BEFOR E TH E UNITE D STATE S O F AMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N 1 6 200 9

DELBER T JOHNSON , d/b/ aTW O DOG S AVIATIO N

Complainan

t V . GOLDSBORO-WAYN

E AIRPOR T AUTHORIT Y Responden t Docke t No . 16-08-1 1 : . •-i n

REBUTTA L O F TH E GOLDSBORO-WAYN E AIRPOR T AUTHORIT Y

W . Harrel l Everett , Jr . Everett , Womble , Lawrenc e & Brown , LL P 50 7 B Nort

h Spenc e Avenu e Goldsboro,N C 2753 2 Pabl o O . Niiesc h Elain e C . Lippman n Spiege l & McDiarmid , LL P 133 3 Ne w Hampshir e Ave , N.W . Washington , D C 2000 5 Phone : Fax : 919-778-670 7 919-751-259 8 Phone : Fax : 202-879-400 0 202-393-286 6 Counse l fo r

Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authority Marc h 16 , 200 9BEFOR E TH E UNITE D STATE S O F AMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

DELBER T JOHNSON , d/b/ aTW O DOG S AVIATIO N

Complainan t V . GOLDSBORO-WAYN E AIRPOR T AUTHORIT Y Responden t Docke t No . 16-08-1 1

REBUTTA L Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(f ) Respondent , Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authority ("GWAA " o r

"Authority") , file s thi s shor t Rebuttal , alon g wit

h supportin g evidence , t o correc t factua l error s mad e b y Delbert Johnso n d/b/ aTw o Dog s Aviatio n ("Complainant" ) i n th e Repl y submitte do n Marc h 2 , 2009 . Th e GWA A incorporate s in thi s Rebutta l al l of th e argument s mad e in , an dexhibit s submitte dwith , it s Answe r an dMotio n t o Dismis s submitte do n January 26 , 200 9 ("Answer") , an dreiterate s thos e argument s a s i f restate dherein . I . DISCUSSIO N Complainan t

i s entitle dt o hi s ow n opinions , bu t h e i s no t entitle dt o hi s ow n facts . T o suppor t hi s claim s agains t

th e GWAA , Complainan t relie s on anumbe r

o f mischaracterization s an dmisrepresentation s o f th e relevan t

facts , whic h th e GWA A believe s mus t b e correcte dfor purpose s of

developin g a

n accurat e administrativ e record . Thi s brie f Rebutta l attempt s t o cu t throug h th e irrelevan t

argument s an dfocuse s o n th e determinativ e fact s that , in th e GWAA' sview , shoul db e mos t relevan t t o th e analysi s that

FA A mus t

conduc t for th e resolutio n o f

thi s case . Complainan t

mischaracterize s th e GWA A Boar dmembers ' vali dconcern s abou t hi s propose dself-servic e fuelin g busines s a s asubterfug e t o protec t th e busines s interes t

of th e Airport' s incumben t

FBO , SI G Aviatio n LL C ("SIG"). ' Repl y a t 3-4 . Th e fac t

remain s that

th e GWA A Boar di s concerne dabou t creatin g a

n environmen t

that woul dlea dt o losin g FB O service s a

t th e Airport . A s aresul t of thos e concern s an dcognizan t of it s obligations , th e GWA A accepte dth e Complainant' s proposa l t o sel l aviatio n fuel wit h thre e caveats : (1 ) that

h e mee t th e minimu mstandard s se t fort h i n Sectio n 8 of

th e Airport' s Rule s an dRegulations, ^ (2 ) tha t h e see k an dreceiv e approva l of asit e a t th e Airport

fro mwhic h h e woul dconduc t hi s business , an d(3 ) tha t

h e receiv e approva l fro mth e local Fir e Marsha l fo r it s propose dactivity . Answe r a t 8- 9 an d21-22 . Complainan t continue s t o rejec t

th e GWA A Board' s conditiona l approval a s aruse , and , in a n attemp t t o prov e hi s point . Complainan t resort s t o implyin g unlawfu l protectionis t

tactics b y imputin g ba dmotive s t o th e GWAA . Fo r example , in a

n effor t t o sho w FA A th e informatio n tha t th e GWA A Boar dha d a t before i t whe n i t considere dComplainant' s proposal , th e GWA A submitte dt o th e administrativ e recor dalette r

i t sough t an dreceive dfro mEaster n Aviatio n Insuranc e Services ' Presiden t Terry Britt date dMay 7 , 2007 . Se e Answe r Exh . R . A s th e forme r

Chairman of

th e Gwinnett

County (Georgia ) Airport

Authority , Mr . Britt

i s know n t o th e GWA A Boar dChairma n for hi s

' Complainan t

argue s that

th e "GWA A ha s grante dSI G a n exclusiv e fue

l sale s monopol y . . . . " Repl y at 2 . Unde r antitrus t law , th e showin g o f

"monopoly " require s tw o elements : (1 ) possessio n o f monopol y powe r

in arelevan t marke t (whic h mus t

b e defined ) an d(2 ) exercis e o f tha t powe r t o extrac t

monopol y profits . Unite dState s v . Grinnel l Co/77. , 38 4 U.S . 563 , 570-7 1 (1966) . However , Complainan t ha s produce dn o evidenc e showin g tha t SI G eithe r possesse s monopol y powe r in an y market , o r

tha t i t ha s exercise dsuc h power . ^ A s alread y state do n th e recor din thi s investigatory proceeding , th e G^A A i s willin g t o waiv e fo r Complainan t th e sam e minimu mstandard s i t waive dfo

r th e incumben t

FBO .experienc e in airpor t matters . Mr . Britt' s lette r clearl y state s avali dconcern : that allowin g a

n aeronautica l servic e provide r t o skim-of

f "profi t fromth e sal e of

fue l withou t havin g t o provid e th e associate dservices, " tilt s th e playin g fiel dagains t thos e businesse s that

ar e playin g b y th e rules , an dmay ultimatel y resul t i n th e los s o f

full FB O service s a

t th e Airport . Answe r

Exh . R a t 1 . Rathe r

than addressin g th e issue s raise di n Mr . Britt' s letter . Complainan t instea dquestion s th e busines s motive s of

th e author . Repl y a

t 3 . However , th e concern s raise din Mr . Britt' s lette r are n o les s vali deve n if

, a s Complainan t

alleges , Mr . Britt' s curren t employe r

i s associate dwit

h SIG' s fue l supplier . Ultimately , i t wa s th e GWA A Board' s concern for maintainin g aleve l playin g fiel dtha

t le dit t o gran t Complainant' s reques t

t o sel l fue

l a t th e Airport

unde r th e condition s outline dabove . Likewise , despit e repeate drequest s b y th e GWA A tha t Complainan t

see k approva l o f

th e Airpor t site fro mwhic h h e woul dlik e t o operat e hi s propose daeronautica l busines s {se e e.g. . Lette r fro mHarrel l Everet t

t o Glen n Barfiel d(Dec . 6 , 2007) , Complaint , Exh . L ; E-mai l correspondenc e betwee n Harrel l Everet t an dDe l Johnso n (Nov . 26 , 2007) , Repl y Exh . G) , Complainan t

no w alternativel y argue s tha t th e GWA A Boar dChairma n i s lyin g (Repl y a t 5 an d6) , tha t

th e GWA A alread y posse s al l th e informatio n it need s t o gran t

th e approval (Repl y a t 5 ; E-mai l correspondenc e betwee n De l Johnso n an dDavi dGurle y (May 9-10 , 2007) , Repl y Exh . F) , and/o r

that approva l ha s alread y bee n grante d(Repl y Exh. G a t 3) . However , notwithstandin g hi s a dhomine mattacks . Complainan t introduce s n o evidenc e showin g tha t h e sough t approva l o f

asit e for th e busines s tha

t wa s approve db y th e GWAA , o r tha t th e GWA A Boar dgrante dsuc h approval . Complainan t kne w earl y i n th e proces s of Ott o Keesling's' '

' Mr . Keeslin g i s th e chai r o f GWA A Board' s Buildin g an dGround s Committee . Keeslin g Aff , ^ 1 , Rebutta l Exh . A .reservation s abou t th e propose dlocatio n for th e fuel tan k

an dpump , whic h ha dbee n mad e know n a t apubli c GWA A Boar dmeeting . Keeslin g Aff. , | 3 . After th e Complainant' s initial exchang e wit

h th e GWAA' s outsid e local civi l engineer . Tre y Gurley , th e Complainan t di dno t follow-up , a s h e was aske dt o do , t o ensur e tha t hi s propose dself-servic e fue l tank s an dpump s complie dwit

h airport safet y rules . Gurle y Aff. , f i 3-4 , Rebutta l Exh . B . Moreover , th e Complainant' s initia l exchang e wit h Messrs . Keeslin g an dGurle y predate dth e GWA A Board' s acceptanc e of

hi s reques t

t o sel l fuel (Keeslin g Aff. , ^"I 4-5 ; Gurle y Aff. , 1 6) , and , therefore , include donl y th e locatio n of hi s propose dfuel tan k

an dpumps . Finally , th e Complainan t knew , o r shoul dhav e known , tha t th e approva l of

asit e coul dcom e onl y fro mth e GWA A Boar ditself , an dno t fromMr . Keeslin g and/o r Mr . Gurley . Repl y Exh . G ; Keeslin g Aff. , % 5 . At thi s point , i

t i s unknow n wher e a

t th e Airport

th e Complainan t

intend s t o locat e hi s busines s s o that h e ca n b e in complianc e wit

h Sectio n 8 (eve n takin g int o accoun t th e waiver s that

th e GWA A i s willin g t o grant) . Fo r

example . Sectio n 8 woul drequir e th e Complainan t t o maintai n "manne doffic e facilitie s a

t th e Airport

durin g al l busines s hours " (Complain t Exh . M , Sectio n 8.A.) , ye t Complainan t

ha s no t indicate dwher e h e intend s t o maintai n suc h office . Likewise , Sectio n 8 woul drequir e Complainan t t o provid e "[a]dequat e facilitie s for checkin g in [charter/ai r taxi ] passengers , handlin g ticketin g o r far e collections , an dhandlin g of luggage " {id . Sectio n 8.L.I.) , ye t Complainan t

ha s no t indicate dwher e o r

ho w h e intend s t o fulfill thos e obligations . Complainan t

kne w abou t

thi s seemingl y simpl e requiremen t whe n th e GWA A Boar daccepte d hi s proposal , an dwa s remindedo f i t agai n o n Novembe r

26 , 200 7 (Repl y Exh . G ) an dDecembe r 6 , 200 7 (Complain t

Exh . L ; Decembe r

6 , 200 7 GWA A Boar dMeetin g Minutes , Answe r Exh . S) . Th e GWA A believe s tha t requirin g ane w entran t

t o identif y th e locatio n a

t th e Airport

wher e h e intend s t o conduc t

hi s aeronautica l busines s doe s no t violat e th e GWA A Federa l obligations .Complainant , o n th e othe r hand , view s suc h arequiremen t no t onl y a s a n inconvenience , bu t

als o claim s tha t

i t amount s t o acomplianc e breac h o n th e part of th e Airport

sponsor . Complainant' s refusal t o indicat e th e sit e a t th e Airport

i n whic h h e intend s t o locat e hi s busines s likel y stem s fro mhi s refusa l t o accep t

tha t h e mus t compl y wit

h th e minimu mstandard s se t fort h i n Sectio n 8 o f

th e Airport

Rule s an dRegulation s - a t leas t thos e requirement s that

ar e impose don SIG , th e incumben t FBO . T o highligh t

thi s point . Complainan t

no w argues , for

th e firs t tim e in thi s proceeding , that th e GWA A i s in violatio n of Gran t Assuranc e 2 2 becaus e th e GWA A i s requirin g hi mt o bundl e othe r aeronautica l service s whil e waivin g thos e requirement s fo r SIG." * Repl y a

t 10-11 . Complainan t

i s wron g for

tw o reasons . First , a s th e GWA A ha s clearl y state don th e record , i t i s willin g t o waiv e for

Complainan t

th e sam e minimu mstandard s that it waive dfor

SIG . Answe r

a t 26-27 ; Wilkin s Aff,Answe r Exh . A, f

18 . Second , ther e i s n o credibl e basi s t o alleg e (a s Complainan t does ) that

SI G "ha s cease dprovidin g th e fourt h require d service , charter/ai r

taxi." ^ Repl y a

t 11 ; se e als o Repl y a

t 7 ; E-mai l correspondenc e betwee n De l Johnso n an dJi mSteel e (Feb . 21-22 , 2009) , Repl y Exh . H . SI G ha s provide dan dcontinue s t o provid e charte r

service s a

t th e Airport , a s i t

i s contractuall y require dt o do. ^ Complain t Exh . R § 1.6 . Ha dth e Complainan t bothere dt o as k

instea do f

engagin g in contrivede-mai l exchange s wit h SIG' s manage r

{se e Repl y Exh . H) , th e Complainan t woul dhav e learne dthat

SIG' s aircraf

t

* Th e clai mtha

t th e GWA A i s in violatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 2 2 i s raise dfo r th e first tim e in th e Repl y (Repl y a t 9

- 11 ) in contraventio n t o th e requiremen t that eac h allegatio n b e made , an dsupportin g fact s b e stated , in th e origina l Complaint . 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(b) . FA A shoul ddiscourag e suc h ambus h tactics . ' Likewise , ther e i s n o support for Complainant' s allegatio n that SI G self-waive s "whateve r requirement s i

t prefer s no t t o meet, " o r

that "[t]her e ar e n o formal waivers " fo r SIG . Repl y a

t 7 . Th e FB O servic e requirement s impose do n SI G ar e clearl y spelle dou t in th e 200 7 Fixe dBas e Operatio n Agreemen t {see Complain t

Exh . R§ 1) , non e o f

whic h hav e bee n waived . * Pursuan t

t o th e Airport' s minimu mstandards , th e Complainan t als o woul db e require dt o hav e a"properl y certifie d suitabl e aircraf

t wit h properl y certifie dan dqualifie doperatin g cre w availabl e fo r [charter ] service " (Complain t Exh . M , Sectio n 8.L.2. ) i f h e want s t o sel l fuel a

t th e Airport .continue s t o b e availabl e unde r aPart 13 5 certificate, ^ an dremain s availabl e for on-deman d charte r service s (Steel e Rebutta l Aff, f f 4-5 , Rebutta l Exh . C) . Complainan t

als o renew s th e unsupporte dclai mtha t SI G ha s contro l of

th e Airport

an d that , "[w]ith ver

y limite dexception s involvin g afe w privatel y owne dhangars , an y othe r party wishin g t o operat e acommercia l aeronautica l activity o n th e airpor t mus t d o s o a s asubtenan t

of SIG. " Repl y a

t 12 . Th e argumen t

flie s in th e fac e of

th e facts . Th e GWA A ha s introduce din th e administrativ e recor dcopie s of th e mos t

recen t Airport Layou t Plan clearl y depictin g comparativel y larg e swath s of Airport lan dtha t

are designated an dreserve dfor planne dan d futur e aeronautica l development . Answe r Exh . P . Non e of

th e area s availabl e for future Q aeronautica l us e ar e "controlled, " contractuall y o r otherwise , b y SIG . Moreover , i t stand s t o reaso n tha

t if (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 that a t som e poin t

i n th e proces s Complainan t hadbee n advise dt o g o spea

k wit h SI G abou t

subleasin g spac e a

t th e Airport . Complainan t ha s introduce d n o suc h evidence . Sectio n 8 expressl y state s tha t al l FBO s mus t

hav e " afully execute dleas e agreemen t

wit h th e Owner. " Complain t Exh . M , Sectio n 8.A . (emphasi s added) . Th e owne r of th e Airport

i s th e GWA A {se

e id . Sectio n 1) , no t

SIG . Complainant' s allegation s regardin g SI G contro l of th e Airport

are simpl y wrong . Lastly , Complainan t

engage s i

n a n accountin g shel l gam e t o argu e that , in hi s opinion , th e GWA A i s payin g SI G to o muc h for th e service s SI G provide s a s manage r of th e Airport

an d a s th e rental agen t

for th e T-hangars . Repl y a

t 13-14 . A s state dabove . Complainan t i s entitle dt o hi s ow n opinions . Th e GWA A disagree s wit h Complainant , an dbelieve s that th e amount s pai d

^ FA A ca n easil y confir

mthi s assertio n throug h th e agency' s ow n certificatio n records . * Th e GWA A als o note s that th e Complainan t

doe s no t argu e tha

t th e spac e an dfacilitie s tha t SI G lease s ar e no t bein g fully utilized .and/o r

retaine db y SI G (Answe r a t 38-43 ) ar e reasonabl e unde r th e circumstance s an din ful l complianc e wit

h th e GWAA' s Federa l obligations. ^ II . CONCLUSIO N Complainan t

want s t o offe

r self-servic e fuelin g a

t th e Airport . H e believe s tha t th e requirement s bein g impose db y th e Airport proprieto r

ar e aviolatio n o f

Federa l law . Th e GWAA , o n th e othe r

hand , believe s tha t

it i s neithe r

unreasonabl y excludin g Complainan t fro m conductin g hi s chose n aeronautica l activity a t th e Airport

b y imposin g unreasonabl e requirements , grantin g a n exclusiv e right

t o th e incumben t

FBO , no r

failin g t o operat e th e Airport a s financiall y self-sustainin g a s possibl e unde r th e circumstances . I

n short , th e GWA A believe s tha

t i t i s no t i n violatio n of

it s Federa l obligation s a s allege db y Complainant . Therefore , becaus e th e claim s raise db y Complainan t are no t supporte db y facts , law , o r agenc y policy , th e Complain t

shoul db e dismisse dwit

h prejudice .

' A s th e airport

proprietor , th e GWA A i s bes t suite dt o determin e whethe r payment s mad e ar e commensurat e wit h service s received . However , th e GWA A welcome s amor e in-depth revie w b y FA A i f th e agenc y believe s tha

t suc h arevie w woul dai di n th e resolutio n o f thi s case .Respectfull y submitted . 

## CJ^.I^MJ I CM^SC . W . Harrel l Everett , Jr . @ Everett , Womble , Lawrenc e & Brown , LL P 50 7 B Nort

h Spenc e Avenu e Goldsboro,N C 2753 2 Phone : 919-778-670 7 Fax : 919-751-259 8

Pabl o O . Niiesc h Elain e C . Lippman n Spiege l & McDiarmi dLL P 133 3 Ne w Hampshir e Ave. , N.W . Washington , D C 2003 6 Phone : 202-879-400 0 Fax : 202-393-286 6 Attorney s for

th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authority

Marc h 16 , 200 9

## EXHIBI T AAffidavi t o f Ott o H . Keeslin g I , Ott o H . Keesling , d o hereb y stat e upo n my oat h tha t th e followin g statement s ar e tru e and correc t accordin g t o th e bes t

o f my knowledge , information , an dbelie f 1 . I hav e bee n amembe r o f th e Goldsboro-Wayn e Airport Authorit y ("GWAA" ) Boar dsinc e 1995 . I amals o th e curren t chai r o f th e GWA A Board' s Buildin g an dGround s Committee . I n tha t

capacity , I a

mfamilia r with th e events leadin g u p t o th e complain t that wa s file dwith FA A agains t

th e GWA A b y Mr . Delbert Johnson , whic h i s captione dDelber t Johnso n V . Goldsboro-Wayn e Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 19-08-11 . 2 . I hav e rea dth e Repl y filedi n thi s case , an dsubmi t thi s rebutta l affidavi t

t o clarif y a n issu e raise di n tha t

filing. 3 . Soo n after

w e receive dMr . Johnson' s origina l proposa l fo r aself-servic e ftieling business , I openl y an dpublicl y (a t aGWA A Boar dmeeting ) state dm y concer n tha t th e propose d locatio n fo

r fue l tank s an dpump s was to o clos e t o th e aircraf t movemen t

areas . I fel

t tha t th e propose dlocatio n woul dcreat e asafet y hazard . 4 . 1 neve r

hear dbac k

fi-omMr . Johnso n abou t

alocatio n fo

r hi s busines s afte

r hi s proposa l was approve db y th e GWA A Boar di n Octobe r 2007 . 5 . I coul dno t

hav e "approved " asit e fo r Mr . Johnson' s busines s becaus e h e neve r presente dasit e t o approv e after th e GWA A Boar dmad e it clear that , i f h e was goin g t o sel l aviatio n ftiel a

t th e Airport , h e woul db e expecte dt o als o offe r al l o f th e othe r service s require d b y Sectio n 8 o f

th e Airport' s Rule s an dRegulations . Eve n i f I wante dto , I coul dno t

hav e approve dasite becaus e I d o no t hav e th e authorit y t o d o so ; onl y th e ful l GWA A Boar dca

n approv e th e locatio n o f

ne w busines s a

t th e Airport . Further , affiant

sayet h naught . Dated : Marc h t- ^ , 200 9

' / J /• ' 

## mA /

- < c</ ' Ott o H.,Keeslin g /

7 ^ Subscribe dan dsworn t o befor e m e thi s i> ! day o f March , 2009 . 

# fP^"'^ . Name : dI . u-ic v B . • 'Ofc^'inc v £ ^^''HA L ^" ^ Notar y Publi c i $ i O ^ ^ ^ 5 M y commissio n expires : 'D^n't^Cl l \T ^ ^Ll C ^

## ExHiBr r BAffidavi t o f Davi dE . Gurley , II I I , Davi d\i . Gurley . HI , d o hereb y stat e upo n my oat h that th e followin g statement s are tru e an dcorrec t

accordin g t o th e bes t

o f m y knowledge , information , an dbelie f 1 . I a macivi l enginee r

an dprincipa l o f

Gurle y Engineerin g Inc. , whic h i s locate din Goldsboro , North Carolina . I hav e bee n retaine dt o provid e civi l engineerin g service s t o th e Goldsbor o Wayn e Airport Authorit y ("GWAA" ) sinc e June . 2006 . 2 . I wa s aske db y th e GWA A Boar dt o submi t thi s affidavi t

t o clarif y a n issu e which , I understand , ha s bee n raise di n a n ongoin g FA A investigation . 3 . I n Ma y o f

200 7 I reviewe dadrawin g tha t was presente db y Mr . Johnso n depictin g apropose dlocatio n for a n aviation-fue l tan k

an dpump . Th e locatio n was i n th e middl e o f th e existin g aircraf

t parkin g apron , generall y i n fron t o f th e building s tha t

ar e know n a s Hangar # 1 an dHangar

#2 . 4 . Give n th e natur e o f th e propose dstructures , I tol dMr . Johnso n that h e shoul d contac t th e GWAA' s airport

consultants . Th e LP A Grou p o f North Carolina , 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 dm e agai n askin g whethe r

I coul dprovid e hi mwith acop y o f th e airport

layou t plan , becaus e (h e stated ) obtainin g acop y throug h Th e LP A Grou p woul dcos t $150 . I tol dhi mI di dno t hav e a cop y o f thos e drawing s t o giv e away . 5 . I neve r

me t with Mr . Johnso n and/o r Ott o Keeslin g on sit e t o discus s apossibl e locatio n fo

r Mr . Johnson' s propose dfacility . In fact , I hav e neve r me t i n perso n with Mr . Johnson , althoug h I hav e see n hi ma t GWA A Boar dmeetings . 6 . I ha dn o mor e contact s with Mr . Johnso n afte r th e Sprin g o f

200 7 regardin g th e seif-sers'ic e fue

l tank an dpump . Further , affiant

sayet h naught . Dated : Marc h | A ,200 9

Subscribe ^ an dsworn t o befor e m e [ ^ day o f

March , 2009 . 

### 'aE^.C^^T^b^Oy<^(nr^j I Name : C^I,'oi<3u3-S^ZJC-at^© ^ Notar y Publi c M y commissio n expires : Qjz}x—^ D I f \

## EXHIBI T CAffidavi t o f Jame s A . Steel e I , Jame s A . Steele , d o hereb y stat e upo n my oat h that th e followin g statement s ar e tru e an d correc t accordin g t o th e bes t

o f my knowledge , information , an dbelie f 1 . I previousl y submitte da n affidavi t i n thi s cas e that

wa s appende da s Exhibi t S

_t o th e Goldsbor o Wayn e Airport Authority' s ("GWAA" ) Answe r an dMotio n t o Dismiss . 2 . I a msubmittin g thi s affidavi t t o clarif y a n e-mai l exchang e tha t

I recentl y ha d with De l Johnson , whic h I understan dha s bee n submitte dint o th e administrativ e recor din thi s proceeding . 3 . I n th e mornin g o f

Saturday , Februar y 21, 1 receive da n e-mai l inquiry fromMr . Johnso n regardin g apossibl e charte r trip . Believin g tha t

hi s inquiry wa s a

n actua l reques t

fo r ai r transportation , I responde dshortl y thereafte r an dexplaine dthat , whil e SI G pilot s coul dno t fly him , w e coul dmak e acharte r aircraf t availabl e t o him . I als o offere dt o explai n ou r pricin g structure . Mr . Johnso n neve r responde dt o m y question s regardin g wher e h e wante dt o fly o r whe n h e woul dnee dth e service. 4 . Althoug h SI G pilot s are currentl y no t flying charte r

services , ou r

aircraf t i s o n th e Par t 13 5 (on-deman dairplan e pax/cargo ) charte r certificat e fo

r Je t Direc t Aviation . Whe n w e receiv e acharte r

request . Je t

Direc t assign s th e pilot s t o fly th e aircraft . Althoug h SI G pilot s normall y fly th e aircraft , tha t i s no t a n absolut e requiremen t

an dJe t Direc t ha s th e authorit y to assig n othe r

pilot s for charte r flights. I believ e that

suc h a n arrangemen t

fulfill s SIG' s contractua l obligation s with th e GWAA . 5 . A s aresul t

o f th e recen t

sal e o f Je t Direc t Aviation , SI G ha s bee n considerin g movin g it s aircraf

t t o th e certificat e o f

anothe r charte r provider . SI G i s currentl y evaluatin g it s option s an dexpect s t o complet e th e mov e withi n th e nex t 45-6 0 days . Further , affiant

sayet h naught . Dated : Marc h O- , 200 9 

# A 

# "^L ^

Subscribe dan dsworn t o befor e m e thi s Q aa y o f March , 2009 .

Notary Publi c ^ , ^ ^ § ^ J^^'^ A O \ Notary Pubh c . • —^A . M y commissio n expires : c> < " ' 'o^/ /

| > ^j . ^ ^ ^ i

## CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC ECertificat e o f Servic e

I hereb y certif

y tha t I hav e today , th e 16"^ day o f March , 2009 , serve dth e foregoin g Rebutta l b y U.S . mai l delivery , o n th e following : Glen n A . Barfield , Esq . Haithcock , Barfield , Huls e & Kinsey , PLL C 23 1 Eas t Walnu t Stree t Pos t Offic e Drawe r

7 Goldsboro , Nort

h Carolin a27533-000 7 Attorne y for

Complainan t 

# O Pabl o O . Niiesc h