t th e expres s writte n consen t o f th e airpor t

manager . Al l request s fo r self

fuelin g wil l b e reviewe dfo r safety an dEPA considerations
. Approva l fo r self

fuelin g shal l no t

unnecessaril y b e withheld'
. Ro n Princ e [GWA A Member ] move d t o approv e thi s chang e t o th e Rule s an dRegulations , whic hmotio n wa s seconde d by Ott o Kesslin g [GWA

A Member ] an dapproved
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit J-1 , p . 1 ] A t thi s sam e meeting , th e Complainan t propose s an dmake s applicatio n t o establis haself-servic e aviatio n fuel busines s at

th e Airport
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

A an dJ-1 , p . 2 ] O n Ma y 9 an d10 , 2007 , th e Complainan t exchange s electroni c correspondenc e wit hth e Airport' s enginee r

regardin g th e locatio n o f hi s propose dself-servic e aviatio n fuel business
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m10 , exhibit

F ] Th e engineer' s las t

messag e confirm s hi s understandin g o f th e locatio n an dstates :

" / nee dt o fin dout

i f tha t i s suitabl e pe r

FA A rule s an dregulation s fo r th e typ e equipmen t

yo u ar e proposing
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , exhibi t

F , p . 1 ]O n Ma y 15 , 2007 , th e GWA A hold s aspecia l meetin g t o discus s "fixe dbas e operators , sel f

fiieling facility , an dflight school s an dpossibl y takin g actio n concernin g thes e issue s only. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

D ] Th e minute s state : "DelJohnso n gav e apresentatio n concernin g hi s proposa l t o erec t aself-servic e fuelin g statio n a t

th e airpor t

an dt o d o busines s a t

th e airpor t

a s afligh t instructor
. H e share dth e particular s o f th e aircraf

t h e ha s purchase dfo r

fligh t instructio n an dth e propose dself-servic e fuelin g station
. Ther e wa s discussio n tha t followin g (sic ) concernin g self-servic e fuelin g an dfixe d bas e operator s a t

th e airport
. The Chairma n reporte dtha t th e Authorit y woul dtak e thes e proposal s unde r consideratio n an dadjourne dth e meeting
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

D ] A t th e Ma y 24 , 200 7 GWA A meeting , th e Authorit y vote s t o disapprov e th e Complainant' s reques t for aself-servic e fuelin g operatio n a t th e Airport
. Th e GWA A als o vote s t o exten d SIG' s contrac t

t o Septembe r

30 , 2007
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

C , p . 1 ] O n Ma y 30 , 2007 , th e GWA A write s alette r t o th e Complainant , notifyin g hi mo f th e Authority' s actio n o n hi s proposal
. Th e lette r states : "Afte r carefu l consideratio n o f th e informatio n whic hyo u provide dth e Authority , th e curren t

Rule s an dRegulation s o f th e Airpor t

a s se t fort hin Sectio n 8 thereo f an dparticularl y subsectio n I an dth e Authority' s belie f base dupo n curren t

fue l sale s tha t th e marke t

fo r additiona l fue l sale s canno t economicall y sustai n thi s additiona l service , th e Authority by a4- 0 vote a t it s regula r

meetin g o f

Ma y 24 ^ denie dyou r

application
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

D ] O n Jun e 5 , 2007 , th e Complainant' s attorne y write s alette r t o th e GWA A challengin g th e legalit y o f

it s decisio n t o den y th e Complainant' s self-servic e fuelin g application
. Althoug hth e lette r state s th e Complainant' s reques t tha t hi s attorne y initiat e aComplain t unde r Par t 16 , i t propose s ameetin g amon g th e partie s an dthei r lega l counse l t o discus s an informa l resolution.' * [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

E ] O n Augus t

23 , 2007 , th e Respondent' s attorne y write s t o th e Complainant' s attorney . Th e lette r states : "Afte

r considerin g thi s matter , th e Airpor t Authority i s o f

th e opinio n tha t

i t i s actin g appropriatel y in denyin g Mr
. Johnson' s applicatio n fo r a n FB O providin g sel f servic e avga s fo r

th e reason s se t

fort hi n it s lette r

t o Mr
. Johnso n date dMay 30 , 2007
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

F ] I n Octobe r

o f 2007 , th e GWA A extend s SIG' s FB O agreement , airport managemen t

agreement , an dleas e for

2 0 years . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit s R , S , an dT ] Th e GWA A wil l no w

^ Th e Recor ddoe s no t

indicat e whethe r

o r no t an y suc hmeetin g occurred
.compensat e SI Gat arat e o f $30,00 0 pe r

year for airport managemen t

services
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

S ] O n Octobe r

8 , 2007 , th e GWA A an dSI GAviation , LLC , ente r int o afive-year

leas e agreemen t fo r acorporat e hangar
. Pe r

th e lease , SIG' s monthl y renta l fe e for th e hangar

i s $500
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

I ] O n Octobe r

16 , 2007 , th e GWA A hold s aspecia l meetin g t o discus s pendin g litigation
. Th e minute s state : "Ken Bank s move dt o instruc t Harrel l Everet t

[GWA A ' s attorney ] t o compos e a lette r statin g ou r

positio n tha t

ha s no t change dan dgiv e Tw

o Dog s Aviation , LL C th e opportunit y t o agai n compl y wit hth e rule s an dregulation s a t th e airport , whic hmotio n wa s seconde dby Ji mMaxwel l an ddul y approved
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

M ] O n Octobe r

24 , 2007 , GWAA' s attorne y send s tw o letter s t o th e Complainant' s attorney . On e lette r explain s tha t

th e Complainant' s applicatio n for aflight schoo l ha s bee n approve dan dtha t i t i s necessar y for

th e Complainan t

t o provid e th e Authorit y withevidenc e o f liabilit y insuranc e namin g th e Authorit y a s a n additional insured
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

T]
. Th e secon d lette r state s th e Complainant' s reques t t o establis haself-servic e fueUn g facility wil l b e approve d i f certai n condition s ar e met . Th e lette r states : "Finally , i f

you r clien t ca n compl y wit

hth e requirement s o f

Sectio n 8 o f

it s Rule s an dRegulations , the n it s applicatio n wil l b e approved , subjec t t o th e approva l o f th e sit e a t th e Airpor t

b y th e Authority an dassurance s fro mth e Wayn e County Fir e Marshal l tha t

th e self-servic e facilit y meet s th e Stat e an dCount y safety requirements
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

K , p . 2 ] O n Novembe r

1 , 2007 , th e Complainant' s attorne y respond s t o th e tw o letter s date dOctobe r 24 , 2007
. Th e lette r

state s tha t

th e Complainant s wil l provid e th e insuranc e doctmientatio n shortl y an dcompl y wit hth e Minimu mStandard s requirement s tha t hav e an y rationa l applicatio n witha self-servic e fuelin g facility
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

N ] O n Novembe r

7 , 2007 , th e Respondent' s attorne y me t withth e Complainant' s attorney . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

G]
. O n Novembe r

28 , 2007 , th e Respondent' s attorne y outline dhi s note s fromth e meetin g i n a n electroni c messag e t o Wayn e County' s attorney . Th e electroni c messag e state s th e Complainant' s demands , a s represente db y hi s attorney , as : "1
. Tw o Dog s Aviatio n t o becom e FB O an dallowe dt o sel l aviatio n fue l 2
. Paymen t

t o TDAfo r

los s profit s an dattorney s fee s an dpunitiv e damage s sinc e it s reques t

las t Marc h 3
. Ke n Bank s t o resig n a s eithe r Boar dmembe r

o r bein g pai dfo r

preparin g financia l report s an dt o pa y bac k t o th e GWA

A al l monie s h e ha s bee n pai d sinc e h e starte dgettin g paid
. Also , crimina l actio n vs . Ken Bank s NOTE : H e wa s pai d$150.0 0 amont hsinc e Sarban e (sic ) Oxley was base d(sic ) byCongres s i n 200 2 ( I believe ) an dPittar dPerr y an dCron e coul dn o longe r prepar e monthl y financials an dals o b e auditor
. Ken i s stil l doin g financials but wil l no t charge
. GWA

A wil l ge t ne w perso n t o d o financial s an dKe n wil l remai n o n Boar d( I believe)
. Ne w perso n wil l probabl y charg e $200.0 0 a month
. 4
. SI GAviatio n terminate da s Airpor t Manage r an dth e Airpor t

Manager' s selectio n b e bi dupo n 5
. Hir e outsid e Compan y t o maintai n publi c record s o f GWAA
. Al l record s mus t b e maintaine delectronically
. 6
. Want s certai n Boar dmember s o f GWA A t o resig n 7
. Want s al l contract s wit hSI GAviatio n cancelled-h e claim s tha t SI Gha s a monopol y a t

th e Airpor t

an dtha t th e Boar donl y doe s wha t SI GAviatio n wants . 8
. Want s th e GWA

A restructure dan dcontend s tha t i t i s no t operatin g a s prope r publi c agnec y (sic ) 9
. Intend s t o brin g administrativ e complain t wit hth e Federa l Aviatio n Agenc y abou t SI GAviatio n an dit s denia l o f allowin g i t

t o sel l aviatio n fuel
. 10
. Intend s t o su e Loca l Governmen t Commission , BB&Tan dGWA A i n referenc e t o $495,00 0 loa n in 200 5 tha t wa s not approve db y th e LG C sinc e wit hinteres t i t exceede d$500,00 0 whe n interes t wa s included
. Als o crimina l actio n v s GWA

A Boar dmember s an drequirin g th e member s personall y t o repa y th e loan
. 11
. Intend s t o brin g a n anti-trus t actio n agains t

th e GWA A an dSI GAviation
. Ther e may b e othe r

claim s an ddemand s a s well , but thes e ar e th e one s tha t

I noted. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

G ] O n Novembe r

8 , 2007 , th e Complainant' s attorne y send s th e Respondent' s attorne y an electroni c messag e outlinin g th e Complainant' s five area s o f disput e an dth e legal remedie s for eac hmatter . [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m10 , exhibit

I-l ] Th e nex t

day , th e Complainant' s attorne y send s th e sam e tex t t o th e Respondent' s attorne y i n aformal letter
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , exhibi t

1-2]
. Th e electroni c messag e an dlette r state : "Ther e ar e essentiall y jiv e area s o f dispute , an dth e Johnson' s lega l remedie s ar e differen t fo r eac ho f thos e matters . A s t o th e self-servic e avga s proposal , o n failur e t o agre e t o th e Johnsons ' remed y woul db e acomplain t

t o th e FA A contendin g th e A

A ha s illegall y grante dan d protecte da n exclusiv e righ t fo r SI Gt o sel l aviatio n fuels , an dseparatel y a t som e poin t a n actio n agains t

SI Gan dth e A

A contendin g anti-trus t

an dunfai r

trad e practices , seekin g mone y damages
. A s t o SIG' s conflict s o f

interes t an ddiversio n o f

revenue , o n failur e t o agre e th e Johnson s coul dfil e aseparat e FA A complaint , but

not likel y alega l action , an d ther e woul db e n o damage s t o recove r separat e fro mth e avga s monopoly
.A s t o th e Publi c Records, o n failur e t o agre e th e Johnsons ' coul dbrin g a

statutor y actio n seekin g complianc e an dlega l expenses , bu t not damages
. A s t o th e non-approve dloan , o n failur e t o agre e th e Johnson' s coul dsee k injunctiv e relie f

an do n behal f

o f th e A A see k recover y o f

imprope r payment s fro m BB& T an dreimbursemen t fro mth e individua l Boar dmembers
. The y coul dmake aclai mfo r

lega l expenses , but

not damages
. A s t o Ken' s receip t

o f payments , o n failur e t o agre e th e Johnso n ' s agai n coul d see k injunctiv e relie f

an do n behal f

o f th e A A see k reimbursemen t

o f imprope r payment s fro mKen , an dcoul dmak e aclai mfo r lega l expenses , but

no t damages
. Therefor e th e onl y matte r in whic hth e Johnson s coul dsee k mone y damage s woul db e ultimat e denia l o f thei r FB O application ; otherwis e the y coul donl y seek , i n money , reimbursemen t o f lega l expenses . I f

w e conditione dsettlemen t o f an y o f th e othe r matter s o n settlemen t

o f th e avga s proposal , i t

migh t b e construe d a s seekin g (avgas)mone y (sic ) in exchang e fo r a n agreemen t

t o refrai n fro m reportin g th e Board' s non-complianc e wit hstatutor y duties
. Thi s i s especiall y troublin g a s i t relate s t o th e loa n an dth e payment s t o Ken , becaus e violatio n o f

th e relevan t

statute s constitut e crimina l offenses
. The Johnson s hav e suggeste dtha t th e Boar db e re-vampe dan dprocedure s implemente dt o preven t

conflict s o f

interes t an dt o ensur e th e Board' s independenc e fro man y privat e influence , an dt o brin g complet e transparenc y t o th e A A ' s financia l operations
. I t seem s t o me tha t

tha t i s th e onl y legitimat e deman dthe y coul dmake a s consideratio n fo r thei r forbearanc e fro mlitigatio n a s t o th e loa n o r

reimbursemen t

fro mKe n (whic hI woul dhop e h e woul dmake in a an y event)
. Fo r thes e an dothe r

reasons , I believ e th e A

A an dth e Johnson s mus t work towar d resolutio n o f

thes e issue s separately , wit hth e Johnson' s forbearanc e i n eac hcas e bein g exchange dfo r

A A actio n i n tha t

respectiv e case . " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , exhibit s I- l an d1-2

] A t th e Decembe r

6 , 200 7 GWA A meeting , th e Responden t reaffirm s it s decisio n regardin g th e Complainant' s applicatio n t o establis haself-servic e fuelin g facility
. Th e minute s state : "Th e Authorit y discusse dth e applicatio n o f Two Dog s Aviatio n fo r

aFixe dBas e Operatio n fo r

self-servic e sale s o f

aviatio n petroleu mproduct s and , a s i t ha d don e previously , grante di t permission , subjec t

t o Two Dog s Aviatio n complyin g wit hth e requirement s o f

Sectio n 8 o f

it s Rule s an dRegulations , an dsubjec t t o th e approva l o f

th e sit e a t

th e Airpor t

b y th e Authorit y an dassurance s b y th e Wayn e County Fir e Marshal l tha t th e self-servic e facilit y meet s th e Stat e an dCounty safety requirements
. Th

e Authority directe dMr
. Everet t t o advis e th e attorne y fo r Two Dog s Aviatio n it s decision
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

S , p . 2 ]O n Decembe r 6 , 200 7 th e GWAA' s attorne y write s t o th e Complainant' s attorne y reiteratin g thi s decision
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

L ] O n Februar y 6 , 200 8 th e Complainant' s attorne y write s t o th e FAA' s Atlant aAirport Distric t Offic e t o see k

th e FAA' s assistanc e i n an informa l resolution. ^ [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

A ] O n Jun e 8 , 200 9 SI Gadvise s th e GWA A o f it s decisio n t o terminat e it s FB O an dAirport Managemen t

responsibihties
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m21 , exhibit

B ] O n Augus t

5 , 200 9 th e GWA A execute s an airport managemen t

agreement , aFixe dBas e Operatio n Agreement , an daleas e agreemen t wit hWayn e County
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 21 , exhibit s E , F , an dG ] Procedura l Histor y O n Novembe r

12 , 2008 , FA A receive dth e Complaint
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 ] O n Decembe r

3 , 2008 , FA A dockete dDelber t Johnso n d/b/ aTwo Dog s Aviatio n v . Goldsboro

Wayn e Airpor t

Authority

- [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m3 ] O n Decembe r

3 , 200 8 th e Complainant' s attorne y provide dth e FAA' s Offic e o f Chie f Counse l withcertificat e o f

servic e for

th e Complaint
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m4 ] O n Decembe r

16 , 200 8 Respondent' s attorne y requeste dan additiona l 3 0 day s t o answe r th e Complaint
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5 ] O n Decembe r

18 , 200 8 FAA' s Offic e o f Chie f Counse l grante dth e Responden t a3 0 da y extension
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 ] O n Januar y 26 , 2009 , th e Responden t fileda n Answe r an dMotio n t o Dismiss
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7]
. O n Februar y 9 , 2009 , th e Complainan t requeste dan extensio n throug hFebruar y 28 , 200 9 t o repl y t o th e Answer
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m8 ] O n Februar y 10 , 200 9 th e FAA' s Offic e o f Chie f Counse l grante dan extensio n throug hFebruary 28 , 2009
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m9 ] O n Marc h2 , 2009 , th e Complainan t repHed
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m10 ]

^ Th e FAA' s Atlant aAirport Distric t Offic e referre dthi s reques t t o th e NorthCarolin aDepartmen t o f Transportation
. Thi s i s becaus e th e Stat e o f Nort hCarolin aparticipate s i n th e FAA' s Bloc k Gran t Progra man d assume s th e dutie s associate dwithadministerin g grant s an denforcin g thei r applicabl e Federa l Gran t Assurances
. Th e Complainan t

state s that

th e Nort hCarolin aDepartmen t o f Transportatio n mad e n o attempt s t o resolv e thi s matte r informally
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , H 4 ]O n Marc h16 , 2009 , th e Responden t filed arebuttal
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m11 ] Upo n th e submitta l o f

th e Respondent' s rebuttal , th e FAA' s routin e practic e i s t o conclud e th e submissio n o f

pleading s an dcommenc e wit hit s investigation
. A s part o f th e FAA' s investigatio n o f

thi s Complaint , th e Directo r requeste dbothpartie s t o respon dt o specifi c questions
. However , thi s procedur e wa s no t intende dt o introduc e asecondroun do f pleading s o r serv e a s amean s for

bot hpartie s t o unilaterall y submi t additiona l informatio n no t specificall y requeste db y th e FAA
. Th e Director' s dispositio n o f thes e additional submittal s i s note dbelow
. O n Marc h17 , 2009 , th e Complainan t filed alette r

containin g a

n affidavi t

verifyin g informatio n containe di n hi s Complain t an dReply
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m22 ] O n Ma y 18 , 2009 , th e FA A requeste dadditiona l informatio n frombot hparties
. Th e FA A als o extende dth e du e dat e o f

th e Director' s Determinatio n t o o n o r befor e Jul y 31 , 2009
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m14 ] O n Jun e 11 , 2009 , th e Complainan t responde dt o th e FAA' s reques t fo r additional information
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 Ite m15 ] O n Jun e 16 , 2009 , th e Responden t responde dt o th e FAA' s reques t for additiona l information
. [FA A Exhibi t

lite m16 ] O n Jun e 26 , 2009 , th e Responden t provide dadditional informatio n telephonicall y requeste db y th e FAA
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m17 ] O n Jul y 6 , 2009 , th e Complainan t supplemente dit s respons e t o th e FAA' s reques t fo r additiona l information
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m19 ] ^ O n Jul y 27 , 2009 , th e Complainan t supplemente dit s respons e t o th e FAA' s reques t fo r additiona l information
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m20 ] ^ O n Augus t

3 , 2009 , th e FA A extende dth e du e dat e o f th e Director' s Determinatio n t o o n o r befor e Septembe r

15 , 2009
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m18 ] O n Augus t

13 , 2009 , th e Responden t supplemente dit s respons e t o th e FAA' s reques t for additiona l information
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m21] ^

* Thi s ite mwa s submitte dbeyon dth e perio dspecifie db y th e Director' s Reques t for Additiona l Informatio n date d Ma y 18 , 2009
. Sai dReques t se t th e deadlin e for

submittin g additiona l informatio n a s Jun e 17 , 2009
. Neithe r part y requeste dan extensio n o f time to submi t

additiona l informatio n no r di dthe y argu e tha t

goo dcaus e existe dfor

th e lat e filings. Notwithstanding , th e Directo r ha s take n thi s submissio n int o consideration
. ' Se e Footnot e 6
. ^ FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 1 wa s submitte dbeyon dth e perio dspecifie db y th e Director' s Reques t for Additiona l Informatio n date dMa y 18 , 2009
. Sai dReques t se t th e deadlin e fo

r submittin g additiona l informatio n a s Jun e 17 , 2009
. Neithe r

part y requeste da

n extensio n o f

tim e t o submi t

additiona l informatio n no r di dthe y argu e goo dcaus e existe dfo r

lat e filing. Notwithstanding , th e Directo r ha s take n thi s submissio n int o consideration
. O n Septembe r 3 , 2009 , th e Complainan t

submitte dalette r

raisin g ne w allegation s an dexhibit s that g o beyon dth e scop e o f

th e extan t Complaint
. O n Septembe r 8 , 2009 , th e Responden t submitte dalette r

commentin g o n th e Complainant' s Septembe r1 0

O n Septembe r

16 , 2009 , th e FA A extende dth e du e dat e o f th e Director' s Determinatio n t o o n o r befor e Octobe r

2 , 2009
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m25 ] O n Octobe r

5 , 2009 , th e FA A extende dth e du e dat e o f th e Director' s Determinatio n t o o n o r befor e Octobe r

16 , 2009
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m26 ] IV
. ISSUE S Upo n revie w o f

th e allegation s an dth e relevan t airport-specifi c circumstances , summarize d above , th e FA A ha s determine dtha t th e followin g issue s requir e analysi s i n orde r t o provid e a complet e revie w o f

th e GWAA' s complianc e wit happlicabl e Federa l la w an dpolicy :

• Whethe r

th e Respondent' s failure t o approv e th e Complainant' s reques t t o operat e a

n aeronautica l servic e constitute s an unreasonabl e denia l o f acces s i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(1 ) an dGran t

Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. • Whethe r

th e Airport' s Minimu mStandard s an dcondition s for approva l o f

aself-servic e fuelin g facility unreasonabl y den y acces s t o th e Complainan t o r unjustl y discriminat e agains t th e Complainan t

i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(1 ) an dFedera l Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. • Whethe r

th e Responden t

ha s limite dth e right

t o sel l fiie

l an dleas e hangar s at

th e Airport t o asingle provide r

i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(4 ) an dGran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights
. • Whethe r

th e Responden t

ha s cede dcontro l o f

th e Airport

i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a ) an dGran t

Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPowers
. • Whethe r

th e Responden t

illegall y diverte dAirport revenu e i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(b ) an dGran t

Assuranc e 25 , Airpor t

Revenue s an dfaile dt o maintai n afe e an d renta l structur e t o mak e th e airport a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e i n violatio n o f 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(13 ) an dGran t Assuranc e 24 , Fe e an dRenta l Structure
. V
. APPLICABL ELA WAN D POLIC Y Th e Federa l rol e i n civi l aviatio n ha s bee n augmente db y variou s legislativ e action s that authoriz e program s for

providin g Federa l fimd s an dothe r assistanc e t o loca l communitie s fo r th e developmen t

o f airport facilities
. I n eac hsuc hprogram , th e airport sponso r assume s certai n obligations , eithe r

b y contrac t

o r b y restrictiv e covenant s i n propert y deed s an dconveyanc e instruments , t o maintai n an doperat e it s airport facilitie s safel y an defficientl y an di n accordanc e wit hspecifie dconditions
. Commitment s assume db y airport sponsor s i n propert y conveyanc e o r gran t agreement s ar e importan t factor s i n maintainin g ahig hdegre e o f safety an defficienc y i n

3 , 200 9 submittal
. 1 4 CF RPar t 2 1 require s aComplainan t t o initiat e goo dfait

heffort s t o resolv e dispute dmatter s informall y befor e bringin g a n allegatio n before th e Director
. Additionally , Par t 16.23(b ) require s th e Complainan t t o stat e it s allegation s i n it s initia l pleading
. A s aresult , th e Directo r defer s thi s matte r

t o th e Atlant aAirport

Distric t Offic e an dencourage s bothpartie s t o wor k withFA A staf

f t o resolv e thes e ne w issue s outsid e thi s Complaint
. Accordingly , althoug hth e Directo r will includ e thi s correspondenc e i n th e Docket , th e Directo r wil l no t conside r i t i n thi s decision
.1 1

airport design , construction , operatio n an dmaintenance , a s wel l a s ensurin g th e publi c fair an d reasonabl e acces s t o th e airport
. Th e followin g i s adiscussio n pertainin g t o th e Airport Improvemen t

Program , Airport

Sponso r Assurances , th e FA A Airport Complianc e Program , enforcemen t o f Airport Sponso r Assurances , an dth e Complain t

an dAppea l Process
.

Th e Airpor t

Improvemen t

Progra m Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47101 , e t seq. , provide s for

Federa l airport

financial assistanc e for

th e developmen t

o f public-us e airport s unde r th e Airpor t

Improvemen t

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

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

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

sponsor s i n AI Pgran t

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

system . Airpor t Sponso r Assurance s A s aconditio n preceden t t o providin g airport

developmen t

assistanc e unde r

th e Airport Improvemen t

Program , 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107 , etseq. , th e Secretary o f Transportatio n and , b y extension , th e FA A mus t receiv e certai n assurance s fromth e airport sponsor . Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a ) set s fort

hth e statutor y sponsorshi p requirement s t o whic han airport sponso r receivin g Federa l financial assistanc e mus t agree . Th e FA A ha s astatutory mandat e t o ensur e tha t airport owner s compl y wit hthes e sponso r assurances. ^ FA A Orde r

5190.6A , Airpor t

Complianc e Requirement s (FA A Orde r 5190.6A)^° , issue do n Octobe r

2 , 1989 , provide s th e policie s an dprocedure s t o b e followe db y th e FA A i n carryin g ou t

it s legislativel y mandate dfunction s relate dt o complianc e wit hFedera l obligation s o f airport sponsors . Th e FA A consider s i t inappropriat e t o provid e Federa l assistanc e for improvement s t o airport s wher e th e benefit s o f suc himprovement s wil l no t b e full y realize ddu e t o inheren t

restriction s o n aeronautica l activities
.

' See , e.g. , th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t o f 1958 , a s amende dan drecodified , Tid e 4 9 U.S.C
. § § 40101 , 40113 , 40114 , 46101 , 46104 , 46105 , 46106 , 46110 ; an dth e Airport an dAirwa y Improvemen t Ac t o f 1982 , a s amende dan d recodified
. Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § § 47105(d) , 47106(d) , 47107(k) , 47107(1) , 47111(d) , 47122
. O n Septembe r

30 , 2009 , th e FA A publishe dFA A Orde r 5190.6B , Airport

Complianc e Manua l an dcancelle d FA A Orde r

5290.6A
. Durin g th e primar y portio n o f th e Director' s investigation , FA A Orde r 5190.6 A oudine dth e policie s an dprocedure s t o b e followe di n carryin g ou t th e FAA' s function s relate dt o airport compliance
. I n a

n effor t t o avoi dany further

delay i n issuin g thi s Determination , th e Directo r ha s chose n t o retai n th e citation s attache d t o FA A Orde r

5190.6A
. Thi s decisio n ha s n o bearin g o n th e analysi s containe dherein
. However , it shoul db e note d tha t th e format

o f FA A Orde r

5190.6 B ha s bee n updated
. A s aresult , th e citation s attache dt o FA A Orde r 5190.6A , a s containe di n thi s Determination , will no t accuratel y direc t

th e reade r

t o th e locatio n o f

th e guidanc e presente di n FAAOrder5190.6B
.1 2

Fiv e Federa l gran t

assurance s appl y t o th e circumstance s se t fort hi n thi s Complaint : (1 ) Gran t Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPowers ; (2 ) Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination ; (3 ) Gran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights ; (4 ) Gran t Assuranc e 24 , Fe e an d Renta l Structure ; an d(5 ) Gran t Assuranc e 25 , Airpor t

Revenues
. Gran t Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPower s Gran t Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPowers , implement s th e provision s o f Title 4 9 U.S.C
. 47107 , an drequires , i n pertinen t part , tha t th e sponso r

o f afederall y obUgate dairport

" ...wil l no t

tak e o r permi t an y actio n whic hwoul doperat e t o deriv e i t o f an y o f th e right s an dpower s necessar y t o perfor man y o r al l o f th e terms , conditions , an dassurance s in th e gran t agreemen t

withou t th e writte n approva l o f

th e Secretary , an dwil l ac t

promptl y t o acquire , extinguis ho r modif y an y outstandin g right s o r claim s o f

righ t o f other s whic hwoul dinterfer e wit hsuc hperformanc e b y th e sponsor . TJii s shal l b e don e i n amanne r acceptabl e t o th e Secretary
. " Th e FA A Orde r

5190.6 A describe s th e responsibilitie s unde r Gran t Assuranc e 5 assume db y th e owner s o f public-us e airport s develope dwithFedera l assistance
. Amon g thes e i s th e responsibilit y for

enforcin g adequat e rules , regulations , o r ordinance s a s ar e necessar y t o ensur e th e saf e an defficient

operatio n o f

th e airport
. [Se e FA A Orde r 5190. 6 A , Sec
. 4- 7 & 4-8. ] Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscriminatio n Th e owne r

o f an y airport

develope dwit hFedera l gran t assistanc e i s require dt o operat e th e airport fo r th e us e an dbenefi t

o f th e publi c an dt o mak e i t availabl e t o al l types , kinds , an d classe s o f aeronautica l activit y o n fai r an dreasonabl e terms , an dwithou t unjus t discrimination
. Federa l Gran t

Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscriminatio n deal s wit hbot hth e reasonablenes s o f airport acces s an dth e prohibitio n o f adoptin g unjustl y discriminator y condition s a s apotential fo r limitin g access . Gran t

Assuranc e 2 2 o f

th e prescribe dsponso r

assurance s implement s th e provision s o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(1 ) throug h(6) , an drequires , i n pertinen t part :

" ...wil l mak e th e airpor t

availabl e a s a n airpor t

fo r publi c us e o n reasonabl e term s an d withou t unjus t discriminatio n t o al l types , kind s an dclasse s o f aeronautica l activities , includin g commercia l aeronautica l activitie s offerin g service s t o th e publi c a t th e airport
. [(a) ] b
. I n an y agreement , contract , lease , o r othe r arrangemen t

unde r whic harigh t o r privileg e a t

th e airpor t

i s grante dt o an y person , firm , o r corporatio n t o conduc t o r t o engag e in an y aeronautica l activity fo r furnishin g service s t o th e publi c a t th e airport , th e sponso r

wil l inser t

an denforc e provision s requirin g th e contracto r

to
- (1 ) furnis hsai dservice s o n areasonable , an dnot unjustl y discriminatory , basi s t o al l user s thereof , an d (2 ) charg e reasonable , an dnot unjustl y discriminatory , price s fo r eac h uni t o r service , provide dtha t

th e contracto r

ma y b e allowe dt o make1 3 reasonabl e an dnondiscriminator y discounts , rebates , o r othe r simila r type s o f pric e reduction s t o volume purchasers
. c . Eac hfixed-bas e operato r a t th e airpor t

shal l b e subjec t

t o th e sam e rates , fees , rentals , an dothe r

charge s a s ar e uniforml y applicabl e t o al l othe r fixed-bas e operator s makin g th e sam e o r

simila r use s o f suc hairpor t

an dutilizin g th e sam e o r simila r facilities
. h
. The sponso r

ma y establis hsuc hreasonable , an dnot unjustl y discriminatory , condition s t o b e met

by al l user s o f

th e airpor t

a s ma y b e necessar y fo r

th e saf e an d efficient operatio n o f

th e airport
. i
. Th e sponso r

may prohibi t

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

clas s o f aeronautica l us e o f th e airpor t

i f suc hactio n i s necessar y fo r th e saf e operatio n o f

th e airpor t

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

th e sponso r

t o exercis e contro l o f

th e airport

sufficien t t o preclud e unsaf

e an d inefficien t condition s tha t

woul db e detrimenta l t o th e civi l aviatio n need s o f th e public
. I n al l case s involvin g restriction s o n airport us e impose db y airport

owner s for

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

us e of , th e airport
. {See

_FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Sec
. 4-8 ] FA A Orde r

5190.6 A describe s th e responsibilitie s unde r Assuranc e 2 2 assume db y th e owner s o r sponso r o f publi c us e airport s develope dwit hfederal assistance
. Amon g thes e i s th e obhgatio n t o trea t i n auniformmanne r

thos e user s makin g th e sam e o r similar us e o f th e airport

an dt o mak e al l airport

facilitie s an dservice s availabl e o n reasonabl e term s withou t imjus t discrimination
. [Se e FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Sec
. 4-14(a) (2 ) an d3-1 ] Th e owne r

o f an airport

develope dwit hFedera l assistanc e i s require dt o operat e th e airport fo r th e us e an dbenefi t

o f th e pubh c an dt o mak e i t availabl e t o al l types , kinds , an dclasse s o f aeronautica l activit y o n reasonabl e terms , an dwithou t unjus t discrimination
. [See

_FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Sec
. 4-13(a) ] Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Right s Titie 4 9 U.S.C
. § 40103(e) , provides , i n relevan t part , tha t "ther e shal l b e n o exclusiv e right fo r th e us e o f an y landin g are ao r

ai r navigatio n facility upo n whic hFedera l fund s hav e bee n expended. " Title 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(4) , similarl y provides , i n pertinen t part , that "ther e wil l b e n o exclusiv e right

fo r th e us e o f

th e airport

b y an y perso n providing , o r intendin g t o provide , aeronautica l service s t o th e public. "1 4

Gran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights , o f th e prescribe dsponso r

assurance s implement s bot h statutor y provision s requiring , i n pertinen t part , tha t th e sponso r

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

n o exclusiv e righ t

fo r th e us e o f

th e airpor t

by an y person s providing , o r

intendin g t o provide , aeronautica l service s t o th e publi c ...an dtha t i t wil l terminat e an y exclusiv e righ t t o conduc t

a n aeronautica l activity no w existin g a t suc han airpor t

befor e th e gran t

o f an y assistanc e unde r

th e Airpor t

an d Airway Improvemen t

Ac t o f 1982
. " A n exclusiv e right

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

debarrin g anothe r fromenjoyin g o r

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

b y an y othe r means . Suc haright

conferre do n on e o r

mor e parties , bu t

excludin g other s from enjoyin g o r

exercisin g asimilar

right o r rights, woul db e an exclusiv e right. [5e e FA A Advisor y Circula r 5190- 6 Exclusiv e Right s a t Federall y Obligate dAirports , Januar y 4 , 2007]
. Therefore , i t

i s FAA' s polic y tha t

th e sponso r

o f afederall y obligate dairport wil l permi t

n o exclusiv e right

fo r th e us e o f

th e airport

b y an y perso n providing , o r intendin g t o provide , aeronautica l service s t o th e publi c an dwil l not , eithe r directl y o r

indirectly , gran t

o r permi t an y person , firm, o r

corporation , th e exclusiv e righ t a t th e airport

t o conduc t

an y aeronautica l activities
. FA A Orde r

5190.6 A clarifie s th e applicabihty , extent , an dduratio n o f th e prohibitio n agains t exclusiv e rights unde r

4 9 U.S.C
. § 40103(e ) wit hregar dt o airport s develope dwithFAA

administere dgran t

assistanc e an dFedera l propert y conveyances . Th e exclusiv e rights prohibitio n remain s i n effect a s lon g a s th e airport

i s operate da s a

n airport
. FA A take s th e positio n tha t th e gran t o f an exclusiv e right

for th e conduc t

o f an y aeronautica l activit y o n suc hairport s i s regarde da s contrary t o th e requirement s o f th e applicabl e laws , whethe r suc hexclusiv e right

result s froma

n expres s agreement , fromth e impositio n o f unreasonabl e standard s o r requirements , o r

b y an y othe r

means . Gran t Assuranc e 24 , Fe e an dRenta l Structur e Gran t assuranc e 24 , Fe e an dRenta l Structure , addresse s fee s th e owne r o r sponso r levie s o n airpor t users i n exchang e for

th e service s th e airport

provides
. I n pertinen t

part , th e sponso r

o f a federall y obligate dairport : "wil l maintai n afe e an drenta l structur e fo r th e facilitie s an dservice s a t th e airpor t whic hwil l make th e airpor t a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e unde r th e circumstance s a t

th e particula r

airport , takin g int o accoun t suc hfactor s a s th e volume o f traffi c an deconomy o f

collection
. " Gran t assuranc e 2 4 satisfie s th e requirement s o f 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(13)
. It provide s tha t

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

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

wit hAssurance s 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination , an d23 , Exclusiv e Rights
. Moreover , FA A Orde r

5190.6 A state s that

th e owne r

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

publi c us e doe s not

preclud e th e owne r

o r sponso r fromrecoverin g th e cos t o f1 5

providin g th e facility
. Th e owne r o r sponso r i s expecte dt o recove r

it s cost s throug hth e establishmen t

o f fair an dreasonabl e fees , rentals , o r othe r use r charge s that

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

airport
. [Se e FA A Orde r

5190.6A , Sec
. 4-14(a) ] FAA' s Polic y an dProcedure s Concernin g th e Us e o f Airpor t Revenue s (Revenu e Us e Policy) " provides , amon g othe r

things , th e FAA' s polic y o n th e maintenanc e o f aself-sustainin g rat e structur e b y federally-assiste dairports
. It provides , i n relevan t

part , that : "Airport proprietor s mus t

maintai n afe e an drenta l structur e tha t in th e circumstance s o f

th e airpor t

make s th e airpor t

a s financiall y self-sustainin g a s possibl e " [Sectio n VII(B)(1) ] "I f marke t condition s o r

deman dfo r

ai r servic e doe s no t

permi t th e airpor t

t o b e financiall y self-sustaining , th e airpor t proprieto r

shoul destablis hlon g termgoal s an dtarget s t o make th e airpor t a s financiall y self-sustainin g a s possible
. " [Sectio n VII(B)(2) ] "...th e FA A doe s no t

conside r th e self-sustainin g requiremen t t o requir e airpor t sponsor s t o charg e fai r

marke t rate s t o aeronautica l users . Rather , fo r charge s t o aeronautica l users , th e FA A consider s th e self-sustainin g assuranc e t o b e satisfie dby airpor t

charge s tha t

reflec t th e cos t t o sponsor s o f

providin g aeronautica l service s an dfacilitie s t o users . " [Sectio n VII(B)(5) ] "...th e FA A interpret s th e self-sustainin g assuranc e t o requir e tha t th e airpor t receiv e fai r

marke t valu e fo r th e provisio n o f

nonaeronautica l facilitie s an d services , t o th e exten t

practicabl e considerin g th e circumstance s a t th e airport
. " [Sectio n Vn(C)] " Assuranc e 25 , Airpor t Revenue s Gran t Assuranc e 25 , Airpor t

Revenues , o f

th e prescribe dsponso r

assurance s implement s provision s o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(b) , et seq. , an drequires , i n pertinen t part , that : "(1 ) Th e Secretar y o f

Transportatio n may approv e aprojec t gran t applicatio n unde r thi s subchapte r

fo r a n airpor t

developmen t

projec t onl y i f th e Secretar y receive s writte n assurances , satisfactor y t o th e Secretary , tha t loca l taxe s o n aviatio n fue l (excep t

taxes in effect

o n Decembe r

30 , 1987 ) an dth e revenue s generate db y apubli c airpor t wil l b e expende dfo r

th e capita l o r

operatin g cost s 

### o f (A ) th e airport ; (B ) th e loca l airpor t

system ; o r

" 5e e 6 4 F

R7696 , February 16 , 1999
.1 6 (C ) othe r facilitie s owne do r

operate db

y th e airpor t

owner s o r

operato r an ddirectl y an dsubstantiall y relate dt o th e ai r transportatio n o f

passenger s o r property . Thi s i s als o state da

t 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47133 : (a ) PROHIBITION.-Loca l taxe s o n aviatio n fuel (excep t taxe s i n effec t

o n Decembe r

30 , 1987 ) o r

th e revenue s generate db y an airport that i s th e subjec t

o f Federa l assistanc e ma y no t b e expende dfor

an y purpos e othe r

tha n th e capita l o r operatin g cost s of

- (1 ) th e airport ; (2 ) th e loca l airport

system ; o r (3 ) an y othe r

loca l facility tha t

i s owne do r

operate db y th e perso n o r entity that own s o r operate s th e airport

tha t i s directl y an dsubstantiall y relate dt o th e ai r transportatio n o f

passenger s o r

property. " Gran t Assuranc e 25 , Airpor t

Revenues , reflect s thi s legislativ e intent an dstates : "Al l revenue s generate dby th e airpor t an dan y loca l taxe s o n aviatio n fue l establishe dafte r

Decembe r

30 , 1987 , wil l b e expende dby i t fo r th e capita l o r operatin g cost s o f

th e airport ; loca l airpor t system ; o r

othe r facilitie s whic har e owne do r operate dby th e owne r

o r operato r o f th e airpor t

an dwhic har e directl y an dsubstantiall y relate dt o th e actua l ai r transportatio n o f

passenger s o r property.. . " Th e FA A Airpor t Complianc e Progra m Th e FA A discharge s it s responsibilitie s for ensurin g airport

owners ' complianc e wit hthei r federal obligation s throug hit s Airpor t Complianc e Program
. Th e FAA' s airport complianc e effort s ar e basedo n th e contractua l obligation s an airport owne r accept s whe n receivin g federal gran t flind s o r th e transfe r

o f federal propert y for

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

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

t o protec t

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

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

wit hth e airport owners ' federal obligation s an dth e public' s investmen t i n civi l aviation
. Th e Airport

Complianc e Progra mdoe s not contro l o r

direc t th e operatio n o f

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

i s bein g served
. FA A Orde r 5190.6 A set s fort

hpolicie s an dprocedure s for th e FA A Airport

Complianc e Program
. FA A Orde r 5190.6 A i s not

regulator y an di s not controllin g withregar dt o airport sponso r conduct
. Rather , i t

establishe s th e policie s an d procedure s t o b e followe db y FA A personne l i n carryin g out th e FAA' s responsibilitie s for ensurin g airport

compliance
. I t

provide s basi c guidanc e fo r FA A personne l i n interpretin g an d1 7

administerin g th e variou s continuin g commitment s mad e t o th e Unite dState s b y airport owner s a s aconditio n o f

receivin g agran t

o f federal fund s o r

th e conveyanc e o f

federal propert y for airport purposes . FA A Orde r

5190.6 A analyze s th e variou s obligation s se t fort hi n th e standar d airport sponso r assurances , addresse s th e natur e o f thos e assurances , addresse s th e applicatio n o f thos e assurance s i n th e operatio n o f public-us e airports , an dfacilitate s interpretatio n o f th e assurance s b y FA A persoimel
. Th e FA A Complianc e progra mi s designe dt o achiev e voluntar y complianc e wit hfederal obligation s accepte db y owner s and/o r operator s o f

public-us e airport s develope dwit hFAA

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

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

potentia l pas t

violatio n o f

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

dismissa l o f

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

Authoritv , FA A Docke t

No
. 16-99-1 0 (Augus t

30 , 2001 ) (Fina l Decisio n an d Order) ] FA A Orde r

5190.6 A outline s th e standar dfor compliance , stating , "I t

i s th e FAA' s positio n that th e airport

owne r meet s commitment s when : (a ) th e obligation s ar e full y understood , (b ) a progra m(preventiv e maintenance , leasin g policies , operatin g regulations , etc. ) i s i n plac e whic h i n th e FAA' s judgmen t

i s adequat e t o reasonabl y carr y out thes e commitments , an d(c ) th e owne r satisfactoril y demonsfrate s tha t suc haprogra mi s bein g carrie dout. " [Se e FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Sec
. 5-6(a)(2) ] Enforcemen t of Airpor t Sponso r Assurance s Th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t o f 1958 , a s amende d(FAAct) , 4 9 U.S.C
. § 40101 , et seq. , assign s th e FA A Administrato r

broa dresponsibilitie s fo r th e regulatio n o f

ai r commerc e i n th e interest s o f safety , security , an ddevelopmen t o f civi l aeronautics
. Th e federal rol e i n encouragin g an d developin g civi l aviatio n ha s bee n augmente db y variou s legislativ e actions , whic hauthoriz e program s for

providin g fund s an dothe r assistanc e t o loca l communitie s fo r th e developmen t

o f airport facilities
. In eac hsuc hprogram , th e airport owne r o r sponso r assume s certai n obligations , eithe r

b y contrac t

o r b y restrictiv e covenant s i n propert y deed s an dconveyanc e instruments , t o maintai n an doperat e it s airport facilitie s safely , efficiently , an di n accordanc e withspecifie dconditions
. Commitment s assume db y airport owner s o r

sponsor s i n propert y conveyanc e o r

gran t agreement s ar e importan t factor s i n maintainin g ahig hdegre e o f safety an d efficienc y i n airport

design , construction , operatio n an dmaintenance , a s wel l a s ensurin g th e pubh c reasonabl e acces s t o th e airport
. Pursuan t t o 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47122 , th e FA A ha s astatutory mandat e t o ensur e tha t

airport owner s compl y wit hthei r federal gran t

assurances . Th e Complain t

an dAppea l Proces s Pursuan t t o 1 4 CF R§ 16.23 , aperso n directl y an dsubstantiall y affecte db y an y allege d noncomplianc e ma y file acomplain t wit hth e FAA
. Th e complainant(s ) shal l provid e aconcis e bu t complet e statemen t

o f th e fact s reliedupo n t o substantiat e eac hallegation
. Th e complaint(s )1 8

shal l als o describ e ho w th e complainant(s ) directl y an dsubstantiall y has/hav e bee n affecte db y th e thing s don e o r

omitte db y th e respondent(s)
. [See , 1 4 CF R§ 16.23(b)(3-4) ] If , basedo n th e pleadings , ther e appear s t o b e areasonabl e basi s for further investigation , th e FAA wil l investigat e th e subjec t matte r o f th e Complaint
. In renderin g it s initia l determination , th e FA A ma y rel y entirel y o n th e Complain t an dth e responsiv e pleading s provided
. Eac hpart y shal l file document s that

i t consider s sufficient

t o presen t

al l relevan t

fact s an dargument s necessar y fo

r th e FA A t o determin e whethe r th e sponso r

i s i n compliance
. [See , 1 4 CF R § 16.29 ] Th e proponen t

o f amotion , request , o r

orde r ha s th e burde n o f

proof
. A part y wh o ha s asserte d a n affirmativ e defens e ha s th e burde n o f provin g th e affirmativ e defense
. Thi s standar dburde n o f proo f i s consisten t

withth e Administrativ e Procedure s Ac t (APA ) an dFedera l cas e law
. Th e AP A provisio n [See , 5 U.S.C
. § 556(d) ] states , "(e)xcep t a s otherwis e provide db y statute , th e proponen t

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

proof. " [Se e also
. Director , Offic e Worker' s Compensatio n Programs , Departmen t o f Labo r v . Greenwic hColleries , 51 2 U S 267 , 27 2 (1994 ) an dAi r Canad aet

al
. v . Departmen t

o f Transportation , 14 8 F3 d1142 , 115 5 (D C Cir , 1998) ] Titl e 1 4 CF R§ 16.229(b ) i s consisten t with1 4 CF R§16.23 , whic hrequire s th e Complainan t t o submi t al l document s the n availabl e t o support hi s o r he r complaint
. Similarly , 1 4 CF R§ 16.2 9 state s that , "(e)ac hpart y shal l file document s tha t i t consider s sufficien t

t o presen t

al l relevan t fact s an dargument s necessar y for th e FA A t o determin e whethe r th e sponso r

i s i n compliance. " Titl e 1 4 CF R§ 16.31(b-d) , i n pertinen t parts , provide s tha t

"(t)h e Director' s determinatio n wil l se t fort haconcis e explanatio n o f th e factual an dlega l basi s for th e Director' s determinatio n o n eac hclai mmad e b y th e complainant. " I n accordanc e wit h1 4 CF R§ 16.33(b ) an d(e) , upo n issuanc e o f

aDirector' s determination , " apart y adversel y affecte db y th e Director' s determinatio n ma y file a n appea l wit hth e Associat e Administrato r withi n 3 0 day s afte

r th e dat e o f servic e o f

th e initia l determination; " however , "(i) f n o appea l i s filedwithi n th e tim e perio d specifie di n paragrap h(b ) o f thi s section , th e Director' s determinatio n become s th e final decisio n an dorde r o f th e FA A withou t

further action
. A Director' s determinatio n tha t become s final becaus e ther e i s n o administrativ e appea l i s not judiciall y reviewable. " Titl e 1 4 CF R§ 16.247(a ) define s procedura l recours e for judicia l revie w o f

th e Associat e Administrator' s final decisio n an dorder , a s provide di n 4 9 U.S.C
. § 4611 0 o r sectio n 519(b)(4 ) o f th e Airport

an dAirwa y Improvemen t Ac t o f 1982 , a s amended , (AAIA) , 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47106(d ) an d47111(d)
. VI
. ANALYSI S AN D DISCUSSIO N Th e matte r

befor e th e Directo r

reflect s th e natura l eb b an dflow o f negotiation s tha t

occurre d betwee n tw o partie s ove r alimite dperio do f

time
. Base do n th e Recor dbefor e th e Director , thes e negotiation s too k

plac e ove r

th e cours e o f

approximatel y te n months
. Give n th e complexit y an drisk

associate dwit haeronautica l fueling , conducte dvi aane w busines s model for thi s particular

airport sponsor , te n month s represent s arelativel y short perio do f tim e fo r thoughtfu l negotiation s t o occu r an db e ratifie db y bot hparties
. Moreover , i n that relativel y1 9

shor t tim e period , th e Complainant' s demand s eclipse dhi s busines s proposa l an dno w encompas s issue s whic hcanno t b e remedie dthroug hth e Par t 1 6 process . Th e FA A doe s no t

mediat e o r

arbitrat e negotiatio n dispute s betwee n airport sponsor s an d potentia l busines s proponent s concernin g issue s outsid e th e scop e o f th e Part 1 6 proces s an da sponsor' s Federa l Gran t

Assurances
. Rather , th e FA A determine s whethe r o r no t a n airport sponso r i s currentl y i n complianc e withit s Federa l obligations
. Wher e applicable , th e Directo r wil l turn t o th e Respondent' s las t offe r o r final negotiatin g postur e t o mak e suc hadetermination
. Th e Directo r

wil l als o not e tha t

subsequen t

t o th e Complainant' s filing o f thi s Complaint , circumstance s at

th e Airpor t

change dsignificantly
. I n fact , SIG' s decisio n t o terminat e it s FB O an dairport

managemen t

responsibilitie s render s som e o f th e allegation s mad e b y th e Complainan t

moot.' ^ However , give n th e recen t disclosur e o f

thi s matter , thi s Decisio n include s th e Director' s full analysi s o f th e Complainant' s allegation s i n th e hop e tha t i t wil l provid e a bette r framework

for future negotiation s betwee n th e tw o parties
. Additionally , th e Directo r believe s thi s analysi s can assis t th e Responden t

i n it s understandin g o f

it s Federa l gran t obligations
. Therefore , th e analysi s o f thes e issue s wil l includ e SI Gi n th e discussio n a s i f i t wer e stil l operatin g at

th e airport
. Complainant' s Reques t fo r Relie f Throug hPar t

1 6 Th e Complain t

concludes : "WHEREFORE , you r

Complainant s pra y tha t

th e FA A investigat e th e action s an dpractice s o f

th e GWA A a s se t fort habove , an dtha t

th e FA A orde r correctiv e actio n t o include : 1
. Requirin g th e GWA A t o negotiat e in goo dfait hwit hComplainant s fo r

th e leas e o f facilitie s fo r

th e developmen t

an doperatio n o f

acommercia l self-fuelin g service , an d 2
. Requirin g th e GWA A t o recove r

suc hrevenue s a s hav e bee n improperl y diverte dthroug hoverpayment s t o SI Go r otherwis e pai dout

i n violatio n o f applicabl e conflic t

o f interes t regulation s o r

policies , an d 3
. Requirin g th e GWA A t o implemen t

an denforc e stric t

conflic t o f interes t policies , an d 4
. Requirin g th e GWA A t o ope n fo r

bi dan dnegotiatio n it s contract s fo r leasin g an dairpor t

managemen t

services , an dt o voi dan y contract s not negotiate da t

arm s length
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , p p 23-24 ] Th e Directo r

believe s it s rol e an dth e relie f offere dunde r

th e Part 1 6 proces s mus t

b e clarified
. Th e decisio n befor e th e Directo r i s whethe r

o r not th e Airport

i s currentl y i n complianc e withit s

'^ Th e FAA will conside r th e successfii l actio n b y th e airport t o cur e an y allege do r

potentia l pas t

violatio n o f applicabl e federa l obligatio n t o b e ground s for dismissa l o f

suc hallegations
. [Se e e.g . Wilso n Ai r Cente r v . Memphi s an dShelb y Count y Airport Authority
. FA A Docke t

No
. 16-99-1 0 (Augus t

30 , 2001 ) (Fina l Decisio n an d Order) ] A t

n o tim e doe s th e Complainan t mak e allegation s comparin g it s treatmen t t o that o f th e ne w FBO , Wayn e County
.2 0

Federa l Gran t

Assurances
. Th e FA A canno t compe l a

n airport sponso r t o tak e action s no t require db y it s Federa l Gran t Assurances
. Allegation s Outsid e th e Par t 1 6 Purvie w I n a n effor t t o b e flill y responsiv e t o th e Complainant , th e Directo r wil l revie w th e gran t assuranc e violation s allege db y th e Complainan t throughou t

th e Part 1 6 proces s an ddispos e o f thos e allegation s not

directl y relate dt o th e issue s identifie dfor FA A analysi s an ddecision
. Th e Complainan t

states : "SI Gha da n activ e conflic t o f interes t in advisin g th e GWA

A Boar do f

Director s regardin g determinatio n o f th e Complainant' s proposal
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 

### 2,116 ] "Th e GWA

A eithe r doe s no t hav e o r doe s no t abid e astric t

conflic t o f interes t policy
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , T

j 45 ] Th e Federa l Gran t

Assurance s d o not

directl y addres s a

n airport sponsor' s policie s o n conflic t o f interest
. Gran t

Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPowers , prohibit s a n airport sponso r from takin g o r permittin g "an y actio n whic hwoul doperat e t o deriv e i t o f an y o f th e right s an dpower s necessar y t o perfor man y o r al l o f th e terms , conditions , an dassurance s in th e gran t agreemen t withou t th e writte n approva l o f

th e Secretary. " Th e Directo r wil l discus s th e allegation s relate d t o SIG' s relationshi p wit hth e Responden t withi n th e context , a s appropriate , o f Gran t Assuranc e 5
. However , th e Directo r decline s t o mak e adeterminatio n i n regard s t o whethe r o r not th e Responden t

maintain s aconflic t

o f interes t policy
. Thi s woul db e outsid e th e Director' s authorit y imde r

Part 16
. Th e Complainan t

states : "Th e loa n was not

approve db y th e Loca l Governmen t Commissio n a s require d b y N.C.G.S
. § 159-15 3 andN.C.G.S
. §160A-20 , an di s avoi dcontrac t pursuan t t o N.C.G.S
. § 159-149 , but

th e GWA A ha s continue dt o make payment s on th e contrac t notwithstandin g suc hpayment s bein g unlawful
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 2,1130-1 ] "N.C.G.S
. § 159-149provide s tha t an y contrac t

require dt o b e approve dby th e Loca l Governmen t

Commissio n but

whic hi s entere dint o withou t suc happrova l i s void , an dfurthe r

provide s 'tha t

i t shal l b e unlawfu l fo r

an y officer , employee , o r agen t o f auni t o f loca l governmen t

t o mak e an y payment s o f mone y thereunder. ' (Se e Exhibi t

V ) Betwee n Jun e 1 , 200 5 an dOctobe r 1 , 2007 , th e GWA

A mad e a t leas t $175,000.0 0 i n illega l payment s o n th e unapprove dan dvoi dloan
. (Se e Exhibi t Appendi x B , pp . 39-42 ) " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , T

j 34 ] Th e FAA' s administrativ e complain t proces s for

matter s pertainin g t o federall y assiste dairport s i s no t th e prope r

foru mfor

revie w o f

th e Complainant' s claim s o f violation s o f

stat e o r loca l2 1

laws
. Unde r

1 4 CF RPart

16.1 , th e FAA' s jurisdictio n i s specificall y limite dt o proceeding s involvin g complaint s agains t federall y assiste dairport s arisin g unde r legal authority includin g portion s o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t o f 1958 , a s amended , 4 9 U.S.C
. § 40101 , et seq. ; th e Airpor t an dAirwa y Improvemen t Ac t (AAIA ) o f

1982 , a s amende dan drecodifie dat 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107 , et seq. ; th e Surplu s Property Act , a s amended , 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47151 , e t seq. ; predecessor s t o thos e Acts ; an dregulations , gran t agreements , an ddocument s o f conveyance , pursuan t

t o thos e Acts
. Th e issu e o f

whethe r thi s loan i s legal o r

illegal , unde r

th e auspice s o f

NorthCarolina' s Genera l Statutes , i s outsid e th e Part 1 6 purvie w an dth e Director' s authority
. Th e Complainan t

states : "I n 200 3 th e GWA

A contracte dt o pa y it s Treasurer , aboar dmember , t o provid e th e GWA A wit haccountin g services , includin g th e preparatio n an dpresentatio n o f monthl y financia l statements , even thoug hsuc harrangemen t violate s N.C.G.S
. § 14-234 , acrimina l statut e whic hprohibit s apubli c official fro mbenefitin g fro m acontrac t

h e i s involve di n lettin g o r administering
. (Se e Exhibit s Y an dZ) Thi s arrangemen t

continue dunti l a t

leas t Octobe r 200 7 whe n Complainan t threatene d lega l actio n t o enjoi n it
. However , th e GWA A Boar dha s faile dan drefuse dt o deman dreimbursemen t

o f th e illega l payments . " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , I

f 44 ] Again , an y allege dviolation s o f NorthCarolina' s Genera l Statute s remai n outsid e th e purvie w o f Part 16
. Althoug hth e Directo r decline s t o mak e afinding i n regard s t o th e legality o f thi s arrangement , th e Directo r wil l discus s whethe r

o r not apaymen t

for thes e service s constitute s a violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 25 , Airpor t

Revenues , below
. Th e Complainan t

states : "Th e Complainan t

ha s bee n hindere di n inspectin g thes e financia l arrangement s by th e GWAA' s unwillingnes s o r inabilit y t o compl y wit

hNorthCarolina' s Publi c Record s Law
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2,1 | 48 ] Requirement s stipulate db y th e Nort hCarolin aPubli c Record s Law remai n outsid e th e purvie w o f th e Par t 1 6 process . A s such , th e Directo r decline s t o mak e an y findings withregar dt o thi s allegation
. Th e Complainan t

ha s als o allege dviolation s o f FA A Orde r

5190.6A , Airpor t

Complianc e Requirements
. Whil e FA A Orde r 5190.6 A ma y hel p airport sponsor s interpre t

thei r obligation s unde r th e FAA' s Airport

Complianc e Program , i t i s not controllin g wit hregar dt o airport sponso r conduct
. FA A Orde r

5190.6 A set s fort

hpolicie s an dprocedure s for FA A personne l t o follo w i n carr3dn g out

th e FAA' s responsibilitie s for ensurin g airport

compliance
. A s aresult , thes e allegation s wil l b e analyze donl y whe n use di n direc t support o f agran t assuranc e violation
.2 2 Issue s Identifle dfo r

Analysi s an dDiscussio n Issu e 1 : Whethe r

th e Respondent' s failur e t o approv e th e Complainant' s reques t t o operat e a n aeronautica l servic e constitute s a n unreasonabl e denia l o f acces s i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(1 ) an dGran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. Th e Complainan t

states : "Th e Complainan t

applie dt o th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authority ('GWA

A ' ) t o negotiat e a n FB O contrac t t o operat e acommercia l self-fuelin g avga s facilit y a t th e Goldsboro

- Wayn

e Airpor t ('th e Airport')
. Th e GWA A denie dth e applicatio n arbitraril y an din violatio n o f variou s Unite dState s Cod e provision s an dFA A regulation s prohibitin g th e gran t o f exclusiv e right s t o sel l aviatio n fue l a t th e Airport
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , p.l ] Th e Responden t

answers : "Thus , afte r

initiall y rejectin g hi s application , th e GWA A accepte dth e Complainant' s proposal , wit hth e conditio n tha t

h e compl y wit

hth e Airpor t

Rule s an dRegulations
. The GWA A als o conditione dit s acceptanc e o n th e Complainant' s requestin g an dobtainin g approva l o f asit e a t th e Airpor t

fro m whic hh e intend s t o conduc t hi s business , an dobtainin g acertificat e o f approva l fro mth e loca l fir e marsha l fo r hi s propose dself-servic e fuelin g facility
. Thu s far , th e Complainan t

ha s faile dt o d o an y o f

it
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , p . 2 ] A s th e Responden t

admit s an dth e Recor ddocuments , th e GWA A vote dt o den y th e Complainant' s applicatio n t o estabhs haself-servic e avga s facility a t it s May 24 , 200 7 meeting
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

C , p.l ] Bu t

the n o n Octobe r

16 , 2007 , th e GWA A vote dt o conditionall y accep t

th e application
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

M ] Whil e bot hpartie s assert thei r ow n reason s for

thi s initia l denial , th e Directo r doe s no t findthes e argument s applicabl e t o th e issu e o f an unreasonabl e denia l o f acces s currentl y a

t hand
. With regar dt o allegation s o f

pas t non-compliance , th e Directo r relie s o n establishe dFA A policy , stating : Th e FA

A Complianc e progra mi s designe dt o achiev e voluntar y complianc e wit h federa l obligation s accepte db y owner s and/o r operator s o f

public-us e airport s develope dwit

hFAA-administere dassistance
. Therefore , in addressin g allegation s o f

noncompliance, th e FA

A wil l make adeterminatio n a s t o whethe r a n airpor t

sponso r i s currentl y in complianc e wit hth e applicabl e federa l obligations
. Consequently , th e FA A wil l conside r

th e successfu l actio n by th e airpor t t o cur e an y allege do r

potentia l pas t

violatio n o f

applicabl e federa l obligatio n t o b e ground s fo r dismissa l o f

suc hallegations
. [Se e e.g . Wilson Ai r Cente r v . Memphi s an dShelb y Count y Airpor t Authority , FA

A Docke t No
. 16-99

- 10 , (Augus t

30 , 2001 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder) ] (Wilson )2 3

Thi s FA A polic y an dcitatio n t o Wilson are commonl y include di n Part 1 6 decision s an dspeak

t o th e impor t

o f curren t compliance
. [Se e Clark e v . City o f Alamogordo , FA A Docke t No
. 16-05

- 1 9 (Septembe r

20 , 2006 ) (Director' s Determination) , a t 11 ; and , Ingra mv . Port

o f Oakland , FA A Docke t No
. 16-03-1 2 (Apri l 7 , 2006 ) (Final Decisio n an dOrder) , a t 21 ; Roadhous e Aviatio n v . Cit v o f Tulsa
. FA A Docke t

No
. 16-05-0 8 (Decembe r 14 , 2006 ) (Director' s Determination) , a t 31 ; and , Atlanti c Helicopter s Inc./Chesapeak e Ba v Helicopter s v . Monro e Countv , Florida , FA A Docke t No
. 16-07-1 2 (Septembe r 11 , 2008 ) (Director' s Determination) , a t 26 ] No t onl y doe s th e FA A polic y stan dfor

'curren t compliance, ' bu t

i t als o stand s for

th e concep t

o f voluntar y compliance
. B y votin g t o conditionall y approv e th e Complainant' s request , th e Responden t demonstrate dit s voluntar y complianc e wit hregard s t o th e Complainant' s abilit y t o acces s th e airport
. However , befor e th e Directo r

addresse s th e issu e o f

whethe r o r not th e condition s impose do n th e Complainan t

wer e reasonable , th e Directo r mus t als o discus s th e obligation s assume db y th e Complainan t

a s apotentia l aeronautica l servic e provider
. I t i s reasonabl e for

th e GWA A t o requir e entitie s proposin g t o provid e ne w aeronautica l service s o n th e Airport

t o tak e sufficien t

step s t o demonstrat e substantial o r realisti c intent

i n support

o f thei r propose dendeavors
. Thi s preceden t i s cite di n Flaming o Express , Inc. , v . Cit v o f Cincinnati , O H (FA A Docke t No
. 16-06-04 , Fina l Agenc y Decision , at 1 1 a s uphel db y th e Sixth Circui t U.S
. Court

o f Appeals)
. Th e Recor dclearl y document s tha t th e Complainan t

wa s i n th e proces s o f

takin g thes e step s prio r

t o th e GWAA' s Ma y 200 7 meeting : th e Complainan t initiate d discussion s wit hth e Chai r o f th e Airpor t

Building s an dGround s Committe e an dAirpor t Manage r [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m10 , exhibit s D an dE] ; th e Complainan t initiate ddiscussion s regardin g hi s preferre dlocatio n wit hth e Airport' s enginee r [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m10 , exhibi t

F] ; th e Complainan t

mad e aproposa l befor e th e GWA A [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

A an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

D] ; an dth e Complainan t provide dadditiona l financial informatio n a s requeste db y th e GWA A [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

B]
. However , after

th e GWA A vote dt o conditionall y approv e th e Complainant' s reques t i n October , th e Recor doffer s littl e documentatio n regardin g th e tangibl e step s take n b y th e Complainan t t o demonstrat e hi s substantia l o r realisti c inten t

wit hregard s t o hi s propose dbusiness
. O n Novembe r

1 , 2007 , th e Complainant' s attorne y wrot e th e Respondent' s attorney . Thi s lette r states :

" / understan dtha t

th e Authority ha s withdraw n it s denia l o f m y clients ' applicatio n t o operat e acommercia l self-serv e avga s facilit y a t th e Airport
. Certainl y s o fa r

a s th e requirement s o f

Sectio n 8 woul dhav e an y rationa l applicatio n t o suc haservice , m y client s ar e prepare dt o compl y wit hthose
. Howeve r i t i s obviou s tha t

man y o f thos e requirement s hav e n o applicatio n whatsoeve r

t o th e typ e o f

facilit y propose dby m

y clients
. W

e woul dcertainl y expec t th e Authority t o waiv e th e inapplicabl e requirements , a s i t ha s don e fo r

th e entity wit hwhomm

y clients ' operatio n woul dcompete . Mr
. Johnso n ha s communicate dhi s proposa l i n tha t regar dt o Mr
. Steele , i n hi s capacit y a s Airpor t

' ' Sectio n 8 o f

th e GWAA' s Rule s an dRegulation s a s adopte do n Septembe r 27 , 200 7 contain s th e minimu m requirement s fo

r al l fixedbas e operations
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

M , p p 6-10 ]24

Manager
. W

e wil l expec t

th e Authority t o negotiat e th e detail s o f thi s arrangemen t

i n goo dfaith..
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

N , p . 1 ] "Howeve r in ligh t o f th e fac t tha t th e Authority ha s agree dt o negotiat e acontrac t wit hm y clien t fo r th e installatio n an doperatio n o f th e commercia l self-servic e aviatio n fue l facility , the y wil l forbea r a t presen t th e filin g o f

acomplain t

wit hth e FAA , whil e continuin g t o obtai n an danalyz e th e Authority' s record s relatin g t o it s financia l arrangement s wit hSIG
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

N , p . 2 ] Additionally , o n Novembe r 2 , 2007 , th e attorney s for th e tw o partie s met . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 7 , exhibi t G ] O n Novembe r

8 an d9 , 2007 , th e Complainant' s attome y commvmicate dt o th e Respondent' s attome y regardin g th e five area s o f disput e an dlega l remedie s for eac hmatter . [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m10 , exhibit s I- l an d1-2]
. O n Novembe r 25 , 2007 , th e Complainan t sen t a n electroni c message'' * statin g tha t "Ott o Keesling , a s th e buildin g an dground s committee , approve dth e site. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , exhibit

G , p . 3 ] Noticeabl y absen t

fromth e Recor dbefor e th e Directo r i s an y o f th e followin g documentation : communicatio n betwee n th e Complainan t an dth e Airport

Manage r a s cite di n th e Novembe r 1 , 200 7 lette r

above ; an y statemen t

conve3dn g aGWA A Boar dMember' s approva l o f th e propose d site ; o r an y substantiv e negotiation s wit hregard s t o th e requirement s o f Sectio n 8 o f

th e Airport' s Rule s an dRegulations
. Becaus e th e Recor dfail s t o documen t tangibl e step s take n b y th e Complainan t

t o demonstrat e hi s substantial o r realisti c inten t

withregard s t o hi s busines s proposa l after

i t wa s conditionall y approved , th e Directo r finds th e followin g allegations , mad e b y th e Complainan t

agains t th e Respondent , t o b e premature :

" ...th e Authorit y refuse dt o engag e in goo dfait hnegotiation s toward s a resolution
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1,^1 ] "failin g t o negotiat e wit

hJohnso n o n reasonabl e term s fo r th e leas e o f

spac e o n whic ht o operat e aself-servic e avga s fue l facility..
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , p . 1 ] Th e Respondent' s curren t complianc e compelle dth e Complainan t t o tak e th e nex t

step , an dth e Responden t

argue s thi s di dno t

occur . Th e Recor dcontain s a n affidavi t

fromOtt o H
. Keesling , a membe r o f th e GWA A an dchai r

o f th e Board' s Building s an dGround s Committe e whic hstates :

" I neve r hear dbac k

fro mMr
. Johnso n abou t alocatio n fo r

hi s busines s afte r

hi s proposa l wa s approve dby th e GWA A Boar din Octobe r

2007
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite mll,exhibi t

A,Tf4 ] A n affidavi t

provide db y Davi dE
. Gurley , III , a n enginee r

retaine dt o provid e service s t o th e

'' ' Th e Recor di s unclear

a s t o th e intende drecipien t o f th e Complainant' s Novembe r 25 , 200 7 electroni c message . It i s containe dbeneat han electroni c messag e date dNovembe r 26 , 2007 , writte n b y th e Respondent' s attome y t o th e Complainant , courtes y copyin g th e Complainant' s attomey , Complainant' s wife , an dtw o member s o f th e GWA A Board
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m10 , exhibi t

G ]2 5

GWA A states :

" I ha dn o mor e contact s wit hMr
. Johnso n afte r

th e Sprin g o f

200 7 regardin g th e self-servic e fue l tan k

an dpump . " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m11 , exhibit

B , ^ f 6 ] Base do n th e Recor dbefor e th e Director , i t appear s tha t

th e Complainan t

faile dt o follo w throug h o n negotiation s withregar dt o hi s proposa l for aself-servic e fuelin g business
. Fro mOctobe r 200 7 throug hDecembe r

2007 , th e action s take n b y th e Complainan t an dhi s attomey , a s reflecte di n th e Record , focu s o n requirin g th e GWA A t o addres s alis t o f what appear s t o b e numerou s demands no t

relate dt o th e Respondent' s gran t assurance s (se e page s 5- 6 o f thi s Determination)
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

Gan dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m10 , exhibit s I- l an d 1-2 ] Thi s focus , i n additio n t o distractin g th e Complainan t frompursuin g hi s propose d aeronautica l business , contribute s t o apoo r environmen t

for substantiv e negotiation s an d undermine s th e abilitie s o f bot hpartie s t o engag e i n objectiv e negotiation s t o resolv e thei r differences
. Th e Directo r strongl y encourage s bot hpartie s t o utiliz e staf f i n th e FAA' s Atlant a Airpor t Distric t Offic e t o foster

th e foundatio n neede dt o re-establis hproductive , goo dfait h negotiations
. Failur e t o creat e thi s typ e o f negotiatin g environmen t coul dpotentiall y resul t

i n a situatio n similar

t o Ken t J
. Ashton , Jacqueli n R
. Ashto n v . Cit v o f Concord , N C [FA A Docke t No
. 16-02-0 1 (Director' s Determination ) (Augus t 22 , 2003) ] {Ashton)
. In thi s case , th e City o f Concor ddecline dt o ente r int o aleas e wit hth e Ashton s basedo n thei r pas t histor y o f

lawsuits , FA A complaints , an dthreat s o f future litigation
. Wit hregard s t o thi s defense , th e Directo r found : "Althoug hi t

i s th e Complainants ' righ t t o pursu e complaint s an dlawsuit s t o protec t thei r interest , i t

i s th e Respondent' s righ t t o protec t

itsel f fro mth e possibilit y o f

futur e costl y an dfrivolou s litigation
. I n thi s case , Respondent' s rational e appear s t o b e tha t les s contac t

wit hth e Complainant s shoul dresul t in les s litigation
. Here , th e Respondent' s positio n i s not unreasonable
. Moreover , th e Respondent' s Federa l obligation s limi t th e City' s proprietar y rights , but d o not eliminat e them
. " [Se e Ashton , at 27 ] O n Jun e 8 , 2009 , SI Ginforme dth e Responden t o f it s desir e t o terminat e it s FB O an dairport managemen t

responsibilities
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m21 , exhibit

B ] Th e Complainan t

the n submitte dthi s informatio n t o th e Recor do n Jul y 6 , 2009
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m19 ] Thi s submissio n include dacop y o f th e lette r SI Gsen t t o it s customers , date dJun e 30 , 2009 , announcin g SIG' s decisio n t o ceas e it s FB O an dairport managemen t

function s a

t th e Airport
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m19 , exhibit

A ] Despit e th e Complainant' s assertio n o n Jul y 27 , 200 9 that "th e petitione r

ha s bee n attemptin g for

severa l year s no w t o negotiat e an agreemen t withth e GWA A allowin g th e petitione r t o inves t hi s ow n fund s i n th e installatio n o f acommercia l self

servic e avga s facility... " th e Recor dprovide s n o evidenc e o r indicatio n o f

th e Complainan t fulfillin g th e requirement s outline di n th e GWAA' s conditiona l approva l i n 200 8 o r 2009
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m20 ] I n conclusion , base do n th e GWAA' s curren t compliance , th e Directo r canno t findtha t th e Complainan t

ha s bee n denie dacces s t o th e Airport
. Th e Directo r note s th e absenc e o f

tangibl e step s take n b y th e Complainan t t o demonstrat e hi s substantial o r realisti c inten t

wit hregar dt o2 6

pursuin g hi s busines s proposa l afte r i t wa s conditionall y approved
. Unti l th e Complainan t renew s hi s interes t

b y takin g tangibl e step s t o addres s th e condition s require dfor th e approva l o f hi s self-servic e fuelin g facility , th e Responden t canno t b e expecte dt o engag e i n further goo d fait hnegotiation s withth e Complainant
. Moreover , whil e th e Complainan t ha s aright

t o utiliz e lega l mean s t o protec t

it s interests , th e Responden t als o ha s aright

t o protec t

itsel f fromfuture litigation
. Issu e 2 : Whethe r

th e Airport' s Minimu mStandard s an dcondition s fo r approva l o f

aself

servic e fuelin g facilit y unreasonabl y den y acces s t o th e Complainan t o r unjustl y discriminat e agains t th e Complainan t

i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(1 ) an dFedera l Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. Th e FA A encourage s airport management , a s amatte r o f pmdence , t o establis hminimu m standard s t o b e me t

b y al l wh o woul dengag e i n acommercia l aeronautica l activity a t an airport
. I t i s th e prerogativ e o f

th e airport

owne r o r sponso r t o impos e condition s o n users o f an airport

t o ensur e it s saf

e an defficien t

operation
. Suc hcondition s mus t b e fair , equal , an dno t

unjustl y discriminatory
. The y mus t b e relevan t

t o th e propose dactivity , reasonabl y attainable , an d uniforml y applied
. Onc e th e airport sponso r ha s establishe dminimu mstandards , i t shoul dappl y the mobjectively an duniforml y t o al l similarl y situate don-airport aeronautica l activitie s an d services
. [FA A A C 150/5190-7 , sectio n 1.1. ] Se e Flightlin e v . Shreveport
. FA A Docke t No
. 16

- 07-0 5 (Marc h7 , 2008 ) (Director' s Determination)
. Moreover , th e establishmen t o f minimu mstandard s i s th e FAA' s recommende dwa y for a sponso r t o dea l wit hth e inheren t frictio n amon g competin g aeronautica l servic e provider s an da variet y o f airport users . Bu t

i t i s throug hth e sponsor' s objectiv e an duniformapplicatio n o f it s minimu mstandard s tha t

allow s i t t o mee t th e standar do f

compliance
. However , th e standar do f complianc e doe s no t

requir e tha t

airport sponsor s enforc e minimu mstandard s s o rigidly a s t o requir e identica l ton e an dpostur e towardal l airport users tha t

hav e different

record s an dhistor y wit hth e sponsor . However , th e FA A doe s requir e airport sponsor s t o appl y thei r

minimu m standard s consistentl y throug hthei r interaction s wit haeronautica l user s an dservic e providers
. Th e Directo r

wil l first discus s th e reasonablenes s o f th e requirement s associate dwit hth e conditiona l approva l o f

th e Complainant' s propose dself-servic e fuelin g facility , an dthe n revie w th e Respondent' s applicatio n o f thes e requirement s wit hregar dt o th e Complainant' s reques t compare dt o othe r

similarl y situate duser s a t th e Airport
. Minimu mStandard s Th e Complainan t

states : "Sectio n 8 , acop y o f

whic hi s attache da s Exhibi t M , include s anumbe r

o f requirement s patentl y incompatibl e wit hoperatio n o f

aself-servic e avga s facility
.

' ^ Th e Responden t

initiall y identifie dthes e action s i n FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m16 , p . 2
. However , i n ligh t o f agreement s execute dbetwee n th e Responden t an dWayn e Count y o n Augus t 5 , 2009 , th e Directo r

encourage s bothpartie s t o fiirther discus s what

step s th e Complainan t

shoul dtak e t o rene w negotiation s withregard s to it s busines s proposal
.2 7

an dwhic har e bot

hobjectivel y unreasonabl e an dpurposefull y designe dt o make complianc e by th e Complainan t impossible
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , \26 ] Th e Responden t

states : "Th e Airpor t

Rule s an dRegulation s spea k fo r themselves
. I n particular , th e GWA A denie s tha t

th e Airpor t

Rule s an dRegulation s ar e unreasonabl e and/o r purposefull y designe dt o preven t Complainant' s propose dself-servic e fuelin g business
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , \26 ] Sectio n 8 o f

th e Airport

Rule s an dRegulation s states , i n pertinen t part : "REGULATION S GOVERNIN GMINIMU M REQUIREMENT S FO RAL LFIXE D BAS E OPERATION S A
. Al l fixedbas e operation s a t th e Airport

shal l b e full-time , progressiv e busines s enterprises , withmanne doffic e facilitie s a t th e Airpor t

durin g al l busines s hours
. Th e onl y exceptio n t o thi s rul e wil l b e for flight fraining instmctio n whe n approve db y th e Airpor t Authority
. N o fixedbas e operato r shal l b e allowe dt o operat e o n th e Airport withou t afully execute dleas e agreemen t wit hth e Owner
. B
. Fixe dbas e operator s providin g sal e o f aviatio n petroleu mproduct s shal l als o b e require dt o mee t

th e minimu mstandard s an doffer service s liste di n Section s 8.1. , 8.J. , 8.K. , 8.L.' ^ Suc hoperator s may , a t thei r option , engag e i n othe r

aeronautica l activitie s b y qualifyin g t o mee t th e associate dminimu mstandard s for th e aeronautica l service s involved
. C
. N o person s o r

fixedbas e operator s othe r tha n th e operator s qualifyin g unde r Sectio n 8.B
. wil l b e permitte dt o sel l aviatio n petroleu mproducts
. Al l othe r fixedbas e operator s ma y engag e i n suc hothe r aeronautica l service s a s the y ma y qualif y thefnselve s for

i n accordanc e withthes e regulation s an dthei r leas e agreements . D
. Th e Owne r

shal l determin e substantia l conformanc e t o th e standard s fo r fixedbas e operators . E
. Fixe dbas e operator s mus t sho w financial solvenc y an dbusines s abilit y t o th e satisfactio n o f

th e Owner
. F
. Th e minimu mliabilit y insuranc e whic hafixedbas e operato r shal l carry i s $1,000,000/ $ 100,00 0 pe r occurrence/pe r

perso n for

bodil y injury an d$1,000,00 0 for propert y damage
. G
. Lan davailabl e for

commercia l aeronautica l activitie s i s avaluable an dlimite d commodity
. I t

i s th e polic y o f

th e Owne r

tha t n o lan darea s o r

buildin g spac e i n exces s o f presen t an dforeseeabl e requirement s wil l b e lease dt o an y fixedbas e operator . Additiona l area s wil l b e mad e availabl e t o operator s o n th e basi s o f nee d an davailability
. H
. An y constmctio n o n th e premise s b y th e Fixe dBas e Operato r o r an y lesse e shal l b e i n accordanc e withdesig n an dconstructio n standard s establishe db y th e Owne r witha n appropriat e performanc e bon dcommensurat e wit hth e constmctio n required
.

' * Sectio n 8.1
. outline s requirement s fo r fuel an doi l sales
. Sectio n 8.J
. outline s requirement s for Aircraf t Maintenance an dRepair
. Sectio n 8.K
. outline s requirement s for Fligh t Training
. Sectio n 8.L
. outline s requirement s fo r Aircraf t Charte r an dTax i Service
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

M , p p 8-9 ]2 8

I
. Fue l an dOi l Sales
. Person s conductin g aviatio n fuel an doi l sale s o n th e Airport shal l b e require dt o provide : 1
. Har dsurfac e ramp spac e accessibl e b y taxiwa y withelectri c pump s an dtan k storag e havin g acapacit y equa l t o th e minimu mtan k tmc k loa ddeliverabl e for 10 0 grad e aviatio n fuel and , provid e standar dje t fuel
. 2
. Properl y trainedlin e personne l o n dut y wh o are readil y accessible
. 3
. Prope r

equipmen t

for repairin g an dinflatin g aircraf t tires , servicin g ole o stmts , changin g engin e oil , washin g aircraf t an daircraf

t window s an d windshields , an dfor

rechargin g o r

energizin g discharge daircraf t batteries
. 4
. Adequat e towin g equipmen t an dparkin g an dtie-dow n are at o safel y an d efficientl y mov e aircraf

t an dstor e the mi n al l reasonabl y expecte dweathe r conditions
. 5
. Adequat e inventory o f generall y accepte dgrade s o f aviatio n engin e oi l an d lubricants
. I n conductin g refuelin g operations , ever y operato r shal l instal l an dus e adequat e groundin g facilitie s a t fuelin g location s t o eliminat e th e hazard s o f stati c electricit y an dshal l provid e approve dtype s o f fire extinguisher s o r othe r equipmen t

commensurat e wit hth e hazar dinvolve di n refuelin g an d servicin g aircraft. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

M , p p 6-8 ] Th e Complainan t

doe s not stat e ho w th e Airport

i s preventin g Tw o Dog s Aviatio n fromofferin g service s a t th e Airpor t

i n accordanc e wit hthes e Minimu mStandards , no r ho w th e Airport

i s preventin g Two Dog s Aviatio n fromofferin g service s i n amanne r similar t o th e existin g FBO
. Th e Complainan t

doe s not stat e ho w thes e requirements , a s outline dabove , ar e specificall y unreasonable
. Althoug hth e Complainan t state s tha t

thes e requirement s are "purposefull y designe dt o mak e complianc e b y th e Complainan t impossible , " th e Recor dcontain s n o documentatio n t o sugges t tha t tha t Responden t

altere dit s requirement s i n respons e t o th e Complainant' s busines s proposal
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , ^ 26 ] Th e mai n issu e i s compatibility betwee n th e busines s mode l propose db y th e Complainan t an dth e Airport' s Minimu m Standards
. Th e Complainan t acknowledge s thi s i n it s respons e t o th e Director' s reques t for additiona l information , stating : "I n requestin g thes e waivers , th e Complainan t i s guide dby certai n relevan t considerations
. First , th e ver y natur e o f

acommercia l self-servic e avga s installatio n mak e (sic ) anumbe r o f th e 'MinimumStandards ' inapplicabl e an d irrelevan t t o th e propose dbusiness
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m15 , p . 1 ] Th e Directo r

note s tha t

th e presen t

cas e i s similar

t o Sel f Serv e Pumps , Inc. , v . Chicag o Executiv e Aimort , FA A Docke t No
. 16-07-0 2 (Marc h17 , 2008 ) (Director' s Determination ) {Self Serv e Pumps)
. I n Sel f

Serv e Pumps , th e Complainan t argue dthat , "i f

ane w busines s that

i s not define di n th e Minimu mStandard s i s rejecte donl y for tha t reason , th e Minimu mStandard s ar e not reasonable. " [See

_Sel f Serv e Pump s a

t 21 ] However , th e Directo r rejecte dtha t

argumen t becaus e th e Airport' s Minimu mStandard s clearl y tie dth e retai l sal e o f aviatio n fue

l t o othe r basi c aeronautica l service s t o b e provide db y a n FBO
. Th e logi c presente db y th e presen t Complainan t

i s similar
.2 9

Th e Responden t

argues : "// i s wel l establishe dtha t

bundlin g othe r

aeronautica l service s wit haircraf t fuelin g i s areasonabl e requiremen t an ddoe s not , pe r

se , violat e Gran t

Assuranc e obligations
. " [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , p . 25 ] I n support , th e Responden t cite s severa l Director' s Determination s whic hhighligh t th e concep t o f tyin g fue l sale s t o othe r

commercia l enterprise s i n orde r t o provid e aeronautica l user s wit h service s neede dt o support thei r activitie s and/o r

develo p th e airport
. A n airpor t

sponso r i s obligate dt o maintai n th e airport an doperat e th e aeronautica l facilitie s an d commo n us e area s for

th e benefi t

o f th e public
. Ho w an airport opt s t o carry ou t

thi s responsibilit y i s amatte r

o f th e sponsor' s proprietar y discretion
. A s such , th e FA A defer s th e decisio n t o bundl e fuel sale s withothe r aeronautica l service s t o th e expertis e o f th e airport' s management . Th e FA A note di n Sel f Serv e Pumps : "Clearly , th e Airpor t

managemen t

believe s tha t

it s bundlin g o f

associate d service s wit

hth e sal e o f

fue l serve s th e interest s o f th e publi c in civi l aviation
. Thi s i s it s primar y mission
. Th e Complainan t doe s not identif y an y specifi c requirement s a s unreasonable , no r doe s h e identif

y an y specifi c servic e tha t h e believe s tha t

th e publi c doe s not

want . I n th e end , th e evidenc e presente dby th e Complainan t

i s insufficient

t o eclips e th e Airport' s proprietar y discretio n t o make managemen t

decision s in th e bes t

aeronautica l interest s o f th e public , balance d wit hth e bes t busines s interest s o f

th e Airpor t

a s agoin g concern . " [Sel f Serv e Pump s a t 25 ] Th e fac t tha t th e extan t

Responden t

ha s bundle dfuel sale s wit hothe r aeronautica l service s doe s not mak e it s Minimu mStandard s sufficientl y unreasonabl e a s t o den y acces s t o th e Complainant
. However , th e Directo r

wil l retur n t o thi s issu e i n discussin g th e Respondent' s applicatio n o f it s Minimu mStandard s t o th e Complainant' s reques t compare dt o othe r

similarl y situate duser s at th e Airport
. Othe r Requirement s Th e Respondent' s approva l o f th e Complainant' s self-servic e fuelin g proposa l wa s als o conditione dupo n th e Respondent' s site approva l an dassurance s fromth e Wayn e Count y Fir e Marshal
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

K , p . 2 ] Th e Complainan t describe s thes e requirement s a s reasonable , bu t state s tha t

th e GWA A ha s prevente dhi mfrommeetin g them
. Th e Complainan t

states : "Th e GWA

A argue s tha t

th e condition s i t

woul dimpos e on Mr
. Johnson' s busines s ar e reasonable
. Firs t i t contend s i t

was reasonabl e t o requir e sit e approva l an dFir e Marsha l safety assurances . Howeve r a s note dabove , th e GWA A ha s refuse dt o approv e (o r disapprove ) th e sit e proposed , an dno w pretend s Mr
. Johnso n neve r sough t approva l o f

asite
. Without

sit e approva l ther e can b e n o Fir e Marsha l assurances . Thu s whil e thes e condition s themselve s3 0

ar e certainl y reasonable , th e GWA A ha s unreasonabl y prevente dMr
. Johnso n fro mmeetin g them
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , p . 10 ] Th e Responden t

states :

" ...Complainan t

introduce s n o evidenc e showin g tha t h e sough t

approva l o f

asit e fo r th e busines s tha t

was approve db y th e GWAA , o r tha t th e GWA A Boar d grante dsuc happroval
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m11 , p . 3 ] A s full y discusse dunde r

Issu e On e above , th e Respondent' s curren t complianc e compelle dth e Complainan t

t o tak e th e nex t

step . I n hi s Reply , th e Complainan t describe s th e Respondent' s site approva l proces s a s follows : "Mr
. Johnson' s origina l application
. Complain t Exhibi t A, include da n aeria l photograp ho f

th e airpor t

o n whic hth e propose dsit e i s denote da s 'SELF-SERV E HERE'
. I n hi s presentatio n t o th e Boar do n May 15 , 2007 , Mr
. Johnso n note d tha t 'Locatio n was talke dabou t wit hMr
. Keeslin g prio r

t o proposal' , an dtha t

th e GWA A ' s independen t

civi l engineer
. Trey Gurley , wa s assessin g th e propose d site
. (Complain t

Exhibi t A, p . 2 , Sectio n (c)(ii))
. Airpor t Manage r Ji mSteel e ha d emaile dMr
. Johnso n o n Apri l 24 , 200 7 t o tel l himth e sit e revie w ha dbee n referre dt o Mr
. Gurley
. (Repl y Exhibi t E)
. Mr
. Gurle y an dMr
. Johnso n corresponde dby emai l o n Ma y 9-10 , 200 7 regardin g th e site , a t whic htim e Mr
. Johnso n describe dth e sit e an dth e installatio n in detail
. Mr
. Gurle y confirme d tha t h e understoo dth e sit e proposed
. (Reply Exhibi t F ) " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m 10 , p . 5 ] Th e Complainan t

als o argue s tha t

h e ha s alread y addresse dthi s issue
. Th e Complainan t states'^ : "Ott o Keesling , a s th e buildin g an dground s committee , approve dth e site
. I n th e origina l discussion s presentin g th e proposa l an dan y discussion s since , th e boar d ha s neve r presente dan y objectio n t o th e site
. The sit e ha s even bee n approve db y Trey Gurle y workin g a s th e enginee r t o ensur e i t

meet s FA A clea r zon e requirements
. Di dth e boar dforge t i t did n ' t hav e an y objectio n t o th e site , tha t th e buildin g an dground s committe e approve dth e site , an dtha t th e enginee r approve dth e sit e - o r

i s thi s ane w requirement ? " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , exhibit G , p . 3 ] Whil e i t i s clear that th e Complainan t

identifie dalocatio n for

hi s propose dbusiness , engage di n discussion s wit hth e Airport Authority' s chai r

o f th e Building s an dGround s Committee , an d communicate dhi s desire dlocatio n t o th e Airport' s engineer , ther e i s nothin g i n th e Recor dt o sugges t tha t thi s sit e wa s eve r

actuall y approved
. Althoug hth e Airport' s enginee r was awar e o f th e location , hi s las t

communicatio n t o th e Complainan t offere dn o qualitativ e assessmen t a s t o it s safety o r

consistenc y wit hth e Airport' s plans
. It states :

"SeeFooUiot e 14
.3 1

"That i s th e sam e locatio n I was told
. I nee dt o fin dou t i f tha t i s suitabl e pe r

FA A rule s an dregulation s fo r

th e typ e equipmen t

yo u ar e proposing
. " [FA A Exhibi t l,Ite m10 , exhibit

F , p . 1 ] Th e Complainan t

di dnot hav e th e Airport

engineer' s final assessmen t o f hi s propose dlocatio n a

t th e time h e presente dhi s origina l proposa l befor e th e GWA A o n Ma y 15 , 2007
. Th e Complainant' s presentatio n note s state : "N o objection s fro mGurle y Engineerin g - h e ha s no t complete dhi s work

a s h e i s stil l waitin g o n informatio n fro mDai n Riley
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

A , p . 2 ] Moreover , th e Recor dcontain s n o evidenc e o f th e Complainant' s contac t wit hth e Airport' s enginee r after Ma y 10 , 2007
. A n affidavi t signe db y th e Airport' s enginee r states : "Give n th e natur e o f

th e propose dstructures , I tol dMr
. Johnso n tha t h e shoul d contac t th e GWA A ' s airpor t

consultants , The L PA Grou p o f Nort hCarolina , p.a. , t o clarif y th e airpor t

safet y rule s regardin g self-servic e fue l tanks
. Thereafter , Mr
. Johnso n contacte dme agai n askin g whethe r I coul dprovid e himwit

hacop y o f th e airpor t

layou t plan , becaus e (h e stated ) obtainin g acop y throug hThe L PA Grou p woul dcos t

$150
. I tol dhimI di dnot hav e acop y o f

thos e drawing s t o giv e away . " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m11 , exhibit

B , ^ 4 ]

" I ha dn o mor e contact s wit hMr
. Johnso n afte r

th e Sprin g o f

200 7 regardin g th e self-servic e fue l tan k

an dpump . " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m11 , exhibit

B , ^ 6 ] Th e Airpor t

Sponso r ha s afundamental responsibilit y t o ensur e tha t ne w busines s activitie s can b e conducte dsafel y an dd o no t diminis hth e existin g an dplanne dus e o f th e Airport
. Th e Complainan t

doe s not disput e this
. Ther e i s nothin g i n th e Recor dt o support th e argumen t

that Respondent' s requiremen t tha t th e Complainan t

seek sit e approva l i s unreasonable
. Th e Responden t

approve dth e Complainant' s proposal , conditione dupo n th e site approval , o n Octobe r 16 , 2007
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

K , p . 1 ] Th e requiremen t t o see k sit e approva l was reiterate dt o th e Complainan t i n alette r

date dDecembe r

6 , 2007
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

L , p . 1 ] Th e Recor ddoe s no t documen t

an y attempt s b y th e Complainan t t o follo w u p wit hth e Airport' s enginee r o r th e Authorit y itsel f

durin g thi s time
. Fo r

example , th e Recor dcontain s th e minute s fromth e Airpor t Authority' s meetin g o n Decembe r 6 , 2007 ; th e Complainan t

i s not liste da s aguest , no r

i s i t reporte dtha t

h e mad e an y request s befor e th e Authorit y a

t tha t time
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

S ] Althoug hth e Complainan t argue s that amembe r o f th e Airport

Authorit y ha dapprove dhi s propose dsite , th e Recor dcontain s n o documentatio n o f

an y suc happroval , an dthi s fact i s successfull y contestedb y th e Respondent
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m11 , exhibit

A ] Moreover , th e Recor dpresent s n o fact s t o support th e Complainant' s vie w tha t

th e Responden t

ha s thwarte dan y o f

th e Complainant' s attempt s t o presen t hi s propose dsit e befor e th e Airport Authorit y for

approval
. Give n that

th e Airpor t Authorit y doe s no t

hav e an y formal reques t for site approva l befor e it , th e Directo r canno t find tha t th e Responden t

ha s acte dunreasonably
.3 2

Wit hregar dt o th e Respondent' s requiremen t that th e Complainan t

obtai n approva l fromth e Fir e Marshal , th e Complainan t doe s not contes t th e reasonablenes s o f

thi s condition
. However , th e Complainan t

claim s h e canno t

pursu e thi s requiremen t

unti l th e Responden t

approve s th e propose dsite
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , p . 1 0 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 0 exhibit

G , p . 3 ] Th e Complainan t

offer s n o documentatio n a s t o ho w th e Responden t ma y hav e oppose dhi s attempt s t o see k th e Fir e Marshal' s approval
. Instead , h e relie s upo n th e fac t that hi s propose dsite ha s not ye t bee n approve db y th e Airport Authorit y a s th e reaso n h e ha s bee n unabl e t o mee t thi s condition
. Whil e obtainin g th e site approva l i s alikel y prerequisit e t o seekin g th e Fir e Marshal' s assurances , th e burde n o f actio n stil l fall s o n th e Complainant
. Therefore , th e Directo r finds that th e Responden t

ha s not unreasonabl y prevente dth e Complainan t frommeetin g thes e requirements
. Respondent' s Applicatio n o f it s Minimu mStandard s Th e Complainan t

states : "Moreover , th e GWA

A doe s not

requir e SI Gt o comply , an dSI Gha s neve r i n fac t complied , wit

hSectio n 8
. Thu s th e GWA A ' s insistenc e tha t

th e Complainan t complie s wit

hal l o f Sectio n 8 i s apretex t

fo r th e extensio n an dprotectio n o f th e exclusiv e monopol y o n fue l sale s grante dt o SIG
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , ^ 27 ] Th e Responden t

answers : "Mr
. Keesling , o n behal f

o f th e GWAA

, negotiate dth e term s o f

thre e separat e contract s wit

hSI G(Complain t

Exhs
. G , H , an dJ) , whic hwer e substantiall y simila r t o th e contract s tha t

th e GWA A ha dwit hWayne Aviation
. I n doin g so , th e GWA A waive dth e requirement s o f Sectio n 8 o f

th e Airpor t

Rule s an dRegulation s a s follows : (a ) Sectio n 8.1.3
. (requirin g ligh t lin e maintenance) ; (b ) Sectio n 8.J
. (requirin g aircraf

t maintenance) ; an d(c ) Sectio n 8.K
. (requirin g ffight training)
. Thes e requirement s wer e waive dbecaus e WoodAviation , aSAS O a t th e Airpor t was (an dis ) providin g aircraf t maintenanc e services , an dther e wer e (an dare ) a t leas t tw o othe r

entitie s offerin g ffight

training
. Answe r

Exh
. A, \5
. " [FA A Exhibi t l,Item7,T[27 ] A s state di n Sel f

Serv e Pumps : "th e FA A doe s no t

judg e a n airpor t

sponso r simpl y by th e plai n languag e o f agreement s o r

minimumstandards , sinc e suc hdocument s ar e rarel y s o perfectl y crafte da s t o avoi dal l possibilitie s fo r inconsistenc y ove r

time , changin g circumstance s an dinterpretations
. Rather , th e FA A judge s complianc e by a n airpor t sponsor' s action s o r

inaction s wit

hrespec t t o thos e agreement s o r minimumstandards. " [Sel f Serv e Pump s a

t 31-32 ]

Se e Footnot e 13
.* / 3 3

Althoug hth e Responden t argues , an dth e Directo r

agrees , tha t

bundlin g th e sal e o f

fuel with aeronautica l service s i s not unreasonable , th e Directo r question s th e manne r

i n whic hth e Responden t

ha s appHedthes e requirements
. Th e Airport' s Minimu mStandard s clearl y ti e th e sal e o f fuel wit hothe r

responsibilitie s an dservice s includin g aircraf t maintenanc e an drepair , flight training , an daircraf

t charte r an dtax i service
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

M , p . 6 ] However , th e Responden t admit s t o waivin g thes e requirement s a s par t o f it s negotiation s with SI Gan dit s predecessor
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , T

j 27 ] Th e resul t

o f thes e waiver s effectivel y void s th e Airport

Authority' s Minimu mStandard s withregard s t o bundling
. Th e Respondent' s reaso n for utilizin g waiver s i s als o troubling
. Th e Responden t explain s that othe r businesse s wer e alread y providin g thes e services
. Thi s coul dimpl y tha t SIG' s contrac t wa s negotiate dt o protec t othe r businesse s alread y a

t th e Airpor t

o r t o creat e anich e marke t

fo r SIG
. Regardless , th e overal l impac t limit s th e competitiv e busines s environmen t at th e Airport , whic hcoul dshortchang e aeronautica l user s an dhar mth e publi c interest
. Unfortunately , th e Recor doffer s littl e informatio n regardin g wha t negotiation s specifi c t o th e requirement s o f

Sectio n 8 migh t

hav e occurre dsubsequen t t o th e Respondent' s conditiona l approva l o f

Complainant' s proposal
. O n Novembe r 1 , 2007 , i n respons e t o th e GWAA' s conditiona l approva l o f

th e Complainant' s propose dbusiness , th e Complainant' s attome y write s t o th e Respondent' s attomey . Thi s lette r state s th e Complainant' s expectatio n tha t th e Authorit y wil l waiv e an y standard s not applicabl e t o th e Complainant' s propose dbusines s model
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

N , p . 1 ] O n Novembe r

7 , 2007 , th e attomey s for th e Complainan t

an d th e Responden t

mee t t o discus s th e matter . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

G ] A n elecfroni c messag e sen t

b y th e Complainant' s attome y t o th e Respondent' s attome y o n Novembe r 8 , 2007 , th e tex t o f whic hi s als o containe di n alette r sen t vi aU.S
. mai l th e followin g day states : "A s t o th e self-servic e avga s proposal , o n failur e t o agre e th e Johnsons ' remed y woul db e acomplain t

t o th e FA A contendin g th e A

A ha s illegall y grante dan d protecte da n exclusiv e righ t fo r SI Gt o sel l aviatio n fuels , an dseparatel y a t som e poin t a n actio n agains t

SI Gan dth e A

A contendin g anti-trus t

an dunfai r

trad e practices , seekin g money damages
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , p . 8 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , exhibi t

I- l an d1-2 , p . 1 ] A Novembe r

25 , 200 7 electroni c messag e writte n b y th e Complainant' ^ states :

" I hav e spen t

aconsiderabl e tim e addressin g theffis t issu e [Sectio n 8 ] an da

m awaitin g you r

an dSI GAviatio n LLC' s (a s airpor t manager , not

FBO ) replie s t o m y requests . Whe

n ar e yo u goin g t o reply ? Sinc e th e first issu e [Sectio n 8 ] i s alread y adequatel y discusse dfro mm y poin t o f view , althoug hnot

adequatel y answered , I woul dlike t o addres s th e secon dan dthir dissues..
. " [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , exhibit

G , p . 3 ] In a n affidavit , th e Chai r

o f th e Airport

Authorit y states :

'^ Se e Foobiot e 14
.3 4

"O n Decembe r

6 , 2007 , a t

an executiv e session , Mr
. Everet t reporte dt o th e GWA A Boar dtha t

Mr
. Johnson , throug hhi s attorney , ha ddemanded : (a ) atota l waive r fro mth e requirement s o f Sectio n 8 o f

th e Airpor t

Rule s an dRegulations ; (b ) t o receiv e damage s incurre db y hi s inability t o star t th e self-servic e fuelin g busines s whe n h e first

propose dit ; (c ) tha t

th e GWA A fire SI Ga s th e airpor t manager ; (d ) tha t

th e GWA A rescin dal l o f

it s agreemen t

wit hSI Gan drebi d thos e contracts ; an d(e ) tha t th e entir e GWA

A Boar dresign
. I t

i s m y belie f tha t th e GWA A Boar dwoul dhav e bee n willin g t o waiv e fo r Mr
. Johnso n an y o f

th e requirement s in th e Airpor t Rule s an dRegulation s tha t previousl y ha dbee n waive dfo r

SIG
. I n fact , I believ e tha t th e GWA A Boar dwoul dd o s o today
. However , a t

tha t time , w e conclude dtha t

non e o f th e othe r term s demande db y Mr
. Johnso n wer e acceptabl e t o th e GWA A o r coul db e subjec t

t o negotiations , s o w e instructe dou r

attorney , Harrel l Everett , t o reiterat e th e GWA A Board' s prio r offer
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

A , I f 18 ] Whil e th e Complainan t

describe s th e above a s "thir dhan dhearsay " an dstate s tha t h e "insiste d tha t th e negotiatio n for

th e approva l o f

hi s self-servic e avga s facility b e entirel y separat e fro m thos e othe r

matters" , th e Recor dcontain s n o othe r descriptio n o f

th e Complainant' s negotiation s withregard s t o Sectio n 8 o f th e Airport' s Minimu mStandards
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , pp . 7

- 8 ] O n Decembe r

6 , 2007 , th e Responden t reiterate dit s conditional approva l o f th e Complainant' s propose dbusiness
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

L ] Th e Recor dcontain s n o referenc e t o fiirther negotiation s betwee n th e tw o parties
. However , th e Recor ddoe s contai n alette r fromth e Complainant' s attome y requestin g th e FA A participat e i n a n informa l resolution^ " o f th e dispute date dFebmar y 6 , 2008
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , ftem1 , exhibit

A ] Durin g it s investigation , th e FA A requeste dadditional informatio n frombot hparties
. T o clarif y th e Respondent' s offer , th e Directo r asked , "Whic hsections , i f any , o f th e Airport' s Minimu m Standard s i s th e Authorit y prepare dt o waiv e for th e Complainant? " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m14 , p . 1 ] Th e Responden t

answered , "..
. Responden t i s willin g t o waiv e for

Complainan t

th e sam e minimu mstandard s tha t

Responden t

waive dfor

SIG... " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m16 , p . 3 ] Thi s bring s u s t o questio n before th e Directo r - whethe r

o r not th e Airport' s Minimu mStandard s hav e bee n applie di n amanne r t o unjustl y discriminat e agains t th e Complainant
. Th e FA A ha s lon g hel dtha t

i n orde r t o establis haclai mo f

unjus t economi c discrimination , acomplainan t mus t establis htha t

i t requeste dsimilar

term s an dcondition s a s othe r similarl y situate dairport user s an dwa s denie dfo r

unjus t reasons . [Se e Aerodvnamic s o f Reading , Inc
. v . Readin g Regiona l Airpor t

Authoritv , FA A Docke t

No
. 16-00-03 , (Decembe r 22 , 2000 ) (Director' s Determination ) at

19 ] Again , th e Directo r

note s th e similarit y o f

thi s cas e t o Sel f

Serv e Pumps : "I n orde r t o sustai n a n allegatio n o f unjus t economi c discrimination , th e discriminatio n mus t

b e unjust
. I t

ca n onl y b e unjus t

i f th e preferre dpart y i s similarly-situate dt o th e dis-preferredparty
. I n thi s case , th e Complainan t (allegedl y th e dis-preferre dparty ) i s s o dissimila r fromth e full-servic e FBO s a t

^ ° Se e Footnot e 5
.3 5

PW K a s t o in n o wa

y b e similarly-situated
. I t i s insufficient

t o simpl y stat e tha t anothe r part y i s managin g t o escap e sanctio n fro mth e airpor t sponso r b y departin g fro mstandard s in on e way , s o tha t th e airpor t

sponso r mus t allo w a complainin g part y t o depar t fro mstandard s i

n adifferent

way . I n fact , t o sustai n a n allegatio n o f

unjus t discrimination , th e Complainan t i n th e extan t

case , mus t compl y wit

hMinimu mStandard s t o adegre e simila r t o Signatur e Aviatio n an d reques t simila r treatmen t

in an y preferenc e grante db y th e Airport
. That

i s clearl y no t

th e cas e here
. I n fact , th e Complainan t i s insistin g tha t

i t b e treate din awholl y different , preferentia l manner . Finally , a s stated , th e FA A ' s complianc e progra mdoe s no t

enforc e a n airport' s minimumstandards
. Finally , in th e on e way in whic hth e Complainant , Sel f Serv e Pumps , i s similarly

situate dt o th e full-servic e FBO s a t PWK , o r in fac t an y woul db e busines s a t PWK , i s tha t

the y ar e aseeke r

o f aleas e an do r

concessio n a t

PWK
. I n tha t regard , i t i s similarly-situate dan dwoul db e require dt o b e considere dfo r aleas e and/o r concessio n a s an y othe r

proponent . I n thi s matter , th e recor di s clea r tha t th e Airpor t

appear s t o hav e bee n accommodatin g an dconsiderat e t o th e Complain t

a s apotentia l busines s an da s amembe r o f th e PW K use r community
. " [Sel f Serv e Pump s at

27 ] I n th e presen t

case , th e Complainan t

seek s awaive r

froman y requirement s not applicabl e t o it s specifi c busines s model
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

N , p . 1 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m15 ] T o clarif y th e Complainant' s position , th e Directo r aske dth e Complainant , "Whic hsection s o f th e Airport' s Minimu mStandard s d o yo u believ e shoul db e waive dfor you r self-servic e fuelin g proposal? " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m14 ] I n response , th e Complainan t provide daHs

t specifyin g 1 5 paragraph s h e believe dshoul db e waived.^ ' [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m15 , exhibi t

A ] Lik e withSel f Serv e Pumps , ''''the Complainan t i s insistin g tha t

h e b e treate din awholl y different , preferentia l manner. " [Sel f

Servic e Pump s a

t 2 7 (emphasi s added) ] Altematively , th e Responden t offere dt o provid e th e sam e waiver s a s provide dt o SIG
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , p . 26 ; FA A Exhibi t 1 , ftem7 , exhibf

t A , ^I18 ; FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m11 , p . 5 , an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m16 , p . 3 ] I n support

o f it s reques t

for additional waivers , th e Complainan t argue s tha t

h e shoul dnot

b e require dt o provid e aircraf t charte r an dtax i servic e becaus e i t i s not require do f

SIG
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , p . 1 1 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m15 , exhibit

A p . 3 ] T o support

thi s claim , h e provide s a

n exchang e o f

electroni c message s whic hindicates tha t SI Gwa s not

abl e t o conduc t charte r operation s aroun dth e tim e o f Febmar y 2009 , bu t

that SI Gwa s stil l abl e t o assis t th e Complainan t

wit hhi s charte r

needs
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m10 , exhibi t

H ] SI Gi s require dt o provid e "adequat e charte r service " unde r

th e term s o f

it s 200 7 FB O agreement . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

R , p . 2 ] SI Gmos t

recentl y provide dcharte r service , withit s Cessn aCitatio n Excel , throug han agreemen t wit hAC M Aviatio n LLC
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m17 ] Nothin g i n th e Minimu mStandards , no r th e FB O agreemen t

preclude dSI Gfromprovidin g charte r an dtax i service s throug hthi s manner .

^ ' I n additio n t o 1 2 paragraph s unde r Sectio n 8 , Regulation s Govemin g Minimu mRequirement s fo r Al l Fixe dBas e Operations , th e Complainan t list s tw o paragraph s unde r Sectio n 6 , Rule s for

Aircraf t Fuelin g Operations , an don e paragrap hunde r

Sectio n 9 , Procedure s fo r Receivin g an dProcessin g Application s for Commercia l Operations
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m15 , exhibi t

A an dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

M ]3 6

Ultimately , th e Complainan t relie s o n th e followin g logi c for it s reques t

for additional waivers :

" ...th e GWA

A ha s take n apositio n in it s filings in thi s matte r tha t i t ha s waive d variou s an dsundr y 'Standard s 'fo r SI GAviation , particularl y th e requirement s tha t a n FB O sellin g aviatio n petroleu mproduct s mus t provid e certai n othe r services , o n th e groun dtha t thos e service s wer e alread y bein g provide dby othe r vendor s a t

th e airport
. The sam e reasonin g shoul db e applie dt o th e Complainant' s proposal , an dComplainan t shoul dno t

b e require dt o provid e an y service s whic har e alread y availabl e fro mothe r vendor s a t

th e airport , includin g SI GAviation
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m15 , p . 2 ] However , thi s reasonin g i s inconsisten t wit hth e FAA' s interpretatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 22
. Whil e th e Directo r

doe s no t condon e th e Respondent' s practic e o f routinel y deviatin g fromit s Minimu mStandards , thi s alon e i s no t aviolatio n o f

th e Federa l Gran t

Assurances
. Th e questio n befor e th e Directo r

i s whethe r

o r no t thes e deviation s resul t

i n th e dissimilar

treatmen t

o f tw o similarl y situate dparties
. Becaus e th e Complainan t was offere dth e sam e waiver s a s SIG , a n allegatio n o f

unjus t discriminatio n canno t

stand
. Moreover , th e Directo r i s not incline dt o encourag e th e Airport

Authorit y t o continu e thi s clearl y problemati c practice
. Th e FA A encourage s airport sponsor s t o develo p minimu mstandard s t o addres s th e specifi c need s o f thei r airport community
. Base do n th e Director' s revie w o f th e GWAA' s Rule s an d Regulation s fo r

Fixe dBas e Operation s (Sectio n 8) , thes e requirement s d o not appear unattainable , overl y burdensome , o r inconsisten t

withpractice s a

t othe r genera l aviatio n airports
. Th e Recor dsimpl y indicate s that th e Responden t

ha s chose n not

t o full y enforc e thes e requirement s i n it s negotiation s wit hpotentia l an dexistin g aeronautica l servic e providers
. Thi s coul dindicat e tha t

th e GWAA' s Rule s an dRegulation s wer e not designe dt o reflec t

th e local aviatio n community' s curren t needs
. Regardless , thi s ' al acart e approach ' t o th e Minimu m Standard s make s i t

difficul t for th e Airpor t

Authorit y t o avoi dallegation s o f unjus t discriminatio n a s ne w entrant s see k t o negotiat e acces s t o th e Airport
. Furthermore , i t preclude s th e Authorit y fro mpromotin g competitio n an dchoic e a t th e Airport
. Thi s doe s not serv e th e interest s o f

th e aviatio n community
. Th e Directo r strongl y recommend s th e Responden t conside r revisin g it s Minimu mStandard s t o bette r reflec t th e need s o f

th e airport

communit y an d it s mor e immediat e masterplans
. Th e Respondent' s offer

t o trea t th e Complainan t

i n th e sam e maime r

a s SI Gallow s th e GWA A t o remai n complian t

withregar dt o Gran t

Assuranc e 22
. Conversely , i f th e Responden t

wer e t o agre e t o additiona l waivers , i t coul dpotentiall y giv e rise t o future complaint s o f unjus t discriminator y treatmen t

fromothe r

tenants . I n conclusion , o n Jul y 6 , 2009 , th e Complainan t advise dth e Directo r

o f SIG' s intent

t o terminat e it s FB O service s a

t th e Airport
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m19 ] Thi s terminatio n becam e effectiv e o n Jul y 31 , 2009
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m21 , exhibi t

B ] A s aresult , th e Directo r dismisse s thi s allegation
.3 7

Issu e 3 : Whethe r

th e Responden t

ha s limite dth e righ t

t o sel l fue l an dleas e hangar s a t th e Airpor t t o asingl e provide r

i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(4 ) an dGran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights
. Th e Complainan t

raise s concem s associate dwithachang e i n th e Airport' s Minimu mStandards , th e presenc e o f

asingl e provide r

fo r fuel , an dSIG' s ability t o subleas e th e Authority' s hangars
. Th e Directo r

wil l addres s thes e issue s separately
. Th e Complainan t

states : "A t th e tim e th e Complainant s mad e thei r applicatio n t o establis hacommercia l self-fuelin g avga s facilit y a t th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport , an da t present , th e GWA A ha dgrante donl y on e entity th e righ t t o provid e an dsel l aviatio n fue l o f an y kin da t

th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport
. That entity i s SI GAviation , LL C ('SIG)
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2,111 ] "Th e Complainant' s proposa l t o th e GWA A presente dth e threa t

o f competitio n wit hth e fue l sale s operatio n o f SIG
. I n respons e SIG , throug hJi mSteel e i n hi s capacit y a s Airpor t

Manager , producure d(sic ) a n amendmen t t o th e Airpor t Rule s prohibitin g al l self-fuelin g wit hSIG' s approval
. Se e Exhibi t Jl " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , ^15 ] "Th e actio n o f

th e GWA A Boar di n 'disapproving ' th e Complainant s 'proposal , an drefusin g t o ente r

int o negotiation s fo r

reasonabl e term s fo r

th e leas e o f

spac e neede dt o establis han doperat e acommercia l self-fuelin g avga s facilit y resulte d i n th e GWA

A Boar dgrantin g SI Gth e exclusiv e righ t t o sel l aviatio n fue l a t

th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , ^ 22 ] "GWA A ' s gran t t o SI Go f

th e exclusiv e righ t

t o sel l aviatio n fue l a t

th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t violate s 4 9 U.S.C
. §4710 7 e t seq. , 4 9 U.S.C
. §40103(e) , variou s gran t assurances , FA

A Orde r 5190.6 A Part s 3-8 , 3-9 , 3-17 , 4

- 13 , an d4-14 , an di s contrar y t o th e guidanc e se t fort hin FA

A Advisor

y Circula r No
. 150/5190-6
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2, 1 23 ] "In effect th e GWA A ha s financedth e expansio n o f SIG' s profi t

makin g hange r (sic ) renta l business , a t

n o cos t t o SIG , but

a t grea t los s t o th e GWAA ; an d allowe dSI Ga n exclusiv e righ t t o subleas e hange r

(sic ) spac e t o others..
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , TI30-J

] Whil e th e Responden t

admit s t o changin g it s Minimu mStandard s t o addres s asafety conce m withself-fueling , th e Responden t denie s grantin g SI Gan y exclusiv e rights. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , ^ 15 , 22 , an d2 3 an dp . 35 ]3 8 Airport' s Minimu mStandard s o n Self-Fuelin g O n Febmar y 27 , 2007 , th e Airport Manage r write s amem o proposin g th e GWA A formall y update th e Airport' s Minimu mStandard s withregard s t o self-fueling
. H e recommend s addin g paragrap h6.e. : "Self-fuelin g by an y metho di s prohibite dwithou t th e expres s writte n consen t o f th e airpor t

manager . Al l request s fo r self-fuelin g wil l b e reviewe dfo r safety an d EP A considerations
. Approva l fo r self-fuelin g shal l not

unnecessaril y b e withheld
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

J-1 , p . 4 ] O n Marc h22 , 2007 , th e GWA A adopte dthi s change
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

J-1 , p.l ] Th e Chai r

o f th e GWA A Boar dexplaine dthi s chang e wa s neede dt o addres s aspecifi c safet y conce ma t th e Airport
. H e states : "In 200 7 th e GWA

A Boar dvote dt o amen dth e Airpor t Rule s an dRegulation s t o regulat e self-fuelin g by aircraf t owners . A

t th e time , i t

was reporte dtha t

som e aircraf t operator s wer e fuelin g thei r aircraf t wit hautomotiv e fue l brough t t o th e Airpor t injerrycan s o r

simila r containers
. The airpor t

manage r deeme dsuc ha practic e t o b e aseriou s safety an dliabilit y concern . The GWA A Boar d concurred
. T

o th e bes t o f m y knowledg e an dunderstanding , self-servic e fuelin g — th e typ e o f

commercia l activity bein g propose dby Mr
. Johnso n —i s not prohibite d b y th e Airpor t

Rule s an dRegulations
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

A , \20 ] Mos t significantly , th e Responden t argue s tha t

it s "self-fuelin g amendment , a s adopted , di dnot prohibi t th e tj^ e o f

self-servic e fuehn g busines s propose db y th e Complainant. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , ^ 15 ] I n th e Reply , th e Complainan t abandon s it s allegatio n an dretum s t o it s assertio n tha t th e Respondent' s denial , unjus t an ddiscriminator y condition s for th e propose dFBO , an d refiisal t o negotiat e i n goo dfait hresul t i n th e establishmen t

o f SIG' s exclusiv e right. Reasonabl e restriction s coul dinclud e th e regulatio n o f "practice s whic hwoul db e unsafe , unsightly , detrimenta l t o th e publi c welfare , o r whic hwoul daffec t

th e efficien t

us e o f airport facilitie s b y others. " Furthermore , FA A Orde r 5190.6 A state s that

"reasonabl e mle s an d regulation s shoul db e adopte dt o confin e aircraf t maintenanc e an dfuelin g operation s t o appropriat e location s wit hequipmen t commensurat e t o th e jo b bein g done. " [See

_FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Sec
. 3-9(e)(3) ] Th e Directo r

note s that

whil e th e Airport' s Minimu mStandard s wit hregar dt o self-fuelin g ma y b e restrictive , th e Complainan t ha s no t allege dhar mo r

challenge dthei r

reasonablenes s a s a resul t o f attemptin g t o fuel hi s ow n aircraft
. Th e Complainan t ha s propose dt o resel l fuel t o othe r aircraf t owners . Thi s i s awholl y differen t enterpris e an di t

i s treate ddifferentl y a s amatte r o f la w an dcomplianc e witha n Airport' s Federa l Gran t Assurances.'^ ^ Simpl y put , th e Respondent' s

^ ^ Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(6 ) state s "a n ai r carrie r usin g th e airport

may servic e itsel f

o r us e any fixed-base operato r allowe db y th e airport

operato r t o servic e an y carrie r

at th e airport"
. Th e right

t o self-servic e one' s ow n aircraf t extend s t o genera l aviatio n an di s recognize di n Federa l Gran t Assuranc e 22(f)
. FA A Advisor y Circular3 9

amendmen t

di dno t prohibi t th e typ e o f

activit y contemplate di n th e Complainant' s proposal
. Base do n th e Record , th e Airport' s Minimu mStandard s fo r self-fuelin g d o no t

establis ha

n exclusiv e right. Singl e Provide r fo r Fue l Th e Responden t

acknowledge s that

th e Airpor t

ha s neve r

ha dmor e tha n on e fuel provide r a t a time. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , p . 3 ] However , thi s doe s not i n an do f itsel f establis hth e creatio n o f a n exclusiv e right. FA A Advisor y Circular 5190- 6 states : "A n exclusiv e right s violatio n occur s whe n th e airpor t sponso r exclude s others , eithe r intentionall y o r

unintentionally , fro mparticipatin g in a n on-airpor t activity
. A prohibite dexclusiv e righ t ca n b e manifeste dby a n expres s agreement , unreasonabl e minimumstandards , o r b y an y othe r

means . Significan t

t o understandin g th e exclusiv e right s policy , i s th e recognitio n tha t i t i s th e impac t

o f th e activity , an dnot

necessaril y th e airpor t

sponsor' s intent , tha t

constitute s a n exclusiv e right s violation
. " [FA A Advisor y Circular 5190-6 , (1.2.) ] "Th e fac t tha t asingl e busines s o r

enterpris e ma

y provid e mos t

o r al l o f th e on airpor t aeronautica l service s i s not , in itsel f evidenc e o f

a n exclusiv e right s violation
. Wha

t i s a n exclusiv e right s violatio n i s th e denia l b y th e airpor t sponso r t o affordothe r

qualifie dpartie s a n opportunit y t o b e a n on-airpor t aeronautica l servic e provider
. " [FA A Advisor y Circular 5190-6 , (1.3.)(b)(2.)] Th e Respondent' s conditiona l approva l o f th e Complainant' s propose dself-servic e fiielin g facility make s i t

difficul t for th e Complainan t

t o successfull y argu e tha t h e ha s bee n exclude d fromestablishin g abusines s tha t woul dhav e compete dwit hSIG
. Unti l th e Complainan t renew s hi s interes t

b y takin g tangibl e step s t o rene w negotiations , th e Complainan t doe s no t establis h himsel f a s aqualifie d^dixiy
. Unde r Issu e Two , th e Directo r

foun dtha t

th e Respondent' s condition s wer e neithe r

unreasonabl e no r

unjustl y discriminatory
. Th e Directo r als o foun dthat SIG' s terminatio n o f

it s FB O busines s at

th e Airport

constitute dacurin g o f

th e Complainant' s allegations
. Likewise , th e Directo r dismisse s th e Complainant' s allegation s wit hregard s t o Gran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights
. Hanga r Rental s Th e Complainan t

assert s tha t

th e Responden t

grante dSI Gan exclusiv e right t o subleas e hangar s becaus e thi s servic e wa s not pu t out t o bi dan dth e GWA A di dnot see k o r obtai n fai

r marke t valu e for th e leas e o f

it s hangar

space . [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , ^30-i ] Th e Responden t replie s that i t wa s not obligate dt o see k

bid s fo r thi s arrangement . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , p . 35 ] I n reviewin g th e Record , th e Directo r foun dthat

SI Gdi dno t

leas e al l availabl e hangar spac e a t th e Airport
. Th e Responden t ha s directl y lease dseveral hangar s t o othe r tenants . [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , Appendi x A , p p 78-79 ] However , th e Complainan t fail s t o establis hwhethe r o r no t 5190- 6 states , "Th e us e o f aself-servic e fuelin g pum p i s acommercia l activit y an di s no t considere dself-fuelin g a s define dherei n an dca n b e subjec t t o minimu mstandards. "4 0

thes e tenant s ar e preclude dfromsublettin g thei r hangars
. I n orde r

t o mak e afinding o f noncomplianc e wit hGran t Assuranc e 23 , th e Directo r mus t findthat aqualifie dpart y wa s exclude dfro ma

n opportunit y t o erec t

an dsubleas e hangars
. Th e Complainant' s argument s d o not mee t thi s burden
. Federall y obligate dairport s hav e aresponsibilit y t o operat e thei r aeronautica l facilitie s t o th e benefi t o f th e public
. I n certai n circumstances , thi s preclude s a n airport sponso r fromactin g i n th e sam e manne r

a s abusines s stmcture dt o maximiz e it s profits
. Whe n thes e decision s d o no t impac t th e airport' s safety o r

th e sponsor' s Federa l obligations , th e FA A expect s an airport owne r t o utiliz e it s proprietar y rights an dpower s t o manag e itsel f generall y i n th e public' s interes t i n aviatio n an da s a

n ongoin g concem . A s such , th e Directo r finds tha t

th e Respondent' s decisio n t o negotiat e th e hangar renta l servic e withSI Gwas withi n th e sponsor' s proprietar y rights (se e belo w for

adiscussio n o f

th e relate dRight s an dPower s issue)
. [Se e Pacifi c Coas t Flyers , Inc. ; Dormv aDaubne y d/b/ aCarlsba dAircraf t Pilo t Supplv ; Roge r

Baker , v . Count v o f San Diego , Califomia , FA A Docke t No
. 16-04-08 , (Jul y 25 , 2005 ) (Director' s Determination) , a t p . 28 ; Jimsai r

Aviatio n Service s v . Sa

n Dieg o Count v Regiona l Airport Authority , FA A Docke t No
. 16-06-08 , (Apri l 12 , 2007 ) (Director' s Determination) , a t p . 37 ] Issu e 4 : Whethe r

th e Responden t

ha s cede dcontro l o f

th e Airpor t

i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S
. C
. § 47107(a ) an dGran t

Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPowers
. Th e Complainan t

make s numerou s allegation s regardin g th e Respondent' s relationshi p withSI G Aviation , LLC
. SI Gwa s contracte db y th e Airpor t Authorit y t o performairport managemen t services
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

S ] Th e Authorit y als o execute dafixedbas e operation s agreemen t

wit hSIG
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

R ] T o provid e aeronautica l service s t o th e public , SI Glease dpropert y an doffic e spac e i n th e termina l fromth e Airport Authority ; thes e term s wer e outline di n aleas e agreement . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

T ] Additionally , SI Glease s acorporat e hanga r fromth e Authority
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t I ] Thes e relationship s wer e goveme db y four separat e agreement s execute dbetwee n th e Responden t

an dSIG
. Th e Complainan t argue s tha t

thes e agreement s conferre dan inordinat e amoun t o f powe r t o SIG , benefitin g th e compan y financially , an dgrantin g i t a n exclusiv e right

t o provid e fiielin g services
. Th e Directo r wil l loo k at eac ho f thes e issue s individuall y an dunde r th e auspice s o f

four specifi c gran t

assurances . First , th e Directo r

wil l determin e whethe r

th e relationshi p betwee n th e Responden t an dSI G create s atransfe r

o f powe r whic hwoul dconstitut e aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPowers
. Gran t Assuranc e 5 prohibit s a

n airport sponso r fro mtakin g action s whic h woul ddepriv e i t

o f an y o f it s rights an dpower s tha t ar e necessary t o perfor mal l o f th e condition s o f

it s gran t agreement s an dothe r

Federa l obligations
. Th e Complainan t

states : "O n informatio n an dbelief , an dcontrar y t o it s publicl y state dposition , SIG , i n it s capacit y a s airpor t

manager , advise dth e GWA A Boar dagains t

approva l o f Complainant' s proposal , an dagains t negotiatin g an y term s upo n whic h4 1

Complainan t

coul dleas e spac e t o operat e acommercia l self-fuelin g avga s facility
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , t

24 ] Th e Responden t

denies thi s allegation
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , ^

I 24 ] I n support

o f it s denial , th e Responden t

provide s affidavit s fromth e Chai r o f th e Airport

Authorit y an dSIG' s manage r describin g SIG' s rol e withregard s t o th e Authority' s action
. Th e Chai r o f th e Airport

Authorit y states : "A

t n o tim e di danyon e fro mSI Gadvis e th e GWA A Boar do n whethe r

Mr
. Johnson' s proposa l t o operat e aself-servic e fuelin g facilit y shoul db e approve d o r denied
. I n fact , Mr
. Steel e publicl y state da t th e GWA A Boar dmeetin g on May 15 , 2007 , tha t

Mr
. Johnson'spropose dactivity woul dnot significantl y impac t SIG' s business
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

A , f 15 ] SIG' s Manage r

states : "Becaus e o f

SIG' s dua l rol e a s th e FB O manage r an dth e Airpor t

manage r I hav e refraine dfro mofferin g opinion s and/o r recommendation s t o th e GWA A Boar d regardin g Mr
. Johnson' s self-servic e fuelin g proposal
. Moreover , a t aMa y 15 , 200 7 GWA

A Boar dmeeting , an dagai n by lette r date dOctobe r

10 , 2007, 1 state d tha t Mr
. Johnson' s proposa l woul dhav e littl e o r n o impac t

o n SIG , bu t

tha t whethe r an dunde r

what condition s hi s proposa l shoul db e accepte dwa s strictl y a decisio n o f

th e GWA A Board
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

B , 14 ] Th e Complainan t

provide s n o evidenc e t o th e contrary . Moreover , th e Respondent' s Octobe r 16 , 200 7 decisio n t o conditionall y approv e th e Complainant' s proposa l i s an actio n take n b y th e Respondent , an dno t

SIG , t o work

wit hth e Complainant
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

M ] Thi s demonstrate s tha t

Responden t

ha dno t negotiate dawa y it s rights an dpowers . A s aresult , ther e i s n o violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 5
. Th e Complainan t

states : "GWAA' s othe r

contract s wit

hSI Gallowe dSI Gt o contro l airpor t operation s an d t o us e suc hcontro l t o provid e itselffavorabl e consideration s regardin g it s cos t o f offic e an dhange r

(sic ) space , an dt o divert Airpor t Revenu e t o itsel f

an dawa y fro mth e Airport; " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , ftem2 , *

\30 ] Th e Responden t

acknowledge s tha t

i t ha s entere dint o fou r

separat e contract s wit hSIG
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , ^ 30 ] Th e Complainan t fail s t o documen t

ho w SI Guse dan y rights grante d throug hthes e agreement s t o unreasonabl y contro l th e airport' s operations
. A t n o tim e doe s th e Complainan t

assert tha t i t ha s bee n offere dles s favorabl e term s regardin g th e cos t o f offic e and/o r hanga r space . Lackin g specifi c evidenc e a s t o ho w thes e agreement s hav e bee n use dt o usurp th e Authority' s proprietar y rights an dpowers , th e Directo r ca n onl y revie w th e plai n languag e o f

eac ho f th e four agreements . Th e Directo r offer s th e followin g analysi s o f thes e contracts ' plai n languag e wit hregar dt o Airport' s rights an dpowers .4 2 Airpor t Managemen t

Agreemen t Th e Airport

Managemen t

Agreemen t

clearl y describe s th e Responden t a s th e owne r

o f th e Airport seekin g to ente r

int o an agreemen t

witha n independen t

contracto r

t o performcertai n managemen t

services
. FA A polic y permit s thi s action
. Althoug hSI Gi s responsibl e for enforcin g "al l laws , ordinances , mle s an dregulation s lawfull y adopte dfor th e genera l operatio n o f th e Airport, " SI Gha s als o agree dt o "compl y wit hal l o f th e Authority' s reasonabl e direction s i n th e performanc e o f

it s duties. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

S , p . 2 ] Th e agreemen t outline s othe r

specifi c dutie s SI Gmus t performan dprovide s for compensation
. Additionally , consisten t withFA A policy , th e Responden t include dasubordinatio n claus e whic hstates , "Thi s Agreemen t

shal l b e subjec t

an dsubordinat e t o th e provision s o f an y existin g o r

fliture agreemen t betwee n th e Authorit y an dth e Unite dState s o r an y agenc y thereo f

relativ e t o th e operatio n an d managemen t

o f th e Airport. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

S , p . 4 ] A n airport

sponso r i s permitte dt o delegat e certai n responsibilitie s associate dwithoperatin g an d maintainin g th e airport

t o acommercia l tenant . Thi s agreemen t doe s not reliev e th e Responden t fromit s obligations , no r

doe s i t transfe r an y o f th e Respondent' s proprietar y rights. Mos t importantly , a s noted , i t

include s asubordinatio n claus e makin g clear tha t th e agreemen t

i s subordinat e t o th e Respondent' s Federa l Gran t Assurances
. Base do n th e Director' s revie w o f th e plai n language , thi s agreemen t appear s t o hav e bee n consisten t wit hFA A policy
. [Se e FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Sec
. 4-1(c ) an d6-5 ] Fixe dBas e Operatio n Agreemen t Th e Fixe dBas e Operatio n Agreemen t recognize s th e Respondent' s desir e t o mak e certai n service s availabl e t o it s aeronautica l user s an dspecifie s SI Ga s th e provider
. Specifically , thi s agreemen t

require s SI Gt o maintai n an offic e an dsale s office s o n th e Airport ; provide s SI Gth e nonexclusiv e right

t o sel l aviatio n gasolin e an dfuels ; provide s SI Gwit hanonexclusiv e right t o provid e ramp service ; allow s SI Gt o maintai n an dren t T-hangars , sheltere dhangars , an d enclose dhangars ; allow s SI Gt o provid e adequat e charte r service ; an dpermit s SI Ga nonexclusiv e right

t o conduc t

an y othe r

additional activitie s requeste do r approve db y th e Authority
. Th e agreemen t contain s aclaus e clearl y statin g that , "i t i s expressl y understoo dan d agree dtha t

nothin g herei n containe dshal l b e constme dt o gran t o r authoriz e th e grantin g o f exclusiv e rights withi n th e meanin g o f Sectio n 308(a ) o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t o f 195 8 a s amended. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

R , p . 2 ] Anothe r

claus e i n th e agreemen t

preserve s th e Authority' s right

t o execut e agreement s wit hothe r FBO s an dth e U.S
. government . Furthermore , SI Gi s prohibite dfromenterin g int o an y transactio n whic hcoul ddepriv e th e Authorit y o f

it s rights an dpowers , an dSI Gmus t fumis hservice s outline di n th e agreemen t o n a fair , equal , an dnondiscriminator y basis
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

R ] FA A Orde r

5190.6 A states : "Th e operatio n o f

apubli c airpor t

involv e comple x relationship s tha t ar e frequentl y misunderstood
. On e ca n safel y lan da n aircraf t o n th e airport , bu t unles s ther e ar e service s an dconvenience s availabl e t o attrac t an dencourag e fiight activity , th e investmen t

may b e har dt o justify
. I n mos t instance s th e publi c4 3

agenc y ownin g th e airpor t mus t tur n t o privat e enterpris e t o provid e thos e service s whic hwil l make th e us e o f th e airpor t

b y th e publi c attractiv e an d convenient
. " [FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Sec
. 6-2 ] Consisten t

wit hFA A Orde r

5190.6A , th e Responden t opte dt o se t

fort hSIG' s FB O responsibilitie s i n aseparat e agreement . [Se e FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Sec
. 6-2(c) ] Base do n th e Director' s review , thi s agreemen t di dnot hav e th e effec t

o f grantin g o r

denyin g rights t o us e th e Airport facilitie s contrar y t o th e requirement s o f la w an dapplicabl e obligations
. Th e agreemen t di dnot contai n an y term s o r

condition s whic hcoul dhav e limite drealizatio n o f th e Airport' s full benefits
. Moreover , th e plai n languag e o f th e agreemen t

prohibite dan y exclusiv e rights an d preserve dth e Authority' s abilit y t o contrac t withothe r

FBOs
. Mos t

importantly , th e Authorit y clearl y retaine dit s proprietar y rights an dpowers . Lastly , SI Gwa s prohibite dfromenterin g int o an y transactio n whic hcoul dhav e deprive dth e Authorit y o f it s rights an dpowers . Leas e Agreemen t I n support

o f th e FB O agreement , th e Responden t an dSI Gentere dint o aleas e agreement . Thi s agreemen t

lease dAirport

propert y t o SI Gfor

th e purpos e o f

conductin g it s FB O business
. In addition , th e agreemen t

provide dSI Gwit hth e right t o ren t an dleas e aircraf

t hangar s o n th e Authority' s behal f

However , SI Gcoul dno t assig n o r sublet , i n whol e o r

i n part , withou t

th e prio r writte n consen t

o f th e Authority
. Eac hmonth , SI Gpai d$50 0 for aportio n o f

th e termina l buildin g an d$4,80 0 for

th e us e o f

4 4 hangars
. I n th e even t o f avacanc y i n an y o f

th e hangars , SI Gcoul dprorat e it s monthl y ren t b y 5 0 percen t

o f th e vacan t

hangar' s renta l fee
. SI Gwa s grante danonexclusiv e right t o us e th e publi c portio n o f th e propert y for

aeronautica l purposes , an dSI Gha dt o obtai n th e Authority' s writte n approva l befor e makin g an y majo r alterations , addition s o r

improvement s t o th e property . SI Gwa s require dt o adher e t o th e Airport' s Rule s an dRegulations
. Anothe r claus e i n th e agreemen t

preserve dth e Authority' s right t o execut e agreement s wit hothe r

FBO s an dth e U.S
. government , an dSI Gwa s prohibite dfromenterin g int o an y transactio n whic hcoul ddepriv e th e Authorit y o f it s rights an dpowers . Th e agreemen t als o specifie dinsuranc e coverag e requirements
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

T ] Again , th e Directo r

finds nothin g i n th e plai n languag e o f th e agreemen t

t o ced e th e Authority' s proprietar y rights an dpower s i n amanne r inconsisten t

wit hGran t

Assuranc e 5
. SI Gwa s no t grante dth e abilit y t o establis hrenta l fee s for th e hangar s i t

subleased , an dha dt o obtai n th e Authority' s consen t

t o suble t an y hangars
. Corporat e Hanga r

Leas e Th e Authorit y an dSI Gals o entere dint o aleas e agreemen t for acorporat e hangar
. Unde r it s terms , SI Gpay s $50 0 amonthfor acorporat e hanga r

adjacen t t o th e Airport
. Th e leas e stipulate s insuranc e requirement s an dlimit s us e o f th e hangar

fo r genera l aviatio n purposes . SI G mus t maintai n th e hangar

an dcarmo t

assig n o r suble t th e hangar

withou t th e Authority' s prio r consent . [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

H ] Th e Directo r

finds nothin g i n thi s leas e agreemen t whic hcoul dabridg e th e Respondent' s rights an dpowers .4 4

Th e Complainan t

states : "Wit hvery limite dexception s involvin g afe w privatel y owne dhangars , an y othe r part y wishin g t o operat e acommercia l aeronautica l activity on th e airpor t mus t d o s o a s asubtenan t

o f SIG , whil e bein g subjec t

t o SIG' s authorit y a s Airpor t Manager
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , ftem10 , p . 12 ] Th e Responden t

states : "Th e GWA

A ha s introduce di

n th e administrativ e recor dcopies o f th e mos t recen t Airpor t Layou t Pla n clearl y depictin g comparativel y larg e swath s o f Airpor t lan d tha t ar e designate dan dreserve dfo r planne dan dfutur e aeronautica l development
. Answe r

Exh
. P
. Non e o f

th e area s availabl e fo r

futur e aeronautica l us e ar e 'controlled, ' contractuall y o r otherwis e by SIG
. Moreover , it stand s t o reaso n tha t

i f (a s Complainan t

alleges ) al l ne w aeronautica l servic e provider s mus t b e subtenant s o f

SIG , ther e woul db e som e evidenc e tha t a t som e poin t

in th e proces s Complainan t

ha dbee n advise dt o g o spea k wit hSI Gabou t

subleasin g spac e a t th e Airport
. Complainan t ha s introduce dn o suc hevidence
. Sectio n 8 expressl y state s tha t

al l FBO s mus t

hav e ' afull y execute dleas e agreemen t wit h th e Owner. ' Complain t

Exh
. M , Sectio n 8.A
. (emphasis added)
. The owne r o f th e Airpor t i s th e GWA

A (se e id
. Sectio n 1) , not

SIG
. Complainant' s allegation s regardin g SI Gcontro l o f th e Airpor t

ar e simpl y wrong . " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 11 , p . 6 ] Th e Directo r

believe s th e Complainan t ma y b e confusin g SIG' s role
. Th e GWA A contracte d SI Gt o leas e an dmanag e hangar rentals
. Typically , hangar s ar e rente db y individual s for th e storag e o f privatel y owne daircraft
. However , thos e individual s o r entitie s t o seekin g t o conduc t busines s o n th e airport

mus t see k th e approva l o f

th e GWA A rathe r

tha n SIG
. Th e GWAA' s Rule s an dRegulation s recogniz e thi s distinctio n an dappropriatel y preserv e th e Authority' s abilit y t o regulat e commercia l operation s o n th e Airport
. Sectio n 3 o f th e Rule s an dRegulation s states : "Th e Owne r

ha s th e righ t

t o an ddoe s hereb y regulat e al l commercia l enterprise s usin g th e Airpor t

a s abasi s o f

operation , whethe r

suc hoperatio n i s aeronautica l o r non-aeronautica l in nature . N o commercia l operatio n o f an y kin do r

typ e shal l b e conducte do n th e Airpor t unles s specificall y authorize dby th e Owner
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , ftem2 , exhibit

M , p.l ] Moreover , Sectio n 9 o f

th e Rule s an dRegulation s states : "An y applican t

wishin g t o establis ha n aeronautica l activity on th e Airpor t shal l b e furnishe dacop y o f

thes e minimumstandards , a s amended , an dshal l make4 5

applicatio n in writin g t o th e Owner , settin g fort hi n detai l th e following..
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

M , p.ll ] Wit hregar dt o th e Complainant , thi s procedur e wa s followed
. A s th e Complainan t established , hi s applicatio n t o start

aself-servic e fuelin g busines s wa s presente dt o th e GWAA
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , p . 1 ] Furthermore , a s th e Responden t note s above , nothin g i n th e Recor d indicate s th e Complainan t was advise dt o discus s leasin g arrangement s withSIG
. Th e Directo r finds that th e Respondent' s arrangemen t wit hSI Gdoe s not

violat e Gran t

Assuranc e 5
. Th e Complainan t

als o argues :

" ...SI Ga s Airpor t

Manage r ha s electe dnot

t o enforc e agains t

itsel f an y o f th e Sectio n 8 fue l selle r

requirement s wit

hwhic hth e GWA

A no w insist s Complainan t mus t compl y (mos t

recentl y exemptin g itsel f fro mth e requiremen t

tha t i t provid e charte r an dai r tax i service)
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , p p 12-13 ] Th e Responden t

states : "Ha dth e Complainan t

bothere dt o as k

instea do f

engagin g in contrive de-mai l exchange s wit

hSIG' s manage r

(se e Repl y Exh
. H) , th e Complainan t woul dhav e learne dtha t

SIG' s aircraf

t continue s t o b e availabl e unde r aPar t 13 5 certificate , an dremain s availabl e fo r on-deman dcharte r

service s (Steel e Rebutta l Aff , * W4

- 5 , Rebutta l Exh
. C)
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , ftem11 , p p 5-6 ] Th e FA A enforce s th e sponsor' s gran t assurances , not

th e sponsor' s minimu mstandards
. Th e fac t tha t th e GWA A require dSI Gt o enforc e th e Airport' s Minimu mStandards , a s par t o f it s airport managemen t

agreement , di dnot

absolv e th e GWA A o f

it s federal obligations
. However , th e issu e o f

whethe r o r no t SI Gexempte ditsel f

fromit s contractua l requiremen t t o provid e charte r an dai r tax i servic e doe s no t

directl y relat e t o th e airport sponsor' s obligation s unde r Gran t Assuranc e 5
. I f

thi s matte r

ha dmerit , i t

i s an issu e tha t

th e Responden t

shoul dhav e take n u p wit hSI Gt o determin e i f th e FB O contrac t

ha dbee n breached
. In conclusion , th e Responden t ha dacomple x relationshi p wit hSIG , mos t o f whic hha s sinc e terminated
. Regardles s thi s relationshi p doe s not appear t o hav e le dt o GWAA' s cedin g it s Airport sponsor' s power s withi n th e meanin g o f Gran t Assuranc e 5
. Th e Directo r dismisse s thi s allegation
. Issu e 5 : Whethe r

th e Responden t

illegall y diverte dAirpor t revenu e i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(b ) an dGran t

Assuranc e 25 , Airpor t

Revenue s an dfaile dt o maintai n afe e an drenta l structur e t o mak e th e airpor t a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e i n violatio n o f 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(13 ) an dGran t

Assuranc e 24 , Fe e an dRenta l Structure
.

^• ' Th e Complainan t

believe s h e shoul dreceiv e awaive r fro mthi s requirement
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m15 , exhibi t

A , p . 3 ] However , i f

th e Responden t

wer e t o exemp t

th e Complainan t

fro mthi s requirement , i t coul dresul t

i n acedin g o f th e sponsor' s right s an dpower s an dpossibl e question s regardin g it s ability t o compl y withGran t Assuranc e 5
.4 6

Th e Complainan t

allege s that

airport revenu e ha s bee n diverte da s aresul t o f th e Respondent' s contract s withSIG , payment s mad e o n aloan , an dpayment s for accountin g services
. Althoug h th e Complainan t

argue s that

th e airport

managemen t

agreemen t

an dth e leas e permittin g SI Gt o suble t hangars , i n aggregate , contribut e t o th e allege dlos s o f airport revenue , th e Directo r believe s thi s confuse s th e matter^" * an dwil l revie w thes e agreement s individually
. Th e Complain t

states : "In th e cours e o f

pursuin g th e application
. Complainan t als o foun devidenc e tha t th e GWA A wa s violatin g th e statutor y an dregulator y schem e requirin g th e GWA A t o operat e th e Airpor t

in a s financially self-sustainin g amanne r a s possible , b y allowin g Airpor t Revenu e t o b e diverte dt o th e entity t o whic hth e GWA A ha dals o grante dth e exclusiv e righ t t o sel l aviatio n fuel
. " [FA A Exhibi t l,Item2,p p 1-2] Th e Complainant' s Respons e allege s th e GWA A is : "Failin g t o mak e th e airpor t a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e unde r th e circumstances , b y excessiv e payment s t o SI Gfo r airpor t management . " [FA A exhibf t l,Ite m10 , p . 1 ] T o support

thi s claim , th e Complainan t argues : "...Th e GWA

A ' s 2006/200 7 operatin g budge t was approximatel y $217,000.00 , o f whic happroximatel y $70,000.0 0 wa s derive dfro moperatin g income , wit hth e remainde r

bein g grant s o f

publi c funds
. Durin g th e sam e budge t period
. Complainant s believ e additiona l operatin g incom e wa s availabl e t o th e GWA A in th e approximat e amoun t

o f $50,000.0 0 o r

more , bu t

was diverte dt o SI Gthroug h th e contractua l mechanism s describe dabove
. The GWA A 200 6 audi t

showe da los s in ne t

cas huse di

n operatin g activitie s o f

ove r $45,000.00
. (Se e Exhibi t AA, p . 7) Suc harrangement s violat e th e statutor y mandat e tha t th e GWA A operat e th e Airpor t

i n a s financially self-sustainin g amanne r a s practicall y possible
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , ftem2 , T

| 4 6 an d47 ] Th e Responden t

denie s thi s claim : "Th e GWA

A admit s tha t

i t ha s sough t

an dtha t i t ha s receive dstat e an dFedera l grants-in-ai dfo r

publi c infrastructur e developmen t a t th e Airport , an dtha t

th e GWA A ha s receive dan dreceive s fund s fro mWayne Count y t o offse t operationa l costs . However , n o Airpor t fund s hav e bee n diverte d- surreptitiousl y (a s implie d by Complainant ) o r

otherwis e - t o SIG
. Al l contract s betwee n th e GWA A an d SI Gwer e entere dint o in th e cours e o f arms-lengt htransactions..
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , II46 ]

^' * Th e Complainan t

ofte n combine s languag e fro mGran t Assuranc e 24 , Fe e an dRenta l Structure , withlanguag e fro mGran t

Assuranc e 25 , Airpor t

Revenues
.4 7

Th e Complainan t

confuse s th e goa l o f

makin g a

n airport a s financiall y "self-sustaining " a s possibl e wit hrevenu e diversion
. Thes e concept s are inter-related , but the y ar e differentiate dint o tw o separat e gran t

assurances . Th e goa l o f makin g a n airport

a s financially self-sustainin g a s possibl e i s achieve dthroug hit s rate s an dcharge s a s specifie di n Gran t Assuranc e 24 , Fe e an d Renta l Structure
. However , Gran t Assuranc e 25 , Airpor t

Revenues , deals wit hho w a n airport sponso r spend s it s airport

revenu e whic hcoul di n tu mresul t i n th e diversio n o f

thes e fund s awa y fromairport

purposes . Allegation s regardin g th e airport managemen t

agreement , loan payments , accountin g services , fee s pai dfor managemen t

o f th e hangar

rentals , an dfiiel reimbursemen t costs^ ^ wil l b e discusse dwithi n th e contex t o f Gran t Assuranc e 25
. Additionally , allegation s regardin g th e hangar

renta l fee s wil l b e discusse dwithi n th e contex t o f Gran t Assuranc e 24
. Airpor t Managemen t

Agreemen t Th e Respondent' s airport managemen t

agreemen t

withSI Gcommence do n Jul y 1 , 2002
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

J , p . 1 ] Th e Directo r

note s tha t

i t i s not uncommo n for

genera l aviatio n airport s t o ente r

int o agreement s wit houtsid e partie s for airport managemen t

services
. Thi s practic e i s describe di n FA A Orde r 5190.6 A whic hstates , "Mor e prevalen t a t smal l airport s are arrangement s i n whic hth e owne r relie s upo n acommercia l tenan t o r franchisedoperato r

t o cove r abroa drang e o f

airport operating , maintenanc e an dmanagemen t responsibilities. " [FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Sec
. 4-2(c) ] Th e Respondent' s five-year agreemen t

require dSI Gto :

" ...emplo y an dprovid e sufficient personne l t o perfor mth e necessar y service s a s Airpor t Mange r a s ar e require dherein
. A s Airpor t Manager , SI Gshal l perfor m al l th e usua l an dcustomary dutie s tha t may b e require do f

th e Airpor t

Manage r in th e administratio n an dmanagemen t o f th e Airport
. I n addition , i t shal l perfor m suc hothe r

reasonabl e dutie s a s shal l b e agree dupo n b y th e Authority an dSI G fro mtim e t o time
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit

J , p . 1 ] Th e agreemen t

als o require dSI Gt o performth e followin g additional duties :
• Chec k

th e visua l approac hslop e indicato r syste man dprecisio n approac hpat hindicato r o n amonthl y basi s o r

mor e i f needed ;
• Chec k

th e mnwa y light s o n aweekl y basi s an dreplac e bulb s (th e Authorit y i s responsibl e for purchasin g th e bulbs) ; • Remov e sno w wit hequipmen t purchase db y th e Authority ; • Mino r

repair s an droutin e maintenanc e o n th e Airport' s premise s (th e Authorit y pay s fo r an y part s necessar y t o d o thi s an dSI Gmus t obtai n th e Authority' s approva l befor e engagin g an y outsid e labo r tha t wil l cos t i n exces s o f

$200) ; • Designat e arepresentativ e t o atten dth e Authority' s meeting s an dmak e monthl y report s t o th e Authority ; an d
• Enforc e th e rule s an dregulation s o f th e Airport
. [FA A Exhibf

t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

J , p p 1-2 ]

25 Th e Complainant , i n asupplementa l filing date dJul y 27 , 2009 , allege s that th e GWA A subsidize dSIG' s fuel sale s aroun dth e perio do f Decembe r

200 8 a s "furthe r

indicatio n o f

th e respondent' s favoritis mfo r th e curren t FBO... " however , th e Directo r beheve s thi s issu e i s bes t addresse dunde r

Gran t Assuranc e 25
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m21 , p . 2 ]4 8

Th e Responden t

agree dt o compensat e SI Gfor thes e service s at

th e rat e o f

$20,00 0 pe r

year . [FA A Exhibi t

1 , ftem2 , exhibi t

J , p . 2 ] I n 2007 , th e Responden t

an dSI Gentere dint o a20-year airport managemen t

agreement.'^ ^ Thi s agreemen t

require dSI Gt o performth e sam e dutie s a s outline di n th e 200 2 agreement , bu t increase s th e rat e o f

compensatio n t o $30,00 0 pe r year . [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

S ] Th e Revenu e Us e Polic y describe s permitte duse s o f airport revenue , i n pertinen t

part , as : "Th e capita l o r

operatin g cost s o f

th e airport , th e loca l airpor t system , o r

othe r loca l facilitie s owne do r

operate db y th e airpor t

owne r o r operato r an ddirectl y an dsubstantiall y relate dt o th e ai r transportatio n o f

passenger s o r

property . " [Revenu e Us e Pohcy , Sec
. V(A)(1) ] Consisten t

wit hth e Revenu e Us e Polic y an dth e revenu e us e statutes , managemen t companie s ar e permitte dt o b e pai do r reimburse dreasonabl e compensatio n for providin g airport managemen t

services
. Thes e service s ar e considere dpart o f th e operatin g cos t

o f th e airport owner , an dth e fee s ca n b e pai dfromairport revenue . SIG' s responsibilities , a s outline dabove , wer e inherentl y relate dt o th e operation s o f th e Airport
. A s such , th e Respondent' s us e o f airport revenu e t o compensat e SI Gfo r thes e activitie s i s not

i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 25
. Th e Complainan t

challenge s th e aggregat e valu e o f SIG' s service s a s negotiate di n th e separat e agreements : "Th e GWA

A coul dreadil y contrac t

wit ha n agen t

t o manag e an dadministe r leasin g an dmaintenanc e o f th e hanger s [sic] , an dt o provid e whateve r othe r managemen t

service s ar e provide db y SIG , fo r a n amoun t

fa r les s tha n th e su mo f SIG' s managemen t

fe e plu s it s profit s fro msubleasin g th e GWAA' s hange r [sic ] space . " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , ^ 30-n ] "Th e tota l managemen t

fe e (subleas e profit s plu s airpor t managemen t

fee ) pai d b y th e GWA

A t o SI Gwa s grossl y disproportionat e t o th e valu e o f SIG' s service s t o th e GWAA
. " [FA A Exhibf t 1 , ftem2 , H 30-o ] Th e Recor ddi dno t

includ e sufficien t

informatio n t o compar e th e aggregat e valu e o f SIG' s contract s t o thos e previousl y negotiate db y th e Respondent
. Whil e th e Recor dcontain s th e Respondent' s 200 0 airport managemen t

contrac t withJeffre y Lyn n Jennings , d/b/ aWayn e Aviation , ther e i s n o documentatio n regardin g ho w Wayn e Aviatio n wa s compensate dfor wor k associate dwit hth e managemen t o f th e hangar s an drenta l collection
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibit Q ] No r doe s th e Recor ddescrib e an y leas e term s negotiate dbetwee n th e Responden t an d Wayn e Aviation
. Th e Directo r believe s th e Complainan t ha s mischaracterize dth e valu e o f SIG' s airport

managemen t

contract . Th e Complainan t states :

' Thi s agreemen t

wa s subsequentl y tenninate db y SI Geffectiv e Jul y 31 , 2009
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m21 , exhibi t

B ]

## I

## 4 9

"Fro m200 0 t o 200 3 th e GWA A pai dth e prio r

Airpor t Manage r $27,000.0 0 pe r year . (Answer

p 42 , Answe r

Exh
. Q ) Fo r

tha t price , th e Manage r

provide dal l th e service s SI Gno w provides , includin g managemen t o f th e hangar s an d collectio n o f

rents . I n additio n however , th e prio r Manage r als o provide dal l labo r an dequipmen t

fo r gras s cuttin g an dditc hmaintenance , adut y omitte dfro m th e SI GAirpor t

Managemen t

contract . I n 200 7 tha t

jo b wa s budgete da t $21,500.00
. " [FA A Exhibf t 1 , Ite m10 , p . 14 ] Th e Respondent' s 200 0 airport managemen t

contrac t wit hWayn e Aviatio n doe s not support th e valuatio n describe di n thi s comparison
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

Q ] Th e Recor dcontain s n o documentatio n regardin g ho w Wayn e Aviatio n wa s compensate dfor work associate dwithth e managemen t

o f th e hangar s an drenta l collection
. Althoug hWayn e Aviatio n wa s responsibl e for cuttin g th e gras s an dth e remova l o f an y tree s o r

growtharoimdth e Airport' s perimete r fenc e o r i n th e ditches , aservic e value da t approximatel y $21,500^^ , i t wa s Wayn e Aviatio n tha t sough t t o transfe r it s airport

managemen t

responsibilitie s t o SI Gprio r t o th e terminatio n o f

it s contract . [FA A Exhibf

t 1 , Ite m7 , T

j 27 , an dFA A Exhibf

t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibf

t A , ^ 5 ] Th e Respondent' s contrac t withWayn e Aviatio n state s th e terma s Septembe r 1 , 200 0 t o Decembe r

31 , 2003
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

Q , p . 1 ] However , SIG' s airport managemen t

contrac t commence do n Jul y 1 , 2002
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

J , p . 1 ] Consequently , SI Gals o requeste dt o terminat e it s confrac t stating : "Thi s decisio n wa s reache dafte r adetaile dfinancial analysi s reveale dtha t losse s fro mthi s ventur e hav e reache dunacceptabl e levels
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m21 , exhibit B ] Th e Recor dsupport s th e fac t that Wayn e Aviatio n wa s not willin g t o continu e providin g it s negotiate dairport

managemen t

service s a

t th e contracte drate do f

$27,00 0 ayear . Th e Recor d support s tha t

SI GAviatio n wa s willin g t o negotiat e asimilar contrac t a t alowe r rat e fo r five years , an dthe n renegotiat e it s term s for asubsequent , 20-year

contract , whic hwa s cancelle dles s tha n tw o year s int o it s term . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibit s J an dS an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 21 , exhibi t

B ] However , th e Complainan t ha s no t demonstrate dthat

anothe r part y o r entit y woul db e willin g t o negotiat e arat e les s tha n tha t agree dt o b y SIG
. Ultimately , th e Directo r

i s no t incline dt o commen t

o n th e reasonablenes s o f th e financial arrangemen t

betwee n th e Responden t an dSIG
. Th e Responden t correctl y state s th e FAA' s positio n a s follows : "FA A ha s explaine dtha t

it s polic y concernin g th e us e o f airpor t revenu e 'was not intende dt o provid e avehicl e fo r apart y t o challeng e th e reasonablenes s office s pai dt o privat e entitie s fo r airport-relate dservice s provided
. Rathe r i t wa s t o ensur e tha t

airpor t sponsor s d o no t

us e airpor t

revenue s t o creat e non-airpor t relate dbenefit s fo r

othe r governmenta l activities. ' Boc aAirport , Inc
. v . Boc a

^ ^ Th e GWAA' s Operatin g Budge t for 2005/200 6 state s that

th e curren t

budget , "basedo n actua l curren t operatin g cost s compare dt o curren t variances " for

gras s cuttin g i s $21,500
. Th e propose dbudge t for gras s cuttin g i n 2005/200 6 an d2007/200 8 wa s $21,500
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

CC ]5 0

Rato n Airpor t

Auth. , FA

A No
. 16-00-1 0 a t

4 2 (2001 ) (Director' s Determination)
. [FA A Exhibf

t 1 , Ite m7 , p . 37 ] Th e FAA' s polic y i s further clarifie di n Boc aAirport
. Inc. , v . Boc aRato n Airport Authority , FA A Docke t

No
. 16-00-10 , (Marc h20 , 2003 ) (Fina l Agenc y Decision ) {Boc aAirport)
. I n thi s decision , th e Associat e Administrato r concurre d"tha t

th e Revenu e Us e Polic y wa s not intende d t o provid e avehicl e for

apart y t o challeng e th e reasonablenes s o f fee s pai dt o privat e entitie s fo r airport-relate dservices. " [Se e Boc aAirport , a t 51 ] A s such , th e Respondent' s airport managemen t

agreemen t

withSI Gdoe s no t

constitut e aviolatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 25
. Loa n Payment s Th e Complainan t

allege s tha t

th e Responden t

is :

" ...Allowin g diversio n o f airpor t revenue s by illegall y makin g payment s on a n illegall y obtaine dloan..
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , p.l ] Th e Responden t

states : "Th e GWA

A obtaine daloa n fro mBB& T ban k o n May 17 , 200 5 i n th e principa l amoun t o f $495,00 0 t o pa y of

f apreviou s loa n t o Wachovi aan dfinance th e constructio n o f

ne w hangar s a t

th e Airport
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , p . 43 ] Th e Complainan t

fail s t o demonstrat e tha t payment s for

thi s loa n wer e for

an y purpose s not associate dwit hth e Airport' s capita l o r operatin g costs . Instead , th e Complainan t argue s tha t

th e loan wa s obtaine d"illegally " an da s such , an y pajmient s o n i t ar e als o illegal
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , ^ 33-34 , 42 ] Fo r reason s discusse dunde r

Allegation s Outsid e th e Par t 1 6 Purvie w above , an y allege dviolation s o f stat e law ar e not

appropriat e for

adjudicatio n unde r

Part 16
. Accountin g Service s Th e Complainan t

states : "I n 200 3 th e GWA

A contracte dt o pa y it s Treasurer , aboar dmember , t o provid e th e GWA A wit haccountin g services , includin g th e preparatio n an dpresentatio n o f monthl y financia l statements , even thoug hsuc harrangemen t violate s N.C.G.S
. § 14-234 , acrimina l statut e whic hprohibit s apubli c official fro mbenefitin g fro m acontrac t

h e i s involve din lettin g o r administering
. (Se e Exhibit s Y an dZ) Thi s arrangemen t

continue dunti l a t

leas t Octobe r 200 7 when Complainan t threatene d lega l actio n t o enjoi n it
. However , th e GWA A Boar dha s faile dan drefuse dt o deman dreimbursemen t

o f th e illega l payments . " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , ^ 44 ] Th e Complainan t

further constme s thi s arrangemen t a s aviolatio n o f

th e Respondent' s Federa l Gran t Assurance s wit hth e followin g allegatio n fromit s Repl y t o th e Respondent' s Answe r and5 1

Motio n t o Dismiss : "Allowin g diversio n o f

airpor t revenue s t o aboar dmembe r b y illegall y payin g tha t membe r fo r service s t o th e GWAA..
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , p . 1 ] Th e Responden t

admit s that

th e GWA A contracte dt o pa y it s Treasure r an dBoar dmembe r

for thi s service
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , ^ 44 ] However , th e Responden t als o correctl y notes : "Thi s clai mha s n o bearin g o n th e GWAA' s complianc e wit hFedera l Gran t Assurances..
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , p . 43 ] Th e Complainant' s assertio n tha t thi s arrangemen t

constitute s revenu e diversio n i s base do n th e servic e provider , not

th e natur e o f

th e servic e itsel f

Payin g for

accountin g service s rendere di s a vali dus e o f

airport revenue . I t

i s no t inconsisten t

withth e Revenu e Us e Policy
. Fo r reason s discusse dunde r

Allegation s Outsid e th e Par t 1 6 Purvie w above , an y allege dviolation s stat e law are beyon dth e scop e o f

Part 16
. Managemen t

Fee s fo r Hanga r Rental s O n Octobe r

1 , 2007 , th e Responden t an dSI Gentere dint o a20-year leas e agreement.^ ^ [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

T , p . 3 ] Hangar

renta l fee s an dterm s ar e se t b y th e Respondent
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , ^ 30(d) ] SI Gwas responsibl e fo r sublettin g th e following : 8 sunshade s @ $75/month= $60 0 1 0 "B " hanger s @ $ 150/month= $1,50 0 1 0 "C " hanger s @ , $175/month= $1,75 0 4 "D " hanger s @ $250/month= $1,00 0 1 2 "E " hanger s @$200/mont h= $2,40 0 Maximu mAmoun t

Collecte d= $7,25 0 [FA A Exhibf

t 1 , Ite m7 , p . 40 ] Base do n th e above , th e maximu mmonthl y managemen t fee retaine db y SI Gwa s $2,450
. In actuality , SI Gnette dapproximatel y $2,141.1 7 pe r monthdurin g th e first

year o f th e 200 7 agreement . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , p.3 4 an dexhibi t J ] Th e Complainan t

assert s that

SIG' s managemen t

fe e wa s excessiv e b y comparin g i t t o th e amoun t o f th e Respondent' s loan payments . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , exhibi t

Q ] Th e Directo r finds thi s t o b e a n overl y simplisti c methodolog y for comparison. In 2005 , th e Responden t

too k ou t aloan
. Th e minute s o f

th e GWAA' s Marc h24 , 200 5 meetin g state : "Ken Bank s move dtha t th e Authorit y accep t

th e proposa l fro mBB& T t o borro w $498,00 0 a t

4.05 % interes t

fo r te n years , pa y of

f th e existin g Wachovi aloan , an d

^ ^ Thi s agreemen t

wa s subsequentl y terminate db y SI Geffectiv e Jul y 31 , 2009
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m21 , exhibi t

B ]5 2

procee dt o buil dth e ne w hangars..
. Th e motio n wa s seconde db y Harol dBerk an ddul y passed
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , Appendi x A , p . 5 ] It appear s th e Complainan t assume s th e entir e principa l o f th e loan wa s use dt o finance th e additiona l hangars
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , T

j 40 ] Thi s i s incorrect ; th e minute s stat e tha t fund s fromthi s loan woul dfirst b e use dt o pa y of

f an existin g loan
. Th e Respondent' s Applicatio n fo r Approva l o f

Installmen t

Purchas e o r

Leas e Contract s state s "$305,00 0 plu s $190,00 0 t o refinanc e existin g debf
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , Appendi x B , p . 2 ] Th e Recor ddoe s no t indicat e wh y th e Responden t utilize ddeb t

financing throug hWachovia
. Additionally , a s th e Responden t notes , "th e expecte dusefu l lif e o f thos e hangar s i s considerabl y longe r tha n th e lif

e o f th e loan
. Th e GWA A expect s t o receiv e ren t durin g th e usefu l lif

e o f th e hangars , an dnot

jus t durin g th e Hf

e o f th e loan. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , ^

j 40 ] Ultimately , th e Complainan t doe s no t argu e tha t

th e managemen t

o f hangar rental s i s not

a n appropriat e expens e for

th e Airport ; h e simpl y argue s tha t th e Responden t

i s payin g to o muc hfor thi s service
. Thi s doe s no t constitut e revenu e diversion
. Fo r th e reason s cite di n Boc aAirport , th e Directo r

decline s t o mak e afinding withregar dt o th e hangar managemen t

fee s pai dt o SIG
. Hanga r Renta l Fee s Conversely , th e Complainan t allege s tha t

th e Airpor t

i s no t operatin g i n aself-sustainin g maimer
. Gran t Assuranc e 2 4 obligate s an airport sponso r t o "maintai n afe e an drenta l stmctur e for th e facilitie s an dservice s a

t th e airport

whic hwil l mak e th e airport a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e unde r th e circumstance s at

th e particular

airport. " Neithe r Federa l la w no r

FA A polic y specifie s asingl e approac ht o airport rate-setting
. Th e Responden t

explain s tha t

it s hangar

renta l fee s are se t

b y th e GWA A "base do n an analysi s o f comparabl e rent s charge da t nearb y airports. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , p p 3 9 - 40 ] Th e Directo r note s tha t thi s i s acommo n practic e withi n th e genera l aviatio n community
. Moreover , th e Revenu e Us e Polic y states :

" ...th e FA A wil l no t

ordinaril y investigat e th e reasonablenes s o f agenera l aviatio n airport' s fee s absen t evidenc e o f

aprogressiv e accumulatio n o f surplu s aeronautica l revenues . [Se e Rate s an dCharge s Policy , C , p . 32018 ] Th e Complainan t

doe s no t challeng e th e amoun t

o f th e renta l fee s se t

b y th e Authorit y o r

it s methodolog y fo

r establishin g it s rates . H e simpl y assert s tha t th e Responden t

i s no t operatin g th e Airpor t i n aself-sustainin g manner . Thi s doe s no t mee t th e threshol dneede dt o establis ha violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 24
. However , th e Directo r

note s tha t

th e Responden t

recentl y entere dint o 20-year leas e wit hWayn e County , whic hdoe s not

appear t o requir e it s lesse e t o pa y an y rent . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m21 , exhibi t G ] Th e Directo r

wil l addres s thi s matte r

throug haseparat e investigation
.5 3
Fue l Reimbursemen t

Cost s O n Jul y 27 , 2009 , th e Complainant , i n asupplementa l filing, allege s tha t th e Responden t subsidize dSIG' s fuel sale s som e time aroun dth e perio do f Decembe r

2008
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m20 , p . 2 ] Th e Complainan t reference s th e GWAA' s Decembe r 200 8 minute s whic hstate : "Ji mSteel e reporte dtha t

the y purchase dfue l whe n th e pric e was ver y high , an d no w the y ha dt o reduc e th e sale s price
. Ott o Keeslin g move dtha t th e Authority reimburs e SI GAviatio n $1.5 0 pe r gallo n o n th e sal e oflOOL Laviatio n fuel , effectiv e Novembe r

28 , 2008
. Thi s wil l remai n i n effect unti l th e next

fue l suppl y i s purchase d(sic ) fue l cos t durin g thi s perio di s t o b e $3.5 4 pe r gallon
. Thi s motio n wa s seconde dby Ken Bank s an ddul y approved
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 20 , exhibf t A , p . 2 ] Th e Respondent , i n asupplementa l filing , provide s a n affidavi t fromOft o Keesling , no w servin g a s th e Chairma n o f

th e GWAA , whic hstates : "A t th e Decembe r

4 , 200 8 meeting , i t

wa s brough t

t o th e attentio n o f

th e Boar d tha t Avgas was bein g sol da t th e Airpor t

by SI GAviatio n a t

apric e highe r

tha n th e pric e charge da t

othe r airport s an dthat , a s aresult , anumbe r o f pilot s wer e complainin g an dwer e buyin g fue l elsewhere
. I n orde r t o hav e competitively

price dfue l a t

th e Airpor t

fo r th e public , th e Boar dagree dt o reimburs e SI G Aviatio n $1.5 0 pe r

gallo n o n th e sal e o f

Avga s effectiv e Novembe r 28 , 2008 , s o tha t SI GAviatio n would , in turn , lowe r th e pric e i t

charge dth e publi c by th e sam e amoun t unti l th e nex t

suppl y o f fue l wa s purchased
. Thi s actio n was not mean t t o resul t i n an y benefi t

t o SI GAviation , but

was fo r th e benefi t

o f th e publi c an d customer s a t

th e Airport
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m21 , exhibit

A , ^ I 7 ] Neithe r th e Complainan t

no r th e Responden t

specifie s whethe r

o r no t th e GWA A use dairport revenue s t o reimburs e SIG
. Whil e th e Respondent' s ultimat e goa l - t o kee p service s a t th e Airpor t competitiv e - benefite dal l potentia l fuel purchasers , th e Directo r caution s th e Responden t

fromusin g airport

revenu e i n thi s manne r

a s i t ma y violat e th e Revenu e Us e Polic y an dcoul dresul t

i n violation s o f

Gran t Assuranc e 24 , Fe e an dRenta l Structure
. However , a t thi s time, th e Complainan t

fail s t o mee t

th e burde n o f

proo f necessar y t o substantiat e thi s claim
. VII
. CONCLUSIO N Upo n consideratio n o f

th e entir e Recor dherein , th e applicabl e la w an dpolicy , an dfor th e reason s state dabove , th e Directo r finds an dconcludes : (1 ) I n th e contex t

o f th e Respondent' s conditiona l approva l o f th e Complainant' s reques t t o operat e an aeronautica l service , Respondent' s action s d o not constitut e a

n unreasonabl e denia l o f acces s an di s not

aviolatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. (2 ) Th e Airport' s Minimu mStandard s an dcondition s for approva l o f

aself-servic e fuelin g facility ar e no t

sufficientl y unreasonabl e a s t o den y acces s o r unjustl y discriminat eV f 5 4

agains t th e Complainan t

an dd o not

constitut e aviolatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. (3 ) Th e Responden t

ha s no t limite dth e right

t o sel l fuel o r

leas e hangar s t o asingle provide r i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights
. (4 ) Th e Responden t

ha s no t cede dcontro l o f

th e Airpor t

i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 5 , Right s an dPowers
. (5 ) Th e Responden t

ha s no t illegall y diverte dAirport revenu e i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 25 , Airpor t

Revenues
. Th e Responden t ha s no t faile dt o maintai n afee an d renta l stmctur e t o mak e th e Airpor t a s self-sustainin g a s possibl e i n violatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 24 , Fe e an dRenta l Structure
. ORDE R Accordingly , i t

i s ordere dthat : 1
. Th e Complain t

i s dismissed ; an d 2
. Al l motion s no t

expressl y grante di n thi s Determinatio n ar e denied
.

RIGH T O FAPPEA L Thi s Director' s Determinatio n i s a n initia l agenc y determinatio n an ddoe s not constitut e final agenc y actio n an dorde r

subjec t t o judicia l review
. [1 4 CF R16.247(b)(2). ] A part y t o thi s Complain t

adversel y affecte db y th e Director' s Determinatio n ma y appea l th e initia l determinatio n t o th e FA A Associat e Administrato r for Airport s pursuan t

t o 1 4 CF R16.33(b ) withi n thirt y (30 ) day s after servic e o f

th e Director' s Determination
.

OC T- S 20C 9 Directo r Dat e Offic e o f Airport Complianc e an dFiel dOperation sDELBER T JOHNSO N d/b/ aTW O DOG S AVIATIO N

GOLDSBORO-WAYN EAIRPOR T AUTHORIT Y DIRECTOR' S DETERMINATIO N DOCKE T NO
. 16-08-1 1 Exhibi t 1 INDE X O FADMINISTRATIV E RECOR D Ite m1 Novembe r

12 , 200 8 Certificatio n o f th e Complaint
. Exhibi t A Lette r

fromGlen n A
. Barfield , Attome y for Complainant , t o th e FAA' s Atlant aAirport

Distric t Offic e date dFebmar y 6 , 2008
. Ite m2 Novembe r

12 , 200 8 Complain t

filedb y Glen n A
. Barfield , Attome y for Complainant , o n behal f o f Delbert Johnso n d/b/ aTw o Dog s Aviation
. Exhibi t A Complainant' s applicatio n t o conduc t aself-serv e aviatio n fuel business
. Exhibi t B Retu mo n investmen t calculation s for

self-serv e avga s prepare db y th e Complainant
. Exhibi t C Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y Meetin g Minute s for Ma y 24 , 2007
. Exhibi t D Lette r

fromC
. Wilkins , Chairma n o f Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authority , t o D
. Johnso n date dMa y 30 , 2007
. Exhibi t ELette r

fromG
. Barfield , Attome y for Complainant , to C
. Wilkins , Chairma n o f

Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authority , date dJun e 5 , 2007
. Exhibi t FLette r

fromW
. Everett , Attome y for Respondent , t o G
. Barfield , Attome y fo r Complainant , date dAugus t 23 , 2007
. Exhibi t GFixe dBas e Operatio n Agreemen t betwee n th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y an dSI GAviation , LLC , date dJul y 24 , 2002
. Exhibi t H Leas e Agreemen t

betwee n th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y an d SI GAviation , LLC , date dJul y 24 , 2002
. Exhibi t I Amendmen t

o f Leas e Agreemen t

betwee n th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y an dSI GAviation , LLC , date dJanuar y 23 , 2006
.^ f i

Exhibi t J Airport

Managemen t

Agreemen t

betwee n th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y an dSI GAviation , LLC , date dJul y 1 , 2002
. 1
. Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y Meetin g Minute s for Marc h22 , 2007
. Exhibi t K Lette r

fromW
. Everett , Attome y for Respondent , t o G
. Barfield , Attome y for Complainant , date dOctobe r 24 , 2007
. Exhibi t LLette r

fromW
. Everett , Attome y for Respondent , t o G
. Barfield , Attome y for Complainant , date dDecembe r 6 , 2007
. Exhibi t M Rule s an dRegulation s for th e operatio n an dus e o f

th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Municipa l Airport

a s adopte do n Septembe r 27 , 2007
. Exhibi t N Lette r

fromG
. Barfield , Attome y for Complainant , t o W
. Everett , Attome y for

Respondent , date dNovembe r 1 , 2007
. Exhibi t O Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y Meetin g Minute s for Januar y 27 , 2005
. Exhibi t PGoldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y Meetin g Minute s for Marc h24 , 2005
. Exhibi t Q Estimate drevenu e fromhangar rental s a t th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Municipa l Airport
. Exhibi t RUnsigne dFixe dBas e Operatio n Agreemen t betwee n th e Goldsboro

Wayn e Airpor t

Authorit y an dSI GAviation , LLC , date dOctobe r 1 , 2007
. Exhibi t S Unsigne dAirport Managemen t

Agreemen t

betwee n th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y an dSI GAviation , LLC , date dOctobe r 1 , 2007
. Exhibi t T Unsigne dLeas e Agreemen t betwee n th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y an dSI GAviation , LLC , date dOctobe r 1 , 200 7 Exhibi t U Lette r

fromS
. Edmundson , o f

th e Nort hCarolin aDepartmen t o f Stat e Treasure r t o C
. Wilkins , Chairma n o f Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authority , date dJun e 7 , 2007
. Exhibi t V N.C
. Gen
. Stat
. § 159-14 9 (2007)
. Exhibi t WN.C
. Gen
. Stat
. § 159-18 1 (2007)
. Exhibi t X Lette r

fromV
. Hick s o f

BB& T t o K
. Bank s o f

th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y date dApri l 25 , 2005
. Resolutio n Approvin g Financia l Terms
. Amortizatio n Schedule
.Exhibi t Y Goldsboro-Wajm e Airpor t Authorit y Meetin g Minute s for Augus t 28 , 200 3 an dSeptembe r

25 , 2003
. Exhibi t ZN.C
. Gen
. Stat
. § 14-23 4 (2007)
. Exhibi t A A Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y Audit

for fiscal year s ende dJun e 30 , 200 6 an d2005
. Exhibi t B B Lette r

fromW
. Everett , Attome y for Respondent , t o G
. Barfield , Attome y for Complainant , date dOctobe r 24 , 2007
. Exhibi t C C Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y operatin g budge t for 2005/2006
. Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y operatin g budge t for 2007/2008
. Goldsboro

Wayn e Airport

Authorit y operatin g budge t for 2006/2007
. Appendi x A Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y Meetin g Minute s for Januar y 11 , 2005 , Januar y 27 , 2005 , Febmar y 24 , 2005 , Marc h24 , 2005 , Apri l 28 , 2005 , Ma y 26 , 2005 , Jun e 23 , 2005 , an dJul y 28 , 2005
. Lette r fromW
. Everett , Attome y for Respondent , t o K
. Larse n date dJul y 25 , 2005
. Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y Meetin g Minute s for

Augus t 25 , 2005 , Septembe r

22 , 2005 , Octobe r

27 , 2005 , Decembe r 1 , 2005 , Januar y 10 , 2006 , Januar y 26 , 2006 , Febmar y 23 , 2006 , Marc h23 , 2006 , Marc h 27 , 2006 , Apri l 27 , 2006 , Ma y 25 , 2006 , Jun e 29 , 2006 , Jul y 11 , 2006 , Jul y 27 , 2006 , Augus t 24 , 2006 , an dSeptembe r 28 , 2006
. Goldsboro-Wayn e Municipa l Airpor t Constmctio n Progres s Meetin g Minute s dates Octobe r 25 , 2006
. Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y Meetin g Minute s for Octobe r 26 , 2006 , Decembe r

7 , 2006 , Januar y 25 , 2007 , Febmar y 22 , 2007 , Febmar y 27 , 2007 , Marc h22 , 2007 , Ma y 15 , 2007 , Ma y 24 , 2007 , Jun e 28 , 2007 , Augus t 23 , 2007 , Septembe r

27 , 2007 , an dOctobe r

16 , 2007
. Appendi x B Lette r

fromW
. Everett , Attome y for Respondent , t o M Baker , Loca l Governmen t

Commission , date dOctobe r 4 , 2007
. Ite m3 Decembe r

3 , 200 8 FA A Notic e o f

Dockete dComplain t

16-08-1 1 Ite m4 Decembe r

3 , 200 8 lette r

fromG
. Barfield , Attome y for Complainant , t o th e FAA' s Offic e o f Chie f Counse l containin g certificat e o f service
. Ite m5 Decembe r

16 , 200 8 lette r

fromW
. Everett , Attome y for th e Respondent , t o th e FAA' s Offic e o f Chie f Coimse l requestin g a

n additional 3 0 day s t o answe r th e complaint
. Ite m6 Decembe r

18 , 200 8 lette r

fromth e FAA' s Offic e o f Chie f Counse l t o W
. Everett , Attome y for

th e Respondent , grantin g th e 3 0 da y extension
. Ite m7 Januar y 26 , 200 9 Answe r an dMotio n t o Dismis s filedb y W
. Everett , P
. Nuesch , an dE
. Lippmann , Attomey s for th e Respondent
.Exhibi t A Affidavi t

o f Clevelan dC
. Wilkins , Chairma n o f th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y date dJanuar y 22 , 2009
. Exhibi t B Affidavi t

o f Jame s A
. Steele , Manage r o f SI GAviation , LLC , date d Januar y 22 , 2009
. Attachmen t

1 Mem o fromJ
. Steel e t o Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y Boar dregardin g revisio n t o Airport Rule s an dRegulation s o n self-fueling
. Attachmen t

2 Lis t o f airport s surveye dfor

comparabl e hanga r

rents . Exhibi t C Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y Meetin g Minute s for Febmar y 22 , 2007
. Exhibi t D Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y Meetin g Minute s fo r Ma y 15 , 2007
. Exhibi t EMem o fromJ
. Steel e t o H
. Everett date dMa y 10 , 2007
. Exhibi t FChart

o f fiiel sal e volume s from200 3 t o 2008
. Exhibi t GElectroni c mai l fromH
. Everett t o B
. Parker , Wayn e Count y Attomey , date dNovembe r

28 , 2007
. Exhibi t H Agreemen t

betwee n Wayn e Count y an dSI GAviation , LL C date dJun e 28 , 2002
. Exhibi t I Hangar

Leas e Agreemen t

betwee n th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y an dSI GAviation , LLC , date dOctobe r 8 , 2007
. Exhibi t J Analysi s o f

hanga r income
. Exhibi t K Lette r

fromLoca l Governmen t Commissio n t o C
. Wilkins , Chairma n o f th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y date dDecembe r 10 , 2007
. Exhibi t LGoldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y Financia l Statement s an d Accountants ' Compilatio n Report date dJun e 30 , 2007
. Exhibi t M Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y Meetin g Minute s for Octobe r 16 , 2007
. Exhibi t N Lette r

fromC
. Wilkins , Chairma n o f th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authority , t o airport

tenants/user s date dMa y 15 , 2005
. Exhibi t O Drawing s depictin g airport termina l an dairport
. Exhibi t PAirport

Layou t Pla n date dApri l 2006 , Rev
. No
. 3 (January 2009 )V - 8

Exhibi t Q Airport

Managemen t

Agreemen t

betwee n th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y an dWayn e Aviatio n date dAugus t 24 , 2000
. Exhibi t RLette r

fromT
. Britt , Easter n Aviatio n t o C
. Wilkins , Chairma n o f th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authority , date dMa y 7 , 2007
. Exhibi t S Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y Meetin g Minute s for Decembe r

6 , 2007
. Exhibi t T Lette r

fromW
. Everett , Attome y for Respondent , t o G
. Barfield , Attome y fo r Complainant , date dOctobe r 24 , 2007
. Ite m8 Febmar y 9 , 200 9 lette r fromG
. Barfield , Attome y for Complainant , t o th e FAA' s Offic e o f Chie f Counse l requestin g an extensio n t o Febmar y 28 , 200 9 t o repl y t o th e Respondent' s Answe r

an dMotio n t o Dismiss
. Ite m9 Febmar y 10 , 200 9 lette r fromth e FAA' s Offic e o f Chie f Counse l t o G
. Barfield , Attome y for

th e Complainant , grantin g an extensio n throug hFebmar y 28 , 2009
. Ite mlOMarc h2 , 200 9 Repl y filedb y Glen n A
. Barfield , Attome y for Complainant , o n behal f

o f Delber t Johnso n d/b/ aTw o Dog s Aviation
. Exhibi t A Descriptio n o f

Easte mAviatio n Insuranc e Service s title d"Abou t Us " fromcompany' s website
. Exhibi t B Descriptio n o f

Easte mAviatio n Fuels , Inc
. title d"Corporat e History " fromcompany' s website
. Exhibi t C Descriptio n o f

SI GAviation' s fue

l service s fromcompany' s websit e printe do n Marc h2 , 2009
. Exhibi t D Apri l 24 , 200 7 electroni c mai l fromO
. KeesHn g t o D
. Johnson
. Exhibi t EApri l 24 , 200 7 electroni c mai l fromJ
. Steel e t o D
. Johnson
. Exhibi t FMa y 10 , 200 7 electroni c mai l fromT
. Gurle y t o D
. Johnson
. Exhibi t GNovembe r

26 , 200 7 electroni c mai l fromH
. Everet t t o D
. Johnson
. Exhibi t H Febmar y 22 , 200 9 electroni c mai l fromJ
. Steel e t o D
. Johnson
. Exhibi t I- l Novembe r

8 , 200 7 electroni c mai l G
. Barfield , Attome y for Complainant , t o W
. Everett , Attome y fo r Respondent
.Exhibi t 1- 2 Lette r

fromG
. Barfield , Attome y fo r Complainant , t o W
. Everett , Attome y fo

r Respondent , date dNovembe r 9 , 2007
. Exhibi t J SI GAviation' s webpag e title d"Welcom e t o SI GAviation " printe do n Marc h2 , 2009
. Exhibi t K Descriptio n o f

SI GAviation' s personne l fromcompany' s websit e printe d o n Marc h2 , 2009
. Exhibi t LCop y o f

Bland , Heekin , Smith , Stricklan d& Stanley , PLL C Tms t Accoun t Chec k Numbe r 1058 1 t o th e Goldsbor o Wayn e Airport Authorit y fo

r $6,00 0 o n Jun e 26 , 2008
. Exhibi t M Apri l 2 , 200 8 electroni c mai l fromD
. Johnso n t o L
. Young
. Exhibi t N Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y Genera l Ledge r date dNovembe r

30 , 2007
. Ite mllMarc h16 , 200 9 Rebutta l filedb y W
. Everett , P
. Niiesch , an dE
. Lippmarm , Attomey s for th e Respondent
. Exhibi t A Affidavi t

o f Ott o H
. Keesling , Membe r o f th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y an dChai r

o f th e Authority' s Building s an dGround s Committee , date dMarc h 12,2009
. Exhibi t B Affidavi t

o f Davi dE
. Gurley , III , Principa l o f Gurle y Engineering , Inc. , date dMarc h12 , 2009
. Exhibi t C Affidavi t

o f Jame s A
. Steele , Manage r o f SI GAviation , LLC , date d Marc h12 , 2009
. Ite m12FA A Form501 0 "Airpor t Maste r Record " for

th e Airport , Date : Marc h12 , 2009
. Ite mIBTwo Dog s Aviation' s Websit e pag e title d"Welcom e t o Tw o Dog s Aviation! " printe do n Marc h24 , 2009
. Ite m14Reques t

for Additiona l Informatio n an dNotic e o f Extensio n o f

Time , date dMa y 18 , 2009
. Ite m1 5 Jun e 11 , 200 9 Repl y t o Reques t for Additiona l Informatio n fromComplainan t for Delber t Johnso n d/b/ aTwo Dog s Aviatio n v . Goldsbor o Wayn e Airpor t Authority , ¥A A Docke t No
. 16-08-11
. Submissio n include dth e followin g exhibits : Exhibi t A Tabl e listin g section s o f Minimu mStandard s Complainan t believe s shoul d b e waived
.\
. 2

Ite m1 6 Jun e 16 , 200 9 Repl y t o Reques t fo r Additiona l hiformatio n fromResponden t fo r Delber t Johnso n d/b/ aTwo Dog s Aviatio n v . Goldsbor o Wayn e Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t No
. 16-08-11
. Ite m1 7 Jun e 26 , 200 9 Lette r fromP
. Niiesch , Attome y for Respondent , t o th e FAA' s Offic e o f Airpor t Compliance
. Ite m1 8 Notic e o f

Extensio n o f

Time , date dAugus t

3 , 2009
. Ite m1 9 Lette r

date dJul y 6 , 2009 , fromG
. Barfield , attome y for Complainant , t o FAA' s Offic e o f th e Chie f Counsel , providin g adocumen t t o supplemen t

Complainant' s Repl y t o Reques t fo r Additiona l Informatio n date dJun e 11 , 2009
. Exhibi t A Lette r

fromJ
. Steel e statin g th e cessatio n o f SI GAviatio n LL C a s th e airpor t FB O an dAirpor t

Manager , date dJun e 30 , 2009
. Ite m2 0 Lette r

date dJul y 27 , 2009 , fromG
. Barfield , attome y for Complainant , t o FAA' s Offic e o f th e Chie f Counsel , providin g document s t o supplemen t Complainant' s Repl y t o Reques t fo r Additiona l Informatio n date dJun e 11 , 2009
. Exhibi t A Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y Meetin g Minute s for Decembe r

4 , 2008
. Exhibi t B Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y Meetin g Minute s for Febmar y 26 , 2009
. Ite m2 1 Lette r

date dAugus t

13 , 200 9 fromW
. Everett , attome y for Respondent , t o FAA' s Offic e o f th e Chie f Counsel , providin g document s t o supplemen t Respondent' s filings. Exhibi t A Affidavi t

o f Ott o H
. Keesling , Chairma n o f th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authority , date dAugus t

13 , 2009
. Exhibi t B Lette r

fromJ
. Steel e t o C
. Wilkin s date dJun e 8 , 2009
. Exhibi t C News-Argu s newspape r article , "Managemen t

grou p wil l dro p operatio n o f count y airport " date dJul y 14 , 2009
. Exhibi t D Lette r

fromW
. Smitht o O
. Keeslin g date dAugus t 5 , 2009
. Exhibi t EAirport

Managemen t

Agreemen t

betwee n th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y an dWayn e Count y date dAugus t 5 , 2009
. Exhibi t FFixe dBas e Operatio n Agreemen t betwee n th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y an dWayn e Count y date dAugus t 5 , 2009
.t ^
. 2

Exhibi t GLeas e Agreemen t

betwee n th e Goldsboro-Wajm e Airport Authorit y an d Wayn e Count y date dAugus t 5 , 2009
. Ite m2 2 Lette r

date dMarc h17 , 2009 , fromG
. Barfield , attome y for Complainant , t o FAA' s Offic e o f th e Chie f Counsel , providin g an documen t t o supplemen t

Complainant' s filings. Exhibi t A Affidavf

t o f Delbert Johnson , Complainant , date dMarc h12 , 2009
. Ite m2 3 Lette r

date dSeptembe r

3 , 200 9 fromfro mG
. Barfield , attome y for Complainant , t o FAA' s Offic e o f

th e Chie f Counse l providin g document s t o supplemen t Respondent' s filings. Exhibi t A Lette r

fromW
. Smitht o O
. Keeslin g date dAugus t 5 , 2009
. Exhibi t B Fixe dBas e Operatio n Agreemen t betwee n th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y an dWayn e Count y date dAugus t 5 , 2009
. Exhibi t C Airport

Managemen t

Agreemen t

betwee n th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y an dWayn e Count y date dAugus t 5 , 2009
. Exhibi t D Lette r

fromG
. Barfiel dt o W
. Everett date dJul y 6 , 2009
. Exhibi t EFax cove r

pag e fromW
. Everett

t o G
. Barfiel ddate dJul y 14 , 2009
. Ite m2 4 Lette r

date dSeptembe r

8 , 200 9 fromW
. Everett , attome y fo r Respondent , t o FAA' s Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l providin g document s t o supplemen t Respondent' s filings. Exhibi t A Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y Meetin g Minute s for Augus t 10 , 2009
. Exhibi t B Lette r

fromW
. Everett

t o G
. Barfiel ddate dSeptembe r 8 , 2009
. Ite m2 5 Notic e o f

Extensio n o f

Time , date dSeptembe r

16 , 2009
. Ite m2 6 Notic e o f

Extensio n o f

Time , date dOctobe r

5 , 2009
.CERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E

I HEREB Y CERTIF Y that o n C)Ck)hZQ. ^ J^dli l cause dt o b e place di n th e Unite dState s mai l (firs t clas s mail , postag e paid) , atm e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

addresse dto : Glen n A
. Barfiel d Pos t Offic e Drawe r

7 Goldsboro , N C 27533-000 7 (919 ) 735-642 0

Counse l for

Complainan t W
. Harrel l Everett , Jr
. Everett , Womble , Lawrenc e & Brown , LL P 50 7 B Nort hSpenc e Avenu e Goldsboro , N C 2753 2 (919 ) 778-670 7 Pabl o O
. Nuesc h Elain e C Lippmarm Spiegel & McDiarmid , LL P 133 3 Ne w Hampshir e Ave. , N W Washington , D C 2000 5

Counse l for

Responden t
FA A Par t 1 6 Airpor t

Proceeding s Docke t Airport s Complianc e Division , ACO-lO O Southe mRegio n Airport s Division , ASO-60 0 Atlant aAirport s Distric t

Offic e

o f Airport Compliance , FA A