office of the County Mayor 

6 East Madison Avenue 

Athens, Tennessee 37303 

C i » W 

AP^ 2 7 2010 

J)g£ 

AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

LAW, AGC-600 

\ } ^ 

John M. Gentry 

County Mayor 

Phone 

423.745.7634 

April 19, 2010 

FAA: Office of the Chief Counsel 

800 Independence Avenue S.W. 

Attention: Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-610) 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

RE: Docket No. 16-08-12 

Mr. Ray Veatch: 

Thank you for the Extension of Time provide to McMinn County to respond to the appeal 

of the Director's Determination filed on behalf of Complainants William Keyes and:' 

DeWitt T. Ferrell. Please find enclosed the Response, which includes in its body the 

request for the FAA to uphold the Director's Determination dismissing the Complainants 

original Complaint. The Respondent is in agreement with the Director's original fiftythree page Determination and requests the FAA Associate Administrator for Airports find 

likewise. 

Please feel firee to contact me if you need any additional information or clarification. 

Sincerely, 

it," 

C5 

'S^ . fohn M. Gentry /^ / 

McMinn County l^^ox 
April 19,2010 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue S.W. 

AGC-610 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Docket 16-08-12 

Respondent's Response to Complainant's Appeal of Director's 

Determination 

Issue 1: Complainants request Director to find Respondent in violation of 

Grant Assurance #19 due to Respondent's alleged failure to close 

the Airport in accordance with FAA and State directives. 

[Summation] 

Issue 2: Complainants request Director to find Respondent violated Grant 

Assurance #34 for failing to challenge the Tennessee Department 

of Transportation's Division of Aeronautics approval of 

engineering plans which included a known design flaw. 

[Summation] 

The Respondent wishes to respond to issues 1 and 2 simultaneously due to the similarity 

of the allegations. Respondent believes both allegations have at their core the 

Complainants dissatisfaction with the Respondent's reliance and subjugation to 

the Tennessee Department of Transportation's Division of Aeronautics, the Respondent's 

approving authority. 

The Respondent denies it was in violation of Grant Assurance #19 and #34. The line of 

sight issue has been well documented and stipulated. The Respondent could not have 

known in 2003 what corrective action per the runway markings would be required in 

December of 2005. Alleging the Respondent's runway and taxiway closure markings 

completed in January 2006 were excessively delayed to the point of being a federal grant 

assurance violation because Respondent's consultants were aware of a potential line of 

sight deviation in 2003 is at best preposterous . All parties regret poor advice was given 

by TDOT personnel and followed by Respondent's consultants and staff Human error, 

while costly to correct, was not malicious or conspired. The time it took for the airport to 

be properly marked fi-om the time of notification in December, 2005 to completion of the 

markings in January, 2006 had everything to do with acquiring the proper drawings and 

securing a contractor during the holidays. It had nothing to do with media attention as 

claimed by the Complainants. 

Pertaining to Grant Assurance #34, Respondent is somewhat perplexed since this 

allegation is new and not part of the original Part 13 and 16 processes. Respondent 
however denies violating Grant Assurance #34. While the Complainants obviously 

possess above average intelligence and cognitive skills Respondent challenges their 

knowledge of the functional relationship between the state of Tennessee and its ninetyfive counties. Coimties exist to perform functions of the state government on the local 

level. While some limited autonomy exists for counties, they operate under permissive 

authority of state government. As a general rule, counties follow most recommendations 

of their approving, ftinding and licensing authority, in this case TDOT. No place in the 

record can it be found that the Respondent's consultants advised McMinn County to 

refiise or even question the recommendation of TDOT. Respondent believes TDOT staff 

made an honest mistake interpretuig FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Section 

503(a). TDOT staff advised Respondent and Respondent's consultants that the proposed 

fiill parallel taxiway would alleviate any line of sight deviation. 

The Respondent wishes to reiterate that Teimessee's rural general aviation airports must 

rely on the expertise of the Tennessee's Division of Aeronautics for technical advice, 

capital funding and policy recommendations. Aviation is a technical field in which most 

counties do not possess the 'in-house" expertise to self-govern. We must rely on 

consultants and state assistance. This is not an excuse for apathy, it is reality. In fact. 

Respondent would claim its airport and FBO are more credentialed and in compliance 

with FAA guidelines than most American airport communities comparable in size. The 

Teimessee Division of Aeronautics is the Respondent's licensing body, inspector, capital 

funding source and technical advisor. McMinn County did not believe, nor did it have 

reason to beheve TDOT had erred when it stated the line of sight deviation would not be 

a FAA violation due to the plarmed construction of a full parallel taxiway. Respondent 

was undergoing the runway extension and widening project to make the airport safer. It 

would be safe to assume if the Respondent possessed a posture of noncompliance it 

would never had imdertaken a project of this magnitude to correct existing safety 

deficiencies with the former runway, runway safety areas and object free areas. It was 

because the Respondent desired a safer airport that the project was solicited and agreed 

upon by TDOT. 

Respondent requests the Director to uphold is previous findings that the Respondent did 

not violate Grant Assurance #19 and #34. 

Issue #3 Respondent allegedly violated Grant Assurance #19, Operation 

and Maintenance, by allowing Precision Approach Path Indicator 

lights and other lighting systems to stay in "state of disrepair " and 

allegedly failed to issue prompt NOTAMs. [Summation] 

Respondent believes it adequately addressed both the issue of the faulty PAPI lights and 

the issuance of NOTAMs in its original Answer and Motion to Dismiss. Respondent 

would like to add that McMinn County has taken additional corrective actions to enhance 

any maintenance concerns at the airport, whether it be terminal or airfield related. 

Maintenance staff has had duties reassigned resulting in a staff member devoted primarily 
to airport upkeep. One official McMiim County maintenance employee, Mr. Mike 

George, actually has an office in the airport terminal. The FBO has been given authority 

to directly request maintenance assistance without going thru the County Mayor's office 

for approval, unless major expenditures are required. Official County maintenance 

personnel are on the airport grounds to a varying degree every work day. The FBO has 

reported no issues with a lack of response or lack of competence on behalf of 

Respondent's maintenance department. In fact, Respondent's maintenance staff helped 

Siemens trouble shoot some of the problems with the lighting system on a recent 

malfunction. 

Respondent affirms the PAPI system has been difficult to maintain. It was installed by a 

subcontractor working for a primary that went bankrupt during the project. Upon a 

solution being reached for the line of sight issue, aknost half of the lighting system's 

wiring had to be "dug up" and replaced as the "hump" was removed from the runway and 

taxiway. County maintenance staff, due to the knowledge they have acquired from 

working on the system believes the system suffers from moisture infilfration in numerous 

places along its several miles of connections. This is in addition to the motherboards' 

corrosion problems and alleged lightning vulnerabihty. Respondent emphatically denies 

it has a noncompliant posture towards maintaining the system and the overall airport 

facility. Respondent would state for the record that while the runway is available for use 

24 hours a day, it is only staffed during the day. The vast majority of all local operations 

are in the daytime. Staff will not immediately know if some of the bulbs in the lighting 

systems have burned out unless a pilot tells them. Respondent will fix lights as quickly 

as possible. All FBO staff and county staff know to immediately report any maintenance 

issues as they arise. 

Respondent would also reference Order JO 7930.2M Sections 3-l-2(b)(c), 4-1-1, 5-1-

1(b),and 5-1-2 (a) (b) that in summary address NOT AM issuance and acceptance by the 

FSS and the responsibility of all members of the aviation community to report potential 

unsafe airport conditions to airport management. If an individual is imable to contact 

airport management they should issue a NOT AM statmg the condition and word 

"UNSAFE" (Sections 5-l-2(a)(b)). FSS shall accept NOT AM information regardless of 

source with stated stipulations, (Section 4-1-1). If Complainants observe what they 

conceive to be UNSAFE conditions at the McMiim County Airport they must report the 

condition rather than merely record its occurrence for FAA adminisfrative proceedings. 

The current FBO is fully aware of the NOT AM issuing process and what conditions 

warrant a NOT AM to be issued. If the Teimessee Division of Aeronautics or FAA 

disagree the Respondent will take the corrective action they recommend. To the best of 

the Respondent's knowledge there has never been a complaint received concerning the 

issuance of NOTAMS by any parties other than the Complainants. 
Issue 4 Respondent, if it interprets Complainants 'pleadings correctly, 

understands they are satisfied with the Director's judgment on the 

matters of allegation of threats and violence and denial of service 

as not constituting a violation of Grant Assurance #22. 

Issue 5 Respondent, if it interprets Complainants 'pleadings correctly, 

understands that while they may not accept, they do not challenge 

the Director's findings on performance of the Respondent and its 

Airport Manager as constituting a violation of Grant Assurance 

#22 and #5. Complainants understand per t-hangar list allegation, 

that FAA considers Respondent's corrective action to cure past 

alleged violation as no issue of current compliance. 

Summary and Request To Uphold Director's Determination and Dismiss Appeal: 

Respondent submits once again it has never willingly violated any of the federal grant 

assurances. Most local general aviation capital projects are usually unpopular to the vast 

non-aviation members of the general public. Respondent understood the need for and 

desired a better and safer airport, and agreed to imdertake a project that even by TDOT's 

admission was one the most complicated general aviation projects in Tennessee. Despite 

all the problems associated with the project ranging from bankrupt contractors, line of 

sight deviations to the allegations of federal grant assurance violations, the Respondent 

believes undertaking the project was the correct action to take. The Respondent believes 

the Complainants, by all accounts, should be considered outstanding citizens. They are 

both accomplished and professional. Both, by all accoimts have "given" more than they 

have "taken" from their communities. Respondent is disappointed it has lost the trust of 

its citizens on this matter. 

Respondent, however, caimot agree with the charge that the County Mayor and 

the remainder of McMinn County government would willfully operate an imsafe airport. 

This is the same local government that was recognized as the 2005 "Governing Body of 

the Year" by TDOT for the management of its airport. Respondent was also awarded 

Most Improved Airport in Tennessee in 1997 by the Tennessee Aeronautics Commission. 

The Respondent is exfremely proud of its general aviation airport and counts it as one of 

its best assets for serving its industrial and recreational aviators. Respondent would 

like to work with Complainants in a much more constructive manner in the future. Until 

that time comes, the Respondent thanks the Director for amount of time FAA staff have 

invested in this issue and prays the FAA Assistant Administrator upholds the Director's 

Determination to dismiss the original Complaint and likewise dismiss this Appeal. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 19, 2010,1 caused to be placed in the United States 

mail (priority mail, postage paid) or personally delivered, a true copy of the foregoing 

document addressed to: 

FAA Part 16 Proceedings Docket (3 Copies) 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket: 16-08-12 

FAA Office of Airports, Compliance and Field Operations, ACO-lOO 

Attn: Randall S. Frietz, Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

Wilham H. Keyes 

121 County Road 569 

Athens, TN 37303 

Complainant 

Dewitt T. Ferrell 

P.O. Box 206 

Athens, TN 37371-0206 

Complainant 

David Crews, Chairman 

McMinn Coimty Airport Committee 

McMinn County Courthouse 

6. East Madison Avenue 

Athens, TN 37303 

Respondent 

Jopn M. Gentry 

McMinn County Mayo