U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Leonard

D. Kirsch Shelley

A Ewalt McBreen

& Kopko 500 North Broadway, Suite 129 Jericho, NY 11753 Bobbee

J. Musgrave Stephen

D. Rynerson Bryan Cave LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4100 Denver,
CO 80203-4541 Carolyn Clawson County Attorney County

of Montrose, Colorado 161
S. Townsend Avenue Montrose, Colorado 81401

NOV

1 9.2015 Re: Jet Center Partners, LLC

v. County

of Montrose, Colorado FAA Docket No. 16-15-11 Ladies and Gentlemen:

800 Independence
Ave., S.W. Washington,

D.C. 20591 Enclosed

is a copy of the Order
of the Director issued

in the **above~captioned**
matter under

14 CFR Part 16. The complaint

is dismissed,

and the reasons
for the dismissal

are set forth
in the enclosed Order. Sincerely, Randall

S. Fiertz Director Office
of Airport Compliance

and Management Analysis EnclosureCERTIFICATE

OF SERVICE 'V I HEREBY CERTIFY
that on November

f q

, 2015,

I caused

to be placed

in the United States mail (first class, postage paid)
or personally delivered

a true copy of the foregoing Order addressed

to: Counsel

for Complainant Leonard

D. Kirsch Shelley

A. Ewalt McBreen

& Kopko 500 North Broadway, Suite 129 Jericho, NY 11753 Counsel

for Respondent Bobbee

J. Musgrave Stephen

D. Rynerson Bryan Cave LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4100 Denver,
CO 80203-4541 Carolyn Clawson County Attorney County

of Montrose, Colorado 161 S. Townsend Avenue Montrose, Colorado 81401 Hand-Delivered

to: FAA Part
16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) FAA Office
of Airport Compliance

and Management Analysis (AC0-100) **~v4s0** Claudia Roberts Office
of Airport Compliance

and Management AnalysisUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON

DC JET CENTER PARTNERS, LLC,) Complainant)

) v.

) ) COUNTY

OF MONTROSE,

CO

) Respondent

)
FAA Docket No.16-15-ll ORDER
OF DIRECTOR I. INTRODUCTION This matter

is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), based on the formal complaint filed
in accordance
with the FAA Rules
of Practice
for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings (FAA Rules
of Practice), Title
14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 16, and on the motion
for summary judgment
also filed

in accordance
with the FAA Rules
of Practice. Jet Center Partners, LLC, (JCP
or Complainant)
d/b/a Black Canyon

Jet Center filed

a formal Complaint pursuant

to 14 CFR Part 16 against
the County

of Montrose, Colorado (County/Respondent/Sponsor),

which owns and operates
the Montrose Regional Airport (Airport)

in Montrose County, Colorado.
The Complaint contains

six allegations labeled

as causes
of action,'

in which JCP contended
that the Respondent violated

49 U.S.C.

§ 47107(a)

by providing more favorable treatment
and terms

to MTJ FBO Partners, LLC (MTJ), the new entrant FBO,

1 thereby unjustly discriminating against JCP, the incumbent FBO. JCP also alleged that Respondent violated

49 U .S.C.

§ 471 07(a)(13)

by its financial agreement with MTJ and the associated Ground Lease with Telluride Venture Partners, LLC (TVP), thereby failing

to maintain

a self-sufficient

fee and rental structure

at the Airport. JCP further claimed that Respondent's actions would lead
to
a violation

of 49 U.S.C.

§ 40103(e)

by weakening

it, the incumbent FBO, and creating
the possibility

of
a prohibited exclusive right for MTJ. More specifically,

JCP alleged that the Respondent's
FBO Agreement
with MTJ and associated Ground Lease (agreements) violated Federal grant assurances

5, Preserving Rights and Powers; 22, Economic Nondiscrimination;

23, Exclusive Rights; and 24, Fee and Rental Structure,
that

it unjustly discriminated against JCP, potentially granted

a prohibited exclusive right
to MTJ, and operated

to deprive
the Sponsor

of its rights and powers over airport development

and its grant assurances. [FAA Exhibit !,Item

I pp. 35-54) 1 A **fixed~base** operator (FBO)

is an individual

or firm operating

at an airpmt and providing general aircraft services such
as maintenance, storage, and ground,
and flight instruction. [FAA Order 5190.68, Airport Compliance Requirements,

Sept. 30, 2009, Appendix

Z]

IThe County filed

a Motion
for Summary Judgment

in lieu of an answer, asking the Director

to dismiss JCP's Complaint

in its entirety.
The County included

an affidavit

of the Airport's Aviation Director
and letters

to MTJ

to the effect that the County had terminated

the agreements that were the subjects ofJCP's Complaint

[See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

2, exhibits

1, 2, and 3] The County included

a Statement

of Material Facts, and argued that the Director should dismiss JCP's Complaint in its entirety because
the County

is in current compliance
with FAA grant assurances. Asserting
that "JCP has failed

to allege any actual present violations

or harm, but instead raises speculative concerns,"

the County argued that each of JCP's causes
of action should fail as not ripe, moot,
or both. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

2, pp. 2, 5, 9, 12, 14, 16,

and 20] JCP filed an Answer

to the County's Motion
for Summary Judgment, seeking
the Director's denial ofthe motion "with respect

to all of JCP's causes
of action." [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item 6, p. 6] JCP included

a Statement

of Additional Material Facts.

In its Answer, JCP argued that its Complaint
was ripe when filed,
its claims should not be considered moot, and, "in any event, guidance from the FAA remains necessary given the ongoing nature
of the violations
and the strong likelihood

the County will repeat the challenged conduct"
[See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

6, p. 6] JCP also attempted

to raise doubts about the status
of the County's termination

of the agreements

in question,

by, among other things, including correspondence between MTJ and the County,

in which MTJ contested

the termination.

(See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

6, exhibit 41] On October
30, 2015, the County filed

a Motion
for Leave

to File Reply

in Support

of Summary Judgment
and Reply, stating that "After the County filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment

on September

16, 2015,

it received
two additional pieces
of evidence that have

a bearing

on the arguments made by JCP
in its Answer. First, the County received

on September

17, 2015

a letter from Telluride Venture Partners stating that, because
the County had terminated

the Montrose Regional Airport Ground Lease (TVP Lease)
on September

1, 2015, TVP also considers

the Option

to Purchase Land that accompanied

the TVP Lease

to be terminated

as well. Second,
the County received

on October
28, 2015

a letter from counsel
for Lawrence Danielle, formerly one of the co-owners ofMTJ FBO Partners, LLC, advising that Mr. Danielle, Majestic Skies, LLC, and Four D's Montrose LLC, three of the co-owners ofMTJ, had assigned their ownership interest

in MTJ itself and the MTJ FBO Agreement

to TVP and an entity called TSG Asset Holdings, LLC
as part of
a settlement agreement." [FAA Exhibit

1, Item
7, p. 2-3] The County argues that the termination

of the MTJ FBO Agreement

and the TVP Ground Lease should
be sufficient

in and of themselves

to cure the alleged grant assurance violations regardless of whether MTJ and TVP 'actively contest'
the termination

of those agreements, TVP's acknowledgment

that the option agreement accompanying

the TVP Lease has been terminated

as well further undercuts

the foundations

of JCP's complaint.
The County additionally argues that (1) JCP cites no FAA-related authority

for the proposition

that the 'capable

of repetition

but evading review' standard
has any applicability

to Part
16 proceedings,

and (2) JCP ignores basic principles

of contract law with regard

to the alleged failure

to 'completely terminate

the agreements
with MTJ and TVP. [FAA Exhibit

1, Item
7] On November

3, 2015, JCP's counsel filed

a brief e-mail reply
to the County's Motion
for Leave to File Reply

in Support

of Summary Judgment stating:

2"Jet Center Partners wishes

to note for the record that the Respondent County's proposed reply does not address
the question

as to whether FAA guidance

is required

on the County's publicly-expressed position that

it was compelled

by grant assurances

to provide the financial incentives
that led to this Part
16 Complaint."
[FAA Exhibit

1, Item

8] Based
on the Director's review and consideration

of the evidence submitted,

the administrative record designated

as FAA Exhibit

1, the relevant facts, and pertinent
law and policy, the Director will consider and treat the County's Motion
for Summary Judgment

as
a Motion

to Dismiss. The Director considers

the County's arguments
that JCP's claims
are not ripe and are moot,

as assertions properly made pursuant

to
a Motion

to Dismiss, rather than

a Motion
for Summary Judgment. Similarly, JCP's responses

as to ripeness, mootness,
also derive from the factors that may be pertinent

to
a Motion

to Dismiss,

as opposed

to
a Motion
for Summary Judgment. The Director may take this action under his power and authority

to regulate
the course
of
a Part 16 docket.
See

§ 16.ll(a). Pursuant

to Part 16, the Director
has the ability "to take
... actions

as are necessary

to fulfill the purposes

of this part." Here, the Director believes

it is necessary

to act on the substance

of both the Motion and Answer, which requires that the County's Motion

be considered

a Motion

to Dismiss and JCP's answer

be considered

an Answer

to the Motion

to Dismiss, despite
the manner

in which they presently

are styled.

2 Accordingly,

as set forth more fully herein the Director finds that the Cmmty's Motion
for Dismissal should

be granted and the Complaint should

be dismissed. II. PARTIES A. Airport Montrose Regional Airport (Airport)

is a public-use airport owned
by Montrose County and operated

by the Montrose Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC), Montrose County, Colorado.
The Airport

is a primary commercial service airport located

in southwest Colorado

in the City of Montrose, approximately

65 miles from the Telluride

Ski Resort and the City of Grand Junction, Colorado, respectively.

The Airport site
is approximately
1,100 acres. [See FAA EXHIBIT

I, Item

I, pp. 8-9 and Item

1. exhibit

8, p. 5) FAA records indicate
the planning
and development

of the Airport has been financed with funds provided

by the FAA under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) authorized

by the Airport and Airway Improvement

Act of 1982,

as amended,

49 U.S. C.§ 47101,

et seq. [See FAA EXHIBIT

I. Item

I, exhibit

7] 2 A motion

to dismiss

is more apropos

to the situation

in this case, and our disposition

of such

a motion analyzes both the ripeness
and mootness issues,
we believe that our course
of action and construction

of the pleadings

are proper.

3B. Complainant Since 2006, JCP, pursuant

to its FBO Agreement
with the County, operated

a full service fixed based operation

on land leased from the Airport. JCP has constructed,

at its own expense,

a general aviation terminal facility, hangar facilities,
and fuel farm improvements

that would become
the County's property upon completion

of the improvements,

and agreed

to pay the County

a minimum consideration

of $350,000

per year. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

1, exhibit 9, pp. II, 17-18, and 22]. III. BACKGROUND The County and JCP negotiated

the terms
of an FBO Agreement

for JCP which was signed December

5, 2005, effective January

4, 2006, for an initial term of20 years and an option

to extend
for an additional

ten year period. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

I, exhibit

9, p. 3]
3 The County, under the JCP Agreement, committed

to make certain improvements

to the fuel farm and to demolish

the old tenninal
and two hangars. JCP was obligated

to make other improvements

to the fuel fann, contribute $10,000 towards
the demolition costs, and buy out the balance

on the County's lease-purchase

of the MTJ Air Services building that JCP would use. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

1, exhibit

8, p. 15; Item 10] In August, 2013,

in response

to inquiries from

a Majestic Skies member about operating

a second FBO on the Airport,
the Airport Director issued
an RFP for

a second FBO

to operate
onAirport. The RFP required
the FBO to: • provide services

in accordance
with the Airport's Minim tun Standards, • pay

a guaranteed minimum annual payment

of $350,000

for rental payment
and fuel flowage fees, • not use off-Airport

or "through

the fence" property
not located within the Airport property

as shown
on the Airpmt Layout Plan, and • construct

an FBO terminal
and hangar improvements

that revert

to the County

at the end of the Agreement. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

1, exhibit

2] In October, 2013, two proposals were submitted,
one from Telski Aviation (Telski)
and one fi·om Majestic Skies, LLC (Majestic). Telski's proposal stated

it was

a new entity

to be managed

by TSG Asset Holdings, LLC, ovvned
by the Telluride

Ski
& Golf Resort ownership group. Telski would enter into an agreement with Cutter Aviation under which Cutter would manage and operate
the FBO on the off-Airport property known

as One Creative Place, LLC (OCP) and used by JetAway Aviation, LLC (JetAway)

a related company.

On Januruy
21, 2014, the County determined

that Telski's proposal
did not comply with the RFP because that proposal required 3 In connection
with the JCP FBO agreement,

on December

5, 2005, the County amended

the 2003 Minimum Standards

to conform

to the FBO agreement negotiated
with JCP, namely increasing

the minimum leasehold area
to 350,000 (from 125,000) square feet, decreasing

the hangar door height

to 28 (from 30) feet, and allowing

the FBO

a "reasonable amount

of time"

to construct

the required improvements duri11g which the FBO would provide uninterrupted services

at the Airport. [See FAA EXHIBIT

I, Item

1, exhibit

9, p. 14; Item

I, exhibit

2, Att. D, p.17]

4the County acquire JetAway's off-Airport property, which would "require

3rd party negotiations [thereby rendering

the proposal] non-quantifiable

and therefore

a non-qualifying proposal."
[See FAA EXHIBIT

I, Item

I, p. 2, exhibit

17, p. 2] Majestic estimated

the proposed investment

to cost $4,500,000

and requested

a 5-year lease term plus

a 40-year renewal

to allow for the rapid depreciation

of the facilities.
[See FAA EXHIBIT 1, Item

I, exhibit
19] Majestic stated that

it would provide
the funding

for the fuel farm and the initial250,000 square foot ramp space, construct those facilities

in "Phase One," and require
the County

to reimburse

the total cost through rent credits over time. Phase One would also include building
one hangar and the FBO office. Phase Two would include

an additional 200,000 square foot of ramp,

T hangars

as necessary,

and

a second 27,000 square foot hangar. [See FAA EXHIBIT

I, Item

I, exhibit 20] Majestic further stated that

it would meet the $350,000 annual minimwn guarantee

by paying: • $95,920 rent
at $0.08 per square foot for the 508,000 square feet land and $1.00 per square foot for the 60,000 square foot facility

it would construct;
and • $67,500

in fuel flowage fees based
on $0.09 per gallon

at a projected 750,000 gallons of fuel volume. [See FAA EXHIBIT

I, Item

I, exhibit 20] On May 13, 2014, JCP counsel advised
the County

of its concerns
that Majestic's financial proposal
and other arrangements would unjustly discriminate against JCP and create
an unlawful exclusive right on the part of Majestic.
JCP counsel pointed
out that the County has spent $800,000

on JCP's infrastructure, whereas Majestic proposed
that the County provide

$5 million in credits. [See FAA EXHIBIT

I, Item

1, exhibit
22, pp.1-7] In July, 2014, after soliciting interest

in additional FBOs

at the Airport through

a Request

for Proposals (RFP) process,
the County entered into an FBO Agreement
with Majestic Skies, LLC (Majestic) under which Majestic would develop

a general aviation te1minal, hangar facilities,

a ramp and

a fuel fann on land leased from the Airport. The te1ms
of the Majestic FBO Agreement provided that, during

an approximately three-year "start-up" period, Majestic would receive

up to
a $5,000,000

rent credit from the County
for its costs
to develop
the ramp and fuel farm infrastructure.

[See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

1, exhibit

3] In October, 2014, litigation
was initiated

in Colorado State Court

as to whether
the County's decision

to bind future taxpayers

to the costs of the financial incentives

in the Majestic FBO without submitting

the question

to
a vote violated
the Taxpayer
Bill of Rights amendment (TABOR lawsuit). [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

1, exhibit

4] On February

17, 2015, upon the request

of Majestic
and associated parties,
the County assigned the Majestic FBO Agreement

to MTJ FBO Partners, LLC (MTJ). During the period

of its FBO Agreement
with the County, Majestic
had not provided FBO services

at the Airport and did not receive any payments from the County. {See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

2, p. 2] The MTJ FBO Agreement (Agreement) provided:

5• 945,880 square feet of leased property

to develop

an FBO terminal building, hangar facilities,
and

a self-service aviation gasoline facility, provision

of FBO services,
and other commercial aeronautical activities

as per the Minimum Standards; • Non-exclusive

use of the common areas of the Airport including

the ramp and apron

as required

for the provision

of services; • MTJ may commence FBO operations

out of an existing building.
[See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

I, exhibit

5] The Agreement required MTJ,

at its sole expense,

to develop
the following

in Phase One: • at least one hangar facility totaling

a minimum

of 25,000 square feet of hangar and shop space, with

at least one hangar being capable

of storing one Gulfstream

V or larger aircraft, and • ground vehicle parking.
[See FAA EXHIBIT

1, 11em

1, exhibit

5] The Agreement obligated

the County

to construct: • an access road from Highway

50 to the Exhibit

B premises
and •

a connector taxiway

to the Exhibit

B premises, within

36 months. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

I, exhibit

5] The Agreement obligated MTJ

to pay: • fuel flowage fees of$0.12/gallon, subject

to $0.01 increases

in 2017 and
at subsequent four year intervals; • minimum annual fuel flowage payment guarantee

of either the fuel flowage

fee or $250,000 yearly; • annual hangar concession

fee of$1.00
per square foot for the existing 40,000 square feet of hangar storage area on Exhibit

C premises
and for any proposed hangar storage area; • base rent of Parcel

1 premises

of $0.1831
per square foot per year **(su~ject**

to credit by County
for actual cost to develop ramp and fuel fann infrastructure); • base rent ofParcel2 premises of$0.05
per square foot per year (subject

to credit by County
for actual cost to develop ramp and fuel farm infrastructure); • annual base rent for of$0.1831

per square foot of Exhibit

C premises
and $0.05 per square foot for the 337,292 square feet unimproved
land, and • minimum annual guarantee

of $350,000/year, commencing

on the date MTJ completed Phase

I, has full occupancy

of Phase

II and
is conducting FBO operations on those properties; MTJ may not use the credit

to offset the minimum annual guarantee

in the event until January

1, 2019,

in the event MTJ becomes

the sole FBO at the Airport. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

1, exhibit

5] At the same period

in time, the County entered into

a Ground Lease with TVP, with option

to purchase,

the "JetAway site" adjacent

to the Airport. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

1, exhibit

6] That site contained

a restrictive covenant
that prohibited

the sale of aviation fuel encumbering

6the site.

4 [See FAA EXI-IIBIT

1, Item

1 p. 14] The JetAway
site was subject

to
a mortgage. (See FAA EXHIBIT

1 ltem

1, exhibit 28] In April, 2015, the County entered into

a Hangar Ground Lease with MTJ on additional Airport property.
[See FAA EXHIBIT

1, ltem

1, exhibit 30] MTJ held

a groundbreaking ceremony

on May 11,2015 [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, !tern

6, exhibit 34]. After that ceremony, however,

in
a July

7, 2015, letter

to MTJ, the County raised several questions
and concerns.
[See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item
6, exhibit
36] More specifically,

the County requested additional infonnation

on the ownership ofMTJ FBO Partners, TVP, and associated entities and any contractual

or similar adverse actions taken against them by the federal government.

The County also expressed concern about
an impending
lien on the Ground Lease property. Additionally,

the County noted that FBO construction activity had ceased and directed MTJ

to recommence construction.

On July 24, 2015, the County sent

a follow-up letter for MTJ

to comply with certain contractual obligations

and to recommence construction.

[See FAA EXHIBIT

1, ltem

6, exhibit 37] On July 31, 20I 5, MTJ requested

an opportunity

to cure the alleged defaults. [See FAA EXHIIT

1, Item

6, exhibit
38] Shmtly thereafter,

on August

7, 2015, the County sought MTJ's acknowledgement

that the FBO Agreement

"is no longer

a viable agreement;

and therefore,

it is tem1inated," stating that the periods
for cure of certain breaches
had expired, that other breaches were grounds

for rescission and termination,

that the MTJ o-wnership needed County approval,
and there had been no construction activity since May. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

6, exhibit
39] MTJ, on August

13, 2015, responded

to the County's termination notice, claiming

it was
in compliance
with certain disputed contractual obligations,

that

it had right
to cure any deficiencies

in any event, and that
it faced "unanticipated delays that have temporarily suspended construction"

but was in compliance
with its construction obligations.
[See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item
6, exhibit 40]. The County,

on August 19,2015, notified MTJ that its FBO Agreement
was terminated.

[See FAA EXHIBIT

I, Item

2, exhibit

2 and exhibil3] MTJ, on August 21,2015, responded

to the County

by objecting

to the termination

and committing

to resolving

the outstanding issues with the County. [See FAA EXHIBIT

I, Item

6, exhibit

41 ]. On August
24, 2015, the County alerted MTJ and TVP that the impending removal of perimeter fencing

at the TVP property (due
to MTJ's failure

to pay vendors) constituted

an "emergency situation" with security and safety consequences

and demanded
that the vendors

be paid. The County also required MTJ and/or TVP
to perfonn needed work
to reopen certain taxiways,

and to pay other vendors. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

6, exhibit42] During the period
of the Agreement
with the County, MTJ did not provide FBO services

at the Airport and did not receive any payments from the County. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item
2, exhibit

I] 4 See, JetAway Aviation LLC

v. Board
of County Commissioners. Montrose County. Colorado, FAA Docket No. 16-08-01,

p. 8 (July

2, 2009) (JetAway

II), stating,

in reference

to the off-airport

site in question, "Jetaway
can selffuel aircraft but cannot fuel any other aircraft."

7On August
26, 2015, .TCP filed its Complaint containing

six causes
of action summarized

as follows: First Cause **o(Actio~The** County's Financial Inducements

to a Second, Similarly Situated FBO Are Unjustly Discriminatory

in Violation

of Grant Assurance

22. Economic Nondiscrim;nation and Will Lead

to a Violation

of Grant Assurance

23. Exclusive Rights. JCP alleged that disparate financial tenns

in the respective agreements unfairly favored MTJ and tmjustly discriminated against JCP through unequal treatment

in FBO rental rates

(1 0.6 cents/square

foot charged

to MTJ vs. 20 cents/square

foot charged

to JCP), location and siting of leased FBO properties (MTJ leases two parcels

of 1,070,967 square foot, each contiguous, exclusive
and highly visible
vs. JCP's multiple, non-contiguous parcels totaling 434,162 square feet much
of which

is non-exclusive),

rent credits
($5 million

to MTJ vs. none

to JCP), abatement of property taxes on the Ground Lease ($1 00,000+
for MTJ vs. none for JCP), commitments

to build infTastructure (private off-Airport access road and connector taxiway

to MTJ FBO site vs. none for JCP), FBO construction obligations (MTJ may use an existing building

for

a general aviation terminal and hangar
vs. JCP was required

to build

at its own expense and general aviation terminal
and

a high cube hangar);
and ownership

of FBO facilities

at lease termination (MTJ and partners retain ownership

of primary FBO facility
vs. JCP's facility improvements
revert

to County). JCP argued that the allegedly unfair and discriminatory financial terms would uneven
the playing field and favor MTJ
to the ultimate detriment ofFBO competition

at the Airport. Second Cause o{Action-The County's Disparate Application

of Minimum Standards Constitutes an Independent Violation

of Grant Assurance

22. Economic Nondiscrimination. JCP alleged that the County unfairly waived MTJ's obligation

to comply with the Airport Minimum Standards,

by allowing MTJ
to use

a hangar

of insufficient
door height and by failing

to evaluate

the expertise
and qualifications

of Majestic
and ofMTJ personnel involved

in the FBO operations.

In contrast,

the County investigated

the background

of JCP's personnel during the 2005 RFP process. Third Cause o{Action-The Countv

's Failure

to Follow

its Own RFP Process Violated Grant Assurances

22. Economic Nondiscrimination

and 24. Fee and Rental Structure JCP claimed that the County improperly found Majestic's proposal

to comply with the RFP, despite
the fact that Majestic's proposal
did not include
the $350,000 minimum ammal guaranteed payment
and demanded

a $5 million credit

to offset the minimum annual guarantee payment.
The County, according

to JCP,jeopardized

its self-sustainability

by agreeing

to provide
the rent credit. Additionally,

JCP maintained

that the County should have conducted another RFP before entering into an amended Agreement
with MTJ on the JetAway
site, which previously
was considered nonresponsive

to the 2013 RFP. JCP further asserted that these actions demonstrated

that the County
did not maintain reasonable, consistent,

and transparent processes supporting

its rental structure,
and did not treat commercial aeronautical service

8providers

in
a reasonably similar manner

in dealing with proposals

to provide services

at the Airport. Fourth Cause o(Action-The County Violated Grant Assurances

5. Preserving Rights and Powers, and 24. Fee and Rental Structure.

by Entering
into Agreements

that Undermine

the County's Control and the Financial Sustainability

oft he Airport. JCP asserted that the County failed

to consider prior expert opinion

of insufficient demand

at the Airport

to support two FBO's, and that one of the FBO's could
be driven out of business

if two FBO's operated

at the Airport. Further, JCP argued that the financial incentives would materially worsen
the Airport's finances, cause potential FBO providers

to demand
the same financial incentives, jeopardize Respondent's financial control

of the Airport, and cause Respondent wmecessary litigation expense
and exposure. Fifth Cause o(Action-The County's Reversal o(Position

in Approving

the Off:Airport JetAway Site fOr FBO Operations Violated Grant Assurance

5, Preserving Rights and Powers. JCP contended
that the County acted imprudently,

in terms
of operating

the Airport

in
a safe and fiscally responsible manner,

by the lease and lease-back arrangement under which MTJ would operate

as an FBO on the JetAway site. JCP claimed that the County improperly reversed
the positions

it advocated regarding

the site in JetAway

II. Sixth Cause of Action
The County's Lease-Leaseback o(Encumbered, O{f:Airport Land But Not the Improvements Jeopardizes

the County's Control ofthe Airport

in Violation

of Grant Assurance

5, Preserving Rights and Powers and 24. Fee and Rental Structw-e. JCP asserted that the County's Ground Lease and **lease~back**

to MTJ of the JetAway site----that was subject

to
a restrictive covenant prohibiting aviation fuel **sales~jeopardized**

the County's control
of, and rights and powers over, the Airport. JCP claimed
the transaction required
the County

to abate the real estate taxes paid by TVP and to pay rent on land that was incapable

of generating income from FBO operations

or aviation fuel sales. JCP also argued that the terms
of the Ground Lease limited the County's ability

to address safety issues that may arise from structures
and operations

on the property;
that any improvements
made

to the building

on the JetAway
site would not revert

to the **County~unless**

the County exercised

its option

to purchase the property, for

an amount

to be detennined;

and that if the mortgagee

of the site forecloses

on the property,

the County would lose its control over the land. [FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

1] On September

1, 2015, the County notified TVP and MTJ that

it had tenninated

the TVP Ground Lease and the property reverted

to TVP. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

2, exhibit

1] During
the period
of the Ground Lease, the County
did not pay rent or other consideration

to TVP. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

2, exhibit

1] On September

9, 2015, the County terminated

tl1e MTJ Hangar Ground Lease. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

6, exhibit 43] On September

17, 2015, the County filed

a Motion
for Sununary Judgment. [FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item
2]

9The plaintiff

in the TABOR lawsuit,

on October

5, 2015, moved
for dismissal

of the lawsuit with prejudice,

on the grounds

of the tennination

of the agreements

at issue. The plaintiff argued that its claim was moot because there no longer was an actual controversy, and the termination

of the agreements constituted

a change

in circumstances

that "forestalls

the prospect

for meaningful relief." [See FAA EXHIBIT

I, Item

6, exhibit 44] On October

9, 2015, JCP filed an Answer

to the County's Motion
for Summary Judgment. [FAA EXHIBIT

I, Item

6] On November

2, 2015, the County filed

a Motion
for Leave

to File Reply

in Support

of Summary Judgment
and Reply

in Support

of Summary Judgment. [FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item
7] On November

3 2015, JCP filed via email,

a position

in opposition

to the County's Motion
for Leave. [FAA EXHIBIT

I, Item

8] IV. APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW AND FAA POLICY The Federal role in civil aviation
has been augmented

by various legislative actions that authorize programs

for providing Federal funds

to local communities

for the development

of airport facilities.

In each such program,

the airport sponsor assumes certain obligations

to maintain
and operate

its airport facilities safely and efficiently

and in accordance
with specified conditions. Commitments assumed

by airport sponsors

in grant agreements

are important factors in maintaining

a high degree

of safety and efficiency

in airpmt design, construction, operation and maintenance,

as well as ensuring
the public reasonable aeronautical access. Title 49 U.S.C. §471 01, et seq., provides

for Federal airport financial assistance

for the development

of public-use airports under the Airport Improvement Program (AlP) established

by the Airport and Airway Improvement

Act of 1982,

as amended. Title 49 U.S.C.

§ 47107,

ef seq., sets forth assurances

to which

an airport sponsor agrees

as
a condition

of receiving Federal financial assistance. Upon acceptance

of an AlP grant, the assurances become

a binding contractual obligation between
the airport sponsor and the Federal government.

The assurances made by airport sponsors

in AlP grant agreements

are important factors

in maintaining

a viable national airport system. Airport Sponsor Assurances As

a condition precedent

to providing airport development assistance under the Airpmt Improvement Program,

49 U.S.C.

§ 47107,

et seq., the Secretary

of Transportation

and, by extension,

the FAA must receive certain assurances from the airport sponsor. Title 49 U.S.C.

§ 47107(a)
sets forth the statutory sponsorship requirements

to which
an airport sponsor receiving Federal financial assistance must agree.

IOThe FAA has

a statutory mandate

to ensure that airpmt owners comply with these sponsor assurances.

5 FAA Order 5190.6B, Airport Compliance Requirements
(FAA Order 5190.6B), issued
on September

30, 2009, provides

the policies
and procedures

to be followed

by the FAA in carrying
out its legislatively mandated functions related

to Federally obligated airport owners' compliance
with their sponsor assurances.

The FAA considers

it inappropriate

to provide Federal assistance

for improvements

to airports where the benefits

of such improvements

will not be fully realized
due to inherent restrictions

on aeronautical activities.
The following grant assurances

are relevant

to this Complaint: Grant Assurance

5, Preserving Rights and Powers Grant Assurance

5, Preserving Rights and Powers, implements the provisions

of Title 49 U.S.C. § 47107, and requires,

in pertinent part, that the sponsor

of
a Federally-obligated
airport: ... will not take or permit any action which would operate

to deprive

it of any of the rights and powers necessary

to perform any or all of the terms, conditions, and assurances

in the grant agreement without

the written approval

of the Secretary,
and will act promptly

to acquire, exlinguish

or modify any outstanding rights
or claims o.f"right
of others which would inteJfere with such pe1jormance

by the sponsor.
This shall
be done

in a manner acceptable

to the Secretwy. [Assurance

5, Order 5I90.6B, Appendix

A][ The Order describes

the responsibilities
under Grant Assurance

5 assumed

by the owners

or operators

of public-use airports developed with Federal assistance.
[See FAA Order 5190.6B, Chapter

6] Grant Assurance

22, Economic Nondiscrimination The owner

or operator

of an airport developed with Federal grant assistance

is required

to operate
the airport
for the use and benefit

of the public. Federal grant assurance

22, Economic Nondiscrimination, (Assurance

22) deals with both the reasonableness

of airport access and the prohibition

of adopting unjustly discriminatory conditions. Assurance

22 implements

the provisions

of 49 U.S.C.

§ 47I 07(a)(I) through
(6), and requires,

in pertinent part: {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. [Assurance 22(a), FAA Order 5I90.6B, Appendix

A] Each fixed-based 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 abport and utilizing

the same
or similar facilities. [Assurance 22(c)] 5 See, e.g., the Federal Aviation
Act of !958,

as amended
and recodified, Title 49 U.S.C.

§§ 40101,40113, 40114, 46101, 46104, 46105, 46106, 46110; and the Airport and Airway Improvement

Act of 1982,

as amended and recodified, Title 49 U.S.C.

§§ 47105(d), 47106{d), 47107(k), 47107(1), 47111(d), 47122.

IIThe sponsor may establish such reasonable,

and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be met by all users oft he airport

as may be necessary
for the safe and efficient operation

of the aiJport. [Assurance 22(h)J The sponsor may prohibit

or limit any given types, kind or class of aeronautical

use of the airport ifsuch action

is necessary

to serve the civil aviation needs oft he public. [Assurance 22(i)] Subsection

(h) qualifies subsection

(a), and subsection

(i) represents

an exception

to subsection (a) to permit the sponsor

to exercise control

of the airport sufficient

to preclude unsafe and inefficient conditions
that would
be detrimental

to the civil aviation needs
of the public. In all cases involving restrictions

on airport use imposed

by airport owners

or operators

for safety and efficiency reasons,
the FAA will make the final determination

on the reasonableness of such restrictions when those restrictions deny or limit access
to, or use of, the airport. [FAA Order 5190.6B, Chapter

14] Grant Assurance

23, Exclusive Rights Federal grant assurance

23, Exclusive Rights, (Assurance

23) implements

the provisions

of 49 U.S.C.

§§ 401 03(e) and 471 07(a)( 4), and requires,

in pertinent part, that the owner

or operator

of a Federally obligated airport: ... will permit not exclusive right for the use oft he airport

by any persons providing,

or intending

to provide aeronautical services

to the public

.... It further agrees that

it will not, either directly

or indirectly grant
or permit any person, firm,
or COJ]JOration,

the exclusive right a/the airport

to conduct any aeronautical activities. [Assurance

23, FAA Order 5!90.6B, Appendix

A] While public-use airports may impose qualifications

and minimum standards upon those who engage

in 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. [See e.g., Pompano Beach

v. FAA, 774 F.2d 1529 (II
<h Cir, 1985)] See also, FAA Advisory Circular 150/5190-6 Exclusive Rights

at Federally-Obligated Airports, January

4, 2007J An owner

or operator

is under
no obligation, however,

to permit aircraft owners

to introduce onto the airport equipment, personnel,

or practices which would
be unsafe, detrimental to the public welfare,

or which would affect the efficient
use of airport facilities. [FAA Order 5190.6B, Chapter

8] Grant Assurance

24, Fee and Rental Structure Grant assurance

24, Fee and Rental Structure, addresses
fees the owner

or operator charges airport users

in exchange

for the facilities

or services
the airport provides.

12Title 49 U.S.C.

§ 471 07(a)(l3) requires,

in pertinent part, that the owner

or operator

of
a Federally-obligated

airport "will maintain

a schedule

of charges
for use of facilities
and services at the airport that will make the airport as self-sustaining

as possible under the circumstances existing

at the airport." Grant assurance

24 satisfies
the requirements

of§

4 71 07(a)(13).

It provides,

in pertinent part, that the owner

or sponsor

of
a Federally-obligated

airport agrees

to establish

a fee and rental structure that will make the airport as self-sustaining

as possible under the circumstances existing at the particular airport, taking into account such factors

as the volume

of traffic and economy

of collection. Such sponsor will maintain

a fee and rental structure consistent with assurances

22, Economic Nondiscrimination,

and 23, Exclusive Rights. The intent
of the assurance

is that the airport owner

or operator

to charge fees for aeronautical

use that are sufficient

to cover

as much of the airport's costs

as are feasible
and to charge market-based

fees for non-aeronautical

use. [FAA Order 5190.6B, Chapter

17] The FAA Airport Compliance Program The FAA discharges

its responsibilities

for ensuring each airport owner's compliance
with its federal obligations through
the FAA Airport Compliance Program.
The FAA's airport compliance efforts are based
on the contractual obligations

an airport owner accepts when receiving federal grant funds
or the transfer

of federal property

for airport purposes. These obligations

are incorporated

in grant agreements

and instruments

of conveyance

in order

to protect
the public's interest

in civil aviation and to ensure compliance
with federal laws. The Airport Compliance Program

is designed

to ensure the availability

of
a national system

of safe and properly maintained public-use airports operated

in
a manner consistent with each airport owner's federal obligations

and the public's investment

in civil aviation. The Airport Compliance Program does not control

or direct the operation

of airports. Rather,

it monitors

the administration

of the valuable rights pledged

by airport sponsors

to the people

of the United States

in exchange

for monetary grants and donations

of federal property

to ensure that the public interest

is being served. FAA Order 5190.6B
sets forth policies and procedures for the FAA Airport Compliance Program.
The Order

is not regulatory

and is not controlling with regard

to airport sponsor conduct. Rather,

it establishes

the policies and procedures

to be followed

by FAA personnel

in canying
out the FAA's responsibilities

for ensuring airport compliance.

It provides basic guidance

for FAA personnel

in interpreting

and administering

the various continuing commitments
made

to the United States
by airport owners

as
a condition

of receiving

a grant of federal funds
or the conveyance

of federal property

for airport purposes. The Order analyzes
the various obligations

set forth
in the standard airport sponsor assurances

in the operation

of public-use airports,
and facilitates interpretation

of the assurances

by FAA personnel. The FAA Compliance Program

is designed

to achieve voluntary compliance
with Federal obligations accepted

by owners and/or operators

of public-use airports developed
with FAAadministered assistance. Therefore,

in addressing allegations

of noncompliance,

the FAA will make

a determination

as to whether

an airport sponsor

is currently

in compliance
with the

13applicableFederalobligations.Consequently,theFAAwillconsiderthesuccessfulactionbytheairporttocureanyallegedorpotentialpastviolationofapplicableFederalobligationtobegroundsfordismissalofsuchallegations.[Seee.g.,WilsonAirCenterv.MemphisandShelbyCountyAimortAuthori1y,FAADocketNo.16-99-10,(Aug.30,2001)(FinalDecisionandOrder)].EnforcementproceduresregardingairportcompliancemattersmaybefoundatFAARulesofPracticeforFederallyassistedAirportEnforcementProceedings(14CFRPart16)1l1eseenforcementprocedureswerepublishedintheFederalRegister(61FR53998,Oct.16,1996),effectiveDec.16,1996.AmendmentstotheRulesofPracticealsowerepublishedintheFederalRegister(78FR56148(Sept.12,2013),effectiveNovember12,2013.TheComplaint,MotiontoDismiss/MotionforSummaryJudgment,andAppealProcessPursuantto14CFR,Part16,§16.23,apersondirectlyandsubstantiallyaffectedbyanyallegednoncompliancemayfileacomplaintwiththeFAA.Thecomplaintshallprovideaconcisebutcompletestatementofthefactsreliedupontosubstantiateeachallegation.Thecomplaintshallalsodescribehowthecomplainantwasdirectlyandsubstantiallyaffectedbythethingsdoneoromittedbytherespondent.See§16.23(b)(4).Part16furtherprovidesthattheburdenofproofisonthecomplainanttoshownoncompliancewithastatute,regulation,order,agreement,ordocumentofconveyance.§16.23(1<)(1).Theproponentofamotion(includingamotiontodismiss,orforsummaryjudgment),request,ororderhastheburdenofproof.See§16.23(k)(2).Additionally,apartywhohasassertedanaffirmativedefensehastheburdenofprovingtheaffirmativedefense.See§16.23(k)(3).ThisstandardburdenofproofisconsistentwiththeAdministrativeProcedureAct(APA)andFederalcaselaw.TheAPAprovisionstates,"[e]xceptasotherwiseprovidedbystatute,theproponentofaruleororderhastheburdenofproof."[5U.S.C.§556(d)]Seealso,Director,OfficeofWorker'sCompensationPrograms,Dept,ofLaborv.GreenwichCollieries,512US267,272(1994);AirCanadav.DeptofTransp.,148F.3d1142,1155(D.C.Cir.1998).Pursuantto14CFR,Part16,§16.26(a),arespondentmayfile,inlieuofananswertoacomplaint,amotiontodismissthecomplaintoramotionforsummaryjudgmentonthecomplaint.Amotiontodismissacomplaintmuststatethereasonsforseekingdismissalofeithertheentirecomplaintorofspecifiedclaimsinthecomplaint.Toprevail,therespondentmustshoweither(1)thecomplaint,onitsface,isoutsidetheFAA'sjurisdiction;(2)thecomplaint,onitsface,doesnotstateaclaimthatwarrantsaninvestigationorfurtherFAAaction;or(3)thecomplainantlacksstanding,under§§16.3and16.23,tofileacomplaint.Therespondentisexpectedtofileasupportingmemorandumofpointsandauthorities.§16.26(b)(1),(2).Thecomplainantmayfileananswertothemotiontodismisswithin10daysofthedateofservice,orsuchotherperiodassetbytheDirector.Thecomplainantisexpectedtoincludeastatementofreasonsopposingdismissalandmayalsoincludeaffidavitsandotherdocumentaryevidence.TheDirectormayissueanorderdisposingofthemotion,within30daysofthedatethatananswertoamotionisdue.ShouldtheDirectordenythemotiontodismissinwholeorin14partorgrantthemotioninpart,therespondentshallfileananswertothecomplaintwithin20daysofserviceoftheorder.Further,shouldtheDirectornotactonthemotiontodismisswithin30daysofthedateananswertothemotionisdue,therespondentshalltileananswertothecomplaintwithinthenext20days.§16.26(b)(3)-(5).Amotionforsummaryjudgmentmayseekdismissaloftheentirecomplaintorofspecifiedclaimsandissue.Initmotionforsummaryjudgment,therespondentmayshowthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfactforPart16adjudicationandthatthecomplaint,whenviewedinthelightmostfavorabletothecomplainant,shouldbesummarilyadjudicatedinrespondenfsfavorasamatteraflaw.Therespondentisexpectedtofileastatementofthematerialfactsastowhichrespondentcontendsthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfact,andmayincludeaffidavitsanddocumentaryevidence.§16.26(c)(l),(2).Thecomplainantmayfileananswertothemotionforsummaryjudgmentwithin10daysofthedateofservice,orsuchotherperiodassetbytheDirector.Thecomplainantisexpectedtoincludeastatementoffactsastowhichthecomplainantclaimsthereisagenuineissueandmayalsoincludeaffidavitsandotherdocumentaryevidence.TheDirectormayissueanorderdisposingofthemotion,within30daysofthedatethatananswertoamotionisdue.ShouldtheDirectordenythemotioninwholeorinpartorgrantthemotioninpart,therespondentshallfileananswertothecomplaintwithin20daysofserviceoftheorder.Further,shouldtheDirectornotactonthemotionforsummaryjudgmentwithin30daysofthedateananswertothemotionisdue,therespondentshallfileananswertothecomplaintwithinthenext20days.§16.26(c)(3)-(5).Part16furtherprovidesthatapartyadverselyaffectedbyaDirector'sDetennination,includinganorderonamotiontodismiss,orforsummaryjudgment,mayfileinaccordancewith§16.13andserveinaccordancewith§16.15asimultaneousNoticeofAppealandBrief,within30daysafterserviceoftheinitialdetermination.TheAssociate Administratorwillissueafinaldecisionandorderwithin60daysaftertheduedateofthereply,per§16.33(g).Additionally,inaccordancewith14CPR§16.33(h),ifnoappealisfiledwithinthetimeperiod,theDirector'sDeterminationbecomesthefinaldecisionandorderoftheFAAwithoutfurtheraction.ADirector'sDeterminationthatbecomesfinal,becauseofnoadministrativeappeal,isnotjudiciallyreviewable.Onappeal,theAssociateAdministratorwillconsidertheissuesaddressedinanyorderonamotiontodismissormotionforsummaryjudgmentand anyissuesacceptedintheDirector'sDeterminationusingthefollowinganalysis:(I)Arethefindingsoffacteachsupportedbyapreponderanceofreliableprobative,andsubstantialevidencecontainedintherecord?(2)Areconclusionsmadeinaccordancewithlaw,precedent,andpolicy?(3)Arequestionsonappealsubstantial?(4)Haveanyprejudicialerrorsoccurred?See14CFR§16.33(e)15V. ANALYSIS
AND DISCUSSION Both the County and JCP treated the Com1ty's motion

as though

it was

a motion

to dismiss

a claim that does not warrant further action by the FAA, pursuant

to
§ 16.26(b )(ii). The County's motion expressly sought dismissal

of the entire complaint.
[See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item
2, pp.
2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 20] The County submitted facts
to demonstrate

that the agreements

at issue were terminated,

and points

a flaw and authorities

to support

its contention
that

it was in "current compliance''

with the grant assurances,

and therefore JCP's complaint warranted dismissal because,

on its face,

it was not ripe and was moot. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item
2, p. 4 et seq.] JCP filed an answer containing reasons opposing dismissal

of its complaint

as not ripe and moot. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

6, pp. 6, 11. 17. and 22. JCP also filed supporting docwnents

and affidavits]
JCP sought

to have its causes

of action resolved

by

a Director's Determination

or guidance.

as appropriate.

[See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

6. pp. 23-24] As described above, the Director
has the authority

to take actions

as are necessary

to conduct Part 16 processes

in the public interest.

§ 16.11. That authority includes actions

to improve

the efficiency

of managing

the docket. See FAA Amendment

to Rules of Praclice,

77 FR 56135, 56136, 56140. After careful consideration

of the facts, pleadings,

and applicable
law and policy, the Director
has determined

that neither party would
be prejudiced

by considering

the County's motion

as
a motion

to dismiss under

§ 16.26(b

). As explained below, the Director finds the claims raised

in the Complaint

not ripe, because JCP has not been harmed

or adversely affected

by the alleged grant violations

on the part of the County, and the claims
are moot due to the County's termination

of the agreements

at issue. We will discuss
the ripeness issue first, and the mootness issue
in context with the issue of current compliance. Ripeness Discussion

of County's Arguments The County posited that,
to be ripe,

a Complainant
must show harm and be adversely affected

by the Respondent's actions. Because JCP showed

no harm and was not adversely affected

by the agreements,

the County claimed JCP's Complaint
was not ripe. The County relied
on Drake Aerial Entemrises

v. City of Cleveland, FAA Docket No. 16-09-02 (Feb. 22. 201 0) for the principle that "the Director crumot investigate allegations

of an airport sponsor's grant assurance violations

if the Complainant

has not yet been harmed"
and that an "issue

is not ripe for review until the Complainant

is adversely affected

by it." (!d. at 20). The County also depended

on Northwest Airlines. Inc.
v. Indianapolis Aimort Authority, FAA Docket No. **16~07-04** (Aug.
18, 2008) (Director's Determination)

to support

its argument
that

a claim

is not ripe if the airport sponsor had not yet taken
an action that adversely affected
the complainant.

The County proceeded

to argue that none of JCP's causes
of action were ripe:

16FirstCauseC?fAction-FinancialInducementTheCountystatedthatJCP'scauseofactionwasnotripeforthefollowing reasons.TheCountyconsideredJCP'sallegationthatMTJmaybecometheexclusiveFBOoperatortobea"merefuturepossibility."[SeeFAAEXHIBIT1,Item2,p.5]ItfurtherstatedthatJCPdidnotallegetbatMTJwasprovidingFBOservicesattheAirport,orthatJCPwasharmedbytheAgreement.Consequently,theCountyarguedthatJCP'scauseofactionispremature,theoretical,andwithoutafactualbasis.TheCountycitedtoNorthwestAirlinesandtoAshtonv.CityofConcord,FAADocketNo.16-02-01,Aug.22,2003(Director'sDeterminationat32-33)andFinalDecisionandOrder(Feb.27,2004)insupportofitsarguments.ItdistinguishedAircraftManagementServices.Inc.vSantaRosaCounty.Florida,FAADocket16-12-02(Director'sDetermination)(Mar.27,2015)fromthecurrentcaseby pointingoutthatthecompetingFBOwasactuallyoperatedattheairportandthatthecomplainanthadsufferedanegativeimpact.TheCountyfurthercontendedthatJCPhasnotshownthatMTJactuallyhasprovided,orisproviding,FBOservicesattheAirport;andthatJCPhasnotdemonstratedanyharmfromtheMTJFBOAgreement.Further,evenifthedisputedagreementswerecurrentlyineffect,JCPhadnotshownanyadverseeffects.SecondCauseofAction-ApplicationofMinimumStandardsTheCountymovedthatthiscauseofactionbedismissedasnotripebecauseJCPdidnotshowthateitherMajesticorMTJactuallyprovidedFBOservicesatthesubjecthangarorwiththedisputedpersonnel,orthatJCPhasbeenharmed.TheCountyalsoreliedonNorthwestAirlinesandAshtonforitscontentions.ThirdCauseofAction-RFPProcessTheCountystatedthatJCPdidnotclaimthattheCounty'sactiondisadvantagedJCP.ItalsomovedthatJCP'sclaimsshouldbedismissedonripenessgroundsbecause.TCPdidnotallegethatMTJactuallyprovidesFBOservicesorthat.TCPhadbeenharn1edbytheRFPprocesses.TheCountycharacterizedJCP'sallegationsthatMTJmightcompetewithitinthefutureas"unfounded."Inthisregard,itreliedon.TimsairAviationServices.Inc.v.SanDiegoCountyReg'lAimortAutb.,FAADocketNo.16-06-08(FinalDecisionandOrder)(Aug.9,2007)fortbeholdingthatacomplainant'sconcernaboutafutureairportpolicyisnotripewherethecomplainanthasshownnopresentharmordirectgrantviolation.[SeeFAAEXHIBIT1,Item2,p.11].FourthCauseofAction-ControlandFinancialSustainabilityofAirportTheCountymovedthatJCP'sclaimsofpotentialharmstotheAirportbedismissedasnotripe;thatJCPhadnotshownthattheAirporthasincurredlossesasaresultoftheAgreements;andthatJCPmerelyhypothesizedthattheCountywouldincurnewcostsintheeventanewFBOprovidedservicesunderthetermsoftheAgreement.TheCountyalsoreliedonJimsairAviationtosupportitsarguments.17Fijih Cause
of A en on-Reversal

of Position

on JetAway
Site The County moved
for dismissal

of this claim

as premature,

on the grounds that JCP did not show that MTJ actually provided services from the JetAway
site or that JCP was harmed
by the Ground Lease. Additionally,

JCP did not show how the Ground Lease impaired

the County's powers. The County relied
on Drake Aerial

to support

its motion
for dismissal. Sixth Cause of Action-Lease-Leaseback The Cotmty also moved
for dismissal

of this claim

as not ripe. With respect

to its allegedly improper change

in position regarding

the feasibility

of leasing the JetAway site, the County claimed that the Ground Lease should not be considered

"a presumptive violation

of Grant Assurance

5" because that "would

be an exceptionally aggressive application

of the doctrine

of offensive collateral estoppel."
[See FAA EXHIBIT

I, Item

2, pp. 16-17] Moreover,

the County argued that JCP's concerns about

a restrictive covenant prohibiting

sale of aviation fuel from this property were not ripe, due to the fact that no FBO

is currently operating

on the property. Further,
the County stated that JCP's concerns regarding litigation over the covenant
also were not ripe, due to
a recent Colorado State Court opinion that JCP may not enforce
the restrictive covenant

on the JetAway
site. [See FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item

2, p. 17] As to the County's ability to enforce safety standards

on the site, the County replied that the "mere possibility
that

a term
in a lease agreement would,

if enforced, violate

a grant assurance does not give rise to
a present claim under Part 16." [See FAA EXHIBIT

I, Item

2, p. 18] The County also stated that its option

to purchase

the JetAway
site is not

a grant violation
and that JCP's concerns

are premature. Additionally,

the County stated that JCP's concerns about future control

of the site in the event
of any default
by the mortgagor

are premature because

J CP has not shown that there

is any risk of default

on the mortgage note.
In support

of its motion,
the County cited
to Jimsair Aviation, Northwest Airlines,
and Drake Aerial. Ripeness Discussion

of JCP's Arguments In its Answer, JCP stated that its Part
16 complaint
was ripe when filed.

It pointed

to the facts that the County executed Agreements
with MTJ, that MTJ and the County held

a groundbreaking ceremony

in May, 2015, and that MTJ incurred expenses

in preparatory work for operating

its business. According

to JCP,

if the language

of the subject Agreements clearly allow for an understanding

of the grant assurance violations

and if they are framed

to enable meaningful FAA review,
the issues are ripe for an FAA decision. [FAA EXHIBIT

1, Item
6, p.9] JCP also posited that

a claim

is ripe when the parties' interests

are adverse and when

a judgment would

be conclusive

and of practical help, such
as providing guidance

for voluntary compliance. JCP stated that Aircraft Management Services,

at 18-19, refuted
the County's proposition

that

a Complaint

is premature

if no damages have been suffered, because
the FAA found the pleadings presented

a "structured argument concerning

the alleged grant assurance violations which are clearly articulated

and referenced."

[See FAA EXHIBIT

I, Item

6, p. 6] JCP stated that because it presented

a clear argument

of grant assurance violations based
on the agreements,

its Complaint

is ripe. JCP also cited Northwest Airlines,

pp. 16-17, for the proposition

that

a claim 18isripeforreviewevenwithoutharmtothecomplainant,becausetheFAAfoW1da"sufficientrecordtoproceed"basedoncomplainants'"argumentsonknownfacts."[SeeFAAEXHIBITI,Item6,p.6]JCPansweredthateachofitsclaimswereripe.ItfurthersuggestedthattheFAAshould"effectivelyimplementitsvoluntarycompliancerole"byresolvingJCP'scomplaintandthatpolicyguidanceisappropriate.[SeeFAAEXHIBIT1,Item6,pp.9,13]FirstCauseofAction-FinancialInducementJCPclaimedthiscauseofactionwasripebecauseMTJandTVPmaycontesttheterminationoftheAgreements.JCPreferredtoMTJcorrespondencetotheCountyassertingtherighttocuredefaults,contestingthevalidityoftheCounty'sterminationoftheFBOAgreement,andmentioningpossiblelitigation.JCPaverredthattheCountymustdemonstrateacquiescencebyMTJinthete1mination.SecondCauseofAction-ApplicationofMinimumStandardsJCParguedthatthiscauseofactionisripeduetotheMTJgroundbreakingceremonyandMTJ'sassertionthattheCounty'sdeclarationofterminationisinvalidanditisentitledtooperateontheJetAwaysite;itreiterateditsclaimthattheCountydidnotinvestigateMTJownersandoperatorstherebyabdicatingitsminimumstandards andgrantassuranceobligations.ThirdCauseofAction-RFPProcessJCPclaimedthatthecauseofactionisripeduetotheCounty'slitigationexpensesintheTABORlawsuit;JCPappealedtheStateCowtdecisiononstandingtoenforcetherestrictivecovenant;andtheCountyisincurringexpensestoremediatethepropertythathadbeenleasedtoMTJ.FourthCauseofAction-ControlandFinancialSustainabilityo.fAirportJCPstatedthattheCountyagreedtoundertakefinancialincentivesonbehalfofthesecondFBO,whichdamagedtheCountyandresultedinlitigationexpenses.F(fihCauseo.fAction-ReversalofPositiononJetAwaySiteJCPsaidtheCounty'sreversalofpositionontheJetAwaysitehascausedorthreatenstocauseunnecessarylitigationandgrantassuranceviolations.SixthCauseofAction-Lease-LeasebackJCPreiterateditsclaimsthatthelease-leasebackarrangementraisedgrantassuranceviolations.19Ripeness-Analysis

and Decision Generally,

the FAA's test for ripeness

of
a Part 16 claim

is that the Complainant

has been harmed and
is adversely affected

by the airport's action. The Director does not find that JCP has been harmed

by or adversely affected

by the agreements

at issue. The ripeness
test was well-stated

in Drake Aerial,

in connection with the complaint
that because the fees could be increased over time, the City's banner towing fees were unreasonable

and excessive.

The FAA found that claim

to be premature

and not ripe, explaining

as follows: Additionally,

the Complainant's argument here prematurely implies

a violation

of the Respondent's Federal obligations. Under

14 CFR Part 16, the Director cannot investigate allegations

of an airport sponsor's grant assurance violations

if the Complainant

has not yet been harmed. [See 14 CFR Part 16.23] The Respondent
may contemplate

a future action which alters
its fee schedule.

But the issue

is not ripe for review until the Complainant

is adversely affected

by it. [See Northwest Airlines

v. Indianapolis Airport Authority, FAA Docket
No 16-07-04 (Aug.
18, 2008) (Director's Determination)

at 28 and 37] Drake Aerial,

p. 20. The Northwest Airlines determination

also relied
on the test ofhann
and adverse effects
for purposes

of analyzing whether

a claim should
be dismissed

on the grounds that

it was not ripe. There, the FAA granted
the airport authority's motion

to dismiss, finding
the issues raised by the airlines (that the FedEx rent credit agreement
was unreasonable

and unjustly discriminatory

to the complainants)

to be "not yet ripe for review" because
the rent credit had not yet been applied and the complaining airlines had not been harmed. That complaint concerned

a "potential future event" that was "uncertain"

and that had not "harmed"

the complainant. [Northwest Airlines, (Director's Determination)

pp. 28-29; Final Decision
and Order (Oct. 27, 2009)] Similarly, JCP's claims

as to harm are posited

on future events,

at best, and any adverse effects
are extremely remote, speculative,

and uncertain. The Director disagrees with JCP's assertion that the finding

in Northwest Airlines about

a "sufficient record

to proceed with the Part
16 proceeding"

(pp. 16-1 7) constituted

a finding that the complaining airlines' claim was ripe. Rather, that finding pertained

to the standing

of the airlines who were paying landing fees
at the airport, not to the ripeness

of the airlines' claim for review. Also, the requirement

for ripeness-that

a complainant needs

to show that

it was adversely affected

by an airport sponsor's action-was discussed

in Ashton

v. City of Concord, FAA Docket No. **16~02-01,** Aug. 22, 2003 (Director's Determination

at **32~33)** and Final Decision
and Order (Feb. 27, 2004). There, the FAA held that the complaint

by the small aircraft owners that the airport sponsor granted

an exclusive right

to another small aircraft owner for aircraft storage, was not ripe. The small aircraft owner complainants

were not tenants

at the airport and were not on the waiting
list themselves. Therefore

the owners were not directly and substantially affected by the claimed noncompliance

of the airport, under section 16.23(a).

20TheDirectordisagreeswithJCPthattheAircraftManagementServicesdecisioncouldbereliedonforthepropositionthata"structuredargwnentconcerning...allegedgrantassuranceviolationswhichareclearlyarticulatedandreferenced"maysufficetomakeaclaimripe.[SeeFAAEXHJBIT1,Item6,p.6]WhiletheFAAfoundthe"structuredarguments"helpfulinitsconsideration,thedeterminingfactorforthedenialoftheairportsponsor'smotiontodismissonthegroundsofripenesswastheharmshowntothecomplainant,AMS.TheFAAfoundthetwoFBOswere"engagedincompetitivecommercialactivities"(italicsadded)andAMS,"providedsufficientevidenceintherecordforFAAtohaveconcludedthatAMSisdirectlyandsubstantiallyaffectedbytheallegedactions[oftheairportsponsor.]"ldat18-10and9-10.TheDirectorhasconsideredJCP'srequestforguidanceongrantassurancecompliancehere,butdeclinestoholdaPart16proceedingforpurposesofprovidingthatguidance.TheDirectordidprovideguidanceinNorthwestAirlines,becausetherewasevidencethattheairportauthoritywouldimposethechallengedfeeinthenearfuture,atthenear-termexpirationofthelandingfeeagreementSeeNorthwestAirlines(FinalDecisionandOrder),p.16.Incontrast,thereisnoevidenceherethattheCountyisundertakingtoenterintothesameorsimilarFBOagreementsatissue,andJCP'sconcernsappeartobepurelyspeculative.(SeeFAAEXHIBIT1,Item2,exhibit1,p.2]Also,aPart16adjudicationinthissituationwouldnotbeconclusiveorofpracticalassistancetotheparties,becauseitwouldnotbeanefficientuseofeithertheFAA'sortheparties'timetoadjudicateclaimsofallegedviolationsofgrantassurancesbasedonpastagreementsorontheoretical,speculativeconcernsthattheCountymayusesimilartermsinfutureFBOagreements.Morespecifically,theDirectorfindsJCP'scausesofactionnotripe,asfollows:Astothefirstcauseofaction,FinancialInducements,theDirectorfindsthatJCPhasnotmettheFAA'stestforripeness-thatis,ithasnotshownthatitwasharmed,oradverselyaffected,bythetennsoftheAgreements.JCPwasnotharmed,forexample,byanyoperationofFBOservicesbyeitherMajesticorMTJ.NeitherFBOoperatorprovidedservicesattheAirportJCP,accordingly,wasunabletoanddidnotprovideevidencedemonstratinganyadverseimpactstoitsfuelsales,profitmargins,orleaseagreementsbyvirtueofoperationoftheMTJFBOAgreementsorGroundLease.[See,incontrast,TheAviationCenter.Inc.v.CityofAnnArbor,Michigan,FAADocketNo.16R05-01(Dec.16,2005)(Director'sDetermination),inwhichthecomplainantallegeditsufferedthelossofaT-hangarandwasdeniedtherighttoconstructaself-fuelingfacility]NorhasJCPhasshownthattheexistenceoftheagreementsbythemselvescauseditharmed:therewasnoevidencethattheCounty,asaresultoftheMTJagreements,changedanytermsofJCP'sagreementsleadingtoanadverseeffectonJCPorthattheCountyinterpretedJCP'sagreementsinanadversewaytoJCPduetotheMTJagreements.JCP'spredictionsthattheCountymayreinstatetheAgreementsduetopotentiallitigationorinterestbyanotherFBOarespeculative,uncertain,andtheoreticaland,inanyevent,donotdemonstratethattheCounty'sactionshaveharmedorotherwiseadverselyaffectedJCP.WithrespecttoJCP'ssecondcauseofaction,ApplicalionofMinimumStandards,JCPdidnotshowthatitwasharmedbytheallegedlydisparateapplicationofminimmnstandardstoMTJ's21hangarorbytheCounty'sfailuretoinvestigateMTJ'spersonnel.MTJdidnotoperateanFBObusinessattheAirport,didnotcompetewithJCPforFBObusiness,anddidnotreceiveanypaymentsfromtheCounty.[SeeFAAEXHIBITI,Item2,exhibitI,p.2]Accordingly,JCPwasnothannedbytheCounty'streatmentofminimumstandardswithrespecttoMTJ.RegardingJCP'sthirdcauseofaction,RFPprocess,JCPhaspointedtopotentiallitigationexpensesincurredbytheCounty,buthasnotshownhowitwasadverselyaffectedbytheallegednoncompliancewiththegrantassurances.Concerningthefourthcauseofaction,ControlofAirportandFinancialSustainability,JCPagaindidnotdemonstratethatitwasharmedoradverselyaffectedbytheCounty'ssubsidyofMajesticand/orMTJ.Asregardsthefifthcauseofaction,ReversalofPositiononJetAwaySite,JCPhasnotdemonstratedthatthethreatoflitigationordamagetotheCountyharmedJCPitself.Respectingthesixthcauseofaction,Lease-Leaseback,theDirectoragainfindsthatJCPhasnotshownthatitwasharmedorotherwiseadverselyaffectedbythearrangementforthe.letAwaysite.MootnessandCurrentCompliance-DiscussionofCounty'sArgumentsandJCP'sAnswerTheCountymovedfordismissalonthegroundsofmootness,assertingthat,duetoitstenninationoftheAgreements,itisincurrentcompliancewiththegrantassurances.ItcitedDrakeAerialforthepropositionthatthedoctrineofcurrentcomplianceincludes"mootness,i.e.,allegedpastviolationsthathavebeencuredpriortoactionbytheDirector,andripeness,i.e.,allegedfutureorcontingentviolationsthathavenottakenplaceyet."[SeeFAAEXHIBIT1,Item2,p.5]TheCountyfurtherarguedthereisnobasisfortheFAAtoenforceanyallegedgrantassuranceviolationsderivingfromtheAgreements.Insupportofthiscontention,andinsupportofitsmotiontodismissJCP'scausesofaction,theCountycitedtoAeroWays.Inc.v.DelawareRiver&BayAuthority,FAADocketNol6-09-I2(Director'sDetermination)(Aug.30,20IO)andtoU.S.Aerospace.Inc.v.MillingtonMunicipalAirportAuthority,FAADocketNo.16-98-06(Oct.IS,1998),andDrakeAerial.[FAAEXHIBITI,Item2,pp.8,II,and13]JCP,incontrast,maintainedthatthe"mootnessdoctrinedoesnotbar[its]causeofactionbecausetherehasbeennocure."[SeeFAAEXHIBITI,Item6,p.11]JCPcontendedthatanaffirmativeactiononthepartoftheairportsponsortorecognizeandcureanallegedgrantassurance-notmerelyaterminationofadisputedagreement'forcause'-wouldsufficetowarrantdismissalunderthecurrentcompliancedoctrine.Insupportofthisproposition,JCPcitedNorthwestAirlines,DrakeAerial,JimsairAviation,andBostonAirCharterv.NorwoodAirportComm'n,FAADocketNoI6-07-03(Aug.I4,2008).[SeeFAAEXHIBITI,Item6,p.IO]Further,JCPstatedthat,becauseofthepresumedlikelihoodthattheCountywillrepeattheallegedgrantassuranceviolations;theFAAshoulddecidethecase,basedonthe"capableofrepetitionyet22evadingreview"exceptiontothemootnessdoctrine.Insupportofthisargument,JCPcitedChircov.GatewayOaks,LLC.384F.3d307,309(6'"Cir.2004);Weinsteinv.Bradford,423U.S.147,148-49(1975);andDelMonteFreshProduceCov.UnitedStates,570F.3d316,322,325-26(D.C.Cir.2009).[FAAEXHIBIT1,Item6,pp.11-12]AstoJCP'sfirstcauseofaction,FinancialInducements,theCountystatedthatthecauseofactionwasmoot,becausetheterminationoftheagreementsmootedanydisparatefinancialtreatmentbetweenJCP,ontheonehand,andMajesticorMTJ.Additionally,nootherFBOagreementisineffect.[FAAEXHIBIT1,Item2,pp.8-9]JCP,incontrast,arguedthattheCountyhasnotshovmthatithascureditsallegedgrantviolationsandtheFAAshouldprovideappropriateguidancetotheCounty.[FAAEXHIBIT1,Item6,pp.11-12]RegardingJCP'ssecondcauseofaction,ApplicationofMinimumStandards,theCountycontendeditwasmoot,duetotheterminationofbothMajestic'sandMTJ'srightstoprovideFBOservicesattheAirport,andnoFBOasidefromJCPoperatesattheAirport.JCParguedthattheCountyhasnotshownthatitcureditsfailuretoinvestigatetheMTJpersom1el.[FAAEXHIBIT1,Item6,pp.9-10]ConcerningJCP'sthirdcauseofaction,RFPProcess,theCountyclaimedmootnessduetothefactthatneitherMajesticnorMTJeverprovidedFBOservicesattheAirport,theagreementsareterminated,andthereisnoopenRFPforFBOservices.[FAAEXHIBIT1,Item2,pp.11-12]JCP,inresponse,claimedtheCountymayplanasimilarsubsidyforanotherFBOandhasnotcureditsallegedviolation.SeeFAAEXHIBIT1,Item6].WithrespecttoJCP'sfourthcauseofaction,ControlandFinancialSustainabilityofAirport,theCountyassertedmootnessbecausethecausesofthelitigation"havebeencured"bytheterminationoftheagreementsorbycourtdismissals.[SeeFAAEXHIBITI,Item2,p.13]TheCountyfurtherstatedthat"themerepersistenceoflitigationthatarosefromtheallegedviolationshouldnotbeconsideredasabasisforacauseofactionunderPart16."[SeeFAAEXHIBIT1,Item2,p.14]JCPdisputedthattheCountycuredthiscauseofaction,becausetheCountyhasnotadmittedthatthesubsidieswouldaffectthefinancialsustainabilityoftheAirport.SeeFAAEXHIBIT1,Item6]Onthefifthcauseofaction,ReversalofPositiononJetAwaySite,theCountyarguedthecauseofactionwasmoot.ItreferredtotheterminationoftheGroundLeaseandtothefactthatithadnotmadepaymentsunderthatleasetoTVP.TheCountystatedthatithadcuredanyviolationandthereisnobasisforsuchaclaim.[FAAEXHIBIT1,Item2,pp.14,15,and16]JCPdisagreedthatthecauseofactionismoot,allegingthattheCountyhadbelievestheJetAwaysitenolongerissubjecttoarestrictivecovenant.[FAAEXHIBIT1,Item6,]Astothesixthcauseofaction,Lease-Leaseback,theCountystatedthat,sinceboththeAgreementandTVPGroundLeasehavebeenterminated,thecauseofactionismoot. [FAAEXHIBIT1,Item2,p.20]JCPrespondedthattheCountyhasnotcuredtheallegedgrantassuranceviolationnorhasitvoluntarilycompliedwiththegrantassurances.[FAAEXHIBIT1,Item6]23TheCountyinitsReplyinSupportofSummaryJudgmentassertsthattheterminationoftheMTJFBOAgreementandtheTVPGroundLeaseshouldbesufficientinandofthemselvestocuretheallegedgrantassuranceviolationsregardlessofwhetherMTJandTVP'activelycontest'theterminationofthoseagreements,TVP'sacknowledgmentthattheoption agreementaccompanyingtheTVPLeasehasbeenterminatedaswellfurtherundercutsthefoundationsofJCP'scomplaintTheCountyadditionallyarguesthat(1)JCPcitesnoFAA-relatedauthorityforthepropositionthatthe'capableofrepetitionbutevadingreview'standardhasanyapplicabilitytoPart16proceedings, and(2)JCPignoresbasicprinciplesofcontractlawwithregardtotheallegedfailureto'completelyterminatetheagreementswithMTJandTVP.[FAAExhibit1,Item7]JCPinitsoppositiontotheCounty'sReplyarguesthat"theRespondentCounty'sproposedreplydoesnotaddressthequestionastowhetherFAAguidanceisrequiredonthe County'spubliclyexpressedpositionthatitwascompelledbygrantassurancestoprovidethefinancialincentivesthatledtothisPart16Complaint."FAAEXHIBIT1,Item8]CurrentComplianceandMootncss-AnalysisandDecisionTheDirectorfindsthatJCP'sclaimsaremootandthereforeshouldbedismissed.Additionally,theDirectorfindsthattobeincurrentcompliancetheCountyneednotaffirmativelyacknowledgethattheagreementsatissueraisedanygrantassuranceviolationsbeforetakingacure.Theterminationoftheagreements,regardlessoftheCounty'smotive,sufficestoremovetheconcernsm1dtoreturntheCountytoastatusquopositionforpurposesofgrantassurancecompliance.Asexplainedabove,theFAAComplianceProgramisdesignedtoachievevoluntarycompliancewithfederalobligationsacceptedbyownersand/oroperatorsofpublic-useairportsdevelopedwithfederalfundsand/orconveyancesoffederalpropertyforairportpurposes.FAAwillmakeadeterminationastowhethertheairportsponsoriscurrentlyincompliancewiththeapplicablefederalobligations.Consequently,theFAAwillconsiderthesuccessfulactionbytheairporttocmeanyallegedorpotentialpastviolationofapplicablefederalobligationtobegroundsfordismissalofsuchallegations.[Seee.g..g.AircraftManagementServices,pp.15-16;DrakeAerial,pp.11-13;NorthwestAirlines(Director'sDetermination),pp.12-13]TheFAAdoctrineofcurrentcomplianceextendstosituationswhereanairportsponsorrectifiedthecomplained-ofpractice---evenwithoutadmittingorrecognizinganygrantviolations.SuchacircumstanceoccurredinU.S.Aerospace,inwhichtheairportauthorityterminatedanFBOagreementallegedlygrantingaprohibitedexclusiveright,andtheterminationoccurredbecausethatFBOviolatedtheleaseandminimwnstandards,notbecausetheairportwasmotivatedto"cme"anypossiblegrantviolations.Eventhoughtheairportauthority'smotivationinevictingtheotherFBOwasnotexpresslytobringitselfintocompliancewiththegrantassurances,theDirectorfoundtheairportauthoritytobeincurrentcomplianceanddismissedtheFBO'scomplaint,stating:24Inanalyzingthisissue,theFAA'sfocusisonMMAA'scurrentcompliancestatus.TheFAA'sobjectiveinthePart16processisnottopunishpastnon-compliance.Inaddition,Part16isnotintendedasameansforacomplainanttoobtainredressforperceivedinjuries.ItisclearfromtherecordthatMMAAisnotcurrentlygranting[theotherFBO]anexclusiverightbecauseMAShasbeenevictedfromtheairportforviolationsoftheleaseandMMAA'sminimumstandards.WhateverMMAA'smotivationfortheeviction,theevictioneffectivelytenninatedanyrightthatmighthavebeengrantedtoMAS.!d.,p.9.TheCounty,similartotheairportauthorityinU.S.Aerospace,terminatedthecomplained-ofagreementsduetobreachbythesecondFBO,notduetoanyrecognitionoradmissionthatthetermsoftheagreementmayhaveviolatedthegrantassurances.Nonetheless,theFAAdeterminedtheairportauthoritywasincurrentcomplianceanddismissedthecomplaint.TheFAA'sroleinPart16isnottopenalizeairportsponsorsforpastinfractions.ThisisnottosaythattheMTJAgreementsorTVPGroundLeasecontainedtermsorconditionsthatviolatedthegrantassurances;rather,JCPraisedconcernsregardingtheseagreements,andwefindthattheirtenninationeffectivelysatisfiestheDirectorthatsuchconcernsaremooted.Insum,currentcomplianceneednotinvolveanairportsponsorundertakingacorrectiveactionprogram;actingpursuanttoFAAsupervision;orrequestingFAAconsentforleasesandagreements.Itisnotnecessary,forexample,foranairportsponsortorecognizeallegedgrantviolationsandtoattemptto"cure"thembybringingitselfintocompliance.Rather,thefactofcompliance,notthemotivation,istheimportantfactorfortheFAAtofindasamatteroflawthatanairportiscurrentlyincompliancewiththegrantassurances.TheFAAhasfoundanairportsponsortobein"currentcompliance,"inanarrayofsituationsinvolvinganairportsponsor'sactofdiscontinuingapractice,policy,oragreementthatallegedlyviolatesgrantassurances.Asbrieflydescribedbelow,suchactshavemootedcomplainants'claimsandhavebeencausesfordismissalofthecomplaintsorforfindingsinfavoroftheairportsponsorrespondent.Accordingly,theysupporttheDirector'sfindingsthatJCP'scausesofactionaremootandshouldbedismissed.IntheNorthwestAirlines proceeding,theairportauthoritypostponeditsplanstotakeanallegedlyunjustlydiscriminatoryactionbynotapplyingthecomplained-ofrentcreditandhadfrozentheAirlines'landingfees.ConsequentlytheFAAdeterminedtherewasnocurrentnoncomplianceintermsoflmjustdiscrimination.Inthecaseatbar,theCountyterminated-notpostponed-thedisputedagreements,therebyrenderingthecomplainants'concernsmootInasituationwhereanairportsponsorhasterminatedanundertakingthatviolatedthegrantassurances,theFAAdismissedthecomplainant'saction.TheFAAdetenninedthattheairportsponsor"isnotcurrentlyinviolationofgrantassurance23...,asaresultofhavingenteredintoapastagreementofferingvariousexclusiverightsthathavesincebeenrescinded."SeeM.DanielCareyandCliffDavenportv.Afton-LincolnCountyMunicipalAirportJointPowersBoard,FAADocketNo.16-06-06(Jan.19,2007),pp.22-23.Similarly,byterminatingtheagreementsindispute,theCountyisnotcurrentlyinviolationofgrantassurances5,22,23,or24,andJCP'sclaimsshouldbedismissed.25Additionally,whereanairportsponsordidnotrenewanFBO'sleaseyearsbeforeitsexpirationdate;theFAAfoundcurrentcompliancebecausetheleasenevet1helessgavethecomplainantreasonableaccesstotheairport.SeeJimsairAviationServices.Inc.v.SanDiegoCountyRegionalAirpmtAuthority,FAADocketNo.16-06-08(Apr.9,2007),p.17.Here,JCPhasnotallegedthatitdoesnothavereasonableaccesstotheairportSimilarly,theFAAdismissedacomplaintwheretheairportsponsorwasnegotiatingamodifiedagreementthatwouldaddressthedisputed issuesofreversionofimprovementsandselfsustainabilityofrentalrates.SeeRudyJ.Clarkev.CityofAlamogordo,NM,FAADocketNo.16-05-19,pp.18-19(Sept.20,2006),stating:Regardlessofpastpoormanagementcontrols,FAAisinterestedincurrentcompliance.ThegoalofthePart16[program]istoreturntheairportsponsortoastateofcompliancewithitsgrantassurances.Asaresult,itisagainst FAApolicytoenforceretroactivelythegrantassurancesforpastviolations(assumingtherearesuchviolations)thathavebeencured.SeealsoRoadhouseAviationv.CityofTulsa,FAADocketNo.16-05w08(Director'sDetermination),p.31(issuedDec.14,2006),andnoting"Part16isnotapunitiveprocessforpastviolations."Again,theFAAdoesnotseektopunishanypastnonwcomplianceincaseswhereanairportsponsorhascorrectedanysuchgrantassuranceviolations.Basedontheabovestandards,theDirectorfindsthefactthattheagreementsatissueareterminatedissufficienttoconsiderthecomplaintandcausesofactionmootThe"capableofrepetition,yetevadingreview"exceptiontothemootnessdoctrine,asraisedbyJCP,appearstobeajudicialexceptionappliedtoasituationinwhichacomplainantwas"adverselyaffected"andthat"therewasareasonableexpectation"thatthecomplainantwouldbe"subjectedtothesameactionagain."Weinstein,412U.S.148w49.TheDirectorwillnotapplytheexceptionhere.Asdiscussedatlengthintheripenesssection,JCPhasnotshownthatitwasadversely affectedbytheagreementsatissue;additionally,theassumptionthattheCountywouldimplementthesubsidyprogramagainwithanotherFBO,leasetheJetAwaysite,orenterintoagreementstowhichJCPhasraisedconcerns,isremoteandspeculative,notdemonstratedbytheevidence.AstoJCP'sfirstcauseofaction,Financialinducements,theDirectorfindsthattheCounty'sterminationoftheagreementsmootedanyallegedgrantassuranceviolations;moreover,nootherFBOagreementcontainingthesameorsimilartermsisineffect.TheDirectorfindsthattheCounty'sactionseffectivelycureditsallegedgrantviolations,andthiscauseofactionshouldbedismissed.RegardingJCP'ssecondcauseofaction,ApplicationofMinimumStandards,theDirectorfindsthattheCounty'sterminationofbothMajestic'sandMTJ'srightstoprovideFBOservicesattheAirportmootedanyallegedgrantassuranceviolations;additionally,noFBOasidefromJCPoperatesattheAirport,andtheMTJpersonnelatissuearenotoperatingattheAirport.TheDirectorfindsthattheCounty'sactionseffectivelycureditsallegedgrantviolations,andthiscauseofactionshouldbedismissed.26ConcerningJCP'sthirdcauseofaction,RFPProcess,theDirectorfindsmootnessduetothefactthatneitherMajesticnorMTJeverprovidedFBOservicesattheAirport,theagreementsareterminated,andthereisnoopenRFPforFBOservices.TheFAA,however,doesnotholdaPart16proceedingtopenalizeanairportsponsorforallegedpastgrantviolations.JCP'sclaimsoffutureCountyplanstoholdanother,similarRFP,ortoreinstatethedisputedagreementsorsubsidies,aretooremoteandspeculativetobeconsideredinthisproceeding.Accordingly,theDirectorfindsthatthiscauseofactionshouldbedismissed.WithrespecttoJCP'sfourthcauseofaction,ControlandFinancialSustainabilityofAirport,theDirectorfindsmootnessduetothetenninationoftheagreements.TheFAAdoesnotinsistthatforpurposesofafindingofcurrentcomplianceanairportsponsormustadmittoapossiblegrantviolation.Theactofcuringanypastviolation-regardlessofthesponsor'smotivation-issufficient.Therefore,thiscauseofactionshouldbedismissed.Onthefifthcauseofaction,ReversalofPositiononJetAwaySite,theDirectorfindsmootness,duetotheCounty'sterminationoftheGroundLeaseandtothefactthatCountyhadnotmadepaymentsunderthatleasetoTVP.JCP'sconcernsaboutanypotentialuseofthatsitearemerelyconjectureandtooremotetobeconsideredinthisproceeding.Therefore,thiscauseofactionshouldbedismissed.Astothesixthcauseofaction,Lease-Leaseback,theDirectorfindsmootness,duetothefactsthatboththeAgreementandTVPGroundLeasehavebeenterminated.TheFAAdoesnotinsistthat,forpurposesofafindingofcurrentcompliance,anairportsponsormustadmittoapossiblegrantviolation.Theactofcuringanypastviolation-regardlessofthesponsor'smotivation--issufficient.Therefore,thiscauseofactionshouldbedismissed.VI.FINDINGSANDCONCLUSIONSTheDirectorrecognizesthatJCPexpendedtime,effmtandexpenseinitsComplaintabouttheallegedgrantviolationsattheAirport,andthatthisoccurredatthesameperiodinwhichtheCountywasengagedintenninatingtheagreementsinissue.TheDirectorfinds,asdetailedabove,thatJCP'sclaimsthattheCountyisinviolationofgrantassurances5,PreservingRightsandPowers,22,EconomicNondiscrimination,23,ExclusiveRights,or24,FeeandRentalStructure,arenotripe,aremoot,andthattheclaimsshouldbedismissed.ORDERAccordingly,itisorderedthat:1.Respondent'sMotionforLeavetoFileReplyinSupportofSummaryJudgmentisgranted;272.Respondent'sMotiontoDismissisgranted;and3.theComplaintisdismissedRIGHTOFAPPEALTheDirector'sOrder,FAADocketNo.16-15-11,isaninitialagencydetenninationanddoesnotconstituteafinalagencydecisionandordersubjecttojudicialreview.[14CFR§16.247(b)]ApartytothisproceedingadverselyaffectedbytheDirector'sOrdermayappealtheinitialdeterminationtotheFAAAssociateAdministratorforAirportspursuantto14CFR§16.33(c)withinthirty(30)daysafterserviceoftheDirector'sOrder.RandallS.FiertzDirector,OfficeofAirport ComplianceandManagementAnalysisDate:/hJ;.I'(?c.V.r28INDEXOFTHEADMINISTRATIVERECORDFAADOCKET16-15-11Thefollowingitemsconstitutetheadministrativerecordinthisproceeding:FAAEXHIBIT1Item1-JetCenterPartners,LLC(JCP)Prut16ComplaintdocketedAugust26,2015,includingappendicescontainingthefollowingdocuments:••••••••••Exhibit1-OverviewofAirportFBOParcelsandtheMontroseCountyRegionalAirport's(Airport)AirportLayoutPlan(ALP)Exhibit2-Requestfor Proposals(RFP)foraFixedBaseOperator(FBO)onAirport,(Aug.2013)•Att.A-AirportOperations(Jan.2006-July2014)•Art.B-AirportFuelSales(Jan.2001-July2013)•Att.C-AirportPassengerEnplanementsandDeplanements(Jan.2001-July2013)•Art.D-MinimumStandardsfortheProvisionofCommercialAeronauticalServicesattheAirport,adoptedAug.4,2003;revisedDec.5,2005Exhibit3-Airport-MajesticSkies,LLCFBOAgreement(July2,2014)Exhibit4-Newspaperarticle,May10,2015G.Davis,SheddingsomelightonacontroversialairportissueandInitialDisclosuresofMTJFBOPartners,LLCandTellurideVenturePartners,LLC,Cossickv.BoardofCountyCommissioners,MontroseCounty,etal,CaseNo.2014CV30191(Colo.Dist.Ct.)(June26,2015)Exhibit5-Airport-MTJFBOPartners,LLC,AmendedFBOAgreement,(Feb.17,2015)Exhibit6-Airport-TellurideVenturePartners,LLC(TVP),GroundLease,(Feb.17,2015)•Item1DescriptionandDepictionofTVPProperty•Item2ofMontrose,COOptiontoPurchaseLand{TVPProperty),(Feb.17,2015)Exhibit7-AirportGrantHistoryReport,FederalAviationAdministration(FAA)OfficeofAirports,ReportDate04/17/2015Exhibit8-MontroseCountyDefendants'BriefinSupportofMotionfOrSummaryJudgment,JetawayAviation.LLCv.BoardofCountyCommissioners,MontroseCounty.eta!,(D.Colo.,No.1:07cv-02563-RPM,Aug.31,2011)Exhibit9-Airport-JetCenterPartners,LLC(JCP),FBOAgreement(Dec.5,2005)ExhibitI0-Airport-JCPFBOTransitionAgreement(Dec.5,2005)andAirportJCPFBOAmendmenttoTransitionAgreement(undated)I• Exhibit

11

- Black Canyon
Jet Center (JCP) Leasehold Overview • Exhibi

t 12

- Letters from Michael

A. Hodges

, M.A.I., President/CEO Busines

s So luti ons to Brian Magoon

, Esq. (Feb.

4, 2008) and (Mar. 25, 2008) • Exhibit

1 3 - Proceedings

of the Board
of Montrose County
Co mmissioners (Mar. 12

, 2009) and Findings

of Fact

, Conclusions

of Law and Order, One Creative Place, LLC

v

. Board
of County Commissio
ners

, (Colo. Dist. Ct. Nos. 06CV18

, 06CV25

, 06CV 126

, July

6
, 201

1 ) • Ex hibi

t 14--Letter from Dani

e l S. Reimer

, Esq.
to Randall Fiertz, Director, Office of Airport Compliance

and Management Analysis

, FAA (May
30

, 2012) • Exhib

i t 15

- Expert Report
of Philip

B. Ne lson

, Ph.D.

( excerpt

s from), Jetaway Aviation, LLC

v. Board
of County Commissioners, Montrose Coun ty, et al, (D. Colo., No. 1:07 cv-02563-RPM

(I 0/11/ 11) and Supplemental

/ Rebuttal Expert Report
of Philip

B. Nelson, Ph.D

. (excerpts from), Jetaway Aviation. LLC

v. Board
of C ounty Commissioners

, Montrose County, eta/, (D. Co lo.

, No.

1 :07 cv02563

- RPM

, 10
/ 11111) and Preliminary Draft, Expert Report ofDr. Gary

J. Dorman

(A u g. 15

, 2011) • Exhibit

16 -Tel Ski Aviation FBO Propo

s al to Montrose

Co un ty in Response

to RFP (2013) • Exhibit

17

- Proceedings

of the Board
of Montrose County Commissioners

(Jan. 21

, 2014) • Exhibit

18

- Montrose County Depictions ofFBO Proposed
Site

# 1 (Sept. 2013) and Montrose County Depiction

s ofFBO Proposed
Site #2 (Sept. 2013) • Exhibit

19

- Majestic Skies, LLC Proposal

to Montrose County

in Response

to RFP (Oct. 25, 2013) • Exhibit

20

- Le tter from Matt

F r anzak

, Ma

j estic Skies

, LL C to Llo

y d Arnold

, Dir ector of Aviatio

n
, Montrose

, C O

( Jan.
3, 2014) and Letter from Michael Mane

s, P.A.
to Lloyd Arnold (Jan.

15

, 20 14
) • Exhibit

21

- Montrose Dail

y Pres

s, Jan. 22, 20 14

, K

. H eidelberg,

C ounty

to Negotiate
for Second FBO, pp. A 1, A3 • Exhibit

2 2
- Letter from

J. Michael Morgan, Esq,
to Montros

e County Commis

s ion (May 13, 2014) and Letter from Kevin

P. Egan

, Manager, JCP

, to Montr ose County Commission (undated)
and Letter from

K e n Watson, General Manag

e r , Black Canyon

Jet Center,

to Montrose County Commissioners

(Jan
8, 20 14
) and Ec onomic Analysis

of th e Propo sed Maje stic Skies

F BO Agreement

for Montrose
Cou nty

, by Maxfield

& P e t e r so n, P.C.

( undated

) • Exhibit

23 -M ontrose Regional Airport Adv

i so
r y Board

M eeti ng (M ar. 24

, 20

1 5) and Letter from Teresa

S. William

s Montrose Coun
ty Attorney

to Ken Watson

, JCP (March

11

, 2015) • Exhibit 23(A)-
Ex tracts from Majestic Skies Proposal

to Montrose RFP. pages 17- 18

, and Jackson County,

I L Case Information,

The Hill, Feb. 23

, 2010,

S

. Crabtree, Sentencing

in Defens

e C ontractor

's Trial

, and http://www.theh ill.com/h ome

n ews/house/83243

- sentencing-in-k

i ckback -trial and Th
e W as hington Post

, July
8, 2009,

C. Leo nnig

, Ex -H ead of D efense Firm With Murtha Ties Will Plead Guilty

to Brib ery, **http:**

**// www** 

**~a hingt** 

**n** post.com/
wpdyn/c

o nten t/art icle

/ 2009

/ 07

/ 07 and Federal Bureau oflnvestigation

Press Re

l ease

, Kuch

e ra Brothers Plead Guilty

to Fraud Against

the Government

and Conspiracy

2Charge

s, Apr. 16, 2013

, https

: // vvww.fbi.gov

/ pittsburgh/pressrelcascs/20 13/kuchera

- brothers •
E xhibit

2 4

- Defendant Board of Cou nty
C ommissioners

of the C ounty of Montro

se Responses

to Plaintiff

's Amended First Set of Di sco very Requests, Cossick

v. Board
of Co unty Commissioners, Montros

e County.

e t al. Case No. 2014CV3019

1 (Co

l o

. Dist. Ct.)

( Jun

e 25, 2015) • Exhibit

25

- Color ado Secretary

of State

- Summary

, Telluri

d e Venture Partn

e r s, L LC, http:
// W\\>w

. sos

. state

. co.uslbidBusinessEntit}

Detail

( 8 / 4 / 20 15) • Exhibit

26

- Colora
do Secretary

of State-

Su mmary

, TelSki Aviat

i o n
, LLC, http

: // WW\\ .sos.state.co.uslbidBusinessbntityDetail

( 8 / 4 /2 0 15) • Exhibit

27

- Colorado Secretary

of Sta

t e- Summary

, MTJ

F BO Partners,

LL C, http://wW\\

.s os

. statc

. co

. us/biz/BusincssEntityDetail

(8
/ 4/2
0 15) • Ex hibit 28

- June
15

, 20 11 Deed of Trus

t and Assignment

by One

C reati ve Place, LLC
to The

P ub lic Tru stee of the Co unty of Montrose

, CO,
fo
r the benefit

of Wells Fargo Bank, containing Exh.
A, Descrip tion of Prop erty • Item

!- -Warranty

D ee d betwee

n One Creative Plac e, LLC and TVP (Jan

. 21 2015) • Item

2

- First Modifica tion of Dee

d of Trust and Assigrunent

of Rent

s and Lea ses (Dec.

1 5, 2014) • Item

3
- Second Modification

of Deed of Trust and As si gnment

of Rents and Lea ses (May

15

, 2015) • Item

4

- Montro

se County Parcel Map

, One

C r ea tive Place LLC • Item 5- Property Profile, Jetaway Min or Subdivison

Lot

1 , 2015 Tax Assessment • Item

6 -P ro p erty Profile,

Je ta w a y Min

o r Subd

i visio

n Lot

2

, 20

1 5 Tax Assess

m ent •
It e m 7- Pr operty Profile

, Jeta way Minor

S ubdi vis ion
L ot
3
, 20

1 5 Tax Assessment • Ex hibit 29

- TVP-County

of Montrose,
CO Op

t ion to Purch ase Land (Feb.

17

, 20

1 5) • Exhibit

3 0

- MTJ FBO Partners

, LLC (MTJ) -Montro

se County,

C O Ground Lea se (Ap

r . 2 015)

, and MJ T Additional Leased Property • Exhibit

3 1 - Montrose

R egional

A irp ort Minimum Standards

, Adopted Aug.
4, 2003,

R ev

i sed D ec. 5, 2005 Item lA-FAA Notice
of Do cketi ng

, dated August 27,201

5. Item

2 - Montrose

Co unty

's Motion
for Summary Judgment, received September

17

, 2015

, including appendic

es contain ing the followin

g documents: • Exhibit !-Affidavit

of Llo

y d A rnold (Sept.

1 6, 20 15) • Exhibit

2 - Letter from Bobbee

J. M u sg
r ave, Esq

. , to Michael

B. Manes

, Thomas

J
. B yrne and MTJ FBO Partners, LLC (MTJ) (Aug. 19, 2015) • Exhibit

3 - Letter

fr om Bob

b ee J. Mu

s grave

to Thomas

J. B y rn e and M T J (Se pt.

1 , 2015)

3• Exhibit 4-----0rder

on Pending Motions,

Jet Center Partners, LLC

v. MTJ FBO Partners, LLC,

et al, Case No 2015 CV 30057 (July

9, 2015) Item 3-JCP Motion

to Extend Deadline

to Reply (Sept. 28, 2015) Item 4-County

of Montrose Response

in Partial Opposition

to Complainant's Motion

to Extend Deadline

to Reply (Sept. 30, 2015) Item 5-FAA Order
on Motion

to Extend Deadline

to Reply (Oct.!, 2015) Item 6--JCP's Answer

to the County's Motion
for Summary Judgment (Oct.

9, 2015), including appendices containing

the following documents: • Exhibit 32-Egan Affidavit (Aug.

5, 20 15) • Exhibit 33-Montrose
Daily Press News (Sept

4, 2015),

K. Heidelgerg, Majestic alleges_fraud • Exhibit 34-Ver!fied Complaint, Majestic Skies

et al v. TVP

et al, (Colo. Dist. Ct.) (Sept.

1, 2015) • Exhibit 35-Montrose
Daily Press News (Sept.

4, 2015),

K. Heidelgerg, County scratches second FBO contract, Montrose Daily Press News (Oct.

2, 2015),

K. Heidelgerg, Majestic bounces FBO suit • Exhibit 36-Letter
from Bobbee

J. Musgrave, Esq.,
to Michael

B. Manes, Esq. and Thomas

J. Byrne, Esq. (July

7, 2015) and Letter from Michael

B. Manes, Esq. to Lloyd Arnold (Aug. 20 14) • Exhibit 37-Letter from Bobbee

J. Musgrave, Esq.,

to Michael

B. Manes, Esq., Thomas

J. Byrne, Esq. and MTJ (July 24, 2015) • Exhibit 38-Letter from Thomas

.T. Byrne, Esq. and Michael

B. Manes, Esq.
to Bobbee

J. Musgrave,
Esq. (July 31, 2015) • Exhibit 39-Letter from Bobbee

J. Musgrave, Esq.,

to Michael

B. Manes, Esq., Thomas

J. Byrne, Esq. and MTJ (Aug.

7, 2015) • Exhibit 40-----Letter from Thomas

J. Byme, Esq. and Michael

B. Manes, Esq.
to Bobbee

J. Musgrave,
Esq. (Aug. 13, 2015) • Exhibit 41-Letter
fi·om Thomas

J. Byrne, Esq. and Michael

B. Manes, Esq. to Bobbee

J. Musgrave,
Esq. (Aug. 21, 2015) • Exhibit 42-Letter
from Bobbee

J. Musgrave, Esq.,

to Michael

B. Manes, Esq., Thomas

J. Byrne, Esq. and MTJ (Aug. 24, 2015) • Exhibit 43-Letter from Bobbee

J. Musgrave, Esq.,

to Michael

B. Manes, Esq., Thomas

J. Byrne, Esq. and MTJ (Sept.

9, 2015) • Exhibit 44-Plaint([f's Partially Unopposed Motion

to Dismiss, Cossick

v. Board
of County Commissioners, Montrose County,

et al, Case No. 2014CV30191,

Div

5 (Colo. Dist. Ct.) (Oct.

5, 2015) • Exhibit 45-Notice

of Appeal, JCP

v. MTJ eta/., (Colo.
Ct. of Appeals) (Aug. 28, 2015) Item 7-County

of Montrose Motion
for Leave

to File Reply

in Support

of Summary Judgment (Oct. 30, 2015), and Reply

in Support

of Summary Judgment (Oct.30, 2015), including appendices containing

the following documents:

4• Exhibit 5-Second Affidavit

of Lloyd Arnold (Oct. 30, 2015) • Exhibit

6- Letter from Thomas

J. Byrne, Esq.
to Bobbee

J. Musgrave,
Esq. (Sept. 17, 2015) • Exhibit

7 -Letter from Michael

B. Manes, Esq.
to Bobbee

J. Musgrave,
Esq. (Oct. 28, 2015) Item 8-JCP's Counsel email

to FAA
in opposition

to County's Motion (Nov.

3, 2015) Item 9- FAA Order

to extend date of considemtion

of Motions before the Agency

to November

20, 2015.

5