## offic e o f the Count y Mayo r 6 Eas t Madiso n Avenu e Athens , Tennesse e 3730 3 

# C i » W AP ^ 

### 2 7 

### 201 0 

# J)g £ AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTA L LAW , AGC-60 0 

### \ } ^

Joh n M . Gentr y Count y Mayor Phon e 423.745.763 4 Apri l 19 , 201 0 FAA : Offic e o f

th e Chie f Counse l 80 0 Independenc e Avenu e S.W . Attention : Part

1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docke t

(AGC-610 ) Washington , D.C . 2059 1 RE : Docke t

No . 16-08-1 2 Mr . Ra y Veatch : Than k yo u for th e Extensio n o f

Tim e provid e to McMin n County t o respon dt o th e appeal o f th e Director' s Determinatio n file do n behal f o f Complainant s Willia mKeye s and: ' DeWitt T . Ferrell . Pleas e findenclose dth e Response , whic h include s i n it s bod y th e reques t for th e FA A t o uphol dth e Director' s Determinatio n dismissin g th e Complainant s origina l Complaint . Th e Responden t i s i n agreemen t

with th e Director' s origina l fifty

thre e pag e Determinatio n an drequest s th e FA A Associat e Administrato r fo r Airport s find likewise . Pleas e fee l firee to contac t m e i f yo u nee dan y additiona l informatio n o r clarification . Sincerely , it, " C 5 

# 'S ^

. fohn M . Gentry /^ / McMin n County l^^o xApri l 19,201 0

Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenu e S.W . AGC-61 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attention : Docke t

16-08-1 2 

### Respondent' s Respons e t o Complainant' s Appeal o f Director' s Determinatio n Issu e 1 : Complainant s reques t Directo r t o fin dResponden t

in violatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e #1 9 du e t o Respondent' s allege dfailur e t o clos e th e Airpor t

in accordanc e wit

h FA A an dStat e directives . [Summation ] Issu e 2 : Complainant s reques t Directo r t o fin dResponden t

violate dGran t Assuranc e #3 4 fo r

failin g t o challeng e th e Tennesse e Departmen t o f Transportation' s Divisio n o f Aeronautic s approva l o f engineerin g plan s whic h include daknown desig n flaw . [Summation ] Th e Responden t

wishe s t o respon dt o issue s 1 an d2 simultaneousl y du e t o th e similarity o f th e allegations . Responden t believe s bot h allegation s hav e a t thei r cor e th e Complainant s dissatisfactio n with th e Respondent' s relianc e an dsubjugatio n t o th e Tennesse e Departmen t o f Transportation' s Divisio n o f Aeronautics , th e Respondent' s approvin g authority . Th e Responden t

denie s it wa s i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e #1 9 an d#34 . Th e lin e o f sight issu e ha s bee n wel l documente dan dstipulated . Th e Responden t coul dno t

hav e know n i n 200 3 what

correctiv e actio n pe r

th e runwa y marking s woul db e require di n Decembe r

o f 2005 . Allegin g th e Respondent' s runwa y an dtaxiwa y closur e marking s complete di n Januar y 200 6 wer e excessivel y delaye dt o th e poin t o f bein g afederal grant assuranc e violatio n becaus e Respondent' s consultant s wer e awar e o f apotentia l lin e o f sigh t deviatio n i n 200 3 i s a

t bes t preposterou s . Al l partie s regre t poo r advic e was give n b y TDO T personne l an dfollowe db y Respondent' s consultant s an dstaf f Huma n error , whil e costl y t o correct , wa s no t maliciou s o r

conspired . Th e tim e i t

too k for th e airpor

t to b e properl y marke dfi-omth e tim e o f notificatio n i n December , 200 5 t o completio n o f th e marking s i n January , 200 6 ha deverythin g t o d o with acquirin g th e prope r drawing s an d securin g acontracto r

durin g th e holidays . I t

ha dnothin g t o d o wit h medi aattentio n a s claime db y th e Complainants . Pertainin g t o Gran t

Assuranc e #34 , Responden t i s somewhat

perplexe dsinc e thi s allegatio n i s ne w an dno t

part o f th e origina l Par

t 1 3 an d1 6 processes . Responden thowever denie s violatin g Gran t

Assuranc e #34 . Whil e th e Complainant s obviousl y posses s abov e averag e intelligenc e an dcognitiv e skill s Responden t challenge s thei r knowledg e o f

th e functiona l relationshi p betwee n th e stat e o f Tennesse e an dit s ninety

five counties . Coimtie s exis t t o perfor mfunction s o f

th e stat e governmen t

o n th e local level . Whil e som e limite dautonomy exist s fo r counties , the y operat e unde r permissiv e authority o f

stat e government . A s ageneral rule , countie s follo w mos t recommendation s o f thei r approving , ftinding an dlicensin g authority , i n thi s cas e TDOT . N o plac e i n th e recordcan i t

b e foun dtha t

th e Respondent' s consultant s advise dMcMin n Count y t o refiis e o r eve n questio n th e recommendatio n o f TDOT . Responden t

believe s TDO T staf

f mad e a n hones t mistak e interpretui g FA A Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 , Sectio n 503(a) . TDO T staf

f advise dResponden t

an dRespondent' s consultant s that th e propose d fiill paralle l taxiwa y woul dalleviat e any lin e o f sigh t deviation . Th e Responden t

wishe s t o reiterat e tha

t Teimessee' s rura l genera l aviatio n airport s mus t rel y o n th e expertis e o f

th e Tennessee' s Divisio n o f Aeronautic s fo

r technica l advice , capital fundin g an dpolic y recommendations . Aviatio n i s atechnica l fieldi n whic h mos t countie s d o no t

posses s th e 'in-house " expertis e t o self-govern . W e mus t rel y o n consultant s an dstat e assistance . Thi s i s no t a n excus e fo

r apathy , i t

i s reality . I n fact . Responden t

woul dclai mit s airport

an dFB O are mor e credentiale dan di n complianc e with FA A guideline s tha n mos t American airpor

t communitie s comparabl e i n size . Th e Teimesse e Divisio n o f

Aeronautic s i s th e Respondent' s licensin g body , inspector , capital fundin g sourc e an dtechnica l advisor . McMin n Count y di dnot believe , no r

di di t hav e reaso n t o behev e TDO T ha derre dwhe n i t state dth e lin e o f

sigh t deviatio n woul dno t

b e aFA A violatio n du e t o th e plarme dconstructio n o f afull paralle l taxiway . Responden t wa s undergoin g th e runwa y extensio n an dwidenin g projec t t o mak e th e airport

safer . I t woul db e saf

e t o assum e i f

th e Responden t

possesse dapostur e o f

noncomplianc e i t woul dneve r

ha dimdertake n aprojec t o f thi s magnitud e t o correc t existin g safet

y deficiencie s with th e forme r runway , runway safet

y area s an dobjec t

free areas . It

wa s becaus e th e Responden t

desire dasafe

r airpor t tha t th e projec t

wa s solicite dan dagree d upo n b y TDOT . Responden t

request s th e Directo r

t o uphol di s previou s findings that th e Responden t

di d no t violat e Grant

Assuranc e #1 9 an d#34 . Issu e # 3 Responden t allegedl y violate dGran t

Assuranc e #19 , Operatio n an dMaintenance , b

y allowin g Precisio n Approac h Pat h Indicato r light s an dothe r

lightin g system s t o sta y in "stat e o f disrepai r " an d allegedl y faile dt o issu e promp t NOTAMs . [Summation ] Responden t

believe s i t

adequatel y addresse dboth th e issu e o f th e fault y PAP I light s an d th e issuanc e o f

NOTAM s i n it s original Answer an dMotio n t o Dismiss . Responden t woul dlike t o ad dtha t

McMin n County ha s take n additional correctiv e action s t o enhanc e any maintenanc e concern s at th e airport , whethe r

i t b e termina l o r

airfiel drelated . Maintenanc e staf

f ha s ha ddutie s reassigne dresultin g i n astaf f membe r devote dprimaril yt o airport upkeep . On e official McMii mCounty maintenanc e employee , Mr . Mik e George , actuall y ha s a

n offic e i n th e airpor

t terminal . Th e FB O ha s bee n give n authority t o directl y reques t

maintenanc e assistanc e withou t goin g thr u th e Count y Mayor' s offic e for approval , unles s majo r

expenditure s are required . Officia l Count y maintenanc e personne l ar e o n th e airport ground s t o avaryin g degre e every work day . Th e FB O ha s reporte dn o issue s with alac k o f respons e o r

lac k o f competenc e o n behal f

o f Respondent' s maintenanc e department. I n fact , Respondent' s maintenanc e staf f helpe d Siemen s troubl e shoo t

som e o f th e problem s with th e lightin g syste mo n arecen t malfunction . Responden t

affirm s th e PAP I syste mha s bee n difficult t o maintain . It

wa s installe db y a subcontracto r

workin g fo r

aprimar y that

wen t bankrup t durin g th e project . Upo n a solutio n bein g reache dfor th e lin e o f

sight issue , aknos t

hal f o f th e lightin g system' s wirin g ha dt o b e "du g up " an dreplace da s th e "hump " wa s remove dfromth e runwa y an d taxiway . Count y maintenanc e staff , du e t o th e knowledg e the y hav e acquire dfrom workin g o n th e syste mbelieve s th e syste msuffer s frommoistur e infilfratio n i n numerou s place s alon g it s severa l mile s o f connections . Thi s i s i n additio n t o th e motherboards ' corrosio n problem s an dallege dlightnin g vulnerabihty . Responden t emphaticall y denie s i t ha s anoncomplian t

postur e toward s maintainin g th e syste man dth e overal l airport facility . Responden t

woul dstat e for

th e recor dthat

whil e th e runwa y i s availabl e for us e 2 4 hour s aday , i t

i s onl y staffe ddurin g th e day . Th e vas t majority o f

al l loca l operation s are i n th e daytime . Staf

f wil l no t immediatel y kno w i f

som e o f th e bulb s i n th e lightin g system s hav e burne dou t

unles s apilo t

tell s them . Responden t

wil l fix light s a s quickl y a s possible . Al l FB O staf f an dcount y staf

f kno w t o immediatel y report an y maintenanc e issue s a s the y arise . Responden t

woul dals o referenc e Orde r J O 7930.2 M Section s 3-l-2(b)(c) , 4-1-1 , 5-1

- 1(b),an d5-1- 2 (a ) (b ) that

i n summary addres s NO T AM issuanc e an dacceptanc e b y th e FS S an dth e responsibility o f al l member s o f

th e aviatio n community t o repor t potentia l unsaf e airport condition s t o airport

management . I f

a n individua l i s imabl e t o contac t airport managemen t

the y shoul dissu e aNO T A M statm g th e conditio n an dwor d "UNSAFE " (Section s 5-l-2(a)(b)) . FS S shal l accep t NO T AM informatio n regardles s o f sourc e with state dstipulations , (Sectio n 4-1-1) . I f Complainant s observ e wha t the y conceiv e t o b e UNSAF E condition s a t th e McMii mCounty Airport the y mus t

report th e conditio n rathe r

than merel y recor dit s occurrenc e fo r FA A adminisfrativ e proceedings . Th e curren t

FB O i s fully awar e o f

th e NO T A M issuin g proces s an dwha t condition s warran t aNO T AM t o b e issued . I f th e Teimesse e Divisio n o f Aeronautic s o r

FA A disagre e th e Responden t

wil l tak e th e correctiv e actio n the y recommend . T o th e bes t o f th e Respondent' s knowledg e ther e ha s neve r bee n acomplain t

receive dconcernin g th e issuanc e o f

NOTAM S b y an y partie s othe r tha n th e Complainants .Issu e 4 Respondent , i f i t interpret s Complainant s 'pleading s correctly , understand s they ar e satisfie dwit h th e Director' s judgmen t on th e matter s o f

allegatio n o f

threat s an dviolenc e an ddenia l o f servic e a s no t constitutin g aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e #22 . Issu e 5 Respondent , i f i t interpret s Complainant s 'pleading s correctly , understand s tha t

whil e the y ma

y not accept , the y d o no t

challeng e th e Director' s finding s on performanc e o f th e Responden t

an dit s Airpor t Manage r a s constitutin g aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e #2 2 an d#5 . Complainant s understan dpe r t-hanga r lis t allegation , tha t FA A consider s Respondent' s correctiv e actio n t o cur e pas t allege dviolatio n a s n o issu e o f curren t compliance . Summar y an dReques t

T o Uphol dDirector' s Determinatio n an dDismis s Appeal : Responden t

submit s onc e agai n i t

ha s neve r

willingl y violate dan y o f th e federal gran t assurances . Mos t

loca l genera l aviatio n capita l project s are usuall y unpopular t o th e vas t non-aviatio n member s o f th e general public . Responden t understoo dth e nee dfor

an d desire dabette r

an dsafe r airport , an dagree dt o imdertak e aprojec t tha t eve n b y TDOT' s admissio n wa s on e th e mos t complicate dgenera l aviatio n project s i n Tennessee . Despit e al l th e problem s associate dwit h th e projec t rangin g frombankrup t

contractors , lin e o f sigh t deviation s t o th e allegation s o f federa l gran t assuranc e violations , th e Responden t believe s undertakin g th e projec t was th e correc t

actio n t o take . Th e Responden t believe s th e Complainants , b y al l accounts , shoul db e considere doutstandin g citizens . The y are both accomplishe dan dprofessional . Both , b y al l accoimt s hav e "given " mor e tha n the y hav e "taken " fromthei r

communities . Responden t i s disappointe di t

ha s los t th e trus t o f it s citizen s o n thi s matter . Respondent , however , caimo t agre e wit h th e charg e that

th e Count y Mayo r

an d th e remainde r

o f McMin n County governmen t woul dwillfull y operat e a n imsaf e airport . Thi s i s th e sam e loca l governmen t that was recognize da s th e 200 5 "Governin g Bod y o f th e Year " b y TDO T for

th e managemen t

o f it s airport . Responden t

wa s als o awarde d Mos t Improve dAirport

i n Tennesse e i n 199 7 b y th e Tennesse e Aeronautic s Commission . Th e Responden t

i s exfremel y prou do f

it s genera l aviatio n airport an dcount s i t

a s on e o f it s bes t asset s for servin g it s industrial an drecreationa l aviators . Responden t woul d lik e t o work

with Complainant s i n amuc h mor e constructiv e manne r i n th e future . Unti l that time comes , th e Responden t thank s th e Directo r

for amoun t o f tim e FA A staf

f hav e investe di n thi s issu e an dpray s th e FA A Assistan t Administrato r

uphold s th e Director' s Determinatio n t o dismis s th e origina l Complain t an dlikewis e dismis s thi s Appeal .CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I HEREB Y CERTIF Y tha t o n Apri l 19 , 2010, 1 cause dt o b e place di n th e Unite dState s mai l (priority mail , postag e paid ) o r personall y delivered , atru e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t addresse dto : FA A Part 1 6 Proceeding s Docke t

( 3 Copies ) Attn : FA A Par

t 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docket : 16-08-1 2 FA A Offic e o f

Airports , Complianc e an dFiel dOperations , ACO-lO O Attn : Randal l S . Frietz , Director , Offic e o f Airport Complianc e Wilha mH . Keye s 12 1 County Roa d56 9 Athens , T N 3730 3 Complainan t Dewitt T . Ferrel l P.O . Bo x 20 6 Athens , T N 37371-020 6 Complainan t Davi dCrews , Chairma n McMin n Coimt

y Airport Committe e McMin n County Courthous e 6 . Eas t Madiso n Avenu e Athens , TN 3730 3 Responden t Jop n M . Gentry McMin n County May o