# V i 

# Q U.S . Departmen t f° 0 Ir.''^P®"''n?f®,^=!- J ^•^ • o f Transportatio n Washington . D.C . 2059 1 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Mr . Mar k Willekes , Genera

l Manage r Ma c Da n Aviatio n 27 Wrigh t Wa y Fairfield , N

J 07004 ;r ; Re : Ma c Da n Aviatio n v . Essex Count

y Improvemen

t Authority , Owner s an

d Manager s of

v^t ; Esse x Count y Airport , FA

A Docke t No . 16-09-0 8 . • Dea r Mr . Willekes : f ^ Th e above-liste d complain

t filed b y complainan

t Ma c Da n Aviation , agains t

th e respondent s ==

: Esse x Count y Improvemen

t Authority , ha s been determine d t o b e incomplet

e unde r 1 4 Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s (CFR

) Par t 16 . Pursuan t to 1 4 CF R § 16.23(b) , complaint s shall : (1 ) Stat e th e nam e an d addres s o f

each perso n wh o i s th e subjec t o f th e complain

t and , wit h respec t t o each person , th e specifi c provision s o f each Ac t tha t th e complainan

t believe s wer

e violated ; (2 ) B e served , i

n accordanc e wit

h § 16.15 , alon g wit

h al l document s the n availabl e in th e exercis e o

f reasonabl e diligence , offere d in suppor

t o f th e complaint , upon al l person s name d in th e complain t a s person s responsibl e fo

r th e allege d action(s ) o r omission(s ) upo n whic h th e complain t i s based ; (3 ) Provide aconcis e but

complet e statemen t of th e facts relie d upo n t o substantiat e each allegation ; an

d (4 ) Describ e ho w th e complainan t wa s directly and substantially affected by th e thing s done or

omitte d t o b e don e by th e respondents . Copie s o f all document s filed wit

h th e FA A Par t 1 6 Airpor t Proceeding s Docket

mus t b e serve d by th e person s filing the

mo n all partie s to th e proceeding , an d contai n acertificat

e of servic e certifying concurren t servic e o n th e FA A an d al l parties . See 1 4 CF

R § 16.15(a) . I n addition , complaint s mus t contain acertificatio n by th e complainant s o r th e complainants ' authorize d representativ e tha t substantia l an d reasonabl e goo d fait

h effort s to resolv e th e dispute d matte

r informall y prior to filing th e complain

t wer e made , an

d tha t there i s n oreasonabl e prospec t fo r timely resolutio n o

f th e dispute . Se

e 1 4 CF R §16.21(b) . Accordingly , abrie f descriptio n o f

th e party' s efforts to obtain informa l resolutio n i s als o required . You r complain t ha s bee n determine d t

o b e incomplet

e becaus e i t

lack s acertificat

e o f servic e confirming concurrent

servic e on al l partie s a s require d by 1 4 CF R § 16.1 5 an

d becaus e i t

doe s no t mee t th e pre-complaint

resolutio n requirement s o f 1 4 CF R §16.21 . Par t 1 6 procedura

l rule s requir

e tha t acertificat

e o f servic e b e filed to substantiat e tha t servic e ha s bee n properl y mad

e on al l partie s to aproceeding . Th e certificat e of servic e confirm s tha

t respondent s hav e notic e of th e complain

t in sufficien

t time to answe

r th e allegation s in th e complaint . The rul e contemplate s tha t respondent s ar

e afforde d a n opportunit

y to revie w a complain t durin g th e initia

l 2 0 day s allotte d fo

r FAA' s revie w to determin e i f th e complain

t merit s anotic e o f

proceeding . Withou

t prope r proo f o f servic e confirming notic e o f th e Par t 1 6 pleadings , partie s coul d b e subject to prejudicia

l treatmen t du e to a n insufficien

t amoun t of time to respon d to allegation s i n th e pleadings . Par t 1 6 complaint s wil l no t

b e considere d unles s th e complainan t certifie s tha

t th e require d substantia l an d reasonabl e goo d fait

h efforts hav e bee

n initiate d befor

e filing alon g wit

h th e certificatio n tha

t ther e appear s t o b e no reasonabl e prospec t fo r timely resolutio n o f

th e dispute . Here , th e complainants ' statement s regardin g informa l resolutio n efforts t o resolv e th e dispute d matter s fal l shor t o f th e require d certificatio n of goo d fait h efforts a t informa l resolutio n require d by 1 4 CF

R §16.21 . Se

e Complain

t fi-omMa c Da n Aviatio n fi-omMar

k Willekes , Genera l Manage r o f Ma c Da n Aviatio n Corp . 1 (Jul . 17,2009 ) (o n file wit h FAA)[herinafte

r Complamt] \Th

e complainant s merely allege , without detai l or evidence , tha

t they hav e attempte d to resolv e issue s wit h th e respondent . Id. , a

t 7 an d 10 . The complainant s stat e tha t the y hav e repeatedly aske d th e responden t to remov e privat

e informatio n firomapublicly viewed airpor

t operation s traile

r an d tha t th e partie s hav e repeatedl y discusse d th e issu e o f havin g tw o fuelin

g companie s a

t th e airport . Id . Yet , ther

e i s n o documentatio n o

r additiona l specifi c detai l provide d concernin g thes e discussions . Instead , th e only evidenc e o f possibl e communicatio n between th e partie s come s in th e for mo f asingl e emai l correspondenc e betwee n Mr . Willekes , Genera

l Manage r o f Ma c Da n Aviation , and aperso n who i s presumabl y a n airpor t employee . Id. , a

t Appendi x 14 . Whil e i t

i s possibl e to infe

r base d on th e "from " an d "to " line s i n th e email tha t Mr . Willeke s i s discussin g a n issu e wit h aperso n who i s a n airpor t employee , th e FA

A canno t discer n th e issu e bein g addressed . Id . Separat e emails , late r i n th e complain

t only demonstrat

e tha t employee s of

th e complainant

wer e awar e of othe r example s o f

th e respondent' s allege d mismanagement , but provid e n o evidenc e o f

an y exchang e wit

h th e respondent . Complaint , supra , a t Appendice s 1 5 an

d 16 . Unde

r thes e circumstances , complainants ' assertion s ar e insufficien

t t o mee t th e requirement s o f

sectio n 16.21 . Furthermore , th e relie f

th e complainant s see

k i s outsid e th e scop e o f

th e FAA' s authorit

y unde r Par t 16 . The complainant s "deman d tha t th e [respondents ] adher

e t o their commitment s an

d return s to th e polic y of

on e allowin g [th

e complainant ] to sell fue

l a t th e [th e airport] unti l suc

h Th e complaint , whic

h i s containe d i

n ablack binder , i s no t

numbered o

n the individua

l pages . Instead , th

e complain t contain s a n inde x demonstratin g tha

t th e complain

t lette r (or first documen t i n th e binder

) represent s page s one an

d tw o wit h al l subsequen

t page s (prio r

t o th e 1 8 appendices ) representin g page s thre e through eleven . Th e reference s t

o pag e number s i

n thi s lette r follo w thi s scheme .tim

e tha t th e annua l sale s will hi t

4 millio n gallo n annually. " Th e Par t 1 6 airpor t enforcemen

t proceedin g i s a

n administrativ e proceedin g designe d to determine a n airpor t sponsor' s complianc e wit

h it s federa

l obligations . Ther

e i s n o privat

e right o f relie f fo r complainant s unde r th e Airpor

t an d Airwa y Improvemen

t Act . A s aresult , FA

A ma y no t mak e complainant s whole , awar

d damages , or

negotiat e contract s between asponso r an d it s airpor

t tenants . The FAA' s rol e i s to ensur

e a n airpor t sponsor' s complianc e wit

h appropriat

e assurance s unde

r variou s gran

t agreement s an

d to brin g asponsor

into astat e o f complianc e whe

n appropriate . [FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Chapte

r 5 , Sec . 5-lb ] Relie f

i s limite d unde

r 1 4 CF R § 16.109 , an

d complianc e order s ma

y include terminatin g eligibilit y fo r grant s pursuant

t o 4 9 US C §§47106(e ) an

d 47111(d) , see e.g. , 1 4 CF R § 16.109 . I n conclusion , pursuan

t to 1 4 CF R § 16.27 , th e complain

t i s dismisse d without

prejudic e a s incomplete . The complainant s ma y file anew complain

t tha t correct s th e deficiencie s note d above . Par

t 1 6 Docke t No . 16-08-0 9 i s closed . Should yo u hav e an y question s o

n thi s matte

r pleas e contac t

Davi d Cushing , Office o f

Airpor t Compliance , AAS-400 , a

t (202 ) 267-8348 . Sincerely ,

Randall Fiertz Dat e Director o f Airpor t Complianc e an

d Fiel d Operation sCERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I HEREB Y CERTIF

Y tha t o n Augus t 5 , 2009, 1 caused t

o b e personall

y delivere d b

y U.S . Mail , o r b y overnigh t expres s deliver

y an d facsimile transmission , atru e cop y o f the foregoin

g DISMISSAL WITHOU

T PREJUDIC E addressed to : Esse x County Improvemen t Authorit y Fo r Esse x County Airpor t 15 5 Passai c Avenue , 4'* ' Floo r Fairfield , New Jerse y 0700 4 FA A Par t 1 6 Pleadin g Docke t 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W AGC-60 0 Washington , D C 2059 1

!t h J . Wei r Airport s La w Attorne y

•;'* *