BEFOR E TH E FEDERAL AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C .

STERLIN G AVIATION , LLC ,

Complainant , V . MILWAUKE E COUNTY , WISCONSIN ,

Respondent . 

# |I^feu^lg | AU G 21200 9 ,MS > 

### PAR T 1 6 DOCKET S Docke t No . 16-09-0 3

RESPONDENT' S REBUTTA L Pleas e serve : Scott P . Lewi s Meliss aC . Alliso n ANDERSO N & KREIGE RLL P On e Cana l Park , Suit e 20 0 Cambridge , MA 0214 1 T : 617.621.656 0 F : 617.621.666 0 slewis@andersonkreiger.co m Timoth y R . Karaskiewic z Offic e o f th e Milwauke e Count y Corporatio n Counse l Milwauke e Count y an dGeneral Mitchel l Internationa l Airport 90 1 Nort h Ninth Street , Roo m30 3 Milwaukee , W I 5323 3 T : 414.747.571 2 F : 414.747.452 5 Timothy.Karaskiewicz@milwcnty.co m Counse l for

Responden t r-- )

- ,. T

Augus t 20 , 200 9BEFOR E TH E FEDERAL AVL\TIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C .

STERLIN G AVIATION , LLC ,

Complainant , V . MILWAUKE E COUNTY , WISCONSIN ,

Respondent . Docke t No . 16-09-0 3

RESPONDENT' S REBUTTA L Th e Responden t

Milwauke e Count y (th e "Coimty' ) submit s thi s Rebutta l unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(f ) t o th e Repl y t o Respondent' s Answe r (th e "Reply" ) an dth e Answe r t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s (th e "Opposition" ) filedb y th e Complainan t Sterlin g Aviation , LL C ("Sterling") , Sterling' s Repl y an dOppositio n presen t n o ne w evidenc e tha t

coul dpossibl y justif y a n investigatio n o r

enforcemen t

actio n b y th e FAA . Th e Count y respond s belo w t o Sterling' s misconceive dan dfactuall y unsupporte dargumen t tha t Sterlin g i s similarly-situate dt o th e Cessn aServic e Cente r ("Servic e Center" ) operate db y th e Cessn aAircraf t Compan y ("Cessna" ) a t

Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport ("GMIA") ; Sterling' s failur e t o refiit e th e County' s legitimat e reason s for treatin g Sterlin g an dCessn adifferently ; an dSterling' s belate d an dunacceptabl e reques t

for an amendmen t

t o it s lease . Th e Coimty otherwis e continue s t o rel y o n th e evidenc e an dargument s offere di n it s Answe r an dMotio n t o Dismiss .Argument .

L STERLIN G MISCONCEIVE S TH E APPLICABL E LEGA L STANDARD . Sterlin g argue s i n it s Repl y tha t Sterlin g an dCessn aar e similarly-situate da s amatte r o f la w becaus e the y ar e bot h maintenanc e provider s at GMI A (Reply , ^112 , 3) . Sterling' s argumen t completel y misconceive s th e tes t applie db y th e FA A an dth e court s t o determin e whethe r airport tenant s ar e similarly-situated . T o prevai l o n it s unjus t economi c discriminatio n claim . Sterlin g mus t sho w that

i t i s similarly-situate dt o Cessn a"i n al l relevan t respects. " Se e Rectri x Aerodrom e Centers , Inc . v . Barnstabl e Municipa l Airpor t Commission , F . Supp . 2 d, 200 9 W L 1989096 , at

* 5 (D . Mass . 2009 ) (interna l quotation s omitted) . Se e als o Memorandu m i n Support

o f Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s ("Motio n t o Dismiss" ) at 6 , n.3 . A s th e Count y explaine di n it s Motion t o Dismis s (at 6-9) , ther e ar e man y difference s betwee n th e busines s Sterlin g run s at

GMI A an dth e term s o f

it s lease , o n th e on e hand , an dth e busines s Cessn arun s at GMI A an dth e term s o f

it s lease , o n th e othe r

hand . Th e fac t

that Sterlin g an dCessn abot h happe n t o operat e Par t

14 5 Repai r

Station s a

t GMI A doe s no t

com e clos e t o establishin g tha t the y ar e similarly-situate di n al l relevan t respects . Sterling' s assertio n tha t

th e legal standard s applie di n Penobsco t Ai r Service , Ltd . v . Count y o f Kno x Boar do f

Commissioners , FA A Docke t No . 16-97-05 , 199 7 W L 112074 5 (Sept . 25 , 1997 ) (Recor do f Determination) , d o not

appl y her e (Oppositio n at 3-4 ) i s flatl y wrong . I t makes n o differenc e that th e Penobsco t

decisio n di dno t

addres s self-fuelin g rights.' Thi s proceedin g als o i s no t abou t self-fuelin g rights. After th e FA A confirme dth e County' s I n Maxi mUnite dLL C v . Boar do f Count y Commissioner s o f

Jefferso n County , FA A Docke t No . 16-01-10 , 200 2 W L 96359 0 a t

^1 6 (Apri l 2 , 2002 ) (Director' s Determination) , th e FA A di dno t refus e t o appl y Penobsco t t o a n unjus t economi c discriminatio n clai mconcernin g commercia l fuelin g rights , a s Sterlin g suggest s (Oppositio n at (continued... )positio n o n th e permissibl e scop e o f Sterling' s self-fuelin g operation s (County Exhibi t 7) , Sterlin g droppe dit s self-fuelin g complain t an drepackage dit s clai mi n thi s proceedin g a s on e o f unjus t economi c discrimination . Th e Penobsco t decisio n make s clear

that eve n wher e leas e term s permi t

tw o operator s t o provid e th e sam e o r similar services , th e FA A wil l loo k t o actual operation s t o determin e whethe r th e operator s ar e similarly-situated . Se e id . at *15 . Here , neithe r th e leas e term s no r

th e operation s o f

Sterlin g an dCessn aar e similar . Therefore , unde r Penobsco t

an dth e othe r

authoritie s cite db y th e Coimty i n it s openin g papers , Sterling' s Complain t

mus t b e dismissed . II . STERLIN G OFFER S N O EVIDENC E T O SHO W THA T STERLIN G AN D CESSN A AR E SIMILARLY-SITUATED . Sterlin g - al l but

acknowledgin g tha t

th e unjus t

discriminatio n clai mpresente di n it s Complain t

canno t possibl y pas t

muste r - no w claim s tha t

Cessn aan dSterlin g ar e similarly

situate dbecaus e Cessn ai s acharte r operato r an dan aircraf

t managemen t

operato r (Oppositio n at 2-3) . Sterling' s onl y suppor t fo r thi s assertio n i s that

CitationShares , adivisio n o f th e Cessn a Aircraf t Company , perform s a s part o f it s general busines s activitie s charte r operation s unde r Part 13 5 an dfi-actional ownershi p progra mmanagemen t service s unde r

Part 9 1 (Oppositio n at 2-3) . Sterlin g doe s not

offe r ashre do f

evidenc e t o sho w tha t

Cessn aoperate s charte r

service s o r aircraf t managemen t

service s ou t

o f it s Servic e Cente r

a t GMIA ? I n fact , al l th e evidenc e i n

(continued... ) 4) . Rather , th e languag e o f th e Maxi mdecisio n cite db y Sterlin g simpl y stand s fo r th e propositio n tha t

afederally

obligate dairpor t

canno t vitiat e atenant' s se/^fuelin g right s throug h restrictiv e leas e terms . ^ Th e Exhibit s containe di n Respondent' s volum e o f Supportin g Evidentiar y Material s ar e referre dt o a s "Count y Exhibi t

_. " ^ Apparently , th e bes t Sterlin g ca n d o o n thi s scor e i s th e testimon y o f Sterling' s Presiden t

an dCEO , Robert Gort , tha t h e ha s "regularl y see n CitationShare s progra maircraf t o n th e Cessn aramp a t

GMIA " (Gort

Aff. , ^I6) . (continued... )th e recor di s t o th e contrary : Cessn ai s no t permitte dunde r

it s leas e t o engag e i n charte r o r aircraf t managemen t

operations ; Cessn aha s n o commercia l operatin g permit s fi-omGMI A t o performcharte r

o r aircraf t managemen t

operations ; an dCessn aha s confirme dthat i t doe s not engag e i n thos e operation s at GMI A (Affidavi t

o f Pau l Boucher , attache da s Exhibi t A t o thi s Rebuttal) . Se e als o Cessn aLeas e (Exhibi t 1 t o Complaint) , f

3 ; Wrigh t

Affidavi t (Count y Exhibi t B) , ^ 7-9 . Th e evidenc e unequivocally show s that Sterlin g an dCessn aar e not similarly-situate dtenant s a t GMIA." * III . STERLIN G HA S NO T REFUTE D TH E COUNTY' S LEGITIMAT E REASON S FO RTREATIN G STERLIN G AN D CESSN A DIFFERENTLY . Sterling' s Repl y an dOppositio n offe r n o meaningfu l challeng e t o th e County' s proo f that i t ha s legitimat e reason s t o trea t Sterlin g an dCessn adifferently . First , Sterlin g doe s not disput e tha t Scott Aviatio n entere dint o th e leas e that i s no w th e Sterlin g Leas e eigh t year s after

th e Cessn aLeas e was executed ; tha t Scot t Aviatio n voluntaril y entere dint o aleas e that wa s different fro mCessna's ; o r

that Sterlin g voluntaril y accepte dthos e disparat e term s whe n i t chos e t o acquir e Scott

Aviation . Sterlin g instea dinsinuate s tha t non e o f tha t matter s becaus e Scott Aviatio n was o n th e Airport (operatin g unde r

an earlie r lease) ^ befor e Cessn aan d"wa s exercisin g th e sam e rights late r specificall y grante dt o Cessna " with th e consen t o f Airport (continued... ) Tha t i s entirel y unsurprisin g give n tha t th e Cessn afacilit

y at GMI A i s arepai r

an dmaintenanc e cente r

for Citatio n aircraft , an di t

certainl y doe s no t

prov e tha

t Cessna , throug h it s CitationShare s program , i s runnin g charte r o r fractional aircraf

t management

service s ou t

o f GMIA . * Eve n i f

th e genera l busines s activitie s o f Cessna' s CitationShare s subsidiar y wer e someho w relevan t t o th e compariso n betwee n Sterling' s an dCessna' s operation s at GMI A - an dthe y ar e no t - Sterlin g i s no t

similarl y situate dt o CitationShares . CitationShare s operate s afractional ownershi p progra man dprovide s aircraf t managemen t

service s unde r

1 4 C.F.R . Par t

91 . Sterlin g acknowledge s tha t i t doe s no t offer th e sam e service s a s CitationShare s (Oppositio n a t 3) .managemen t (Oppositio n at

5). ^ GMI A neve r

gav e Scott

Aviatio n permissio n t o engag e i n an y o f th e currently-dispute dfuelin g operations , a s Sterlin g claims . Se e Supplementa l Affidavi t o f C . Barr y Bateman , attache da s Exhibi t B t o thi s Rebuttal . Bu t

eve n i f GMI A had , i t

remain s th e cas e tha t Scott Aviatio n entere dint o ane w leas e i n 199 7 tha t b y it s explici t

term s grant s Scott Aviatio n differen t

an dmor e limite dfuelin g rights tha n thos e grante dt o Cessn ai n 1989 , an d Sterlin g chos e t o assum e tha t leas e whe n i t

acquire dScott

Aviation . Tha t

fac t alon e shoul dbar Sterling' s presen t

Complain t

(Motio n t o Dismis s at

8 , n.5) . Furthermore , eve n i f

GMIA' s pas t

cours e o f dealin g wit h Scott

Aviatio n coul dfairl y b e interprete dt o giv e Sterlin g th e fuelin g rights i t no w seek s - an dther e i s n o suc h evidenc e - th e Count y woul db e prohibite db y federal la w fi-omallowin g Sterlin g t o exercis e tha t right. Th e County' s federal gran t

obligation s canno t

b e suspende db y contractua l agreement . Se e Platinu m Aviatio n v . Bloomington

- Norma l Airpor t Authority , Docke t

No . 16-06-09 , 200 7 W L 4854321 , * 2 (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder ) (Novembe r 28 , 2007 ) (stat e cour t

determinatio n tha t

lesse e ha d certai n contractua l rights di dno t overcom e federal gran t

obligation s prohibitin g th e exercis e o f thos e rights). Th e Count y therefor e canno t acced e t o Sterling' s demands , becaus e t o d o s o woul dviolat e th e County' s obligatio n uniforml y an dfairl y t o enforc e th e Minimu mStandard s governin g third-part y into-plan e fuelin g operation s at GMI A {see Motio n t o Dismis s at 3) . Thi s obligatio n t o compl y with it s federal gran t assurance s i s th e roo t

o f th e County' s secon d (continued... )

^ Tha t

earlie r leas e likewis e limite dfuelin g t o Scott Aviation' s owne do r

lease daircraft . ' Sterlin g mischaracterize s th e Affidavi t o f To mScott

("Scott Affidavit") . Th e Scott

Affidavi t (attache dt o th e Complain t

a s Exhibi t

4 ) doe s no t

stat e tha t Scott Aviatio n wa s exercisin g th e sam e right s late r expressl y grante d t o Cessna . Rather , i t

state s tha t

Scott Aviatio n "fuele dal l plane s o n [its ] Certificat e whethe r o r no t the y wer e flow n a s FA A Par t

13 5 charter s o r

a s FA A Par t

9 1 flights fo

r th e owner s themselves " (Scott Aff , ^ 5) .legitimat e reaso n t o trea t Sterlin g an dCessn adifferently : i f Sterlin g wer e permitte dt o engag e i n an y third-part y into-plan e fueling . Sterlin g woul dcompet e unfairl y wit h th e FBO s a t GMI A whic h ar e require dt o mee t th e County' s Minimu mStandard s fo r th e provisio n o f

Lin e Service s (Motio n t o Dismis s a t

10) . Sterlin g counter s tha t

th e Count y inaccuratel y claim s that Sterlin g wishe s t o b e an FB O o r ha s acte da s a

n FBO , an dtha t

Sterlin g onl y wishe s t o receiv e th e sam e fuelin g right a s Cessn a (Repl y a t 1 ; Oppositio n a t

2 , 5) . Sterlin g eithe r

misse s th e centra l poin t

o r i s tryin g t o obfuscat e it . I t i s precisel y becaus e Sterlin g an dCessn aperformdifferent operation s that

i t i s no t possibl e t o gran t Sterlin g th e "same " fuelin g rights a s Cessna . Unde r it s lease , Cessn ai s permitte dt o provid e fuel t o it s "customers , busines s invitee s an dguests " (Cessn aLease , f 11) . Cessna' s custome r bas e at GMI A i s limite dt o purchaser s o f Cessn aCitatio n mode l aircraf t o r owner s o f Citatio n aircraf

t requirin g repair s o r

maintenanc e work . Cessn ai s barre db y it s leas e firom engagin g i n "practice s normall y considere dthos e o f afixedbas e operator, " includin g th e provisio n o f

fuel t o th e genera l publi c (Cessn aLease , f 3(a)) . Sterling , b y contrast , operate s charte r service s fi-omGMI A an di s a"full-servic e corporat e aviatio n firmspecializin g i n aircraf t management , ai r

charter , aircraf

t maintenance , an dacquisitio n support o f aircraf t for privat e travel. " Se e http://www.sterlingaviation.com/AboutSterling.nw s (las t visite d7/29/09) . I f

th e Count y allowe dSterlin g t o provid e fuel t o it s "customers , busines s invitee s an dguests, " a s Cessn adoes , tha t

woul deffectivel y giv e Sterlin g th e right t o provid e third-part y into-plan e fuelin g service s t o th e genera l publi c i n unfai r competitio n with FBOs . Becaus e Cessn aan d Sterlin g ar e no t

similar busines s entities , th e Count y canno t treat the ma s i f

the y ar e withou t violatin g th e GMI A Minimu mStandards .Sterling' s protestatio n tha t i t doe s not "wis h t o b e an FBO " (Oppositio n at 2 ) i s a t th e hear t o f th e problem : Sterlin g want s th e benefit , bu t no t th e burden , o f

becomin g a

n FBO . It

i s undispute dtha t

Sterlin g passe du p an opportunit y t o becom e th e secon dFB O at GMIA . Moreover , Sterlin g doe s not refut e th e County' s proo f that Sterlin g ha s bee n fuelin g third-part y aircraf t i n violatio n o f

it s leas e an dth e Minimu mStandard s fo r th e las t severa l years , an dtha t thos e unauthorize dfuelin g operation s hav e draw n repeate dcomplaint s fi-omth e FB O currentl y operatin g at

GMIA. ^ IV . STERLING' S REQUES T FO R"NARROWER " FUELIN G RIGHT S B Y LEAS E AMENDMEN T COME S TO O LAT E AN D I S UNACCEPTABLE . Th e long-standin g disput e betwee n Sterlin g an dth e Count y ove r Sterling' s fuelin g operation s bega n shortl y after Sterlin g acquire dScott

Aviatio n i n 2004 . Durin g th e pas t five years . Sterlin g ha s insistentl y sough t t o engag e i n commercia l fuelin g operation s withou t meetin g th e requirement s impose do n FBOs . After thos e attempt s wer e rejecte db y th e Count y - an db y th e FA A i n it s advisor y opinio n - Sterlin g concocte dthi s baseles s "unjus t economi c discrimination " Complaint . Sterlin g no w want s t o retrea t fromit s Complain t

an dinstea d negotiat e with th e Count y for what Sterlin g call s a"narrower " leas e amendment . Th e Count y decline s t o engag e i n that futil e exercise . Ove r tw o year s ago , th e County offere dt o negotiat e aleas e amendmen t that woul d acconunodat e request s tha t Sterlin g ha dmad e t o fuel aircraf t tha t Sterlin g wa s "demonstratin g t o

^ Th e Gort

Affidavi t i n ^I 3 state s onl y tha t

"Sterlin g ha s no t

fuele dtransien t

aircraf t that ar e unrelate dt o Sterling' s operations. " Thi s vagu e statemen t fail s t o respon dt o th e County' s assertion , sinc e Sterlin g ha s n o right t o fuel al l aircraf

t tha t ar e "related " t o it s operations . Furthermore , i n H 8 o f th e Gor t Affidavit , Sterlin g admit s that i t continue s t o fuel aircraf

t o n o r bein g prepare dfor

it s Par t 13 5 certificate . If

Sterlin g fuel s thos e aircraf t eve n whe n the y ar e bein g use di n Par t 9 1 operations , the n Sterlin g i s actin g i n violatio n o f it s leas e an dth e Minimu mStandards ; an dth e FA A ha s akead y agree dwith th e County' s positio n that Sterlin g i s no t

entitle dt o self-fue l thos e aircraf t (Count y Exhibi t

7) .purchase " an daircraf t tha t ha dbee n repaire dat

Sterling' s FAA-approve drepai r station , provide d suc h fuelin g operation s wer e consisten t wit h th e term s o f

Sterling' s leas e an dth e Minimu m Standard s (Count y Exhibi t 5) . Accordingly , th e Count y mad e clear tha t i t woul dno t

allo w Sterlin g t o delive r

aircraf t fuel at GMI A for

privat e Part

9 1 flights (id.) . Sterlin g ha dn o interes t i n th e County' s propose dcompromise . Instead , ove r th e pas t tw o years . Sterlin g ha s continue d t o insis t o n expansiv e fuelin g rights, includin g fuelin g privat e Part 9 1 flights; routinel y engage d i n unauthorize dfuelin g operations ; refuse dth e opportunit y t o engag e i n suc h operation s lawfull y b y becomin g a

n FBO ; force dth e Count y t o see k an advisor y opinio n fromth e FA A t o resolv e thi s long-sinunerin g dispute ; an dthen , whe n i t di dno t lik e wha t th e FA A ha dt o say , dragge dth e Count y int o thi s unfounde dPart 1 6 proceeding . Give n thi s history , th e Count y i s no t willin g t o - an dha s n o confidenc e tha t th e partie s woul db e abl e t o - agre e upo n aleas e amendment . Moreover , Sterlin g request s aleas e amendmen t tha t woul dallo w i t

t o fue l aircraf t i t "maintains " (Reply , T

j AF13 ; Oppositio n a

t 2) . Sterlin g ha s argue dthat i t i s obligate dt o maintai n aircraf t o n it s Par t

13 5 certificat e eve n whe n thos e aircraf t ar e bein g use dfor

Part 9 1 operations . Th e amendmen t

Sterlin g proposes woul dtherefor e allo w Sterlin g t o delive r fuel t o aircraf

t bein g use dfor wholl y privat e Part

9 1 flights. Suc h an amendmen t woul dno t

hav e bee n acceptabl e t o th e Count y tw o year s ag o - a s Sterlin g presumabl y realize da t th e tim e - an di s no t

acceptabl e now . V . STERLIN G ACKNOWLEDGE S THA T IT S EXCLUSIV E RIGHT S CLAI M I S DERIVATIV E O F AN D DEPEND S UPO N IT S UNJUS T DISCRIMINATIO N CLAIM . Sterling' s Repl y confirm s tha t th e basi s o f

Sterling' s "exclusiv e rights" clai mi s that th e Count y ha s unjustl y denie dSterlin g th e right th e Count y gav e t o Cessna : t o fue l it s "customers , busines s invitee s an dguests " (Repl y at 6) . Therefore , i f

th e FAA , a s i t

should , reject s Sterling' s unjus t economi c discriminatio n clai m- becaus e Sterlin g an dCessn aar e no t similarly-situate do r 8becaus e th e Count y ha s alegitimat e basi s for treatin g the mdifferentl y - the n Sterlin g effectivel y concede s tha t

th e FA A mus t

als o rejec t

Sterling' s exclusiv e rights claim . Conclusion . Fo r th e reason s state di n thi s Rebutta l an di n th e County' s Answe r an dMotion t o Dismiss , th e FA A shoul ddismis s Sterling' s Complain t with prejudice . B y its^ttomey s )Cot t t . Lewi s Meliss aC . AHfso

n ANDERSO N & KREIGE RLL P On e Cana l Park , Suit e 20 0 Cambridge , M A 0214 1 T : 617.621.656 0 F : 617.621.666 0 slewis@andersonkreiger.co m Timoth y R . Karaskiewic z Offic e o f th e Milwauke e Count y Corporatio n Counse l Milwauke e Count y an dGenera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport 90 1 Nort h Nint h Sfreet , Roo m30 3 Milwaukee , W I 5323 3 T : 414.747.571 2 F : 414.747.452 5 Timothy.Karaskiewicz(^milwcnty.co m Counse l for

Responden tCERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y i n accordanc e with 1 4 CF R§ 16.15(a ) tha t toda y I serve dth e foregoin g Respondent' s Rebutta l o n th e followin g person s at th e followin g addresse s b y Federa l Express : Ken t S . Jackso n Jackso n & Wade , L.L.C . 2162 8 Midlan dDriv e Shawnee , K S 6621 8 Offic e o f Chie f Counsel , Attention : FA A Part 1 6 Airpor t

Proceeding s Docke t AGC-61 0 FEDERA L AVL\TIO N ADMINISTRATIO N 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1

Date dthi s 20^

^ da y o f August , 200 9

Meliss 4 C . Allison for th e Responden t

1 0

# ABEFOR E TH E FEDERA L AVIATION ADMINISTRATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C .

STERLIN G AVIATION , LLC ,

Complainant , V . MILWAUKE E COUNTY , WISCONSIN ,

Respondent . Docket No . 16-09-0 3

AFFIDAVI T O F PAUL BOUCHE R I , Paul Boucher , state a s follow s unde r th e pain s an

dpenaltie s o f

perjury : 1 . Sinc e March 2007, 1 hav e bee n th e Genera

l Manage r a t th e Milwauke e Citatio n Servic e Cente

r (th e "Servic e Center" ) ownedb y Cessn aAircraf

t Compan y ("Cessna" ) an

d locate da t Genera l Mitchel l Internationa

l Airpor t ("GMIA") . 2 . My dutie s a s Genera l Manage r include responsibilit

y fo r all operation s o f

th e Servic e Center . I a

mver y familia r wit h the day-to-da

y operation s a

t the Servic e Center . 3 . Th e informatio n se t fort h i n thi s affidavi

t i s base dupon m

y persona l knowledg e and/o r upon m y revie w o f

th e busines s record s o f

Cessna . 4 . I n September

o f 1989 , Cessn aan

dMilwauke e Count

y entere dinto aleas e wit

h respec t t o th e Servic e Center

facilit y a t GMIA . A s I understan dtha t lease , Cessn ai s permitte dt o store , service , repair

an dperfom i maintenanc e o

n aircraft ; sell or

leas e aircraft ; an

ddispens e fue

l t o it s repair

an dsal e customers . I

t i s m y understandin g tha

t th e leas e doe s no t

permit Cessn at o engag e i n aircraf t charter or aircraf t managemen

t operation s a

t GMIA .5 . Cessn adoe s not perfor maircraf t charter o r aircraf t managemen

t operation s a

t GMIA . 6 . CitationShare s i s acompany tha t operate s aircraf

t owne dunde

r fractiona l ownership an

dother simila r programs . Cessn afro

mtime to time perform s repair and maintenanc e wor

k on CitationShare s progra

maircraf t a t it s Servic e Cente

r a t GMIA , jus t

a s i t doe s o n an y Citatio n model aircraf

t whos e owne

r present s th e aircraf

t a t GMI A an drequest s suc h services . 7 . Cessn adoe s not

operate aircraf

t charter or fractiona l ownership managemen

t sen'ice s fo

r CitationShare s progra

maircraft , or

any other aircraft , out

o f th e Servic e Cente

r facilit y a t GMIA . 8 . Accordingly , Cessna' s operation s a t GMI A ar e limite dt o th e maintenanc e an

d repair o f Cessn aCitatio n mode

l aircraf t (includin g th e sal e o f

relate dparts , equipment

an d accessories) . Signe dthi s / f

da y o f August , 2009 . 

# '^^^.^/^^J Pau l Bouche

r

^^E B

# BBEFOR E TH E FEDERAL AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C .

STERLIN G AVIATION , LLC ,

Complainant , V . MILWAUKEE COUNTY , WISCONSIN ,

Respondent . Docke t No . 16-09-0 3

SUPPLEMENTA L AFFIDAVI T O F C . BARR Y BATEMAN I , C . Barr y Bateman , stat e a s follow s unde r th e pain s andpenaltie s o f perjury : 1 . I previousl y submitte din tlii s actio n a n affidavit date dJul y 28 , 200 9 tlia

t describe s my positio n anddutie s a t th e Genera

l Mitchel l Intemationa l Airpor t ("GMIA") , which i s operate db y Milwauke e Count y (th e "County") . 2 . Th e informatio n set fort h in thi s supplemental affidavit i s base dupo n m

y persona l knowledge . 3 . Scot

t Aviation , Inc. , whic h a

t som e point becam e Scot

t Ai r Charter , Inc . (collectively , "Scot

t Aviation") , operate da

t GMI A fro mi n o r about Marc h 198 4 unti l i n o r

abou t March 2004 . Contrar

y t o statement s made i

n th e Octobe

r 10 , 200 7 Affidavi

t o f To mScott , GMI A wa s no t aware that

Scot t Aviatio n wa s fueling aircraf t o n it s Par t 13 5 Certificate when thos e aircraf

t were bein g use dfo

r private Par

t 9 1 flights, an dnever

gav e permissio n to Scot

tAviatio n t o engag e i n thos e fuelin g operations . Signe dthi s !j

_day o f

August , 2009 . C . Barr y Bafema n