U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Off,ice of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Shelley A. Ewalt 

McBreen & Kopko 

500 North Broadway 

Jericho, NY 11753 

Mr. Peter Edwards 

602 South Main Street 

Joplin, MO 64801 

Dear Ms. Ewalt and Mr. Edwards: 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Re: R.L.S. Rental Company, Inc., d/b/a Mizzou Aviation v. Joplin Regional Airport, City of 

Joplin, Missouri, FAA Docket No. 16-13-06 

Enclosed is a copy of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Director's Determination with 

respect to the above-referenced matter finding the Joplin Regional Airport, Missouri, not in violation 

of its Federal obligations with respect to this complaint. The reasons for the finding of compliance 

are set forth in the enclosed Director's Determination. 

The Director's Determination does not constitute a Final Agency Decision and order subject to 

judicial review. [14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 16.247(b)(2)] A party adversely affected 

by the Director's Determination once issued may appeal the initial determination to the FAA 

Associate Administrator for Airports pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.33(c) within 30 days after the service 

of the Director's Determination. 

Sincerely, 

---;u.- k- //(bnf 

Robin K. Hunt 

Acting Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 10, 2016, I caused to be placed in the United States mail 

(first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of this cover letter, addressed to: 

For Complainant 

Shelley A. Ewalt 

McBreen & Kopko 

500 North Broadway 

Jericho, NY 11753 

For Respondent 

Mr. Peter Edwards 

602 South Main Street 

Joplin, MO 6480 I 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0- 100 

Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL A VIA TI ON ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

R.L.S. Rental Company, Inc., 

d/b/a Mizzou Aviation 

v. 

City of Joplin, Missouri, 

COMPLAINANT 

Docket No. 16-13-06 

RESPONDENT 

DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on a complaint filed 

under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 161 against the City of Joplin 

Missouri (City/Respondent) regarding its management of the Joplin Regional Airport (Airport), a 

federally obligated airport, owned and operated by the City. 

R.L.S. Rental Company, Inc., d/b/a Mizzou Aviation (RLS/Complainant) filed a complaint 

alleging the City violated its federal obligations imposed by 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 

§ 40103(e) and§ 47107(a)(1), and FAA Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, and 

Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights. The Complainant contends the City failed to equally 

enforce the Airport's minimum standards for Fixed Base Operators (FB0),

2 and alleges the City 

is in violation of its federal grant obligations by allowing a competitor, Alpha Air Center, LLC 

(Alpha Air) to emerge and continue to operate, despite not meeting minimum standards.3 

1 

Enforcement procedures regarding airport compliance matters may be found at FAA Rules of Practice for Federally Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings {14 CFR Part 16). These enforcement procedures were published in the Federal Register {61 

FR 53998, October 16, 1996) and became effective on December 16, 1996. These enforcement procedures were updated on 

September 12, 2013, effective November 12, 2013 (See 78 FR 56135), however, as this complaint was filed before the effective 

date of the updated Part 16 rules, it will be a,djudicated under the previously published rules. 

2 A fixed-base operator {FBO) is a commercial entity providing aeronautical services such as fueling, maintenance, storage, 

ground and flight instruction, etc., to the public. 3 Exhibit 1, Item l, page 2, para 4. 

1 
Regarding the allegations presented in this complaint, under the specific circumstances at the 

Airport as discussed below and based on the evidence of record in this proceeding, the Director 

finds the City is currently in compliance with Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, 

and Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights. The Director's decision in this matter is based on 

applicable Federal law and FAA policy, as well as the Director's review of the pleadings and 

supporting documentation submitted by the parties, which comprises the administrative record 

contained in the attached FAA Exhibits 1-10. 

II. PARTIES 

Airport 

The Joplin Regional Airport (JLN/Airport) is a public-use, non-hub commercial service airport 

owned and operated by the City of Joplin, Missouri (City, or Respondent). The 970-acre airport 

is located four miles north of the City.4 The Airport has 23,329 annual enplanements,5 26,822 

annual operations, and 113 based aircraft. 

6 The development of the Airport was financed, in 

part, with FAA Airport and Improvement Program (AIP) funding, authorized by the Airport and 

Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 47101, et seq.7 Under the provisions 

of this Act, the sponsor is obligated to comply with the FAA sponsor grant assurances and 

related Federal law, 49 U.S.C. § 47107. Since 1983, the City has accepted 31 grants totaling 

$33,344,336, for various improvements at the Airport. The City received its last Federal grant in 

2015 for $457,399 to construct a taxiway.

8 

Complainant 

R.L.S. Rental Company, Inc., d/b/a Mizzou Aviation (RLS), is an existing FBO at JLN. The 

business has been in existence since 1961 and provides aircraft fueling, air charter, aircraft 

maintenance, and flight training. 

9 

III. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

A. Background 

Alpha Air Center, LLC 

While not a party to the formal complaint, Alpha Air Center, LLC (Alpha Air) is another FBO 

operating at the Airport since 2011 , and the primary competitor to the Complainant. Alpha Air is 

involved in this complaint because Complainant contends that Alpha Air does not meet the 

4 Exhibit 9, Item 1. 5 Passenger Boarding (Enplanement) and All-Cargo Data for U.S. Airports 2013 at 

http://www.faa.gov/a irports/pla n ning_ca pacity/passenger _a II cargo _stats/passenger/index.cfm ?year=2013. 6 Exhibit 9, Item 1. 7 

The Airport Improvement Program {AIP) provides grants to public agencies - and, in some cases, to private owners and 

entities - for the planning and development of public-use airports that are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport 

Systems (NPIAS). Joplin Regional Airport (JLN) is in the NPIAS. 8 Exhibit 9, Item 2. 9 Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 1, para 1. 

2 
Airport's existing minimum standards10 set forth by the City's Airport Use and Operating 

Agreement.

11 

The Complainant (RLS) has operated as a full service FBO at JLN continuously since 1961. 12 In 

2009, Jeff Asbell, a private hangar tenant, formed Alpha Air for the purpose of operating an FBO 

at the Airport. 13 Shortly after learning of Alpha Air's intentions to operate a second FBO at the 

Airport, RLS voiced concerns that "it would be unfair and discriminatory to allow Alpha Air to 

sell fuel at the Airport without a basis to evaluate whether Alpha Air was qualified to do so." 14 

RLS states that it urged the City to create minimum standards for commercial businesses selling 

fuel at the Airport. Complainant (RLS) also contended that it would be unjustly discriminatory 

for the City to allow a new FBO to primarily sell fuel without being required to offer the other 

services required of the incumbent FB0. 15 

On November 22, 2010, RLS filed a 14 CFR Part 13 informal complaint (Exhibit 10, Item 7)16 

with Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), alleging economic discrimination by the 

City. 17 RLS stated that the informal complaint was a result of inadequate responses by the City 

regarding the development and implementation of minimum standards at JLN. 18 

On October 17, 2011, Joplin City Council voted to approve Alpha Air to operate as an FBO at 

the airport. 19 According to the record, on October 21, 2011, RLS filed a second 14 CFR Part 13 

informal complaint with MoDOT alleging that the submission provided by Alpha Air is an 

incomplete proposal and does not follow airport sponsor guidelines. 20 

On November 1, 2011, in an email directed to the Airport Advisory Board, the Joplin Regional 

Airport Manager stated that all FBO applicants would be required to meet the minimum 

standards.21 Additionally, the Airport Manager requested that both the Complainant and Alpha 

10 Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 2, para 4. 11 Exhibit l, Item 1, Exhibit 6. 12 Exhibit 1, Item 1, para 1, para 53. 13 Exhibit 1, Item 1, para 33. 14 Exhibit l, Item 1, para 34. 15 Exhibit l, Item 1, para 34. 16 Under 14 CFR § 13.1: 

(a) Any person who knows of a violation of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, the Hazardous Materials 

Transportation Act relating to the transportation or shipment by air of hazardous materials, the Airport and Airway 

Development Act of 1970, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act 

of 1982 as amended by the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, or any rule, regulation, or 

order issued thereunder, should report it to appropriate personnel of any FAA regional or district office. 

(b) Each report made under this section, together w ith any other information the FAA may have that is relevant to the 

matter reported, will be reviewed by FAA personnel to determine the nature and type of any additional investigation 

or enforcement action the FAA will take. (]. 17 

Exhibit 10, Item, 7, Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit A, and Exhibit 10, Item 6. Because Missouri is a State Block Grant state, the FAA 

has delegated to MoDOT (Missouri Department of Transportation) several oversight functions, including the handing of 

informal complaints under 14 CFR Part 13. 18Exhibit 10, Item, 7, exhibit 1, Item 1, para 35. 19 Exhibit 1, Item 1, para 37. 20 Exhibit 10, Item 8 21 Exhibit l, Item 1, Para 40 and Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3. 

3 
Air complete an "FBO Compliance Form," a questionnaire produced by the City to ensure that 

all FBOs would meet the newly drafted minimum standards.22 RLS claims to have submitted 

these documents sometime in November 2011.23 In a letter dated January 19, 2012, the Airport 

acknowledges that Alpha Air had in fact submitted these documents.24 

On December 7, 2011 , MoDOT responded to the October 21, 2011 Part 13 Complaint, providing 

its position regarding the open informal complaints. In summary, the MoDOT letter advised that 

the existing Airport Use and Operating Agreement contained the minimum standards for any 

entrant desiring to become an FBO. The letter further stated that as long as an FBO enters into 

this agreement, the Mo DOT "does not see a further need to pursue this issue. "25 On January 19, 

2012, the Airport Manager issued a "conditional" approval to Alpha Air to provide FBO services 

on the airport. 

26 

On February 4, 2012, Alpha Air filed a Pre-Application Statement of Intent (P ASI) with the 

Kansas City Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) for a 14 CFR Part 135 Air Carrier 

Certificate.

27 The PAS! documentation included a note by the FSDO stating that Alpha Air 

intended to apply for an approved pilot school certificate at a later date. 28 

On April 16, 2012, the Kansas City FSDO notified Alpha Air that due to budgetary issues, the air 

carrier certificate application was on hold and could not be considered prior to October 2012.29 

On January 9, 2013, in a follow-up action to a pre-application meeting from January 8, 2013, the 

FSDO directed Alpha Air to submit all documents necessary to proceed with the certification 

process.30 

It would appear that between January 2013 and May 2013, Alpha Air had submitted the required 

air carrier certification documentation to the Kansas City FSDO. This is because as part of an 

email exchange on May 16, 2013, Alpha Air had asked the FSDO to provide a follow-up to a 

previous phone conversation, for the purpose of documenting the existing status of the air carrier 

application.31 This forwarded email, was provided to the City by Alpha Air on July 16, 2013, in 

response to a request for a status update. 32 

On July 19, 2013, Alpha Air forwarded a response from the National Site Manager of PSI 

Services, LLC (a contractor supporting FAA airman testing activities) to the City. This 

correspondence indicated that PSI was unable to open any new FAA test sites due to the 

government sequestration event occurring at the time.33 Even though the minimum standards did 

22 Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1 and 2. 23 Exhibit 1, Item 1, Para 42. 24 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit D 25 Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 4. 26 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit D. 27 Exhibit 5, Item 1, Exhibit 2. 28 Exhibit 5, Item 1, Exhibit 1. 29 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit B, page 3. 30 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit B, page 4. 31 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit B, page 7. 32 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit B, page 5. 33 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit B, page 11. 

4 
not require an FBO applicant to offer FAA airmen testing, Alpha Air claimed it provided this 

information as evidence that it was attempting to establish its flight training department.34 

On July 11, 2013, RLS emailed the City alleging that the City was in violation of its Federal 

obligations.35 In its response to RLS on August 6, 2013, the City notified RLS that it had 

"determined that Alpha is, in good faith, [was] trying to obtain the required certificates, but is 

working on the FAA' s schedule. The holdup seems to be from the FAA. As a result, the City 

does not, at this time, think that it is being discriminatory to [RLS]. "36 

On September 7, 2013, the then president of Alpha Air was killed in an accident.37 On 

September 18, 2013, RLS filed the 14 CFR Part 16 Formal Complaint.38 Alpha Air indicates 

that on November 4, 2013, they met with the Kansas City FSDO regarding the 14 CFR Part 135 

air carrier certificate. 39 During this meeting Alpha Air informed the FAA that as a result of the 

president's death, they were now going to utilize the former president's personal aircraft on their 

requested Part 135 certificate.

40 On May 19, 2014, the Kansas City FSDO issued Alpha Air an 

Air Carrier Certificate (FAA Form 8430-18) for its Part 135 operations.41 

On July 25, 2014, the Kansas City FSDO sent a letter to Alpha Air acknowledging receipt of 

their July 7, 2014, application for Pilot School Certification (under 14 CFR Part 141).

42 

On November 25, 2014, the application was moved internally in the FSDO from the wait-list to 

the pre-application phase, and an inquiry on January 8, 2015, revealed that the application was 

still under review by the FSDO. 43 On June 12, 2015, Alpha Air received approval for its Part 

141 Pilot School certificate (for private pilot certification), from the Kansas City FSDO. The 

certificate expires on June 30, 2017.44 

B. Procedural History 

On September 19, 2013, FAA received the formal complaint (Complaint) filed under 14 CFR 

Part 16.45 

On October 22, 2013, FAA docketed the Complaint as FAA Docket No. 16-13-06.46 

On November 13, 2013, FAA received Respondent's Answer to Complainant's Complaint.

47 

34 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit B, email dated July 19, 2013. 35 

This email (Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit B, page 14) references "a letter," purported to have been sent to the FAA. The parties did 

not submit this letter in their pleadings, so it is not included in the administrative record of the formal complaint. 36 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit B, page 14. 37 Exhibit 1, Item 1, para 50. 38 Exhibit 2, Item 1. 39 Exhibit 6, Item 1, Exhibit B 40 Exhibit 6, Item 1, Exhibit B. 41 Exhibit 7, Item 1, Exhibit A. 42 Exhibit 7, Item 2, Exhibit A and Exhibit 10, Item 9. 43 Exhibit 9, Item 3. 44 Exhibit 10, Item 7, Exhibit 9, Item 4. 45 Exhibit 1, Item 1. 46 Exhibit 2, Item 1. 

5 
On November 19, 2013, FAA received Complainant's Motion for Extension of Time to Submit 

Reply, dated November 18, 2013.48 

On December 6, 2013, FAA received Complainant's Reply and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, 

dated December 5, 2013.49 

On A~ril 14, 2014, FAA received Complainant's Motion to Admit Material Facts, dated April 9, 

2014. o 

On May 2, 2014, FAA issued a Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to August J, 2014.51 

On June 23, 2014, FAA received Respondent's Motion to Supplement, dated June 16, 2014.52 

On July 21, 2014, FAA issued a Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to October 31, 2014.53 

On August 12, 2014, FAA received Respondent's Motion to Supplement, dated August 4, 2014.54 

On November 13, 2014, FAA issued a Notice of Extension ofTimefor issuance of Director's 

Determination to February 13, 2015.

55 

On February 18, 2015, FAA issued a Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to April 14, 2015.

56 

On March 11 , 2015, FAA issued a Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to April 14, 2015.

57 

On April 17, 2015, FAA issued a Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to June 15, 2015.58 

On July 30, 2015, FAA issued a Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to September 30, 2015.59 

47 Exhibit 3, Item 1. 48 Exhibit 4, Item 1. 49 Exhibit 5, Item 1. 

so Exhibit 6, Item 1. 51 Exhibit 8, Item 1. 52 Exhibit 7, Item l. 53 IExhibit 8, Item 2. 54 Exhibit 7, Item 2. 

SS Exhibit 8, Item 3. 56 Exhibit 8, Item 4. 57 Exhibit 8, Item 5, Document appears to be duplicative error to Exhibit 8, Item 4. 58 Exhibit 8, Item 6. 59 Exhibit 8, Item 7. 

6 
On September 28, 2015, FAA issued a Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to November 30, 2015.60 

On December 3, 2015, FAA issued a Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to January 14, 2016.61 

On February 3, 2015, FAA issued a Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to April 1, 2016.62 

On July 15, 2015, FAA received Respondent's Second Motion to Supplement, dated, 

July 6, 2015.63 

On April 4, 2016, FAA issued a Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to May 28, 2016.64 

Upon review of the allegations and the relevant airport-specific circumstances summarized 

above, the Director has determined that the following issues require analysis to provide a 

complete review of the Respondent's compliance with applicable Federal law and policy: 

• Issue 1 - Whether the City's actions concerning Alpha Air's FBO operations at JLN, 

including the manner in which it applied minimum standards, are in violation of 

Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination. 

• Issue 2 - Whether the City's actions concerning Alpha Air's FBO operations at JLN, 

including the manner in which it applied minimum standards, granted an exclusive 

right to Alpha Air in violation of Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights. 

IV. APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW AND FAA POLICY 

A. FAA Enforcement Responsibilities 

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 40101 , et seq., assigns the FAA 

Administrator broad responsibilities for the regulation of air commerce in the interests of safety, 

security, and development of civil aeronautics. The Federal role in encouraging and developing 

civil aviation has been augmented by various legislative actions, which authorize programs for 

providing funds and other assistance to local communities for the development of airport 

facilities. In each such program, the airport sponsor assumes certain obligations, either by 

contract or by restrictive covenants in property deeds and conveyance instruments, to maintain 

and operate its airport facilities safely, efficiently, and in accordance with specified conditions. 

Commitments assumed by airport sponsors in property conveyance or grant agreements are 

important factors in maintaining a high degree of safety and efficiency in airport design, 

60 IExhi bit 8, Item 8. 61 Exhibit 8, Item 9. 62 Exhibit 8, Item 10. 63 Exhibit 7, Item 3. 64 Exhibit 8, Item 11. 

7 
construction, operation, and maintenance, as well as ensuring the public reasonable access to the 

airport. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 47122, the FAA has a statutory mandate to ensure that airport 

owners comply with their grant assurances. 

B. FAA Airport Compliance Program 

The FAA discharges its responsibility for ensuring that airport sponsors comply with their 

Federal obligations through its Airport Compliance Program. Sponsor obligations are the basis 

for the FAA's airport compliance effort. The airport owner accepts these obligations when 

receiving Federal grant funds or when accepting the transfer of Federal property for airport 

purposes. The FAA incorporates these obligations in grant agreements and instruments of 

conveyance to protect the public's interest in civil aviation and to ensure compliance with 

Federal laws. The FAA designed the Airport Compliance Program to ensure the availability of a 

national system of safe and properly maintained public-use airports that airport sponsors operate 

in a manner consistent with their Federal obligations and the public's interest in civil aviation. 

The Airport Compliance Program does not control or direct the operation of airports. Rather, it 

monitors the administration of valuable rights, which airport sponsors pledge to the people of the 

United States in exchange for monetary grants and donations of Federal property, to ensure that 

airport sponsors serve the public interest. 

FAA Order 5190.68, FAA Airport Compliance Manual, September 30, 2009, (Order) sets forth 

policies and procedures for the FAA Airport Compliance Program. The Order establishes the 

policies and procedures for FAA personnel to follow in carrying out the F AA's responsibilities 

for ensuring airport compliance. It provides guidance for FAA personnel in interpreting and 

administering the various continuing commitments airport owners make to the United States as a 

condition for the grant of Federal funds or the conveyance of Federal property for airport 

purposes. The Order, inter alia, analyzes the various obligations set forth in the standard airport 

sponsor assurances, addresses the application of the assurances in the operation of public-use 

airports, and facilitates interpretation of the assurances by FAA personnel. 

Therefore, in addressing allegations of noncompliance, the FAA will make a determination as to 

whether an airport sponsor is currently in compliance with the applicable Federal obligations. 

Consequently, "the FAA will consider the successful action by the airport to cure any alleged or 

potential past violation of applicable Federal obligation to be grounds for dismissal of such 

allegations. "65 

C. Statutes, Sponsor Assurances, and Relevant Policies 

As a condition precedent to providing airport development assistance under the Airport and 

Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA), codified at Title 49 U.S.C. § 47101, et seq., the 

Secretary of Transportation receives certain assurances from the airport sponsor. The AAIA, 49 

U.S.C. § 47101, et seq., sets forth assurances to which an airport sponsor receiving Federal 

financial assistance must agree as a condition precedent to receipt of such assistance. These 

sponsorship requirements are included in every airport improvement program (AlP) grant 

65 Wilson Air Center v. Memphis and Shelby County Airport Authority, FAA Final Agency Decision and Order, Docket No. 16-99-

10, (August 30, 2001) page 5. 

8 
agreement. Upon acceptance of an AIP grant by an airport sponsor, the assurances become a 

binding obligation between the airport sponsor and the Federal goverrunent. The following grant 

assurances apply to the specific circumstances of this complaint: 

D. Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination 

The owner of any airport developed with Federal grant assistance is required to operate the 

airport for the use and benefit of the public and to make it available to all types, kinds, and 

classes of aeronautical activity on fair and reasonable terms, and without unjust discrimination. 

Federal Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination deals with both the reasonableness of 

airport access and the prohibition of adopting unjustly discriminatory conditions as a potential 

for limiting access. Grant Assurance 22 of the prescribed sponsor assurances implements the 

provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a) (1) through (6), and requires, in pertinent part: 

a) [The airport owner or sponsor] will make the airport available as an airport for public use 

on reasonable terms, and without unjust discrimination, to all types, kinds, and classes of 

aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to 

the public at the airport. 66 

b) In any agreement, contract, lease, or other arrangement under which a right or privilege at 

the airport is granted to any person, firm, or corporation to conduct or to engage in any 

aeronautical activity for furnishing services to the public at the airport, the sponsor will 

insert and enforce provisions requiring the contractor to 1) furnish said services on a 

reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory basis to all users thereof, and 2) charge 

reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, prices for each unit or service, provided that 

the contractor may be allowed to make reasonable and nondiscriminator;,>; discounts, 

rebates, or other similar types of price reductions to volume purchasers. 7 

c) Each fixed-base operator at the airport shall be subject to the same rates, fees, rentals, and 

other charges as are uniformly applicable to all other fixed-base operators making the 

same or similar uses of such airport and using the same or similar facilities. 68 

d) Each air carrier using such airport shall be subject to such nondiscriminatory and 

substantially comparable rules, regulations, conditions, rates, fees, rentals, and other 

charges with respect to facilities directly and substantially related to providing air 

transportation as are applicable to all such air carriers that make similar use of such 

airport and use similar facilities, subject to reasonable classifications such as tenants or 

non-tenants and signatory carriers and non-signatory carriers. Classification or status as 

tenant or signatory shall not be unreasonably withheld by any airport provided an air 

carrier assumes obligations substantially similar to those already imposed on air carriers 

in such classification or status. 

69 

66 Assurance 22(a). 67 Assurance 22(b). 68 Assurance 22(c). 69 Assurance 22(e). 

9 
e) [The airport sponsor] will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to 

prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the airport from performing 

any services on its own aircraft with its own employees (including, but not limited to 

maintenance, repair and fueling) that it may choose to perfonn. 70 

f) In the event the sponsor itself exercises any of the rights and privileges referred to in this 

assurance, the services involved will be provided on the same conditions as would apply 

to the furnishing of such services by commercial aeronautical service providers 

authorized by the sponsor under these provisions.71 

g) [The airport sponsor] may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, 

conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and 

efficient operation of the airport. 

72 

h) [The airport sponsor] may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical 

use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe oieration of the airport or 

necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public." 

Order 5190.6B describes the sponsor's responsibilities under Grant Assurance 22 assumed by the 

owners or sponsor of public use airports developed with Federal assistance. Among these is the 

obligation to treat in a uniform manner those users making the same or similar use of the airport 

and to make all airport facilities and services available on reasonable terms without unjust 

discrimination. 74 

E. Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights 

Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights, (Assurance 23) implements the provisions of 49 U.S.C. §§ 

40103(e) and 47107(a) (4), and states, in pertinent part, that the owner or sponsor of a federally 

obligated airport: 

" .. . will permit no exclusive right for the use of the airport by any persons providing, or 

intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public." 

" ... will not, either directly or indirectly, grant or permit any person, firm, or corporation, 

the exclusive right at the airport to conduct any aeronautical activities .. . " 

" .. . will terminate any exclusive right to conduct an aeronautical activity now existing at 

such an airport before the grant of any assistance under Title 49 United States Code." 

In Order 5190.68, the FAA discusses its exclusive rights policy and broadly identifies 

aeronautical activities as subject to the statutory prohibition against exclusive rights. While 

public-use airports may impose qualifications and minimum standards upon those who engage in 

70 Assurance 22(f). 71 Assurance 22(g). 72 Assurance 22(h). 73 Assurance 22(i). 74 Order 5190.66, Chapter 9.1. 

10 
aeronautical activities, FAA has taken the position that the application of any unreasonable 

requirement or any standard that is applied in an unjustly discriminatory manner may constitute 

the constructive grant of an exclusive right. Courts have found the grant of an exclusive right 

where a significant burden has been placed on one competitor that is not placed on another. 

75 An 

owner or sponsor is under no obligation, however, to permit aircraft owners to introduce onto the 

airport equipment, personnel, or practices which would be unsafe, unsightly, detrimental to the 

public welfare, or which would affect the efficient use of airport facilities. 76 

Leasing all available airport land and improvements planned for aeronautical activities to one 

enterprise will be construed as evidence of intent to exclude others unless it can be demonstrated 

that the entire leased area is presently required and will be immediately used to conduct the 

activities contemplated by the lease. 77 FAA Order 5190.68 provides additional guidance on the 

application of the statutory prohibition against exclusive rights and FAA policy regarding 

exclusive rights at public-use airports. 78 

F. Minimum Standards 

Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5190-7, Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities 

(August 28, 2006) provides basic information pertaining to the F AA's recommendations on 

commercial minimum standards and related policies. Although minimum standards are optional, 

the FAA highly recommends their use and implementation as a means to minimize the potential 

for violations of Federal obligations at federally obligated airports. In accordance with U.S.C. 

§ 47101, et seq., and the AIP Sponsor Assurances, the owner or operator of any airport that has 

been developed or improved with Federal grant assistance or conveyances of Federal property 

assistance is required to operate the airport for the use and benefit of the public and to make it 

available for all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity. 

These Federal obligations involve several distinct requirements. Most important is that the airport 

and its facilities must be available for public use as an airport. 79 The FAA suggests that airport 

sponsors establish reasonable minimum standards that are relevant to the proposed aeronautical 

activity with the goal of protecting the level and quality of services offered to the public. Once the 

airport sponsor has established minimum standards, it should apply them objectively and uniformly 

to all similarly situated on-airport aeronautical service providers. 80 

The FAA recommends the development of minimum standards to promote safety in all airport 

activities, protect airport users from unlicensed and unauthorized products and services, maintain 

and enhance the availability of adequate services for all airport users, promote the orderly 

development of airport land, and ensure efficiency of operations.81 Therefore, airport sponsors 

should strive to develop minimum standards that are fair and reasonable to all on-airport 

75 See, e.g., City of Pompano Beach v FAA, 774 F2d 1529, 1544 (11th Cir, 1985). 76 Order 5190.68 Section 11.5.c. 77 Order 5190.68 Section 8.9.d Space Limitation. 78 See Order 5190.68 Chapter 8, Exclusive Rights, generally. 79 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a). 80 The failure to do so may result in a violation of the prohibition against exclusive rights and/or a finding of unjust economic 

discrimination for imposing unreasonable terms and conditions for airport use. (AC150/5190-7, Para 1.1). 81 Advisory Circular AC 150/5190-7, Para 1.2 

11 
aeronautical service providers and relevant to the aeronautical activity to which it is applied. 82 In 

past decisions, the FAA has found that it is not a violation of grant assurances for airport sponsors 

to increase minimum standards. 

The FAA recognizes that frequent changes in an airport's minimum standards may lead to the 

appearance of manipulating the standards to protect the interest of one or a few businesses at the 

expense of others. 83 It is through the sponsor's objective and uniform application of its 

minimum standards that allows it to meet the standard of compliance. The FAA expects airport 

sponsors to apply their minimum standards consistently through their interactions with 

aeronautical users and service providers. 84 With that said, the standard of compliance does not 

require that airport sponsors enforce minimum standards so rigidly as to require identical tone 

and posture toward all airport users that have different records and history with the sponsor.85 

G. The Complaint Process 

Pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.23, a person directly and substantially affected by any alleged 

noncompliance may file a complaint with the FAA. The complainant shall provide a concise but 

complete statement of the facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation. The complaint shall 

also describe how the complainant was directly and substantially affected by the things done or 

omitted by the respondents. 86 If, based on the pleadings, there appears to be a reasonable basis for 

further investigation, the FAA will investigate the subject matter of the complaint. 

In rendering its initial determination, the FAA may rely entirely on the complaint and the 

responsive pleadings provided. Each party shall file documents it considers sufficient to present all 

relevant facts and arguments necessary for the FAA to determine whether the sponsor is in 

compliance. 87 The proponent of a motion, request, or order has the burden of proof. A party who 

has asserted an affirmative defense has the burden of proving the affirmative defense. The 

complainant must submit all documents then available to support his or her complaint. 88 Title 14 

CFR § 16.3 l(b-d) provides, in part, that "the Director's determination will set forth a concise 

explanation of the factual and legal basis . .. on each claim made by the complainant." 

In accordance with 14 CFR § 16.33(b) and (e), upon issuance of a Director's Determination, "a 

party adversely affected by the Director's Determination may file an appeal with the Associate 

Administrator for Airports within 30 days after the date of service of the initial Determination;" 

however, "if no appeal is filed within the time period specified in paragraph (b) of this section, 

the Director's Determination becomes the final decision and order of the FAA without further 

82 Advisory Circular AC 150/5190-7 (09/28/2006). 83 See Royal Air, Inc. v. City of Shreveport through the Shreveport Airport Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-02-06, (January 9, 2004,) 

pages 28-29. 

84 

See Rick Aviation. Inc. v. Peninsula Airport Commission. FAA Director's Determination, Docket No. 16-05-18, (May 8, 2007) 

page 16; Rick Aviation. Inc. v. Peninsula Airport Commission. FAA Final Agency Decision and Order, Docket No. 16-05-18, 

(November 6, 2007); page 9, and Springfield Flight Academy v. City of Springfield. FAA Director's Determination, Docket No. 16-

10-03,( August 25, 2011), page 15. 85/d, page 15. 86 14 CFR § 16.23(b) (3, 4). 87 14 CFR § 16.29. 88 14 CFR §§ 16.23, 16.29. 

12 
action." A Director's Determination that becomes final because there is no administrative appeal 

is not judicially reviewable. Title 14 CFR § 16.247(a) provides for judicial review of the 

Associate Administrator for Airports' final decision and order, as provided in 49 U.S.C. §§ 

46110, 47106(d) and 4711 l(d). 

V. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 

Issue 1 - Whether the City's actions concerning Alpha Air's FBO operations at JLN, 

including the manner in which it applied minimum standards, are in violation of Grant 

Assurance 22 Economic Nondiscrimination. 

RLS alleges the City is in violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, by 

"failing to equally enforce the Airport's Minimum Standards on similarly-situated aeronautical 

service providers."89 To support their argument, RLS alleges that (I) City was initially resistant 

to institute minimum standards,90 and (2) once the City established minimum standards, it did not 

apply them objectively and uniformly to all similarly situated aeronautical businesses on the 

airport.9' In considering the allegations by RLS, the Director organized the analysis oflssue I as 

follows: 

A. Application of Minimum Standards 

B. Conditional Compliance with Minimum Standards/Legality of Waiver 

C. Efforts to Come Into Compliance With Minimum Standards 

A. Application of Minimum Standards 

Minimum Standards, FBO Compliance Form, and Conditional Approval Letter 

The Complainant alleges that its competitor, Alpha Air does not meet the minimum standards 

that were instituted by the City in November of 2011.92 Section 3.02 of the minimum standards 

entitled Privileges and Minimum Requirements93 describes the services an FBO is required to 

provide in order to conduct business at the airport, including: 

A) Fuel, Oil and Transient Aircraft Services; 

B) Line Service and Pilot/Passenger Facilities; 

C) Airframe and Powerplant Maintenance; and 

D) Aircraft Charter, Rental and Pilot Training 

Based on the pleadings, neither party questioned Alpha Air's ability to provide (A) or (B). 

However, RLS argues that Alpha Air fails to meet minimum standards because it is unable to 

comply with provisions 'C' and 'D.' 

89 IExhibit 1, Item 1, para 31. 90 Exhibit 1, Item 1, para 33-36. 91 Exhibit 1, Item 1, para 64. 92 Exhibit 1, Item 1, para 4, para 5. 93 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit C. 

13 
Specifically, subsection 3.02. C, Airframe and Powerplant Maintenance, requires the following 

ofanFBO: 

1. "Provide aircraft and engine maintenance by qualified A&P94 licensed mechanics. At a 

minimum, Operator shall have one ( 1) mechanic on site at the Airport Monday through 

Friday 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on call at all other times, and on the weekends, with 

the ability to respond to maintenance calls within one (I) hour; 

2. Operator may subcontract such services upon written approval by the Director, which 

shall not be unreasonably withheld; 

3. At all times the aircraft shop shall be operated and maintained in accordance with 

standards set forth for an FAA approved repair station as outlined in FAA Regulation 

Part 145, or as it may be amended or superseded, or as an alternative, the aircraft shop 

shall employ an A&P mechanic that the FAA has granted Inspection Authorization. " 

Subsection 3.02.D, Aircraft Charter, Rental and Pilot Training, requires the following of an 

FBO: 

"Operator must hold the following certifications and licenses required on the specified FAA 

regulations for the following Services. Operator must hold the certifications and licenses in its 

name, and may not subcontract said services. 

1. Aircraft charter and air taxi; -- IA W95 required per FAA Part 13 5; 

2. Aircraft rental and sales; -- IAW required per FAA Part 91; 

3. Flight training; -- required per FAA Part 141 Certificate. " 

Additionally, subsection 3.02.E, states that, "Before [an operator] can commence operations as a 

Fixed Base Operator, operator must show that it is in conformance and compliance with the 

minimum and mandatory requirements as set forth above. Director [ Airport Director] may 

request compliance reports from operator at any time during the term of this agreement to ensure 

operator is in compliance and conformance with the minimum and mandatory requirements. "96 

The record shows that at the time the minimum standards were introduced, the City requested 

that both FBOs complete an FBO Compliance Form. 97 This was a questionnaire produced by the 

City to ensure that FBO applicants meet the minimum standards. Both RLS and Alpha Air 

submitted responses to the questionnaire. The record indicates that RLS responded to the 

94 Airframe and Powerplant. 95 Stands for "in accordance with." 96 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit C. 97 Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1. 

14 
questionnaire in November 201 1.

98 Alpha Air's response, dated December 2, 2011, is included 

in the records.99 

Based on the response provided by Alpha Air, the City issued a conditional approval to Alpha 

Air to provide FBO services on the Airport. The approval included the following conditions: 100 

1. "Alpha Air Center will expedite all requirements to obtain the above mentioned 

certifications within the guidelines from the FAA per the reference in the letter from Mr. 

Richard Carlson, Manager, Kansas City Flight Standards; 

2. Under the direction of the Airport Manager and the Joplin City Attorney there will be a 

review every 90 days of the certification process until full certification compliance, 

within the FAA timeline, has been met. Alpha Air will submit a progress report with 

backup from the FAA for this review; 

3. If Alpha Air fails to meet the progress requirements you will have 30 days to correct the 

action. Failure to meet the progress requirements or corrective action of the 90 day 

review will result in the immediate loss of ability to provide FBO services at the Joplin 

Regional Airport." 

The approval letter noted that accordin¥ to the information provided, Alpha Air did not hold 

either a 14 CFR Part 135101 

or Part 141 °

2 certificate, but had submitted applications with the 

FAA, and was contracting with a third party to provide those services until the certificates were 

obtained.

103 

B. Conditional Compliance with Minimum Standards/Legality of Waivers 

Equal and Fair Enforcement of the Minimum Standards 

RLS takes the position that the City's waiver of the minimum standards was "unauthorized." 

Complainant cites to a previous Part 16 case, AshviLle Jet, 

104 in which the FAA approved an 

Airport Sponsor's waiver of certain Minimum Standards that allowed an FBO to temporarily 

begin fuel services without meeting the Minimum Standards. FAA noted however, that in 

Asheville Jet the City's Minimum Standards allowed for the granting of waivers. 105 In RLS vs. 

JLN however, the Complainant notes that in contrast, the City's minimum standards do not 

allow for waivers of the requirements, but nonetheless, the City granted Alpha Air a waiver of 

all of the substantive requirements for aeronautical services other than fueling. Complainant 

98 Exhibit 1, Item 1, para 41. 99 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit D. 100 Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 7. 101 

14 CFR Part 135 Air Carrier Operating Certificate for on-demand charter operations. 102 14 CFR Part 141 pilot school certificate. 103 Exhibit 1, Item 11 Exhibit 7. 104 

Asheville Jet. Inc. d/b/a Million Air Asheville v. Asheville Regional Airport Authority; City of Asheville. North Carolina; and 

Buncombe County, FAA Final Agency Decision and Order, Docket No. 16-08-02, (October 1, 2009), pages 25-26. 105 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 25. 

15 
also alleges that City waived these requirements for Alpha Air for an undefined and potentially 

unlimited amount of time. 106 Complainant further referred to Ashville Jet and added that: 

" .. .in Asheville Jet, the Airport Sponsor waived the requirements while the FBO's facilities, 

which were under construction at the time, would be completed and would allow for the 

requirements to be met. In the present matter, the Respondent's issuance of a waiver to 

Alpha Air was not based on substantive efforts that were underway. The Respondent's 

waiver was based only upon Alpha Air's empty assertion that it would pursue air charter, 

flight training, and maintenance services to the same standards" 107 

Regarding an airport sponsor's noncompliance with its Federal obligations, FAA has opined that 

the standard "is not the simple fact of a tenant's noncompliance with its lease terms, or the 

sponsor's minimum standards." FAA asserts that enforcing minimum standards is the 

"recommended, not mandated," manner for a sponsor "to deal with the expected friction among 

competing aeronautical service providers, in an environment of leases entered into at different 

times, under different circumstances, and reflecting changing management priorities." 108 FAA 

further asserts that the standard of compliance "does not require that airport sponsors enforce 

minimum standards so rigidly as to require identical tone and posture toward all competitors that 

have different records and history with the sponsor." 109 

In Rick Aviation, Inc. vs. Peninsula Airport Commission (PAC), the complainant (Rick 

Aviation) alleged that PAC was unjustly discriminatory in requiring Complainant to comply with 

the airport minimum standards while permitting another FBO to operate without doing so.110 In 

Rick Aviation vs. PAC, the sponsor was in the process of updating its original minimum 

standards and attempting to appropriately apply them to both the incumbent FBO (Rick 

Aviation) 111 and the new FBO entrant (Mercury Air Centers). 112 The Rick Aviation case is only 

similar to RLS vs. JLN in that complainants in both cases allege unfair application of minimum 

standards. However, in the Rick Aviation case, the Director was ultimately persuaded that the 

complainant's allegations were motivated by lack of understanding of the requirements stated in 

the minimum standards. 113 The Director found that the sponsor was not in violation of the grant 

assurances. 

114 

While the minimum standards at JLN did not have a specific provision for a waiver from 

standards, the City, as the airport sponsor, might have done so in an effort to prevent the 

potential creation of an exclusive right for RLS. It is not unreasonable to believe that any FBO 

that did not previously hold the required certificates might potentially face the same delays and 

106 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 26 (emphasis in original). 107 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 27. 

ios Rick Aviation, Inc. v. Peninsula Airport Commission. FAA Director's Determination,_Docket No. 16-05-18, (May 8, 2007), page 

16. 

10? Id, page 16. 110 Id, page 1. 111 Id, page 3. 112 ID, page 5. 113 Id, page 41. 114 Id, page 2. 

16 
potential pitfalls that Alpha Air faced. The fact is that the City's approval of certain Alpha Air 

activities was conditional, and that these conditions were eventually met, as discussed above and 

in more detail in the sections below. 

With respect to subsection 3.02.C, Airframe and Powerplant Maintenance, the record reflects 

that, though Alpha Air did not possess a Part 145 certificate on any dates specified throughout 

the record, it was compliant with the alternate structure permitted in the minimum standards. 

Specifically, by employing at least one individual who maintains an A&P Certificate and 

Inspection Authorization, Alpha Air was, and could indefinitely remain in compliance with this 

particular aspect of the published minimum standards. 115 

Regarding the requirements in subsection 3.02.D, Aircraft Charter, Rental and Pilot Training, 116 

the record reflects that Alpha Air was not initially in compliance with the minimum standards. 

Specifically, the third party contractual relationship approved in Alpha Air's January 19, 2012, 

FBO letter, 117 

was contradictory to the policy in the Airport Use and Operating Agreement, 

subsection 3.02D, Aircraft Charter, Rental and Pilot Training. That policy clearly states that the 

"Operator must hold the certifications and licenses in its name, and may not subcontract said 

services."118 

A separate copy of the Airport Use and Operating Agreement, signed by both Alpha Air and the 

City/Airport, also on January 19, 2012, 119 discusses the same prohibition against subcontracting 

P.arts 135 and 141 services. Yet, the City and Airport approved Alpha Air's subcontracting of 

Parts 135 and 141 services for their FBO operations.120 

This begs the question as to why the City and Airport seemingly ignored the published minimum 

standards to this extent. Alpha Air could have conducted a limited FBO business within its 

certificated capabilities, until at which time it received approval for all requested certificates, and 

then expand its capabilities thereafter. Instead, whether intentional or not, and regardless of 

Alpha Air's actual status, this literal "stroke of the pen" instantly legitimized and elevated Alpha 

Air's posture, even if only "conditional," to that of a full service FBO. 121 In Royal Air, Inc., v. 

City of Shreveport, the FAA found the Shreveport Airport Authority in violation of Grant 

Assurance 22, Economic Discrimination, for failing to agfIY its minimum standards consistently 

among all tenants at the Shreveport Downtown Airport. Specifically, the Director found that 

the Airport's actions in applying minimum standards, created conditions that led to differences in 

personnel staffing levels, leased spaced requirements, and insurance requirements among 

competing tenants. 123 These situations resulted in some documented disparities in the actual 

m Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit C, pages 6-7. 116 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit C, page 7. 117 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit D. 

llS. Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit C. 119' Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit C. 120

' Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit D. 121 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit D. 122 Royal Air, Inc. v. City of Shreveport through the Shreveport Airport Authority, FAA Director's Determination, Docket No. 16-

02-06, (January 9, 2004), page 53. 123 Id, page 53. 

17 
expenses incurred by competing tenants, relative to their obligations to stated requirements in the 

airport minimum standards.

124 In RLS v. JLN, however, no such evidence is presented by the 

Complainant. The record reflects that Alpha Air was required to perform the FBO services 

required in the minimum standards. 125 However, the actual methodology, and to what expense it 

chose in initially providing those services, was of direct consequence to Alpha Air alone. 

Until receiving the Part 135 and Part 141certificates, Alpha Air did not meet the specific 

published requirements for FBO operations at JLN. While Alpha Air has since received FAA 

approval for its Part 135 and Part 141 certificates (May 19, 2014, 126 and June 12, 2015, 127 

respectively), the City and Airport's actions were in this specific instance contrary to the 

minimum standards. However, the Director is not persuaded that the evidence indicates a 

competitive advantage was given to Alpha Air during the period it awaited FAA approval of its 

Part 135 and 141 Certificates. Alpha Air was still required to perform these services during that 

period, but through alternate means. Nonetheless, the sponsor is advised to be more consistent in 

enforcing established minimum standards. 

C. Efforts to Come Into Compliance With Minimum Standards 

14 CFR Part 13 5 Certification 

RLS notes that the City may have "understood that the certification process for Alpha Air to 

obtain its Part 135 air charter certificate would take a long time," therefore, RLS argues, that the 

City's January 19, 2012 waiver issued to Alpha Air, which "re~uired Alpha Air to expedite all 

requirements to obtain the above mentioned certifications .... " 1 8 is meaningless because "it ... 

shows that the Airport intentionally and knowingly allowed a startup FBO to be~in operations 

selling fuel without any timeline for complying with the minimum standards."12 

RLS argues that the City's "basis for allowing Alpha Air to continue its operations primarily 

only selling fuel is based upon superficial and de minimis efforts to obtain Part 135 charter 

certification."130 RLS rejects the City's position that Alpha Air provides service through third 

party contractors. RLS explains that the City "has no knowledge of whether the contracting 

(with a third party to provide services) relationships actually exist because it has not exercised 

reasonable monitoring or oversight over Alpha Air, and has never asked Alpha Air to provide 

any documentation or records to show that these services are actually provided .... " 131 

RLS also rejects the City's assertion "that it has monitored Alpha Air and that Alpha Air is in 

compliance with the Airport's Minimum Standards and characterizes this as "a misrepresentation 

124 Id, page 51. 

m Exhibit 3, Item l, Exhibit C. 126 Exhibit 7, Item, Exhibit A. 127 Exhibit 9, Item 4. 128 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 15. 129 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 16. 130 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 17. 131 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 18 

18 
to the point of being disingenuous."132 Complainant adds that the City "did not inquire into 

Alpha Air's certification status until eighteen months after it waived the minimum standard 

requirements, when on July 11, 2013, (RLS advised the City] that it was considering filing a Part 

16 Complaint." Complainant also rejects the City's claims that it had requested updates 

concerning Alpha's Air certificate (July 11, 2013 request by the Airport Manager to FAA 133and 

July 15, 2013 request by the Airport Manager to Alpha Air to provide an update).

134 Finally, 

RLS asserts that Alpha Air's intent was to only sell fuel and is "nothing more than a gas 

station,"

135 and that "Alpha Air has never put forth any meaningful effort to obtain the required 

certifications." 136 

The City contends that Alpha Air has made good faith efforts to meet the minimum standards, 

but that the process is subject to the schedule of the FAA, which is ultimately responsible for 

issuing the necessary certificates. 137 Specifically, on August 6, 2013, the City notified RLS that 

it "determined that Alpha is, in good faith, trying to obtain the required certificates, but is 

working on the FAA' s schedule. The holdup seems to be from the FAA. As a result, the City 

does not, at this time, think that it is being discriminatory to (RLS]."138 

As mentioned above, the City issued Alpha Air a "conditional" approval to provide FBO 

services on the airport on January 19, 2012. 139 This conditional authorization stated that "there 

will be review every 90 days of the certification process until full certification compliance, 

within the FAA timefrarne, has been met. Alpha Air will submit a progress report with backup 

from the FAA for this review." 140 

The Director expects that based on the conditional authorization letter, the record would discuss 

several reviews by the City during the period from January 19, 2012 ( when the conditional 

authorization was granted to Alpha Air) until the summer of 2013 (when the formal complaint 

was filed), with the initial review conducted on or about April 18, 2012. As indicated below, it 

appears the City made an earnest effort to conduct these reviews. 

The record indicates that on February 4, 2012, Alpha Air filed a Pre-Application Statement of 

Intent (P ASI) with the Kansas City Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) for a 14 CFR Part 

135 Air Carrier Certificate.

141 The City provided evidence of the first review, an April 16, 2012 

132 Exhibit 5, Item 1, Para 11. 133 

The director presumes that based on Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit 8, Page 12, the Complainant meant to state "that Airport 

Manager asked the [Kansas City FSDO) for a certificate update on Alpha Air." 134 

Exhibit 5, Item 1, Para 12. On this issue, RLS affirms that "these progress reports [to the City] ... did not exist and that "prior 

to the filing of the Complaint in this matter, [RLS) filed a records request with Joplin City Clerk for copies of any correspondence, 

documentation and records pertaining to the Respondent's monitoring of Alpha Air while it was supposedly seeking part 135 air 

charter certification. No records were provided to Complainant to show that the Respondent ever conducted any monitoring o1f 

Alpha Air until Complainant contacted Respondent on July 11, 2013." Exhibit S, Item 1, Para 13. 135 See, e.g., Exhibit 1, Item 1, Para 4; Exhibit 1, Item 1, Para 7; Exhibit 1, Item 1, Para SS; Exhibit l, Item 1, Para 76; Exhibit 5, 

Item 1, Para 18. 136 Exhibit 1, Item 1, para 51. 137 Exhibit 3, Item 1, page 9. 138 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit B, page 14. 139 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit D. 140 Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 7. 141

· Exhibit S, Item 1, Exhibit 2. 

19 
letter from the Kansas City FSDO stating that due to budgetary issues, they were not able to 

consider the application until after October 1, 2012. 

142 

The Director considers it reasonable for the City to assume the application would not change for 

the following two reporting periods (July 17, 2012 and October 15, 2012) based on the same 

justification related to FAA's fiscal year ending on or about September 30. Based on this, the 

Director would expect the City to conduct its next review on or about January 13, 2013, and 

indeed the City provided a copy of a January 9, 2013 letter from the Kansas City FSDO 

following up with Alpha Air from a previous day's pre-application meeting. 143 The next update 

to this timeline occurred approximately 30 days after the next review date of April 15, 2013 was 

due. A communication provided by the City includes a May 16, 2013 email, from the Kansas 

City FSDO responding to another Alpha Air inquiry for a status update. This update included 

the FSDO informinf4 Alpha Air that providing periodic written status updates was inconsistent 

with office policy. 1 4 The May 2013 update was followed by a series of exchanges between the 

parties into August, all appearing to support efforts at status updates. 145 The Part 16 Complaint 

was then filed in September. 

The Director disagrees with RLS' premise that the City contradicted its statement by both 

acknowledging that the certification process would take time and requiring that Alpha Air 

expedite all requirements to obtain the necessary certificates. In the context of the conditional 

authorization, "expediting" is solely the FSDO's response for processing the certificate. Since 

Alpha Air (or any other certificate applicant) had little control over the FSDO's time lines, it 

would be unreasonable to expect Alpha Air to expedite the process beyond being responsive to 

the FSDO during the process. Moreover, and notwithstanding the timeline of updates provided 

above, the Director rejects Complainant's allegations that the City failed to meet its Federal 

obligations because it did not ask Alpha Air to provide documentation, in part, because the 

minimum standards p,ermit the City to request compliance reports from the FBOs, but do not 

require such reports. 46 

Some documented delays can be identified in the City's monitoring of the certification process, 

however, the fact remains that the City did substantial monitoring to the extent reasonable and 

consistent with the FSDO's cooperation. Against this background, the Director rejects RLS's 

claim that the City failed to monitor Alpha Air's progress to acquire its 14 CFR Part 135 

certificate. Further, the Director is not persuaded that the City's actions constitute any violation 

of the City's Federal obligations. 

Deferment of 14 CFR Part 141147 and 14 CFR Part 145148 Certification 

142 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit B, page 3. 143 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit B, page 4. 144 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit B, page 7. 145 Exhibit 3, lteml, Exhibit B, (Aug 6, 2013 email). 146 Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 6, page 7, subsection 3.02(E). 147

14 CFR §141.1. This part prescribes the requirements for issuing pilot school certificates, provisional pilot school certificates, 

and associated ratings, and the general operating rules applicable to a holder of a certuficate or rating issued under this part .. 148 

14 CFR §145.1 Applicability. This part describes how to obtain a repair station certificate. This part also contains the rules a 

certificated repair station must follow related to its performance of maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations of an 

20 
RLS argues that "Alpha Air never applied for Part 141 flight training certification or Part 145 

maintenance certification, and it does provide on-site maintenance services through an 

alternative subcontractor. "

149 RLS also states that the City provided "no support for its assertion 

that the FAA asked Alpha Air to defer application for Part 141 flight training or Part 145 

maintenance certification until after it had obtained Part 135 air charter certification." Finally, 

Complainant alleges that "documentation that was provided in response to the Complainant's 

record request to the regional FAA office shows that Alpha Air did not defer an application for 

Part 141 flight school certification based on FAA request; it elected to do so for its own 

convenience." 150 

The Director disagrees with the Complainant's assertion that Alpha Air had to pursue both 

certificates concurrently. Because Alpha Air and the City received information that delays were 

a result oflimited resources at the FSDO, 151 it is unreasonable to believe that applying for 

additional certificates concurrently would result in any substantial time savings or result in a 

different response by the FSDO. On April 16, 2012, the Kansas City FSDO informed Alpha Air 

that budgetary issues within their office, was precluding the processing of air carrier certificates. 

In this same letter, the FSDO also advised Alpha Air that "When these issues are resolved, we 

will contact you. " 152 

Further, Alpha Air's Part 135 PASI notes that Alpha Air intended to apply for an approved pilot 

school certificate at a later date, so it is clear to the Director that Alpha Air expressed its 

intentions to the FSDO at the time of filing. 153 In any event, the Director confirmed with the 

Kansas City FSDO that on July 7, 2014, Alpha Air did in fact submit an application for a Part 

141 Pilot School Certification. On July 25, 2014, the FSDO advised Alpha Air, in a letter that 

strongly implied that its resources were tasked; "we are currently evaluating our resources in 

order to determine if and/or when we can support your application for certification."154 Alf ha 

Air's Certificate for Pilot School Certification was eventually approved on June 12, 2015.1 5 

Finally, with regards to RLS' challenge of the subcontracting of Part 145 maintenance, the 

Director notes that, as stated in Section 3C (6) of the minimum standards, having a Part 145 

Repair Station is not a requirement to meet the minimum standards. To meet this requirement in 

the published minimum standards, an FBO needs only to employ at least one A&P mechanic 

with Inspection Authorization. 156 The contract maintenance issue is further discussed below. 

aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part to which 14 CFR Part 43 applies. It also applies to 

any person who holds, or is required to hold, a repair station certificate issued under this part. 149 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 17. 150 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 14. 151 

Exhibit 3, Item 1 Exhibit 8. Also, FAA implemented agency-wide furloughs of employees, including air traffic controllers, 

beginning April 21, 2013. FAA employees were told they would be required to take 11 furlough days through the remainder of 

FY2013. See Sequestration at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): Air Traffic Controller Furloughs and Congressional 

Response. Congressional Research Service, May 7, 2013. 154 Exhibit 3, Item 1 Exhibit 8. 153 Exhibit 5, Item 1, Exhibit 2. 154 Exhibit 7, Item 2, Exhibit A 155 Exhibit 7, Item 3, Exhibit A, 156 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit C, page 6. 

21 
The record substantiates the use of a reasonable process by Alpha Air in seeking a 14 CFR Part 

141 certificate and that, contrary to RLS' assertions, Alpha Air's actions with regards to the 14 

CFR Part 145 certification, are not inconsistent with the requirements of and options for 

compliance in the minimum standards as written or contrary to the City's Federal obligations. 

RLS argues, in the alternative, that 

"Even if it eventually obtains a part 135 air charter certificate, Alpha Air will not really 

engage in actual air charter that is expected of a full service FBO. Alpha Air's 

application for air charter spells out that it plans to operate only during day-time in visual 

flight conditions and it will use a single-engine aircraft that carries a maximum of a pilot 

and three passengers. While this very limited aircraft and limited operations may 

technically meet the Airport's Minimum Standards, it does not serve the local 

aeronautical community as a full service FBO is expected to. It is literally the lowest 

level that the FAA will certify for part 13 5 air charter operations." 157 

The minimum standards require Alpha Air to provide Aircraft Charter and Air Taxi services in 

accordance with 14 CFR Part 13 5. The minimum standards do not specify particular capabilities 

associated with the service offering. 158 Under these circumstances, the Director is not persuaded 

that a lower, yet permitted level of service constitutes a violation of the grant assurances. 

Contract Maintenance 

RLS challenges the City's "assertion that Alpha Air provides an on-site mechanic on a full-time 

basis" because it is "contradicted by the facts submitted by Complainant and is not supported by 

any evidence submitted by the [City]." According to the Complainant, an affidavit filed by an 

aeronautical user who sought maintenance services from Alpha Air, claims the individual "was 

told that Alpha Air does not have a mechanic on staff." 159 The Director would like to point out 

that the actual language in the affidavit stated that "Alpha Air advised me that a mechanic was 

not available." 160 

More specifically, RLS challenges Alpha Air's claims that it provides Part 145 maintenance and 

adds that "a search of the FAA' s database of Part 145 maintenance providers in Missouri does 

not list any company known under that name .... there are three companies, including the 

Complainant, currently listed in the FAA' s database of Part 145 certificated maintenance 

providers in Joplin Missouri. "

161 RLS cites an affidavit by Curt Carlisle, an aircraft operator at 

the Airport, that at 10:13 a.m.

162 

on August 19, 2013, he attempted to request maintenance 

services from Alpha Air and was told by a staff member that "a mechanic was not available." 163 

157 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 19. 158 Exhibit l, Item 1, Exhibit 6, page 7, subsection 3.02(D). 159 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 20. 160 Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 9. 161 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 21. 162 Affidavit does not specify "a.m." or "p.m."; the Director assumes the inquiry took place at 10:13a.m on August 19 2013. 163 Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 9. 

22 
Finally, RLS argues that "even though [the City] has been put on notice that Alpha Air does not 

provide any maintenance services at all, even under the alternative provisions of the Minimum 

Standards, the [City] has ... failed to take any measures to require Alpha Air to provide 

maintenance services and therefore comply with the Minimum Standard's maintenance provision 

requirements." 164 

First, although Twisted Wrench, LLC 165 (the service provider with which Alpha Air contracted 

out to provide maintenance services), may not hold a Part 145 certificate, as previously noted, 

the Minimum Standards stipulates that a Part 145 Re~air Station is not required, if the FBO 

employs a mechanic with Inspection Authorization. 1 6 Alpha Air submitted evidence that it did, 

in fact, employ at least one mechanic who possessed both an A&P certificate, and Inspection 

Authorization.167 Second, the affidavit presented by Mr. Carlisle, represents the entirety of the 

Complainant's argument regarding the unavailability of maintenance at Alpha Air. The 

statement in the affidavit that "a mechanic was not available," lends itself to broad interpretation, 

and lacks detail, so it is therefore inconclusive. Further, while Mr. Carlisle did file the affidavit 

with RLS, there is no evidence that the City or any other user of the Airport was notified by Mr. 

Carlisle, or anyone else, that Alpha Air was not truly providing maintenance services.168 

Against this background, the Director rejects Complainant's claims that Alpha Air does not 

provide maintenance services, as there is sufficient evidence that Alpha Air's maintenance 

services are consistent with the requirements specified in the Airport's minimum standards. 

Therefore, the Director does not find the City to be in violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic 

Nondiscrimination. 

ISSUE 2 - Whether the City's actions concerning Alpha Air's FBO operations at JLN, 

including the manner in which it applied minimum standards, granted an exclusive right to 

Alpha Air in violation of Grant Assurance 23 Exclusive Rights 

RLS alleges that the City has granted an exclusive right by "permitting Alpha Air to open up 

what is essentially a gasoline station, without being required to provide other aeronautical 

services," and this "over time ... will drive the [RLS] out of business." RLS adds that, in part 

because both RLS and Alpha Air compete head to head at the Airport to provide fuel to based 

and transient aircraft, when RLS goes out of business, "Alpha Air will be the only FBO at the 

airport; a status it will have obtained with the assistance of City. " 169 

RLS further states that although the City "took the right steps when it enacted Minimum 

Standards in 2011 and made compliance with the Minimum Standards a condition of approval 

for operating as a FBO for both Complainant and Respondent," the City "has knowingly 

subjected [RLS] and Alpha Air to disparate requirements in order for the right to compete for 

164 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 22. 

lG> Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit D, page 6, section C. 166 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit C, page 6. 167 Exhibit 3, Item 1, Exhibit D, Attachment G. 1

~ Exhibit 1, Item l, Exhibit 9. 169Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 26 

23 
fuel sales," and that "this disparity places the Complainant at a competitive disadvantage." 170 

RLS adds that the City, "by waiving substantive Minimum Standard requirements for Alpha Air, 

for what has turned out to be an indefinite period of time, and failing to monitor or enforce 

compliance, has failed in its obligation to objectively and fairly uphold" Grant Assurance 23 

Exclusive Rights. 171 

RLS further expands its exclusive rights argument by stating as "false," a supposed allegation by 

the City that RLS was "opposed to any competition at the Airport and simply wanted to maintain 

a monopoly." RLS adds that "the basis for [the] informal complaints and ongoing concerns was 

the [City's] failure to establish any kind of standards for businesses to sell fuel at the airport." 

RLS ties the exclusive rights argument to the minimum standards because the informal 

complaints state "that (RLS] was requesting the Airport to enact Minimum Standards in order to 

establish a fair and equal playing field for FBO competitors,"172 but that it took "two years after 

[RLS'] request for standards for new businesses at the airport" for "the City [to] finally enact 

Minimwn Standards." 173 

Introducing competition at the Airport is not prohibited by the grant assurances. In fact, it is 

the FAA's position that any exclusive right aeronautical activity at an airport "deprives the 

public of the benefits of competitive enterprise." 174 The issue at hand is whether the City's 

actions allowing competition on the airport resulted in the granting of an exclusive right to 

either party. Also, the Director only considers the actions by all parties rather than their 

intentions, because alleged motive or intent is not equivalent to a grant assurance 

violation. Under the standard for compliance discussed above, motive or ill will does not, 

alone, amount to non-compliance, even if established by the Complainant. Evidence is 

needed. 175 

In BMI Salvage Corp & Blueside Services v. Miami-Dade County. the complainant alleged, in 

part that the sponsor's intent was to deny BMI both public access and public use of the 

airport. 176 BMI alleged that intent was shown by a proposed NOT AM 177 which required 72-

hours advance notice for all arrivals of aircraft weighing more than 100,000 lbs. 178 However, 

the sponsor's specific purpose for requiring advance notice was related to the aircraft 

salvaging business that BMI conducted on the airport. The advance notice enabled the airport 

to better plan for and accommodate arrivals of such aircraft on the airport. It was not to deny 

access to the airport as alleged by BMI. 179 Further, BMI presents no evidence of an aircraft 

170 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 28. 171 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 29. 172 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 29. 173 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 10. 174 FAA Order 5190.6, para 8-4. 175 

BM! Salvage Corp & Blueside Services v. Miami-Dade County, Director's Determination FAA Docket No. 16-05-16, (July 25, 

2006), p. 16, and Final Agency Decision on Remand, (April 15, 2011) page 64. 176 Id, DD, page 13. 177 Notice to Airmen . This is a notice in FAA publications to alert pilots to conditions and procedures at an airport. 178 BMI Salvage Corp & Blueside Services v. Miami-Dade County, Director's Determination FAA Docket No. 16-05-16, (July 25, 

2006), page 13, and Final Agency Decision on Remand, (April 15, 2011) page 64. 179 Id, DD, page 13 and FAD on Remand, page 64. 

24 
ever being denied landing at the airport and FAA found no grant assurance violations on 

the part of the sponsor or evidence of intent. 180 

The evidence in the case at hand, as discussed above under Issue 1, covers the purpose of and 

justification for minimum standards and related adjustments by the City ( e.g., conditional 

approval, FSDO response to certification requests), which are reasonably explained. It is 

important to note that the lack of minimum standards in itself is not, per se, a violation of an 

airport sponsor's grant assurances.

181 Although the FAA considers minimum standards the most 

effective way for airport sponsors to impose restrictions on aeronautical service providers 

intending to conduct business on an airport, not having them in place when a second FBO comes 

into the airport is not an "automatic" violation, nor is some flexibility in their application, as 

mentioned above. The Grant Assurances do not impose direct FAA oversight of the local or state 

process (including timeliness) governing the adoption of rules or requirements. 

Finally, the complainant cites M. Daniel Carey and Cliff Davenport v. Afton-Lincoln County 

Municipal Airport Joint Powers Board, (Carey) 182 in its assertion that the City is allowing 

discriminatory practices against RLS. Complainant further contends that as in Carey, this 

effectively creates an exclusive right for the Complainant's competitor. In Carey, the Director 

found that the airport sponsor was applying the minimum standards in such a manner to provide 

an advantage for one tenant to the detriment of others.183 

In Carey, the complainants alleged the airport sponsor was inconsist·ent in its application of the 

newly revised minimum standards because it enforced them against all tenants except one FB0.184 

The complainants also provided documents in their reply supporting the allegations that the 

particular FBO did not meet the revised minimum standards. 

185 The sponsor did not address this 

specific allegation in either its answer or its rebuttal. The Director agreed with the complainant that 

the respondent was in violation of the grant assurances as a result of enforcing minimum standards 

inconsistently186 Unlike JLN, in Carey there is no evidence suggesting that any privileges granted 

to the FBO were temporary or "conditional" upon the FBO realizing some higher goal consistent 

with the minimum standards. 187 

That is not the case here. The sponsor granted specific "conditional" FBO privileges to Alpha 

Air, but they were only related to the way Alpha Air would provide those services. Specifically, 

Alpha Air was allowed to temporarily utilize alternatives in providing services, until it could do 

so in accordance with the specific requirements of the minimum standards. As mentioned above, 

the analysis under Issue I discusses related deviations (or perceived deviations) and provides 

180 BMI Salvage Corp & Blueside Services v. Miami-Dade County. Director's Determination FAA Docket No. 16-05-16, (July 25, 

2006), page 16, and Final Agency Decision on Remand, (April 15, 2011) page 64. 181 Advisory Circular 150/5190.7, Section 1. 182 M. Daniel Carey and Cliff Davenport v. Afton-Lincoln County Municipal Airport Joint Powers Board. FAA Director's 

Determination, Docket No. 16-06-06, (January 19. 2007) page 38. 183 Id, page 38. 184 Id, page 35. 185 Id, page 35. 186 Id, page 38. 187 Id, page 38. 

25 
reasonable justification for some actions taken by the City (e.g., conditional approval, progress 

with regards to certification). The Director has been presented with no evidence challenging the 

reasonableness of the minimum standards or their unjust application beyond what is discussed 

under Issue 1. 

The evidence in this case does not support the allegation of granting of an exclusive right 

benefiting Alpha Air but rather progressive and reasonable steps by the City, to introduce 

competition at the Airport. Therefore, the Director finds that the minimum standards eventually 

instituted by the City are not inconsistent with the applicable Federal obligations nor, if properly 

applied, could they have resulted in the granting of an exclusive right in violation of Grant 

Assurance 23. 

14 CFR Part 13 Informal Complaints 

As mentioned previously, RLS filed two 14 CFR Part 13 complaints; one on November 22, 2010, 

the other on October 21, 2011. 188 As part of its arguments in this formal complaint, RLS 

challenges the findings of the prior Part 13 complaints. RLS contends that the City falsely 

asserted that the FAA found RLS' prior informal complaints were "determined to be unfounded 

or unsubstantiated." RLS adds that "the FAA never conducted an investigation or issued a 

determination in response to either of the Complainant's Part 13 complaints" filed with MoDOT. 

RLS argues that the "FAA did not participate in, or endorse, Mo DOT' s investigation or eventual 

response." 189 

Regardless of the actual determinations in the informal complaints, the Director finds that RLS' 

stated and implied argument lacks merit. The Director notes that the State of Missouri, through 

MoDOT, participates in the State Block Grant Program, 190 a program established by Congress, 

whereby states assume certain administrative responsibilities under AIP. Among the 

responsibilities of a Block Grant State is enforcing compliance affecting airports in that state. 

Aviation Block Grant Program Assurance 5, Compliance Responsibilities, specifically provides 

that "the State shall take steps to enforce its agreement with each airport owner benefiting from 

the block grant program if noncompliance with the terms of the agreement is evident." 191 

Thus, Mo DOT' s possession of duty for the 14 CFR Part 13 complaints was, in each case, 

consistent with Aviation Block Grant Program Assurance 5, Compliance Responsibilities. Based 

on this, the Director considers it entirely appropriate that MoDOT conducted the investigations 

of the informal complaints filed by the Complainant. The argument that the FAA did not 

participate in the Part 13 investigations is without merit. The FAA delegated this responsibility 

to MoDOT under the congressional authority provided in 49 U.S.C. § 47128. 192 Consistent with 

this delegation, FAA further affirmed to MoDOT in a letter dated January 7, 2011, that MoDOT 

188 Exhibit 1, lteml, para 38. 189 Exhibit 5, Item 1, para 8. 190 49 CFR § 47128. 191 

Aviation Block Grant Program-Assurance 5, Compliance Responsibilities. 192 Id. 

26 
was responsible for the disposition of Part 13 informal complaints. 193 This letter accompanied 

the November 22, 2010 complaint when it was forwarded to MoDOT. 

VI. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

Upon consideration of the submissions, responses by the parties, the record herein, applicable 

law and policy, and for the reasons stated above, the Director of the FAA Office of Airport 

Compliance and Management Analysis finds that The City of Joplin, Missouri is currently not in 

violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination or Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive 

Rights.

194 

VII. ORDER 

Accordingly, it is ordered that: 

1. The complaint is dismissed; and 

2. All motions not expressly granted in this Determination are denied. 

VIII. RIGHT OF APPEAL 

The Director's Determination is an initial agency determination and does not constitute a final 

agency action subject to judicial review under 49 U.S.C. § 46110. 195 Any party to this 

proceeding adversely affected by the Director's Determination may appeal this initial 

determination to the FAA Associate Administrator for Airports pursuant to 14 CFR § I6.33(c) 

within thirty (30) days after service of the Director's Determination. 

Robin K. Hunt 

Acting Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

a111d Management Analysis 

193 Exhibit 3, lteml, Exhibit A. 

Date 

194M. Daniel Carey and Cliff Davenport v. Afton-Lincoln County Municipal Airport Joint Powers Board, FAA Director's 

Determination, Docket No. 16-06-06, (January 19, 2007) page 36. 195 14 CFR § 16.247(b)(2). 

27 
Index of Administrative Record 

Director's Determination 

FAA Exhibit 1 

Item 1 Complaint, dated September 18, 2013, and received by the FAA September 19, 

2013. 

Exhibit I 

Exhibit 2 

Exhibit 3 

Exhibit 4 

Exhibit 5 

Exhibit 6 

Exhibit 7 

Exhibit 8 

Exhibit 9 

October 28, 2011 email from Joplin Regional Airport Manager Steve 

Stockam to Jeff Asbell and Wayne Adolphsen describing compliance form 

in Exhibit 2. 

FBO Compliance Form referenced in Exhibit 1 email. 

November l, 2011 , Email from Joplin Regional Airport Manager Steve 

Stockam to Airport Advisory Board. 

December 7, 2011, letter from MoDOT Administrator of Aviation Joe 

Pestka to Leonard Kirsch, attorney for the complainant, regarding Part 13 

informal complaint. 

October 20, 2011, letter from Joplin Regional Airport Manager Steve 

Stockam to MoDOT Administrator of Aviation Joe Pestka, regarding RLS 

Part 13 informal complaint. 

Airport Use and Operating Agreement- Aviation Activity (minimum 

standards). 

January 19, 2012, letter from Joplin Regional Airport Manager Steve 

Stockam to Jeff Asbell of Alpha Air Center approving conditional 

authority to provide FBO services. 

October 28, 2011, email from Peter Edwards of Joplin Regional Airport to 

Shelley A. Ewalt, attorney for the Complainant, regarding status of Alpha 

Air Center's part 13 5 and 141 operating certificates. 

August 19, 2013 Affidavit of Curt Carlisle, a user of the airport, stating 

that he was unable to obtain maintenance services from Alpha Air during 

normal business hours. 

FAA Exhibit 2 

Item 1 October 22, 2013 - FAA Notice of Docketing, 16-13-06. 

28 
FAA Exhibit 3 

Item 1 Respondent's Answer to Complainant's Complaint, dated November 12, 2013. 

Exhibit A 

Exhibit B 

Exhibit C 

Exhibit D 

February 8, 2011, letter from MoDOT Administrator of Aviation Joe 

Pestka to from Joplin Regional Airport Manager Steve Stockam, regarding 

Part 13 informal complaint. 

July 24, 2013, internal email from Steve Stockam to Peter Edwards 

regarding status of Alpha Air Center's part 135 and 141 operating 

certificates. 

Airport Use and Operating Agreement-Aviation Activity (Same document 

as contained in Exhibit I, Item 1, Exhibit 6). 

January 19, 2012, letter from Joplin Regional Airport Manager, Steve 

Stockam to Alpha Air Center President, Jeff Asbell approving conditional 

authority to provide FBO services. (Same document as contained in 

Exhibit I, Item 1, Exhibit 7). 

FAA Exhibit 4 

Item 1 Complainant's Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Reply, dated 

November 18, 2013. Received by the FAA November 19, 2013. 

FAA Exhibit 5 

Item 1 Complainant's Reply and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, dated December 5, 

2013 and received by the FAA on December 6, 2013. 

Exhibit I 

Exhibit 2 

Exhibit 3 

Documentation regarding part 135 certification status for Alpha Air 

Center, dated February 16, 2012. 

FAA Form 8400-6 Pre-application Statement of intent for Alpha Air 

Center part 135 certificate, dated February 4, 2013. 

December 12, 2013, screen capture of search for repair stations in Joplin 

Missouri (http://av-info.faa.gov/RepairStations.asp ). 

FAA Exhibit 6 

Item 1 Complainant's Motion to Admit Material Facts, dated April 9, 2014 and 

received by the FAA on April 14, 2014. 

29 
Exhibit A 

Exhibit B 

Exhibit C 

March 18, 2014, letter from Shelley A. Ewalt, attorney for the 

Complainant to Joplin City Clerk Barb Hogelind requesting documents 

under the Missouri Sunshine Law. 

November 11, 2013, email from Joshua Crooker to Steve Stockam 

regarding status of Alpha Air Center's part 135 and 141 operating 

certificates. 

Excerpt of Respondent's Answer to Complaint (Exhibit 3, Item 1, page 

10). 

FAA Exhibit 7 

Item 1 

Item 2 

Item 3 

Respondent's Motion to Supplement, dated June 16, 2014, received June 23, 

2014. 

Exhibit A May 19, 2014, FAA Air Carrier Certificate issued to Alpha Air Center, 

FAA Form 8430-18. 

Respondent's Motion to Supplement, dated August 4, 2014, received August 12, 

2014. 

Exhibit A July 25, 2014 letter from Kansas City FAA Flight Standards District 

Office Manager Tiff any J. Chitwood to Alpha Air Center General 

Manager Joshua Crooker, notifying Alpha Air that their Part 141 

Certification application has been received. 

Respondent's Second Motion to Supplement, dated July 6, 2015, received July 

15, 2015. (titled as "Second Motion" but actually preceded by Items 1 and 2 

above). 

Exhibit A June 12, 2015, Air Agency Certificate issued to Alpha Air for Part 141 

Private Pilot Certification Course. 

FAA Exhibit 8 

Item 1 

Item 2 

Item 3 

May 2, 2014- FAA Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to August 1, 2014. 

July 21 , 2014- FAA Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to October 31, 2014. 

November 13, 2014- FAA Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of 

Director's Determination to February 13, 2015. 

30 
Item4 

Item 5 

Item6 

Item 7 

Item 8 

Item 9 

Item 10 

Item 11 

February 18, 2015- FAA Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to April 14, 2015. 

March 11, 2015- FAA Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to April 14, 2015. 196 

April 17, 2015- FAA Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to June 15, 2015. 

July 30, 2015 - FAA Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to September 30, 2015. 

September 28, 2015-FAA Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to November 30, 2015. 

On December 3, 2015, FAA issued a Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of 

Director's Determination to January 14, 2016. 

On February 3, 2015, FAA issued a Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of 

Director's Determination to April 1, 2016. 

On April 4, 2016, FAA issued a Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of 

Director's Determination to May 28, 2016. 

FAA Exhibit 9 

Item 1 

Item 2 

Item 3 

Item 4 

FAA Airport Master Record Dated January 8, 2015. 

FAA Joplin Regional Airport Federal Grant History Dated January 8, 2015. 

January 8, 2014, email exchange between Kansas City FAA Flight Standards 

District Office Manager, Tiffany J. Chitwood to Airport Compliance Specialist 

Brad C. Zeigler, indicating that Alpha Air's Part 141 Certification application is 

still under evaluation. 

September 11 , 2015, Email detailing conversation between AC0-100 and 

Manager, Kansas City FSDO regarding approval status of Alpha Air's Part 

141 certificate. 

FAA Exhibit 10 

Item 1 Lease Agreement between R.L.S. Rental Company d/b/a Mizzou Aviation 

Company and Joplin Regional Airport, Dated January 20, 1997. 

196 Extension appears to be duplicative error to Item 4. 

31 
Item 2 

Item 3 

Item 4 

Item 5 

Item 6 

Item 7 

Item 8 

Item 9 

Formal Request for Alpha Air to begin service as a full service FBO, dated 

September 17, 2009. 

October 8, 2009, letter from Joplin Regional Airport Manager Steve Stockam to 

Jeff Asbell acknowledging receipt of Exhibit 10, Item 2 and requesting additional 

information necessary to consider Alpha Air FBO proposal. 

April 19, 2010, letter from Joplin Regional Airport Manager Steve Stockam to 

Jeff Asbell acknowledging receipt of an informational packet presented to the 

Airport Board on March 18, 2010, and requesting missing information previously 

requested in letter from October 8, 2009 (Exhibit I 0, Item 2). 

August 9, 2010, letter from Joplin Regional Airport Manager Steve Stockam to 

Joplin Airport Board with recommendation to accept Alpha Air proposal and 

begin negotiating an FBO Operational Agreement. 

August 12, 2010, Minutes from Joplin Airport Board Meeting. 

November 22, 2010, Part 13 Complaint of Mizzou Aviation (RLS) against Joplin 

Regional Airport. 

October 21, 2011, Second Part 13 Complaint ofMizzou Aviation (RLS) against 

Joplin Regional Airport. 

Alpha Air Application for Pilot School Certificate, dated July 7, 2014. 

32