L/L.n U5^;|JEE) STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTi^ 

" FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

HELIOPS, LLC 

V. 

Complainant 

NORWOOD MEMORIAL AIRPORT; 

NORWOOD AIRPORT COMMISSION 

Respondents 

E Ei W' 

SEP 1 6 2009 

AiRPORT/ENVIROK'.'iENTAL 

LAW, AGC-600 

Docket No. /C^oHC 

CERTIFICATE OF WESLEY VERKAART PURSUANT TO 14 C.F.R. § 16.21(B) 

I Wesley Verkaart, am the owner/operator of Heliops, LLC, the Complainant in this 

matter. I certify that substantial and reasonable good faith efforts to resolve the disputed matter 

informally prior to filing the complaint have been made and that there appears no reasonable 

prospect for timely resolution of the dispute. These efforts included discussions with the Airport 

Manager; my attendance at multiple Airport Commission meetings, where I requested either a 

permit or that I be allowed to pay for a waiver that would allow me to conduct the requested 

flight operations; and a formal written request for a waiver, which request was denied on August 

13, 2009. My efforts to resolve this matter informally, and without filing a complaint, are set 

forth in greater detail in the Verified Formal Complaint that is submitted herewith. 

A^g ^ 

Wesley Verkaar/-Heliops, LLC 

Y^/^ 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAHHe) 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

HELIOPS, LLC 

Complainant 

NORWOOD MEMORIAL AIRPORT; 

NORWOOD AIRPORT COMMISSION 

Respondents 

e E i w 

SEP 1 6 2009 

AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

.^ LAW, AGC-600 

Docket No. l\.-Ol^iO 

VERIFIED FORMAL COMPLAINT* 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Complainant, Heliops, LLC ("Heliops"), files this complaint pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 

16, et seq., challenging the Norwood Airport Commission's ("the Commission") decision to 

deny Heliops a waiver permitting it to use Norwood Memorial Airport ("Norwood Memorial") 

without establishing a physical base of operations on the premises. The Commission's decision 

was improper (1) because it violates Grant Assurance 22, which requires airports to make 

themselves available to all types of aeronautical activities absent certain limited exceptions, 

which are inapplicable here; and (2) becEiuse Norwood Memorial's Minimum Standards, as 

applied by the Commission, favor local operators over those who maintain bases of operations 

elsewhere, including those located in other states, and thus contravenes dormant Commerce 

Clause principles. 

A certificate of compliance pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.21(b) is filed herewith. 

I 

' The Verification pertains to the factual allegations set forth in Section II, infra. 
11. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

The facts recited in this section, entitled "Factual and Procedural Background," are 

verified through the appended verification statement of Wesley Verkaart, the owner/operator of 

Heliops, LLC. 

Heliops, LLC is based out of Plymouth Municipal Airport in Plymouth, MA. Heliops 

provides charter services as a single pilot operation under CFR Title 14, Part 135 ("Part 135") 

and also conducts tours, aerial photography, and aerial surveys under CFR Title 14, Part 91 

("Part 91"). Heliops has authorization from both the Department of Transportation and the 

Federal Aviation Administration to fly commercial operations in all of the forty-eight contiguous 

states. Heliops conducts commercial flight operations throughout New England and has 

conducted commercial operations in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, 

Vermont, Maine, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. 

Heliops has conducted Part 91 flight operations from Norwood Memorial for the past five 

years. On April 1, 2009, Heliops was informed by the Norwood Airport Manager that it would 

be required to comply with Norwood Memorial's Minimum Standards (the "Minimum 

Standards") to be able to continue conducting commercial Part 91 operations at Norwood. These 

standards would require Heliops to have: 

* A well lit and heated office of at least 200 square feet, 

leased or owned, within walking distance of the company aircraft, 

on or adjacent to the airport, or on [the] Access Road between the 

north and south airport boundary ends. 

* Suitable commercial tie-down or hanger space for all 

company aircraft. '^ 

A copy of the Minimum Standard is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 
On information and belief, Norwood Memorial does not impose these requirements upon 

Part 135 operations or non-commercial Part 91 operations. Heliops and (on information and 

belief) others are permitted to conduct such operations, even though they do not have office 

space within walking distance of the airport or commercial tie-down or hanger space. 

The owner/operator of Heliops, Wesley Verkaart, informed Norwood Memorial that 

Heliops would be unable to establish a base of operations there because the relatively limited 

number of flight operations Heliops conducts out of Norwood Memorial (about twenty (20) in 

2008 (half of which were Part 91)) would make establishing a physical presence prohibitively 

expensive. 

At a meeting of the Norwood Airport Commission (the "Commission") on May 15'*^ 

2009, Heliops requested permission to conduct commercial Part 91 operations fi-om Norwood. 

Heliops informed the Commission that it would be willing to purchase a "through the fence 

permit," if that would resolve the issue. The Airport Manager recommended against issuing such 

a permit, stating "we already have helicopters and airplanes at the airport that can do sightseeing 

and aerial photography/video." Some Commission members stated that "at least we are being 

consistent," a reference to the fact that sightseeing and aerial tour operators based out of 

Norwood Memorial are required to meet the office space and hanger requirements set forth in the 

Minimum Standards. The Commission tabled the matter so more information could be gathered 

and the issue could be addressed in the next meeting. 

Another meeting was held on June 10, 2009. At this meeting, the Airport Manager 

reiterated that Heliops does not meet the Minimum Standards for Part 91 Commercial Operations 

at the airport. Heliops advised the Commission that it would make no economic sense for 

Heliops to establish a base at Norwood Memorial and argued that it was not sensible to apply the 
standards established for commercial operators based out of Norwood to commercial operators, 

such as Heliops, that are based elsewhere. Heliops further argued that refiising to grant Heliops a 

permit would violate FAA regulations and would be inconsistent with the Commerce Clause. 

The Commission advised that it would need to present the issue to town counsel. 

At a subsequent Commission meeting on July 8, 2009, the Commission reported that 

Heliops' request had been submitted to a Norwood Town meeting for consideration, resulting in 

a recommendation that Heliops apply for a permit (an apparent communications glitch because 

Heliops had already applied for a permit). The Commission stated that it wished to be 

"consistent," and thus voted against issuing a permit allowing Heliops to conduct commercial 

Part 91 operations at the airport. 

This vote was followed by a July 15, 2009 letter from the Commission in which it 

formally rejected Heliops' request for a waiver. (Attached as Exhibit B) It fiarther stated "If 

Heli-Ops [sic] cannot meet the minimum standards, and still wishes to apply for a commercial 

permit, the company must state clearly in writing what waiver(s) it is seeking from the 

[Commission]." (Exhibit B). 

In response, Heliops sent the Commission a formal request for a written waiver that 

would permit it to conduct commercial Part 91 operations out of Norwood Memorial, even in the 

absence of a base of operations at the airport. (Attached as Exhibit C). It also requested that the 

Commission issue a written decision approving or denying this request and supplying its reasons. 

(Exhibit C). In the letter, Heliops explained that it anticipated conducting approximately twenty 

(20) Part 91 commercial flights out of Norwood Memorial per year, that it has listed the Town of 

Norwood, the Norwood Airport Commission, and Norwood Airport Management as insureds on 

its aircraft liability policy, that it would comply with all applicable federal and state laws, and 
that it would comply with the safety guidelines applicable to rotorcrafts using federally fimded 

airports. (Exhibit C). It also stated that for commercial Part 91, operations Heliops personnel 

would meet passengers at an FBO and escort them to the aircraft. (Exhibit C). For loading and 

unloading passengers, the helicopter would be parked either at the designated helicopter parking 

circles or, with prior landing permission, the designated airport helipad or FBO ramp area. 

(Exhibit C). 

On August 13, 2009, the Commission sent Heliops a letter denying its request for a 

waiver. (Attached as Exhibit D). Specifically, the Commission stated: 

After some consideration, the NAC voted to deny your request. Its decision was 

based primarily on the board's efforts to apply its standards fairly and uniformly. 

As context: The Norwood Airport is presently home base to several commercial 

permitted sightseeing tour operators, all of which meet the minimum standards, 

the same standards we have required of Heli-Ops [sic], i.e., to have a physical 

presence on the Norwood Airport. 

III. ARGUMENT 

1. The Refusal to Grant Heliops a Waiver or a Permit Violates Grant Assurance 22 

The Airport and Airway Improvement Act, 49 U.S.C. § 47107, et seq. sets forth 

requirements to which an airport must agree in order to receive federal financial assistance. 

These requirements are embodied in a number of Grant Assurances to which airport sponsors 

agree as a precondition for the receipt of federal funds. Among these assurances is Grant 

Assurance 22, under which an airport ovmer "is required to operate the airport for the use and 

benefit of the public and to make it available to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical 

activity on reasonable terms, and without unjust discrimination." R/T-182. LLC v. Portage 

County Regional Airport Authority, 16-05-14 (2007). Specifically, Grant Assurance 22 provides 

in pertinent part that the airport shall 

Make its 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)). 

As the foregoing make clear. Grant Assurance 22 requires the airport to make itself 

available to all categories of aeronautical activity. This directive, however, may be balanced by 

an airport sponsor's need to "establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, 

conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe operation of the 

airport." (Assurance 22(h)). In addition, the sponsor may "prohibit or limit any given type, 

kind, or class of aeronautical use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation 

of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public." (Assurance 22(i)). 

The denial of Heliops' request for permission (either through a permit or a waiver) to use 

Norwood Memorial without a physical presence on the airport violates the economic 

nondiscrimination provisions of Assurance 22. A small, single aircraft operation that is based 

off-site and uses Norwood Memorial only episodically (such as Heliops) cannot afford or justify 

the expense involved in maintaining a physical presence at Norwood Memorial. Requiring 

Heliops — or any other comparable aeronautical operation — to adhere to the Norwood 

Memorial Minimum Standards thus has the practical effect of barring a category of aeronautical 

use (Part 91 tours by off-site based operators) at Norwood Memorial. Moreover, if other airports 

adopted Norwood Memorial's Minimum Standards and refused to grant appropriate waivers, an 

entire category of "commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public," would be 

forced out of business, resulting in harm not only to the businesses themselves, but also to 

consumers who avail themselves these businesses' services. 

Because the application of the Norwood Minimum Standards and the refusal to grant a 

waiver essentially bars lawful and useful commercial activities from Norwood Memorial, the 

Commission must demonstrate that its decision is based upon either the need to preserve "safe 
operation of the airport" or that denying Heliops a waiver or permit was "necessary to serve the 

civil aviation needs of the public." 

A physical presence is not necessiary for the "safe operation of the airport." Heliops has 

the permission of both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of 

Transportation to conduct Part 91 commercial operations and will comply, as it always has, with 

every applicable safety guideline. It cannot be seriously asserted that its commercial Part 91 

flights pose greater safety risks than its commercial Part 135 operations or non-commercial Part 

91 operations. Nor, in any case, is it clear how requiring a base of operations at the airport 

would somehow make the commercial Part 91 operations any safer, particularly in light of the 

fact that there is no such requirement for the other types of operations. 

Likewise, there is no reason to believe that physical presence at the airport is somehow 

"necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public." Again, it bears mention that there is 

no physical presence requirement for Part 135 operations or for non-commercial Part 91 

operations. 

Indeed, because there is no logical reason for imposing greater burdens on commercial 

flight operations under Part 91 than on non-commercial Part 91 operations and commercial 

operations under Part 135, this disparate treatment violates Grant Assurance 22's prohibition 

against "unjust discrimination." (Grant Assurance 22(a)). In addition, Norwood Memorial's 

approach specifically burdens commercial Part 91 operations as compared to non-commercial 

Part 91 operations, a disparity that clearly contravenes FAA policy promoting open commercial 

access to airports that permit these facilities to achieve their highest and best use. Cf FAA 

Advisory Circular 150/5190-7, 1.2 (b) (noting that airport sponsors should "carefiilly scrutinize 

the safety reasons for denying an aeronautical service provider the opportunity to engage in an 
aeronautical activity if the denial has the possible effect of limiting competition) (emphasis 

supplied). Moreover, to the extent the Commission's actions evidently favor local operators that 

are based on-site, its policy actions constitute a de facto grant of exclusive rights in violation of 

Grant Assurance No. 23. 

2. The Commission's Reasons for Denying Heliops a Permit or Waiver Are 

Untenable 

The Commission bases its denial "primarily on the board's efforts to apply its standards 

fairly and uniformly." (Exhibit D). Apparently, the Commission believes that consistency 

requires Heliops to establish a physical base of operations at Norwood Memorial because other 

sightseeing tour operations have an on-site presence. This reason for denying Heliops a permit 

or waiver is untenable. 

Consistency does not require Heliops to meet the same requirements as the sightseeing 

tour operations that operate out of Norwood Memorial. The fact that the Heliops and the 

Norwood Memorial-based operators both conduct sightseeing tours is not a similarity that 

warrants, let alone mandates, identical treatment. In BMI Salvage Corp. v. Federal Aviation 

Administration, 272 Fed. Appx. 842, 2008 WL 927900 (11* Cir. 2008), the Eleventh Circuit 

addressed an airport's decisions regarding long-term development leases and noted that although 

the respondent airport had identified differences among the two operators at issue (one of whom 

was treated more advantageously), it had not explained why these differences warranted treating 

the complaining operator differently from another operator. 272 Fed. Appx. at 849. In other 

words, it is not enough to identify similarities and differences among flight operations. To 

justify a regulatory action by an airport, these similarities and differences must be germane and 

logically related to the airport regulation at issue. See R/T 182, LLC v. Federal Aviation 

Administration, 519 F.3d 307, 309 (6**^ Cir. 2008) (A determination whether groups are similarly 
situated "focuses [] attention on those distinctions between groups or individuals that are 

legitimate bases for discrimination, and those that are not"). Here, there is no reason, related to 

either airport administration or safety, for requiring Heliops to comply with requirements that 

make no sense in the context of operators based off-site. 

Nor would the other operators have cause to complain of disparate treatment if Heliops 

were permitted to pay for a "though-the-fence" permit that allowed it to operate out of Norwood 

periodically.^ After all, those that make full and regular use of the airport may be reasonably 

required to undertake greater expense for this comparatively greater use than might more 

episodic users, such as Heliops. That based operators may be treated differently from "transient 

operators" was underscored in R/T-182, LLC v. Portage County Regional Airport Authority, 

FAA Docket No. 16-05-14 (2007) ("RyT-182"), aff'dby R/T 182, LLC v. Federal Aviation 

Administration. 519 F.3d 307 (6*'' Cir. 2008). In R/T-182. the Associate Administrator for 

Airports issued a final agency determination that upheld an airport's decision to charge user fees 

to operators of aircraft based out of the airport, but not transient operators who might use the 

airport. The Associate Administrator rejected the complainant's argument that charging user 

fees to based operators, but not transient operators was unjust economic discrimination because 

the two groups were not similarly situated for purposes of revenue collection and it would be 

grossly cost-ineffective for the airport to attempt to collect fees from transient operators. 

^ It bears mention that FAA Advisory Circular No. 150/5190-7 outlines two categories of 

"through-the-fence" operations: "independent operators offering an aeronautical activity" and 

"owners of aircraft based on land adjacent to, but not part of airport property" AC 150/5190-7, 

1.4. Although the circular expressly states that there is no obligation to grant through-the-fence 

access to the second category of operators (those with aircraft adjacent to the airport), there is no 

such statement with regard to the first category of operators. The negative implication, of 

course, is that airports must permit the first category of through-the-fence operations, provided 

safety and administration concerns are adequately addressed. 
Accordingly, as R/T-182 makes clear, it would be perfectly permissible for Norwood Memorial 

to make reasonable distinctions between "transient operators" such as Heliops and based 

operators who also conduct sightseeing tours at the airport. 

3. Norwood Memorial's Policies Violate the Commerce Clause Because They 

Unduly Burden Interstate Commerce 

Norwood Memorial's policies favor locally-based operators and thus burden interstate 

commerce. Because this burden is not outweighed by some legitimate countervailing benefit, 

Norwood Memorial's regulations, as applied to Heliops, violate dormant Commerce Clause 

principles. 

The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress "[t]o regulate Commerce ... among the 

several States," Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. By negative implication, the Supreme Court has interpreted the 

Commerce Clause to prohibit the states from regulating interstate commerce. Department of 

RevenueofKy. v. Davis, 128 S.Ct. 1801, 1808 -09 (2008). "The modem law of what has come 

to be called the dormant Commerce Clause is driven by concern about 'economic protectionismthat is, regulatory measures designed to benefit in-state economic interests by burdening out-ofstate competitors.'" Id (quoting New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269, 273-

74(1988)). Under dormant Commerce Clause principles, a discriminatory law is "virtually/7er 

se invalid," Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Ore., 511 

U.S. 93, 99 (1994), and will survive only if it "advances a legitimate local purpose that caimot be 

adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives." Id at 101 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). In the absence of discrimination for a forbidden purpose, however, a law 

burdening interstate commerce "will be upheld unless the burden imposed on [interstate] 

10 
commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits." Pike v. Bruce Church. 

Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142(1970).^ 

Here, the airport's policies clearly benefit local operators for whom maintaining a 

physical presence at the airport makes economic sense. Operators based elsewhere, including 

operators that are based out of state, cannot conduct commercial part 91 operations out of 

Norwood Memorial unless they establish a physical presence. This is not likely to be 

economically feasible for out of state operators, which means that they cannot realistically 

conduct commercial Part 91 operations out of Norwood Memorial, whereas local businesses 

may. This is a burden on out of state businesses, and thus on interstate commerce. As explained 

above, there does not appear to be any plausible rationale for requiring off-site operators to 

maintain an office and hanger space (or appropriate tie-downs). Accordingly, because the 

burden imposed on interstate commerce is not outweighed by putative local benefits (there are 

none), requiring operators such as Heliops to maintain an on-site presence for Part 91 

commercial operations violates dormant Commerce Clause principles. For this reason, the 

Commission's denial is unconstitutional and Heliops should be accorded an opportunity to 

purchase an appropriate waiver or permit to conduct commercial Part 91 operations out of 

Norwood Memorial. 

A somewhat similar approach in the context of airport regulations was set forth in Santa 

Monica Airport Assoc, v. City of Santa Monica. 81 F. Supp. 927, 937 (1979), aff'dby 659 F.2d 

100, 105 (9th Cir. 1981), which set forth a three part inquiry, to determine 1) whether there was 

an effect on interstate commerce; 2) whether the legislative body acted within its province and 

used means that were reasonably adapted to the ends sought; and 3) whether the burden imposed 

by the challenged regulation is "clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits." 

11 
IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Complainant, Heliops, LLC, respectfully asks that the 

Commission's order denying Heliops a permit or waiver be reversed and that Heliops be 

permitted to undertake Part 91 commercial flight operations out of Norwood Memorial, 

notwithstanding the fact that Heliops does not maintain a physical presence at the airport. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

HELIOPS, LLC, 

By its attorneys. 

Kevin C. Cam (BBO #550055) 

Timothy M. Pomarole (BBO #660827) 

Peabody & Arnold LLP 

Federal Reserve Plaza 

600 Atlantic Avenue 

Boston, MA 02110 

(617)951-2100 

kcain@peabodyamold.com 

tpomarole@peabodyamold.com 

September X., 2009 

12 
VERIFICATION OF WESLEY VERKAART 

I, Wesley Verkaart, state that I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in Section II. 

of this Verified Formal Complaint, and verify that the facts stated herein are tme, except where 

stated on information and belief, in which case I believe the same to be tme to the best of my 

knowledge, information and belief 

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury. 

^Vf^ 

Wesley Verkaart 

September ^ , 2009 

13 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Timothy M. Pomarole, certify that on September \ , 2009,1 served a copy of the foregoing 

document via first class mail to: 

Mr. Russ Maguire, Airport Manager 

Norwood Memorial Regional Airport 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 

Mr. Mark Ryan, Chair of the Norwood Memorial Airport Commission 

c/o Norwood Memorial Airport 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 

Tirnothy M. Pomarole 

708420_1 

9999-9999 

Q ^ 

14 
06/03/2009 11:17 FAI 508 732 0400 

Sent By: Norwood Airport; 

HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES 

781 255 5617; Mar-26-09 15:21; 

il003 

Page 2 

NORWOOD MEMORIAL AIRPORT 

Minimum Standards 

In accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5190-7 
06/03/2009 11:17 FAI 508 732 0400 HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES 121004 

Sent By: Norwood Airport; 781 255 5617; Mar-26-09 15:21; Page 3 

Norwood Airport Minimum Standards 

Genera l Policy 

The Norwood Airport Commission (NAC) recognizes its responsibility to the airport's 

users as well as to the general public, to conduct and to operate the airport with prudence 

and sound judgment, for the social and economic well being of the Town of Norwood. 

For the airport's commercially pennitted business community, our minimum standards 

are intended to promote feir competition by "leveling the playing field." For the general 

public, the enforcement of minimum standards also discourages sub-standard and/or 

unsafe would-be service providers— thereby protecting the interests of our airport 

patrons. 

The NAC may, as needed, solicit for a commercial operator in the event thai additional 

operators are needed. 

The NAC requires commercial operators to comply with all appropriate local, state and 

federal laws and regulations regarding ^ e commercial operation in question. 

The NAC requires that each commercial operator maintain with the Commission a 

permanent file of plans and as-builts regarding the respective operation. 

The Commission may, upon written application, grant an exemption(s) to the application 

of the standards, when an examination of the circumstances supporting the request for an 

exemption indicate that the public interest will be best served by granting such an 

exauption. 

Definitions 

Minimum standards: The qualifications established by the NAC as the minimum 

requirements to be met for the right to conduct a commercial activity on the Norwood 

Airport. 

Commercial activity: The following activities commonly conducted on airports arc 

deemed 'commercial* within this dettnilion: charter operations, flight uraining, aircraft 

rental and leasing, sighfcjeeing, aerial photography, aerial advertising and survey, air 

carrier operations, aircraft sales, aircraft servicing, aircraflt fueling; and any other activity 

deemed by the NAC which, because of its direct rclaUonsliip to the operation of aircraft 

can appropriately be regarded as a commercial activity. 
06/03/2009 11:18 FAX 508 732 0400 

Sent By: Norwood Airport; 

HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES 

781 255 5617; Mar-2e-09 15:21; 

{g|005 

Page 4 

Commercial operator: Any company/person that offers any commercial activity 

service for compensation. 

or 

Fized-baBB operator; Only those commercial operators that oflFer the full spectrum of 

conmierclal activities including, but not limited to: transient aircraft parking, passenger 

waiting area, line service, fuel» air charter, flight.training, aircraft servicing, and other 

services normally a.<Msociated with a full-service, fixed-base operator, as determined by 

the NAC. 

Space requirements: All square footage requirements for the various categories of 

commercial operations. Hie requirements are in cumulative figures. The space required 

must be owned, leased, or sub-leased to the commercial operator, exclusively, and not 

shared with another commercial operator and/or other companies. The entrance to the 

space must have permanent signage noting the company naine and hours of operation. 

Genera l Requirements 

Company organization. The following documentation is required by NAC, and will 

remain on file: a certificate of incorporation, or a d.b.a. certificate, or other 

verification of 

Massachusetts. 

the company's organization and tax status in the state of 

Office/hangar space. The following documentation is required by NAC, and will 

remain on file: a copy of the applicant's lease or certificate of title, for leased or 

owned space located on the airport, or adjacent to the Airport's north/south property 

line, along Access Road; also required, if necessary, is a copy of the floor plan. 

Insurance. The following insurance policy documentation is required by NAC, and 

will remain on file: 1) an insurance certificate in the ^nount required (as staled, 

below) or greater, listing as additionally insured: the Town of Norwood, the 

Norwood Airport Commission, and the Norwood Airport management; 2) insurance 

for all leased/owned aircraft; and 3) a workmen's compensation policy covering all 

employees. 

Initial Application — Additiona l Requirements 

Current financial statement 

Proof of minimum of three month's operating expenses 

Two-year business plan for the proposed operation 

Previous history of payment 

Three credit references 

Tax identification number 

Tax re-sale number 

Copies of any and all pertinent certificates (e.g., FAR Part 135 certificate) and 

licenses, relative to the proposed operation 
06/03/2009 11:18 FAX 508 732 0400 HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES IgOOe 

Sent By: Norwood Airport; 781 255 5617; Mar-2e-09 15:22; Page 5 

Commercia l Activities/Mininfium Standard s 

I. Flight Operations, Part 135 Charter 

An operator engaged in chartering flight operations will be required to provide the 

following: 

1. A well lit and heated office and reception room area of at \eas,i 200 square 

feet, leased, rented or owned. This area is to be located within walking 

distance of the company's aircraft, on, or adjacent to the Airport, or, on 

Access Road between the north and south airport boundaries. 

2. A telephone listed under the company name and attended during normal 

business hours. 

3. Premise liability insurance of $1,000,000 combined single limit, bodily 

ixuury and property dainagc; and commercial aircraft liability insurance of 

S 1)000,000 combined single-limit, bodily injury and property damage, 

with S100,000 minimum per passenger; also naming as additionally 

instired the Town of Norwood, the Norwood Airport Commission, and the 

Norwood Airport management. 

4. An ongoing, demonstrated ability to meet the certification requirements of 

the FAA, state and local authorities. 

5. Not less than one licensed airworthy aircraft for Part 135 charter 

operations. 

6. Full-time personnel during normal business hours, seven days a week, 

7. Suitable tie-down or hangar space tor all company aircraft. 

8. A formal and documented program that educates all company pilots 

regarding the Airport's noise abatement and safety procedures. 

II. Commuter Air Carrier/Scheduled Air Taxi Service 

Commuter air carriers/scheduled air taxi service operators using the Airport will be 

expected to meet eight requirements (above), plus the folluwing: 

1. Must show all evidence, as may be necessary, to support the need for such 

service, to include a marketing study, the btisiness commimity support, a 

plan of proposed operations, scheduling and pastjenger forecasts, an 
06/03/2009 11:18 FAX 508 732 0400 HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES El 007 

aen i By: Norwood Airport; 781 255 5617; Mar-2e-09 15:22; Page 6/9 

environmental impact assessment for the proposed schedule, and the 

approval of destination airports. 

2. Must show the availability of facilities to accommodate public users in the 

numbers forecast. Said facilities should include automobile parking, 

vraiting areas, baggage handling, ticketing, enplaning and deplaning 

procedures. 

3. Must show flight scheduluig, which will be subject to the NAC's approval, 

4. Must show monthly reports or daily manifest copies that show the number 

of enplaning and deplaiung passengers at the Airport. 

III. Flight Instruction, Aircraft Rental, Saks and Sightseeing Flights 

Flight operations will include aircraft that arc rented, Iea.'>ed, leased back, or owned. The 

commercial operator will provide the following: 

1. A well lit and heated office and classroom of at lea.<!t 200 square feet, 

leased or owned, with training equipment such as mock-ups and 

instrument training aids. This area is to be located within walking 

distance of the company aircraft, on, or adjacent to the aitport, or on 

Access Road between the north and south airport boundary ends. 

2. Suitable commercial tie-down or hangar space for all company aircraft. 

3. For flight instruction, a minimum of two aircraft. 

4. A telephone listed under the company name and attended during normal 

business hours. 

5. An ongoing, demonstrated ability to meet the certificaUon requirements of 

FAA, state and local authorities. 

6. Premise liability insurance of $1,000,000 combined single limit, bodily 

iiyury and property damage; and commercial aircraft liability insuraxu» of 

S1,000,000 combined single limit bodily injury and property damage for 

all aircraft owned, leased, leased back or rented, wdth $100,000 minimum 

per passenger, also naming the Town of Norwood, Norwood Airport 

Commission, and the Norwood Airport Management as additionally 

insured. 

7. For flight instruction, a formal and documented program tliai will educate 

all students and instructor pilots regarding the Airport's noise abaiement 

and safety procedures. 
06/03/2009 11:18 FAX 508 732 0400 HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES 11008 

sent By: Norwood Airport; 781 255 5617; Mar-26-09 15:22; Page 7/9 

Speciai note: Transient commercial flight operators are not authorized to use the airport 

as a base of operations to pick up students or clients; to advertise und/or use the airport as 

a point of origin or destination without first obtaining from the NAC a commercial 

permit. 

rV. Ground Operations, Aircraft Servicing, Avionics Servicing 

A commercial operator engaged in ground operations will provide the following: 

1. A well lit and heated wailing room of at least 200 square feet and hangar 

space of at least 2,000 square feet, leased or owned. This area is to be 

located within walking distance of the aircraft, on, or adjacent to the 

Airport, or, on Access Road between the north and south ends of the 

Airport boundary, 

2. A listed telephone number under the company name, and attended during 

normal business hoiurs. 

3. Liability insurance of at least $1,000,000 naming the Town of Norwood, 

Norwood Airport Commission, and Norwood Airport management as 

additionally insured. 

4. At least two full-time, licensed mechanics on duty during normal business 

hours, five days a week. 

5. Minimum equipment, including, but not limited to: jacks and lifts for both 

high- and low-winged aircraft; and engine testing equipment. 

6. A minimum stock of spare parts peculiar to the type of aircraft maintained 

at the facility. 

7. Suitable facilities for washing and cleaning aircraft. 

8. A service to remove any non-airworthy aircraft from the Airport within a 

reasonable time. 

9. A plan, approved the Norwood Fire Department and Airport Manager, for 

the storage and. removal of any and all waste aircmft fluids or cleaning 

materials. 

V. Fuel Storage and Dispensing 

An operator engaged in the storage and/or dispensing of fiiel will be expected to provide: 

1. A heated waiting room for passengers and crew of transient aircraft, 

comprising at least 200 square feet, with access within the building to rest 

rooms and a public telephone. This area is to be located within walking 
06/03/2009 11:18 FAX 508 732 0400 HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES ®009 

sent By: Norwood Airport; 781 255 5617; Mar-26-09 15:22; Page 8/9 

distance of aircraft, on, or adjacent to the Airport, or on Access Road 

between the north and south ends of the Airport bmmdary, 

2. A listed telephone, under the company name, and attended during 

operating hours. 

3. Liability insurance of at least S5,000,000, naming the Town of Norwood. 

Norwood Airport Commission, and Norwood Airport management as 

additionally insured. 

4. Approved storage tanks, located on the Airport, with a minimum capacity 

of 10,000 gallons of Jet A and 10,000 gallons of 100 low lead fuel. 

5. Proper Space to service the types of aircraft using the Airport. 

6. Fixed and mobile, metered pumping equipment capable of re-fueling the 

largest aircraft likely to be fueled at the Airport. 

7. Approved grounding cables and fuel nozzles to eliminate static electricity 

hazards. 

8. Auxiliary equipment including at least one pre-heater, one battery cart, 

one compressed air dispenser, and other equipment that may be required to 

serve aircraft using the Airport. 

9. Fueling services by uniformed personnel seven days a week, at least from 

7 a,m. to 7 p.m. 

10. A formal training program, approved by both the Fire Department and the 

Airport Manager, for line personnel engaged in aircraft re-fueling. 

11. A fonnal and documented procedure for the maintenance and inspection 

of the fueling facility and a commitment to keep the fueling area clean and 

free of snow, debris and hazardous conditions. 

VI. Unique Services 

An operator engaged in, but not limited to, aerial photography, advertising, surveying, or 

other such services must provide the following: 

1. A well lit and heated office of at least 200 square feet, leased or owned. 

This area is to be located within walking distance of the aircraft, on, or 

adjacent to the Aiiport, or, on Access Road between the north and south 

ends of the Airport boimdary. 

2. Licenses sndJar authorization to do business in the state of Massachus^ts. 
06/03/2009 11:19 FAX 508 732 0400 HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES ©010 

Sent By: Norwood Airport; 781 255 5617; Mar-2e-09 15:23; Page 9/9 

3. A listed telephone number under the company riame and manned during 

normal business hours. 

4. Premise liability insurance of S1,000,000 combined single lunit, bodily 

iiyury and property damage; and commercial aircraft liability insurance of 

$1,000,000 minimum per passenger, also naming the Town of Norwood, 

the Norwood Airport Commission, and Norwood Airport Management as 

additionally insured. 

5. A suitable commercial tie-down. 
06/03/2009 11:19 FAX 508 732 0400 HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES Soi l 

^^c«rp \ ^ 

Norwood Memorial Airport 

General Regulations 

(w/o attachments) 

Revised: October 2008 
06/03/2009 11:19 FAX 508 732 0400 HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES 1012 

T H E COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

EXECUTIVE OFFIC E OF TRANSPORTATION 

MASSACHUSETTS AERONAUTICS COMMISSION 

EOT 

OEVAL L. PATRICK 

QOVERNOn 

TIMOTHY P. MURRAY 

LiEUTEHANT GOVERNO R 

BERNARD COHEN 

SecRrTARY AND CHAI R 

November 7, 2008 

Russ Maguire, Manager 

Norwood Municipal Airport 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062-0040 

Re: Norwood Airport Commission General Regulations 

Dear Russ: 

MAC has received your revised Airport Regulation and hereby approve them. The 

Airport's previous Regulations were also approved on March 15, 2006. 

The MAC will retain the recent Regulations for our files. 

Sincerely yours, 

Wayne Kerchner 

TEN PARK.PLAZA, ROOM 3190, BOSTON, MA 02116-3969 

TELEPHONE: (617) 973-8181 • TELEFAX: (617) 973-8889 • WWW.MASSAERONAUTICS.ORG 
I 

I 

06/03/2009 11:19 FAX 508 732 0400 HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES 0013 

12 

II. INTRODUCTION: 

These regulations, which supersede the 1983 regulations, have been adopted in 

compUance with M.G.L., Chapter 90, Section 51 by the NORWOOD AIRPORT 

COMMISSION, hereinafter refened to as the Commission. 

III. COMMERCIAL AERONAUTICAL OPERATIONS: 

A. No person, firm, corporation or entity (including non-profit organizations) 

shall use the Airport or any portion thereof as an FBO, SASO or otherwise 

for revenue-producing commercial, business or aeronautical activities 

without first obtaining consent and a written permit for such activities 

fi:om the Commission and entering into such written leases and oth^r 

agreements as prescribed by the Commission. 

B. Commercial permit applicants must meet all of the applicable minimum 

standards (see Attachment A: Minimum Standards), or be granted in 

writing from the Commission an exemption to a minimum standard(s). 

C. All FBOs and SASOs are required to obtain an annual permit by July l" of 

each year from the Commission, The armual permit fee shall be 

established aimually by a Commission vote. The Commission may waive 

I the permit fee for non-profit organizations. 

I

. D. An FBO or SASO is a business entity which performs or conducts any one 

or all of the following activities: 

1

1. The operation of a flight school, which shall mean any person or 

persons or corporation engaged in giving or offering to give 

instruction in aeronautics, either in tJie flying of aircraft or in 

I ground aviation subjects, or both, for hire or reward; and/or 

I employs other persons for such purposes. 

I 

The operation of aircraft for hire, which shall mean hire to the 

general public or members or classes thereof, and shall not include 

such operations as are incidental to the carrying on of the general 

business of the aircraft owners engaged in a business other than 

aeronautics, 

A person or persons engaged in the business of buying, selling or 

exchanging aircraft. 

The demonstration or rental of aircraft, the sale of aircraft parts and 

supplies, including the sale of aircraft fiael and oil, or the servicing 

of aircraft with fiiel and oil. 
06/03/2009 11:19 FAX 508 732 0400 HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES @014 

13 

5. The maintenance and repair of aircraft and appurtenances, except 

persons engaged in minor maintenance in aircraft owned or 

operated by them, as authorized under FAR Part 43. 

6. Aircraft radio sales or service. 

7. Aircraft management such as fractional ownership. 

8. The furnishing of aircraft storage, hangars or tie-downs. 

9. The giving of sightseeing rides;, or the performing of aerial 

photography; or aerial advertising; aerial surveying; aerial patrol; 

the operation of air ambulance; or cargo services. 

10. Any other activity that involves, makes possible, or is required to 

involve the operation of aircraft, or the Airport, or which 

contributes to, or is required for the safety of such operation. 

E. The foregoing is not intended to include anyone landing at the Airport for 

the purpose of securing service or making a visit, and shall not include 

those transient users operating under FAR Part 135, Air Taxi. 

IV. FEE AND RENTAL STRUCTURE 

The Commission will maintain a fee and rental structure for facilities and 

services at the Airport designed to make the Airport as financially self-sustaining 

as possible. 

V. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS - COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS 

A. Must be in conformance with current FAA, NTSB, local and 

Massachusetts aeronautical regulations and any other applicable 

requirements. 

B. Must demonstrate fmancial stability, credit rating and currency wdth 

respect to payment of all taxes, fees and other agreed charges. 

C. Must demonstrate, where applicable, an initial investment in buildings, 

equipment, fiimiture, fixtures, tools and other assets pertaining to the 

operation on or at the Airport that meets the approval of the Commission. 

D. Must agree to indemnify and defend the TOWN OF NORWOOD, the 

Commission, and Airport management, backed by liability insurance and 
06/03/2009 11:19 FAI 508 732 0400 HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES 21015 

16 

for any reason and/or amending or terminating any lease 

agreement. 

VII. MAINTENANCE OF ASSIGNED AREA 

Each operator will be responsible for keeping that organization's designated area 

in a clean and neat appearance at all times. The accumulation of oil caps, fuel 

drums, hoses, debris, trash and other used materials that would cause hazard or 

disorderly appearance to the area is prohibited. Buildings and all other structures 

under the care of the operator on the Airport premises shall be maintained in good 

repair and appezirance, subject to the approval of the Commission. 

Vin. UNAUTHORIZED OPERATIONS 

No person, partnership, firm or corporation shall operate any business or concern 

at or on any part of the Airport premises without first having received a written 

permit, issued yearly by the Commission. 

No person, partnership, firm or corporation shall operate any business or concern 

at or on any part of the Airport premises in a manner that conflicts or is 

inconsistent with, in whole or in part, the Airport Security Plan (Attachment E), 

the Airport's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (Attachment F), and/or the 

Airport's best management practices. 

IX. FLYING CLUBS 

Non-profit aeronautical corporations or partnerships engaged in flight training 

may not use the Airport as a base for their operations without having first received 

a written permit from the Commission. 

X. VEHICLES 

A. Per the Airport's Security Plan (Attachment E), no unauthorized drivers 

and/or vehicles shall enter the Airport premises without permission from 

the Airport Manager's office. 

B. On the Airport premises, ground vehicle operators shall not exceed 15 

m.p.h, 

C. No groimd vehicles requiring registration by the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts are allowed on the Airport premises. 
The T®1¥M €>iF M®Kl^W®©il 

Commonu'calih of Massachusetts 

Norwood Memorial Airport 

Russ Maguire, A.A.E., ACE, Airport Manager 

OmaE ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS 

125 Access Road 125 Access Road 

Norwood. MA 02062 Norwood, MA 02062 

July 15,2009 

Heli-Ops Helicopter Tours 

Attn: Wes Verkaart, Owner 

226 South Meadow Road 

Plymouth, MA 02360 

Dear Wes: 

At its monthly meeting held on July 8, the Norwood Airport Commission (NAC) voted to 

notify you in writing regarding your commercial permit request. Specifically, to receive a 

pennit to conduct cbminercial operations on the Norwood Airport, Heli-Ops is being 

required by the board to meet the Norwood Airport minimum standards. These include 

having a Norwood Airport-based office, plus a Norwood Airport-based hangar lease 

and/or aircraft tie-down lease. 

If Heli-Ops cannot meet the minimum standards, and still wishes to apply for a 

commercial permit, the company must state clearly in writing what waiver(s) it is seeking 

from the NAC. 

Sincerely, 

Russ Maguire, Mane 

Norwood Memorial Airport 

Russ Maguire, Manager 

CC: Norwood Airport Commission 

Phone:(781)255-5616 / Fax:(781)255-5617 / Email: rmaguire@ci.norwood,mo.us / VOICE/TTY-Use Phone Relay 
Heliops LLC 

Base of Operations: 

226 South Meadow Road 

Plymouth, MA 02360 

7/20/09 

Norwood Airport Commission; 

Heliops LLC has a Base of Operations at Plymouth Airport and conducts both Part 91 

and Part 135 helicopter operations from all over the Commonwealth and also in other 

states. Heliops has both DOT and FAA authority for all such operations. 

It is unrealistic for Heliops or any other commercial operator to have a Base of 

Operations at every location they do operations from. 

Heliops has no intentions of establishing a Base of Operations at Norwood Memorial 

Airport and we believe it unreasonable and illegal for the NAC to require a commercial 

operator without a Base of Operations at Norwood Memorial Airport to meet the same 

minimum standards as commercial operators based at Norwood in order to conduct 

commercial Part 91 flights (sightseeing & photography) which originate at Norwood. 

As Norwood has no formal procedure whereby non-based commercial operators may 

apply for a permit or waiver to conduct commercial Part 91 operations from Norwood, 

Heliops herby formally applies for a written waiver from the Norwood Airport 

Commission which will allow Heliops LLC to conduct commercial Part 91 flights which 

originate from Norwood Memorial Airport as a non-based commercial operator. 

Granting of this waiver will bring the NAC into compliance with existing Federal Laws. 

Heliops LLC has listed the Town of Norwood , the Norwood Airport Commission, and 

Norwood Airport Management as also insured on its aircraft liability policy. 

While at Norwood, Heliops LLC would operate under all Federal Laws and Safety 

Guidelines applicable to rotorcraft using FAA funded airports. 

Heliops estimates it would conduct approximately 20 commercial Part 91 flight per year 

from Norwood Memorial Airport. 

For Part 91 commercial operations, Heliops LLC persormel would meet passengers at an 

FBO (Flight Level or other) and escort them to the aircraft. For loading and unloading, 

the helicopter would be parked either at the designated helicopter parking circles or, with 

prior landing permission, the designated airport helipad or FBO ramp area. 

Please issue a written Approval or Denial (with reasons clearly stated) to: 

Wesley H. Verkaart 

Heliops LLC 

Base of Operations: 

226 South Meadow Road 

Plymouth, MA 02360 
The TOm^M O F M®M^VO€l>II» 

Commonivcahh of Massadmsctis 

Norwood Memorial Airport 

Russ Maguire, A.A.E., ACE, Airport Manager 

pFncE AoDitESS MAILING ADDRESS 

125 Access Road 125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 Norwood, MA 02062 

August 13,2009 

Heli-Ops LLC 

Attn: Wesley H. Verkaart 

226 South Meadow Road 

Plymouth, MA 02360 

Dear Wes: 

At its public meeting August 12, the Norwood Airport Commission (NAC) reviewed your July 

22"'' letter requesting a waiver of the Norwood Airport minimum standards. For a commercial 

sightseeing operator, Heli-Ops was required to meet the following standards, which, as you noted 

in your July 22TM' letter, you would not attempt to meet, and were therefore requesting a waiver 

of; 

• A well lit and heated office of at least 200 square feet, leased or owned, witliin walking 

distance of the company aircraft, on or adjacent to the airport, or on Access Road 

... between the.north and south airport boundary ends 

• Suitable commercial tie-down or hangar space for all company aircraft 

After some consideration, the NAC voted to deny your request. Its decision was based primarily 

on the board's efforts to apply its standards fairly and uniformly. As context; The Norwood 

Airport is presently home base to several commercial permitted sightseeing tour operators, all of 

which meet the minimum standards, the same standards we have required oT Heli-Ops, i.e., to 

have a physical presence on the Norwood Airport. 

In closing, for our tenant business community, the minimum standards aim to promote fair 

competition by "leveling the playing field." While for the general public, the enforcement of our 

minimum standards discourages sub-standard and/or unsafe would-be service providers—^thereby 

protecting the interests of Norwood Airport's patrons. 

Sincerely, 

Russ Maguire- Manager 

Norwood MemoriaJ Airport 

CC: Norwood Airport Commission 

i 

Phone:(781)255-5616 /Fax; (78I)255-|5617 / Email: nnaguire@cijiorwood.ma.us / VOICE/TTY-Use Phone Relay