Vi 

Q 

U.S. Department f°0 Ir.''^P®"''n?f®,^=!-J ^•^• 

of Transportation Washington. D.C. 20591 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Mr. Mark Willekes, General Manager 

Mac Dan Aviation 

27 Wright Way 

Fairfield, NJ 07004 ;r; 

Re: Mac Dan Aviation v. Essex County Improvement Authority, Owners and Managers of v^t; 

Essex County Airport, FAA Docket No. 16-09-08 . • 

Dear Mr. Willekes: f^ 

The above-listed complaint filed by complainant Mac Dan Aviation, against the respondents ==: 

Essex County Improvement Authority, has been determined to be incomplete under 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 16. 

Pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.23(b), complaints shall: 

(1) State the name and address of each person who is the subject of the complaint 

and, with respect to each person, the specific provisions of each Act that the 

complainant believes were violated; 

(2) Be served, in accordance with § 16.15, along with all documents then 

available in the exercise of reasonable diligence, offered in support of the complaint, 

upon all persons named in the complaint as persons responsible for the alleged action(s) 

or omission(s) upon which the complaint is based; 

(3) Provide a concise but complete statement of the facts relied upon to 

substantiate each allegation; and 

(4) Describe how the complainant was directly and substantially affected by the 

things done or omitted to be done by the respondents. 

Copies of all documents filed with the FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket must be 

served by the persons filing them on all parties to the proceeding, and contain a certificate of 

service certifying concurrent service on the FAA and all parties. See 14 CFR § 16.15(a). 

In addition, complaints must contain a certification by the complainants or the complainants' 

authorized representative that substantial and reasonable good faith efforts to resolve the 

disputed matter informally prior to filing the complaint were made, and that there is no 
reasonable prospect for timely resolution of the dispute. See 14 CFR §16.21(b). Accordingly, 

a brief description of the party's efforts to obtain informal resolution is also required. 

Your complaint has been determined to be incomplete because it lacks a certificate of service 

confirming concurrent service on all parties as required by 14 CFR § 16.15 and because it does 

not meet the pre-complaint resolution requirements of 14 CFR §16.21. 

Part 16 procedural rules require that a certificate of service be filed to substantiate that service 

has been properly made on all parties to a proceeding. The certificate of service confirms that 

respondents have notice of the complaint in sufficient time to answer the allegations in the 

complaint. The rule contemplates that respondents are afforded an opportunity to review a 

complaint during the initial 20 days allotted for FAA's review to determine if the complaint 

merits a notice of proceeding. Without proper proof of service confirming notice of the Part 16 

pleadings, parties could be subject to prejudicial treatment due to an insufficient amount of 

time to respond to allegations in the pleadings. 

Part 16 complaints will not be considered unless the complainant certifies that the required 

substantial and reasonable good faith efforts have been initiated before filing along with the 

certification that there appears to be no reasonable prospect for timely resolution of the dispute. 

Here, the complainants' statements regarding informal resolution efforts to resolve the disputed 

matters fall short of the required certification of good faith efforts at informal resolution 

required by 14 CFR §16.21. See Complaint fi-om Mac Dan Aviation fi-om Mark Willekes, 

General Manager of Mac Dan Aviation Corp. 1 (Jul. 17,2009) (on file with FAA)[herinafter 

Complamt]\ The complainants merely allege, without detail or evidence, that they have 

attempted to resolve issues with the respondent. Id., at 7 and 10. The complainants state that 

they have repeatedly asked the respondent to remove private information firom a publicly 

viewed airport operations trailer and that the parties have repeatedly discussed the issue of 

having two fueling companies at the airport. Id. Yet, there is no documentation or additional 

specific detail provided concerning these discussions. Instead, the only evidence of possible 

communication between the parties comes in the form of a single email correspondence 

between Mr. Willekes, General Manager of Mac Dan Aviation, and a person who is 

presumably an airport employee. Id., at Appendix 14. While it is possible to infer based on the 

"from" and "to" lines in the email that Mr. Willekes is discussing an issue with a person who is 

an airport employee, the FAA cannot discern the issue being addressed. Id. Separate emails, 

later in the complaint only demonstrate that employees of the complainant were aware of other 

examples of the respondent's alleged mismanagement, but provide no evidence of any 

exchange with the respondent. Complaint, supra, at Appendices 15 and 16. Under these 

circumstances, complainants' assertions are insufficient to meet the requirements of section 

16.21. 

Furthermore, the relief the complainants seek is outside the scope of the FAA's authority under 

Part 16. The complainants "demand that the [respondents] adhere to their commitments and 

returns to the policy of one allowing [the complainant] to sell fuel at the [the airport] until such 

The complaint, which is contained in a black binder, is not numbered on the individual pages. Instead, the 

complaint contains an index demonstrating that the complaint letter (or first document in the binder) represents 

pages one and two with all subsequent pages (prior to the 18 appendices) representing pages three through eleven. 

The references to page numbers in this letter follow this scheme. 
time that the annual sales will hit 4 million gallon annually." The Part 16 airport enforcement 

proceeding is an administrative proceeding designed to determine an airport sponsor's 

compliance with its federal obligations. There is no private right of relief for complainants 

under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act. As a result, FAA may not make complainants 

whole, award damages, or negotiate contracts between a sponsor and its airport tenants. The 

FAA's role is to ensure an airport sponsor's compliance with appropriate assurances under 

various grant agreements and to bring a sponsor into a state of compliance when appropriate. 

[FAA Order 5190.6A, Chapter 5, Sec. 5-lb] Relief is limited under 14 CFR § 16.109, and 

compliance orders may include terminating eligibility for grants pursuant to 49 USC 

§§47106(e) and 47111(d), see e.g., 14 CFR § 16.109. 

In conclusion, pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.27, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice as 

incomplete. The complainants may file a new complaint that corrects the deficiencies noted 

above. Part 16 Docket No. 16-08-09 is closed. Should you have any questions on this matter 

please contact David Cushing, Office of Airport Compliance, AAS-400, at (202) 267-8348. 

Sincerely, 

Randall Fiertz Date 

Director of Airport Compliance and Field Operations 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 5, 2009,1 caused to be personally delivered by U.S. 

Mail, or by overnight express delivery and facsimile transmission, a true copy of the foregoing 

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE addressed to: 

Essex County Improvement Authority 

For Essex County Airport 

155 Passaic Avenue, 4'*' Floor 

Fairfield, New Jersey 07004 

FAA Part 16 Pleading Docket 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

AGC-600 

Washington, DC 20591 

!th J. Weir 

Airports Law Attorney 

•;'* *