U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 

# MAY 26 

# 2016

Wayne R. Messinger P.O. Box 1710 Friendswood, TX 77549 James F. Parker, III Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis

Lloyd, Gosselink, Rochelle & Townsend, P.C. 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1900 Austin, TX 78701 

### DearMessrs. Messinger and Parker: 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591



### Re: Wayne R. Messinger v. CloverAcquisition Corporation (dba) PearlandRegionalAirport, Texas, 

### FAADocketNo.16-15-01 Enclosed is a copy ofthe determination ofthe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with respect to the above-referenced matter finding the Pearland Regional Airport, Texas, not in violation ofits Federal obligations with respect to this complaint. The reasons for the finding ofcompliance are set forth in the enclosed Director's Determination. The Director's Determination does not constitute a Final Agency Decision and order subject to judicial review. [14 CFR 

### § 16.247(b)(2)] A party adversely affected by the Director's Determination once issued may appeal the initial determinationto the FAA Associate Administrator for Airports pursuantto 14 CFR 

### § 16.33(c) within 30 days after the service ofthe Director's Determination. Sincerely 

# _.-·-;-7 I 

# 1.- 

# j/ 

# /t/?jc_ j/U·n/- Robin K. Hunt Acting Director, Office ofAirport Compliance

And Management Analysis

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



### I HEREBY CERTIFYthat on May 26, 2016, I causedto be placed inthe United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe FAA'sRequest for Additional Information and Notice ofExtension ofTime, addressed to: For Complainant Wayne R. Messinger P.O. Box 1710 Friendswood, TX 77549 For Respondent James F. Parker, III Llyod, Gosselink, Rochelle & Townsend, P.C. 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1900 Austin, TX 7870I



### Copyto: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100



# c 0 ce ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis

### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC

Wayne R. Messinger, Complainant. 

## v. Clover Acquisition Corporation (dba) Pearland Regional 

### Airport, Texas Respondent. FAA Docket No. 16-15-01

DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION I. 

### INTRODUCTION Mr. Wayne R. Messinger (Complainant) brings this complaintpnrsnant to 14 CFR Part 16 againstthe Clover Acquisition Corporation d/b/a Pearland Regional Airport (Airport/CAC/Respondent), owner and sponsor of Pearland Regional Airport (LVJ), in Pearland, Texas. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 1]. The Complainant alleges that the sponsor has bannedhim from a certain aviation facility atLVJ, namely an otherwise public building known as the Fixed-Base Operator (FBO) Building. Complainant alleges thatthis ban violates FAA GrantAssurance 22, EconomicNondiscrimination. The Complainant alleges the Airport's actions are in retaliation for him having filed a safety complaint againstthe Airport. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 1 (Overview)]. Complainant alleges that these retaliatory actions have prevented him from using important amenities thatthe airport offers others and are unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory under Grant Assurance 22. As part ofthe Complaint, Complainant also makes referenceto GrantAssurance 30, CivilRights. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 2]. In response to the Complaint, the Airport admitsthat itprevented Complainant from accessingthe FBObuilding at LV J, but arguesthatthe facility in question (FBO building) is not subjectto the grant assurances. The Airport further responds that even ifthe grantassurances were applicable, its actions do notviolate the grant assurances. As a result, the Airportrequests thatthis matter be dismissed ora summaryjudgmentbe granted by FAA. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 1-6]. Upon consideration ofthe record andthe arguments ofthe parties, the FAAfinds thatthe Airport is not in violation ofGrant Assurance 22 or30. The administrative record in this proceeding is attached as Exhibit 1.

Page 1Wayne R. Messinger v. Pearland Regional Airport, Texas (FAA Docket No, 16:**15~01)-** 

### II. PARTIES 

### A. Airport Pearland Regional Airport (LVJ) is a public-use, privately-owned reliever airport owned by Clover Acquisition Corporation (AirportJRespondent/CAC). Texas Aviation Partners (TAP) manages tbe Airport's operations under contractto CAC. 1 LVJ consists of565 acres and is located three miles outside Pearland, Texas, and approximately seventeen miles south ofHouston's city center. As of2013, there were !52 based aircraft and 87,250 annual operations. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 8, page 2]. The development ofthe Airport was financed, in part, withAirport Improvement Program (AlP) funding. Consistent with the provisions oftheAirportandAirwayImprovementActof 1982, as amended, 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) §47101, etseq. and its grant agreement, the Airport is obligatedto comply with the FAA sponsor grant assurances and related Federal law. Since 2000, tbe Airporthas accepted AlP grants from the FAAtotaling over $15 million. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 9, page 3]. 

### B. Complainant Wayne Messinger is a private pilot, aircraft owner, and currentAirport tenant (through a hangar sublease) at LVJ. [FAA Exhibit I, Item I, page 2]. Until September 27,2013, Mr. Messinger held the Operations Manager position at LVJ. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, page 1]. 

### Ill. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 23,2014, Complainantfiled an informal14 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Part 13.1 Complaint with FAA's Texas Airports District Office (AD0) 2 That same day, the ADO forwarded the Part 13 Complaintto the Texas Department ofTransportation (TxDOT) asking for consideration and a response.3 [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, Exhibit 5]. On Jnly 7, 2014, the TxDOTwrote to Complainant and dismissed Complainant's allegations. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 2, Exhibit I]. On January 7, 2015, the Complainant filed this complaint under 14 CFR Part 16. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1]. OnMarch 3, 2015, the FAA issued a Notice of Docketing. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1A]. OnMarch 4, 2015, tbe Respondent filed anAgreedMotion to ExtendAnswerDeadline (Motion for an Extension ofTime). [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 14]. This motion was granted by the FAA onMarch 6, 2015. [FAA Exhibit I, Item IC]. On April 8, 2015, the Respondentfiled a Consolidated OriginalAnswerandMotionfor SummaryJudgment (Answer). [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3]. On April13, 2015, the Complainantfiled Complainant'sRebuttal (Rebuttal). [FAA Exhibit I, Item 4]. On August 14, 2015,the FAA issued a Notice of Extension of Time until November 21, 2015, extendingthe due date oftbeDirector's Determination to November 21, 2015. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 13]. OnDecember 16,2015, the FAA extended the due date ofthe Director'sDetermination to on or before January 29,2016. [FAAExhibit 1, Item 13A]. OnFebruary 3, 2016, tbe FAA again extended the due date oftbe Director's Determinationto on orbefore April2, 2016. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13C].

1 For simplicity and clarity, and within context (when pertinent), references to Respondent CAC, TAP, and airport employees, were replaced by the word "Airport." In this case, TAP is managing the entire Airport on behalf of CAC, the Airport owner and sponsor. 2 The allegations raised in the Part 13 complaint are substantially similar to those made here. 3 Because Texas is a Block Grant Staie, the TxDOT acts as a representative ofthe FAA on certain matters, including informal compliance resolution. Page2Wayne R. Messinger v. Pearland Regional Airport, Texas (FAA Docket No. 16-15-01) 

### IV. CHRONOLOGICAl BACKGROUND In March 2004, the Complainantwas hired bythe owner ofthe Airport, Clover Acquisition Corporation (CAC), as LVJ's Airport Operations Manager. This position required him to supervise office personnel, which at one point, included Ms. Leah Langford. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, page 8]. In2013, Texas Aviation Partners (TAP) was hiredto take over management ofLVJ on behalfofCAC. As part ofthis process, several incumbent employees were interviewed by TAP, including Complainant and Ms. Langford. The Airport states that during these interviews "[it]leamedthat [Complainant] had taken up residence in his office atthe FBO," andthat Complainant "had engaged in a pattern ofharassing conduct toward [Ms. Langford], including inappropriate e-mails and taking surreptitious photographs ofher." The declaration ofStephen Alexandre, a partner in TAP, states that: "As part ofTAP's management duties ofthe Airport and following up on Langford's complaints, I conducted an investigation ofMassinger's conduct. During that investigation, I downloaded the contents ofMassinger's office computer hard drive. Reviewing the files on Massinger's computer, l found evidence to corroborate Langford's complaints, including inappropriate emails and photographs ofwomen at the Airport, including Langford, some ofwhich appeared to have been taken surreptitiously. Investigating further, I performed a criminal background check ofMessinger and ascertained that he was convicted ofattempted murder with a firearm in 1986. Based on my investigation, I determinedthat Massinger's conduct, coupled with his criminal background, and caused Langford reasonably to become fearful for her physical safety." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit I, page 2 and FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit I, Exhibit B, pages 329-334]. Based onthese concerns, TAP made the decision to retain Ms. Langford and not retain the Complainant. [FAAExhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit I, page 2]. On September27,2013,the Complainant's employment was terminated. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit 3, page 155]. Despite the termination, TAP alleges that the Complainant "continuedhis pattern ofharassing behaviortoward Langford." Consequentially, "after [Ms.] Langford complained, TAP instructed [Ms. Langford] to inform [Complainant] that he was prohibited from entering the FBO." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit I, pages 2-3]. On October 18, 2013, the Complainant sent an e-mail to Ms. Langford, who by this time had become the newAirport Operations Manager. In that email, Complainant congratulated Ms. Langford on hernew position and seems to suggestthat weeks before his actual termination, TAP had made plans to fire him and place her in his position. In the email, the Complainant also requested that Ms. Langfordwrite a colunm for the Bay Area Aero Club (BAAC) newsletter, which had been his fmmer practice. Complainant also stated toMs. Langford that he "would do anything to help her." Specifically, in an e-mail to Ms. Langford, Complainantwrote: "Leah, It was good to see you today

...I'm thrilled for you thatyou are full time at the airport. (The TAP folks finally did something right.) Did they putyou on salary? Whattitle did they give you? Hope its AIRPORT MANAGER. The thingthathas depressed me the most is thatyou wouldn't see me and wouldn't answermy emails. You were probably told that they were dumpingme for you several weeks back. I'm sure that would putyou in an uncomfortable position. Inowknowthatyou have a full-time atthe airport and you knowthat I'm unemployed. It is what it is. I told you before that I would do anything I could to help you. That offer still stands. So, let's get backto talking

... REMEMBER: True friends arethose who stand by you through good times and bad times -no matter what. Thanks for your smile today. I sawthe rainbow onthe way home. Wayne." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit 3, page 175]. On October 22, 2013, Ms. Langford e-mailed Complainant and stated that she had "been instructed to keep [Complainant] out ofFBO

...Ithink it's best tojustrespectthe wishes ofT AP especially when they have Page 3Wayne R. Messinger v. Pearland Regional Airport, Texas (FAA Docket No. 16·15-01) requested specificallythatthe FBO is offlimits [to Complainant]. Let'sjustkeep it thatway..." Inhis e· mail, Complainant wrote: " Leah

...the tone ofyour e-mail tells me thatyou do not wantto see me and thatyou do not want to hear from me...When I recommended you for a full-time management position I said I would help you learn to management [sic] the airport. I'm still to offer you any help you need [sic].

..For me, the airport is my life. It is who I am. And I did nothingto cause me to lose my [job] when the FBO reopens, I wantto be back there working. Since you are now the boss, I was hoping to get your support for that. Butyour apparent hostility toward me indicatesthat is notthe case. I want to alert you to something. People onthe airport are upset aboutthe FBO being closed and

...there is a small group working up the airport people against you, trying to see you fail as a manager.. .I want you to do well andthat is why I've offeredto help you. And I have some sway with people on the airport. Butyou want me to leave you alone and let you learnto managethe airport yourway, I respect your wishes. I not with those who are against you [sic]

...My hand ofhelp and friendship remain extended to you...Wayne." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit I, Exhibit B, page 178]. On November 8, 2013, Complainant wrote to Ms. Langford and presented a hypothetical aircraft incident situation at the Airport. Inthe e-mail, Complainant added, "youhaveto quickly get it right the first time and react like a trained Airport Manager. The whole airport will be watching. So ifyou have no idea what to do, no one will take you seriously as the manager. This is must have information for you, the Operations Manager. It'snot a question of'if' a gear-up will happen, but "when" it will happen. Yourjob will be so much easier ifyou let the old manager [Complainant] pass on necessary information to you before you need [it]. This is strictly airport business, not personal." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit I, Exhibit B, page 172 (e-mail)]. OnMay 15,2014, the Complainant claimed he struck a tree growing in the general proximity ofTaxiway Deltawith the wing ofhis aircraft. The Complainantclaims he reported the obstruction to Ms. Langford, the Operations Manager. Complainant states that initially, the Airport did not cut down the tree. After Complainant notifiedthe TxDOT on June 9, 2015 thatthe tree was a safety issue under GrantAssurance 19 Operation andMaintenance,' the Airport cut downthetree onJune 13. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, page 6]. On June 15,2014, the Airport reportedly observed the Complainant entering the FBO building. Complainant was advised thathe was prohibited from entering this building since he was tenninated from his position the previous year. [FAA Exhibit I, Iten13, Exhibit I, Exhibit A, page 193]. The following day, Ms. Langford sentthe Complainant an e-mail message prohibiting him from entering the FBO, without conditions for reinstatement ofthis privilege. Specifically, the e-mail stated "you are not allowed to enter the building at any time," and thatthis "e-mail serves as notice to again inform you thatyou are not under any circumstance to enterthe FBO at Pearland Regional Airport. Legal action via law enforcement will be taken should you choose to again disregard this notice." [FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 1]. On June 23, 2014, Complainant filed an inforrnall4 CFRPart 13.1 Complaintwith FAA's Texas ADO. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2]. In his complaint to FAA, Complainant stated thathe and his airplane were ordered offthe Airport, thathe "was ordered to stay out ofthe FBO" and thatthis is a violation ofthe Airpmi's federal grant assurances." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 2, page 1]. That same day, the ADO forwarded the 14 CFR Part 13 Complaintto TxDOT for disposition. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 2, Exhibit 5]. On July 7, 2014, TxDOT issued a fmding and found that the Airport was in compliance with the Grant Assurances. TxDOT statedthe Airportwas within its rights to deny access to the FBO, since it was a private business and federal grant money was never spent onthis facility, leaving it unencnmbered by the assurances. Specifically, TxDOT concluded "The airport land for the FBO pad site has notreceived public

4 Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance provides, in pertinent part, that the sponsor of a federally obligated airportwill operate the airport and all facilities necessary to serve the aeronautical users in a safe and serviceable condition at an times. Page4Wayne R. Messinger v. Pearland Regional Airport, Texas (FAA Docket No. 16-15-01) funds for improvement and is privately owned

..." andthus "the owners and management have a reasonable rightto deny you accessto this private property." [Exhibit I, Item 2, Exhibit I]. On August 2, 2014, the Bay Area Aero Club (BAAC) sent an e-mail message to the Complainant, who, at the time, was serving as Secretary ofthe BAAC. BAAC stated that it has an "excellentrelationship with the airport staffand management" and ask Complainant "to stop writing inflammatory columns aboutthe [Airport] staffand the management company." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, Exhibit l, ExhibitB, page 173]. On December 5, 2014, the Airportpublished LVJ'sMinimum Standards. This document states one ofits primary purposes is to "ensurethat all commercial operators, tenants, users, and Clover Acquisition Corporation are not exposed to illegal, unsafe, or irresponsible practices." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 6]. On January 2, 2015, BAAC's Board ofDirectors met in a special closed session to consider three complaints brought against BAAC members. BAAC's Newsletter outlined the three complaints as follows: "(1) member Wayne Messinger againstLeahLangford, member, seekingher termination from the club. The Board foundno merit or cause anddismissedthe complaint; (2) member Wayne Messinger againstAaron Huguet, member (and Chairman of the Board), seekinghis removal from the Board. The Board foundno merit or cause anddismissedthe complaint; and (3) memberAaron Huguet against Wayne Messinger, member seeking his termination from the club. The Board foundmeritand cause, andvotedto impose sanctions andconditions for Mr. Messinger. " [FAA Exhibit I, Item 15]. On .Ta.tmru·y 7, 2015, the Complainant filed a Part 16 Complaint with the FAA. [FAA Exhibit I, Item I]. On February 6, 2015, the Airport published LVJ'sAirportRules andRegulations. This document includes a new provision claimingthe Airport management has the authority to deny access to the FBO "for any lawful reason." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, Section 4.2I]. On February 24,2015,the Complainant filed a suit against Leah Langford andthe BAAC with the 149"' District Court ofBrazoria County, Texas. The Complainant alleged, among other claims, the defendants in the case defruned his character and conducted "tortious interference with a business relationship." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, Exhibit B, pages 158-171]. V. ISSUE Upon review ofthe allegations and circumstances summarized above, the FAA has determined the following issue requires analysis to provide a complete review ofthe Airport's compliance with applicable Federal law and policy: Whetherthe actions taken by the Airportwith respect to Complainant's access to the I<'BO facilities atLVJ are inviolation ofGrantAssurance22,

### EconomicNondiscrimination; VI. APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW AND POLICY The Federal role in civil aviation is augmented by various legislative actions that authorize programs for providing Federal funds and other assistance to local communities for the development ofairport facilities. In each such program, the airport sponsor assumes certain obligations, either by contract or by restrictive covenants in property deeds and conveyance instruments, to maintain and operate its airport facilities safely and efficiently and in accordance with specified conditions. Commitments assumed by airport sponsors in property conveyance or grant agreements are important factors in maintaining a high degree ofsafety and efficiency in airport design, construction, operation and maintenance, as well as ensuring the public fair and reasonable access to the airport.

Page 5Wayne R. Messinger v. Pearland Regional Airport, Texas (FAA Docket No. 16-15-01) 

### A. The Airport Improvement Program (AlP) Title 49 U.S.C., § 47101, etseq., provides for Federal airportfinancial assistance for the development of public-use airports under AlP established by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (AAIA) as amended. Title 49 U.S.C., § 47107, etseq., sets forth certain assurances to which an airport sponsor must agree to as a condition ofreceiving Federal financial assistance. Upon acceptance ofan AlP grant, these statutory assurances, and others contained in the grantagreement, become a binding contractual obligation between the airport sponsor andthe Federal Government. The assurances made by airport sponsors in A1P grant agreements are important factors in maintaining a viable national airport system. 

### B. Airport Sponsor Assurances As a condition precedentto providing airport development assistance underAlP, 49 U.S.C. § 47107, etseq., the Secretary ofTransportation and, by extension, the FAA must receive certain assurances from the airport sponsor. Title 49 U.S.C. 

### §47107(a) sets forth certain sponsorship requirements to which an airport sponsor receiving Federal financial assistance must agree. The FAAhas a statutory mandate to ensure that airport owners comply with these sponsor assurances. FAA Order 5190.68, FAA Airport Compliance Manual (Order), issued on September 30,2009, provides the policies and procedures to be followed by the FAA in carrying out its compliance program. The FAA grant assurances relevanttothe allegations setforth in this Complaint are GrantAssurances 22, EconomicNondiscrimination, and Grant Assurance 30 CivilRights. 

### 1

. Grant Assurance 22, 

### Economic Nondiscrimination Grant Assurance 22 provides, in part, thatthe sponsor will assurethat: "a. Itwill make the airport available as an airport for public use onreasonable terms and witl10ut unjust discrimination to all types, kinds, and classes ofaeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public atthe airport. b. In any agreement, contract, lease or other arrangementunder which a right orprivilege at the airport is granted to any person, firm, or corporationto conduct or engage in any aeronautical activity for furnishing services to the public atthe airport, the sponsorwill insert and enforce provisions requiring the contractorto:

1.

...furnish said services on a reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, basis to all users...and 2

....charge reasonable, and notunjustly discriminatory, prices for each unit or service, provided that the contractor may be allowed to make reasonable and nondiscriminatory discounts, rebates, or other similartypes ofprice reductions to volume purchases

... h. The sponsor may establish such reasonable, and notunjustly discriminatory, conditionsto be metby all users ofthe airport as maybe necessary forthe safe and efficient operation ofthe airport

... 1. The sponsor may prohibit or limit any giventype, kind or class ofaeronautical use ofthe airport ifsuch action is necessary for the safe operation ofthe airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public." 

### 2. Grant Assurance 30, Civil 

### Rights Grant Assurance 30, CivilRights states, in partthatthe airport sponsor "

...will promptlytake any measures necessruy to ensure that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds ofrace, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, orbe otherwise subjected to discrimination in any activity conducted with, orbenefiting from, funds receivedfrom this grant...the sponsor will facilitate all progrruns, operate all facilities, or conductallprogrruns in compliance with all non-discrimination requirements imposed by, or pursuantto these assurru1ces." Page 6Wayne R. Messinger v. Pearland Regional Airport, Texas (FAA Docket No.l6-15-0l) 

### C. The FAA Airport Compliance Program The FAA discharges its responsibilities for ensuring airport owners' compliance withtheir Federal obligations through its Airport Compliance Program. The FAA's airport compliance efforts are based on the statutory and contractual obligations an airpmi owner accepts when receiving Federal grant funds or when accepting Federal property for airport purposes. These obligations are incorporated in grant agreements and instruments ofconveyance in order to protectthe publics' interest in civil aviation and to ensure compliance with Federallaws5 The goal is to ensurethe availability ofa national system ofsafe and properly maintained public-use airports, operated in a mmmer consistentwith the airport owners' Federal obligations and the public's investment in civil aviation.' FAA Order 5190.6B sets forth policies and procedures for the FAAAirport Compliance Program.' The Order establishes the policies and proceduresto be followed by FAA personnel in carrying outthe FAA's responsibilities for ensuring airport compliance' FAA Order 5190.6B also analyzes the various obligations set forth in the standard airport sponsor assurm1ces, addresses the nature ofthose assurances, addressesthe application ofthose assurances in the operation ofpublic-use airports, a!ld facilitates interpretation ofthe assurances byFAA personne1.9 In addressing allegations ofnoncompliance, the FAA will make a detennination as to whether an airport sponsor is cuiTently in compliance with the applicable Federal obligations. The FAA will consider a successful action by the airportto cure allY alleged orpotential past violation ofapplicable Federal obligation to be grounds for dismissal ofsuch allegations. 

### D. FAA Enforcement Responsibilities The FederalAviationActof 1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 40101, et seq., assignsthe FAAAdministrator broad responsibilities forthe regulation ofair commerce in the interests ofsafety, security, and development ofcivil aeronautics. Commitments assumed by airport owners or sponsors in property conveyance or grant agreements are important factors in maintaining a high degree ofsafety and efficiency in airport design, construction, operation and maintenance, as well as ensuringthe public reasonable access tothe airport. Pursuantto 49 U.S.C. § 47122, the FAA has a statutoryma!ldate to ensure that airport owners comply with their Federal grant assurances. 

### E. The Complaint Process Pursuantto 14 CFR § 16.23, a person directly and substm1tially affected by any alleged noncompliance may file a complaint with the FAA. The complainant shallprovide a concise but complete statement ofthe facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation. The complaint shall also describe how the complainantwas directly and substantially affected bythe things done or omitted bythe respondents. 10 If, based on the pleadings, there appears to be a reasonable basis for further investigation, the FAA will investigatethe subject matter ofthe complaint. In rendering its initial determination, the FAA may rely entirely on the complaint and the responsive pleadings provided. Each party shall file documents it considers sufficient to present all relevant facts and argnments necessary forthe FAAto determine whetherthe sponsor is in complia!lce. 11

sThe Airport Compliance Program is administered by FAA's ACO-l, Airport Compliance and Management Analysis Division. The Airport Compliance Division oversees the Airport Compliance Program (AC0-100). ACO-l00 holds primary responsibility for interpreting, recommending, and developing policies and resolving matters that involve 1he Federal obligations ofairport sponsors. !t also adjudicates formal complaints and FAA-initiated investigations under 14 CFR Part 16. 6The Airport Compliance Program does not control or direct the operation ofairports. Rather, it monitors the administration of the valuable rights pledged by airport sponsors to the people ofthe United States in exchange for monetary grants and donations of Federal property to ensure that the public interest is being served. 7 See http://www.faa.gov /airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/. Blt 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 receivlng a grant of Federal funds or the conveyance of Federal property for airport purposes. 9 The FAA Compliance Program is designed to achieve voluntary compliancewith Federal obligaflons accepted by owners and/oroperators of public-use airports developed with FAA-administered assistance. w 14 CFR § 16.23{b) (3, 4). n 14 CFR § 16.29. Page 7Wayne R. Messinger >':Pearland Regional Airport, Texas (FAA Docket No. 16-15-01) TI1e proponent ofa motion, request, or order has the burden ofproof. Title 14 CPR§ 16.3l(b-d) provides, in part, that "the Director's determination will set forth a concise explanation ofthe factual and legal basis

...on each claim made by the complainant." In accordance with J4 CPR§ 16.33(b) and (e), upon issuance ofa Director's determination, "aparty adversely affected by the Director's determination may file an appeal with the Associate Administrator for Airports within 30 days afterthe date ofservice ofthe initial determination;" however, "ifno appeal is filed within the time period specified in paragraph (b) ofthis section, the Director's Determination becomes the final decision and order ofthe PAA without further action." A Director's Determination thatbecomes final becausethere is no administrative appeal is notjudiciallyreviewable. Title 14 CPR§ 16.247(a) provides for judicialreview ofthe Associate Administratorfor Airports' final decision and order. 

### VI. ANALYSIS A. Preliminary Matters 1. Airport's Motion to Dismiss and Request for Summary Judgment In its Answer to the Complaint, and pursuantto 14 CPR Part 16.26(b), the Airport asks that the Complaint be dismissed because, "itdoes not state a claim that warrants an investigation orfurther action by the FAA." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 1, and pages 7-8]. The Airport also requests summaryjudgment under 14 CFR §16.26(c) because "there is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact for adjudication and

...the complaint, when viewed in the light most favorable to the complainant, should be summarily adjudicated in favor ofthe respondent as a matter oflaw." The Airport asks that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice on summaryjudgmentbecause "[Complainant] has not been the victim ofunreasonable or unjustlydiscriminatoryconditions." 12 [PAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 9]. Title 14 CPR §16.26(b) states that a motion to dismiss shall be accompanied by a concise statement ofthe reasons for seeking dismissal and that a respondent must show thatthe complaint should be dismissed, with prejudice, if(i) it appears to be outside thejnrisdiction ofthe Administrator underthe Acts listed in§16.1, or (ii) it does not state a claimthat warrants an investigation or further action. 13 In describing how he was directly and substantially affected by alleged actions ofthe Airport, Complainant alleges certain facts and makes legal arguments that fall under tile FAA's Part 

### J6jurisdiction. 14 The Complainant sufficiently argues that he is a person directly and substantially affected as a result ofbeing denied access to the PBO. This case deals with a rightto access aeronautical services andtl1e limitations imposed upon that right, an issue appropriately before us. The pleadings raise a reasonable question as to whether there is a violation ofGrant Assurance 22 and this case is not appropriate for dismissal or sunrmary judgment. The motions for dismissal and summaryjudgmentare denied. 

### 2. Allegations Referencing Grant Assurance 30. Civil Rights GrantAssurance 30, CivilRights, requires sponsors to comply with rules promulgatedto assure that no person shall, onthe grounds ofrace, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, orhandicap be excluded from participating in any activity conducted with or benefiting from funds received from Federal grants. 15 In his Complaint, Complainant makes reference to Grant Assnrance 30, CivilRights. Specifically, Complainant arguesthe PBO facility is on airport property funded byfederal grant funding and is therefore

12 The Airport also cites Meyerv. City of Cincinnati, FAA Docket No. 16-12-14, 25, (Sept. 12, 2014) and notes that "abundance of argumentative opinion and criticism do not equate to substantial and credible evidence." "See 14 CFR Part 16.26 {bl {I) {i) and {ii). 14 14 CFR 16.23 states, in part, that "a person directly and substantially affected by anyalleged noncompliance

... may file a complaint

.. .," and to "describe how [it] was directly and substantially affected by the things done or omitted

...by the respondents." 15 See Grant Assurance 30. Page 8Wayne R. Messinger v. PeorlondRegionol Airport, Texas (FAA Docket No. 16-15-01) subject to the protections provided underthis grant assurance (Grant Assurance 30). [FAA Exhibit I, Item I, page 2]. In response, the Airport argues that Complainant failed to make a specific allegation or claim under Grant Assurance 30, and "nowhere in his Complaint does Complainant allege that [the Airport] discriminated against him on the basis ofhis race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, ordisability. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 5]. We**a~>ree** with the Airport that the Complainant has notpresented facts to supportthis claim. Based on the record before us we find no violation ofGrant Assurance 30. 

### 3. 14 CFR Part 13 Complaint and Grant Assurance Applicability to LVJ's FBO Facilities On July 7, 2014 TxDOT issued a decision on the allegations and issues submitted in the Complainant's informal Part 13 complaint dated June 23,2014. [FAA Exhibit I, Item2]. TxDOT detennined thatthe Airport was within its rights to deny Complainant access to the FBO, because "the FBO building is privately owned and is not obligated under the grant assurances." Specifically, TxDOT concluded "the airport land for the FBO

...site has not received public funds for improvement and is privately owned

...the owners...have a reasonable rightto deny you access to this private property." [Exhibit I, Item 2, Exhibit 1]. In addition, TxDOT found thatthe threats alleged by the Complainant were unsubstantiated. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 2, Exhibit 2]. The Airport takes a similar position and argues that "the Grant Assurances apply only to the facilities developed or equipment acquired for an airport development.

..project." The Airport adds that the FBO "is a private construction sitting on private land that was not acquired with federal funds," and therefore, "is not subjectto the provisions ofAssurance 22." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 2 and 4]. We disagree with TxDOT'spreliminary detennination. The grant assurance obligations applyto all areas of the Airport which are owned by the sponsor and**desi~•nated** on the AirportLayoutPlan (ALP) for aeronautical use. FAA Order 5l90.6B states that "anyproperty, when described as part ofan airport in an agreement withthe United States or definedby an airport layoutplan (ALP) or listed in the ExhibitA property map, is consideredto be dedicated or obligated properly for airport purposes bythe terms ofthe agreement." 16 When an airport receives AlP grants, the entire airport becomes obligated. Title 49 U.S. Code§ 47102 defines the airport as: (I) an area ...used or intended to be used for the landing and taking offofaircraft; (2) an appurtenant area...to be used for airport buildings or other airport facilities

...and (3) airportbuildings and facilities located in any ofthose areas. A review ofthe ALP for LVJ indicates thatthe FBO building is clearly an obligated properly. [See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12]. In determining whetherthe FBO facility is obligated, it does not matterthat it "was constructed with private fnnds and is sited on a private pad," thatthe Airport "has not accepted anypublic funds subjectto the Grant Assurances to constructthe FBO building," orthatthe Airport did not "acquire the land thatthe FBO occupies." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 3-4]. Therefore, the Director rejects the argumentthatthat the sponsor's activities in or related to the FBO building are not subjectto the Grant Assurances. 

### B. Issue 1 - Complainant's Access lothe FBO and Related Services Having established above that actions related to the FBO facility are not exempt from the GrantAssurances, the issue now is to determine whether thejustificationprovided by the Airport in restricting Complainant from usingthe FBO and related services, is consistentwith Grant Assurance 22 Economic Nondiscrimination, both interms ofreasonableness and unjust discrimination.

"FAA Order 5190.6B, page 22-1. Page 9Wayne R. Messinger v. Pearland Regional Airport, Texas (FAA Docket No. 16-15-01)



### a. The FBO as an Aeronautical Service to Airport Users The FBO building atLVJ is the location ofthe FAA weather equipment and it is used for flight planning. It is also the location ofspecific services and amenities, such as the federally-funded National Weather Service (NWS) computer tenninal (weather services), pilot lounge, briefing rooms, telephone services (e.g., flight plan filing), and restroom facilities. As such they are other services to support airport nsers, who also use them to conduct operations, including pre-flight andpost-flight activities. FAA encourages airports to provide these ancillary services and they are typically provided for in minimum standards.17 

### b. Requirements Under Grant Assurance 22 GrantAssurance 22 deals withboth thereasonableness ofairport access and the prohibition ofadopting unjustly discriminatory conditions. As stated in FAA Order 5190.6B, airport sponsors havethe obligationto treat in a uniform manner those users making the same or similar use ofthe airport and to make all airport facilities and services available on reasonable terms without unjust discrimination18 As such, it is the Airport's responsibility to ensure that aeronautical services, including FBO services, are offered in a reasonable andjustmrumer to all airport users. An exclusion ofthese services, without good cause, is a violation ofGrantAssurance 22. Although making and enforcing prohibitions orlimitations are within the sponsor's proprietary power, this authority is limited to actions that are consistentwith its obligations under the grants. 19



### c. 

### Complainant's Arguments Complainant claims that he was not given a reason "why [he] was not permitted into the FBO building," and argnes that GrantAssurance 22 "requires that aviation facilities mustbe provided on fair and reasonable terms, and without unjust discrimination." Complainant also asserts thatthe Airportprevented him from accessingthe FBO facility as "retaliation"for reporting a safety deficiency atthe Airport, namely a tree with which he collidedwhile taxiing. Complainant requests that he be "allowed to enterthe [FBO] buildingto access the weather and flight planning facilities, use the onlypublic restrooms available onthe airport, and to get out ofthe heat ofthe day on the hotTexas ramp," and asks thathe "betreatedthe same as any other customer on the airport." [FAA Exhibit I, Item l, page I and 3]. Complainant states that, "ifprotecting Leah Langford was [the] intent, then the need for that ban is now moot. Complainant states that Ms. Langford terminated her employment at the airport on April 9th, 2015. She no longer works at the airport and continuing the ban against Complainant no longer serves a legitimate purpose. Therefore, [the Airport] should rescind the letter banning Complainant from the FBO ru1d allow Complainant access to the FBO the same as any other customer." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 4, page 5]. Upon review ofthe record, the Director fmds thatthere is no evidence to substantiate this retaliation allegation by Complainant. Although the Directorwould agree thatwith the Complainantthatrestricting him from usingthe FBO based on retaliation for reporting a safety issue would likely be a prohibited restriction under Grant Assurance 22, Complainanthas not substantiated such a claim. Otherthan a mere assertion, Complainanthas presented no evidence, circun1stantial or direct, to supportthe proposition that his exclusion from the FBO is a consequence ofhis reporting a safety issue. Without considerably more, the FAAis notwillingto accept such an allegation. Moreover, based on the facts presented, there are otherplausible reasons why the sponsor has barred the Complainant from the FBO. Whether or notthese reasons arejustified underthe assurances is considered further below.

17 As example, see FAA Order 5l90.6B, Appendix C, page 38 and Appendix 0, page 193. Also see Skydive Monroe. Inc. v. Cify of Monroe. Georgia FAA Docket No. 16-06-02, March 30, 2007, page 10. "FAA Order 5190.68 at Chapter9. "See FAA Order 5190.68, paragraph 14.3. Page 10Wayne R. Messinger 

### v. Pearland RegionalAirport, Texas (FAA Docket No. 16-15-01)



### d. Airport's Position The Airport admits that it has barred Complainant from the FBO Building. Butthe Airport argues that the "facts demonstrate that [Complainant] was excluded from the FBO for legitimate business reasons-i.e., the maintenance ofa workplace safe from harassment and the efficient operation ofthe airport by competent employees- that have been consistently applied." The Airport also notes that Complainant can use the Airport's taxiways and runways, rents a hangar at the Airport, and is allowed to purchase fuel, still has "unfettered access to the rest ofthe airport's facilities and amenities,"but is excluded from the FBObecause ofhis "behaviortoward Langford." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, pages 7, 13]. The Airport also adds that there has been, "no other airport user who has engaged in a pattern ofharassing conduct aimed at an airport employee. No other airport user has taken unwanted photo1,rraphs ofairport employees, made unwanted advances toward airport employees, and behaved in a threatening and provocative mannertoward an airport employee." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit I, page 3]. As a result, the Airporttakes the position that Complainant "has not been the victim ofunreasonable orunjustly discriminatory conditions." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, page 9].



### e. Airport's Rules and Regulations and Minimum Standards A relevant issue the Director considered in this case is the role ofthe Airport's rules and regulations and minimum standards. On December 5, 2014, the Airport published LVJ'sMinimum Standards. 20 [FAA Exhibit l, Item 6]. And includes language to "ensure that all commercial operators, tenants, users...are not exposed to illegal, unsafe, or irresponsible practices." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6]. On February 6, 2015, the Airportpublished LVJ'sAirportRules andRegulations. This document includes a new provision stating thatthe Airport has the authorityto deny access to the FBO "for any lawful reason." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, Section 4.21]. These types ofdocuments represent guidance commonly used by airport sponsors in managingtheir facilities; they are encouraged by the FAA and are presumptively valid when consistentwith the Grant Assurances and other federal obligations, includingthe requirements ofGrant Assurance 22. A review ofthe documents in this case does uot indicate that, as written, either document is in violation ofthe Airport's federal obligations. 

### f. Previous Part l6s Involving Harassment or Behavior-Related Allegations The Airport citesAshton v. FAA (04-1124, U.S. Court ofAppeals, D.C., 2006) in its Answer and uotes that in the cited case, the Airport "terminated a user's permitto use an airport hangar afterhe repeatedly 'photographed, bothered, and harassed other tenants at the airport." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, page 11]. Ashton v. FAA has pertinent characteristics to the present case in that both cases involve, amongst others, (1) a single private (non-commercial) airport user; (2) partial denial ofaccess to airport property; (3) allegations ofharassing behavior, albeit ofdiffering types; and (4) court action filed by the complainant againstthe airport. InAshton, unlike the subject case, the Complainant admitted to many ofthe alleged behaviors found to be inappropriate by the sponsor; he was arrested and his threats were clearly documented. Nevertheless, differences in factual circumstances aside,Ashton establishes the principle that inappropriate actions by an individual can be sufficieut grounds to limit his orher access to otherwise public airport facilities.

2o The Director notes for clarification purposes that the minimum standards at LVJ are relevant only to the extent that they guide, in part, aeronautical services being provided, and not how an individual user {not a commercial business) behaves or not, at the Airport. In otherwords, actions taken against Complainant, as an individual user, should not be based upon a violation of the minimum standards, and if itwere, itwould likely found to be misplaced. As a result, any reference to minimum standards here is informational only, while references to rules and regulaHons, are more in line with the rights and responsibilities expected from an airport sponsor when dealing with a user rather than a commercial service provider. Page 11Wayne R. Messinger v. Pearland Regional Airport, Texas (FAA Docket No. 16-15-01) The Airport also citesAero Ways, Inc. v. Delaware River andBayAuthority [16-09-12, August 30, 2010] and points out that "an airport sponsor acts as a proprietor with regard to managing its airport to certain reasonable levels ofservice, personal decorum, business professionalism and financial responsibility

... allows a sponsorto apply a standard for reasonable security, personal behavior, andrules oftenancy." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, page 12]. This is a principle that we affirm. InAero Ways, however, the employee damaged a card reader on an entry gate to the airpmi and left physical evidence. Additionally, the incident was confirmed by the Complainant and the details were immediately documented bythe airport. Also, a police report was filed regardingthe incident. In bothAero Ways and Ashton, the evidence ofwrongdoing was clearer than that presented here. g. Discussion The Director must determine whetherthe arguments, facts, and evidence permit a determination thatthe Airport's actions towards Complainant are in violation ofGrantAssurance 22. First, it is not the role ofthe FAA to adjudicate employment disputes or claims ofharassment, and we decline to do that here. Both sides have presented their sides ofthe dispute, but the FAA is not in a positionto ultimately determine ifa wrongdoing has occurred with regard to Complainant'srelationship with either the Airport orits employees. Second, the Director recognizes thatthe Airport has the rightto protect its employees when confronted with work place harassment. As stated in SeaSauds Air Transp., Inc. v. Huntsville-Madison County Airport Auth., DocketNo. 16-05-17, the Director notedthat "GrantAssurance 22

... allows a sponsorto apply a standard for reasonable security, personal behavior, and rules oftenancy."21 Certainly, the Director is not going to adjudicate a case which hinges onpersonal relationships or employment matters. Itis also not for the FAAto adjudicate a case where the reasons for employment termination are argued under the cover ofgrant assurance compliance. The arguments made by both sides, and hence resolution ofthe dispute in this case are squarely matters for local or statejurisdictions, notthe FAA. These actions are coveredthrough other state and local labor and harassment laws, and are largely outsidethe purview ofthe FAA. In fact, the record shows thatboth sides recognized the local and state legal venues applicable in this case.22 [FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit 1]. Third, a review ofthe record also indicates thatthe Airportrestricted Complainant from using the FBO facilities, in part because he was interacting with one ofthe Airport's employees in a waythatthe Airport considered inappropriate. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit 3, pages175 and 178, 340-343, and 347-367]. We note that this concern was great enough totriggerthe Airport's hiring ofa private investigation finn to investigate Complainant. 23 [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit I, Exhibit B, pages 329-334]. Moreover, as we noted above, the Complainant's argument conceming retaliation is tmsubstantiated. Additionally, we camwt say thatthe Airport's actions are without any basis. The Airport management was clearly having problems withthe Complainant, and such problems can be a ground to limit a person's access. Fourth, the FAA does not question or review an Airport sponsor's hiring ortermination decisions, including employment standards, protecting its employees, or otherwise taking reasonable action to address a real or perceived harassment situation at the Airport, by a tenant. Fifth, the reference to reasonable action in this case is also considered based on the fact itis relevant that the Airport did notrestrict Complainant's access to the runways and taxiways, fuel services, orhangar services. In that respect, the Airporttailored its action toward Complainant "toprevent him from contacting and

21 SeaSands AirTranso. Inc. v. Huntsville-Madison County Airport Auth., Docket No. 16-05-17 (2006) at 15. 22 The record shows that there was a legal case in a Texas Courtwhere Complainant sued Ms. Langford for defamation. Case No. 80476-CV, 149th Judicial District of Brazoria County, Texas. See FAA Exhibit l, Item 3, Exhibit 1, Exhibit B, pages 158- 171. The record also shows that the Airport's communicationswith Complainant included warnings of a legal nature such as "legal action via law enforcement will be taken should you choose to again disregard this notice." 23 See investigation report Page12Wayne R. Messinger v. Pearland Regional Airport, Texas (FAA Docket No. 16c15-01) harassing Langford, while still permitting him fully to use the Airport for legitimate aeronautical functions." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 3, Exhibit I, page 3]. Sixth, therecord contained no evidence that the Airporttreated Complainant in an unjustly discriminatory manner, that is, that other similarly situated airport users (e.g., affected byharassment claims) were restricted from using the FBO and its facilities. In conclusion, FAA is not in a positionto mediate personal or employment disputes. In the context ofour assurances, sponsors have significant latitude to run their own businesses. Although the evidence presented by the Airportregarding Complainant's conduct, is not as strong as in other cases that we cited to above, we believe the Airport has presented sufficient evidence to showthatthere was a reasonable basis for the actions that ittook. This evidence primarily focuses on unwanted communications with the Airp01t's employees and behavior that, in the opinion ofthe Airport, constituted a form ofharassment. We are not in a position to secondguess the sponsor'sjudgment in a case such as this one that involves claims ofpersonal disputes, harassment and employment issues. Against this hackground, the Director does not find that the Airpmt has violated Grant Assurance 22. 

### VII. FINDINGS AND CONClUSION Upon consideration ofthe submissions ofthe parties, and the entire record herein, and the applicable law and policy and for the reasons stated above, the Director finds and concludes thatthe Airport is not in violation ofGrant Assurance 22 Economic Nondiscrimination. 

### ORDER All Motions not expressly granted in this Detennination are denied. 

### RIGHT 

### TO APPEAL This Director's Determination, FAADocketNo. 16-15-01, is an initial agency determination and does not constitute a final agency decision and order subjecttojudicialreview. [14 CFR § 16.247(b)(2)]. A partyto this proceeding adversely affected by the Director's Determination may appeal the initial determination pursuant to 14 CFR § I6.33(c) withinthirty (30) days after service ofthe Director'sDetermination.

Robin K. Hunt Director, Airport Compliance and ManagementAnalysis (Acting) FederalAviation Administration 1 Date

Page13Wayne R. Messinger v. Pearland Regional Airport, Texas (FAA Docket No. 16-15-0 I)

INDEX OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD The following items constitute the administrative record in this proceeding: fAA Exhibit 1 Item 1 Part 16 Complaint from Wayne Messinger, December 18,2014. Exhibit 1 E-mail message from LVJ Operations Manager, Leah Langford, to Complainant, June 16,2014. Exhibit2

Item lAPhotograph 1ofLVJ's FBO (overhead). Exhibit 3 Photograph 

### 2 ofLVJ's FBO (side view).

FAANotice of Docketing, March 3, 2015. Item 1B Respondent'sAgreedMotion to ExtendAnswerDeadline (Motion for an Extension ofTime), March 4, 2015. Item lC FAA Oder grantingAgreedMotion to ExtendAnswerDeadline, March 6, 2015. Item2 Patt 13 Complaint, June 23,2014. Exhibit 1 TxDOT decision on informal Part 13 complaint, July 7, 2014. Exhibit 2 Part 13 compliant, the original letter sentto Texas ADO, June 23, 2014. Exhibit 3 E-mail message from LVJ Operations Manager, Leah Langfordto Complainant, June 16, 2014. Exhibit4 Aerial image ofPearland Regional Airport and FBO building.

Pagel4Wayne R. Messinger v. Pearland Regional Airport. Texas (FAA Docket No. 16-15-01) Exhibit5 E-mail response from FAA's Texas Airports District Office (ADO) to Complainant, June 23,2014. Item 3 Respondent's Consolidated OriginalAnswer andMotionfor SummaryJudgment, April 8, 2015. Exhibit 1 Declaration of StephenAlexander, Partner atTexas Aviation Partners (TAP), April 7, 2015. Exhibit A 116 photographs recovered from Complainant's computer. Exhibit B 214 e-mails between the Complainant and Leah Langford. Includes related documents and some photography. Exhibit C ComplainantWayne Messinger's Resume. Exhibit2 Declaration of LeahLangford, April 7, 2015. Exhibit 3 Public Recordfrom the Texas Department of Corrections, November 29,2014. Item 

### 4 Complainant's Rebuttal, April13, 2015. Item 5 Pearland Regional Airport Rules and Regulations, February, 6, 2015. Item6 Pearland Regional AirportMinimum Standards, December 5, 2014. Item 7 Pearland Regional Airport website content, January 21,2015. Item 

### 8 Airnav.com airport information about LVJ, November 19,2015. Item 9 FAA Grant History Report, 2015. PagelSWayne R. Messinger v. Pearland Regional Airport, Texas (FAA Docket No. 16-15-01)

Item 10 N/A. Item11 Phone record ofcall betweenFAA and TxDOT discussing the Complainant's informal Part 13 filing and the subsequent review, August 3, 2015. Item 12 LVJ Airport Layout Plan (ALP), July 9, 2010. Item 13 FAA

### Notice of Extension of Time, August 14, 2015. Uem 13A FAA

### Notice of Extension ofTime, December 16,2015. Item 13C FAA

### Notice of Extension ofTime, February 3, 2016.

Item 14 

### AgreedMotion to ExtendAnswerDeadline, March 4, 2015. 

### Item 15 BAACNewsletter, February 2015.

Page 16