Q 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration Office of Airport Compliance & Field Operations 

>S 

800 Independence Ave.. S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Certified Mail - Return Receipt 

William H. Keyes 

121 County Road 569 

Englewood, Tennessee 37329 

John Gentry, Mayor 

McMinn County 

McMinn County Court House 

6 East Madison Avenue 

Athens, Tennessee 37303 

Dewitt T. Ferrell 

P.O. Box 206 

Athens, Tennessee 37371-0206 

December 18,2009 

David Crews, Chairman 

McMinn County Commission 

McMinn County Airport Committee 

McMiim County Court House 

6 East Madison Avenue 

Athens, Tennessee 37303 

••Zli 

CD 

Re: William H. Keyes and DeWitt "Jack" Ferrell v. McMinn County, TN; FAA 

Docket No. 16-08-12 

Dear Messrs. Keyes, Ferrell, Gentry, and Crews: 

Enclosed is a copy of the determination of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

with respect to the above-referenced matter. 

We find that McMinn County, TN, owner and operator of the McMirm County Airport, 

is not currently in violation of its federal obligations regairding operation and 

maintenance, economic nondiscrimination, and policies, procedures, and standards as 

set forth in its airport grant assurances and existing federal statutes with respect to this 

consolidated complaint. 

Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed. The reasons are set forth in the enclosed 

Director's Determination. 

The Director's Determination is an initial agency determination and does not constitute 

a final agency decision and order subject to judicial review. 

Sincerely, 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Field Operations 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

fx 

William H. Keyes and 

Dewitt T. (Jack) Ferrell, Jr. 

Complainants 

v. 

McMinn County, Tennessee 

Respondent FAA Docket 16-08-12 

DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the 

Complaints filed under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 16, by 

William H. Keyes (originally docketed as 16-08-12) and DeWitt (Jack) T. Ferrell 

(originally docketed as 16-08-13).' Both Complaints were filed against McMinn County, 

Termessee (Respondent, or Sponsor), as owner/sponsor of the McMinn County Airport 

(MMI or Airport). Due to the similar nature of the issues occurring in the same time 

frame raised by both Complainants against the same Respondent, and in the interest of 

administrative efficiency and economy, the FAA issued an Order to Consolidate FAA 

Docket Nos. 16-08-12 and 16-08-13, and proceeds with this Director's Determination as 

FAA Docket No. 16-08-12. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 25f 

Complainants allege the Respondent violated Grant Assurance 19, Operation and 

Maintenance, and Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination. The Complainants 

claim the Respondent failed to maintain and operate the airport in a safe and serviceable 

condition, that it failed to respond to allegations of discrimination perpetrated by the 

' Enforcement procedures regarding airport compliance matters may be found at FAA Rules of practice for 

Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings (\ 4 CFR Part 16). These enforcement procedures 

were published in the Federal Register (61 FR 53998, October 16, 1996) and became effective on 

December 16, 1996. 

^ Document submitted to the Record prior to the issuance of the Order to Consolidate include Complaints, 

Answers, Replies, and Responses among two Complainants and the Respondent originally docketed in 

separate files as 16-08-12 and 16-08-13. To clarify references to these documents of record and the parties 

in this consolidated docket, the Director refers to Complainants by their last names. 

1 
Fixed Base Operator (FBO)"' and others, and that it transferred its power and authority to 

others. Respondent denies each allegation and requests dismissals of the Complaints. 

Respondent's motions to dismiss include a statement by McMinn Coimty Mayor, John 

Gentry, noting that the county, as the airport sponsor, "continues to take positive steps 

towards upgrading, improving, and securing its airport," and docimientation suggesting 

the airport is working towards adopting uniform rules and regulations and minimum 

standards for commercial aeronautical activities. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] 

The decision in this matter is based on: (i.) applicable law and FAA policy regarding the 

Respondent's Federal obligations as imposed by Grant Assurances 5 - Preserving Rights 

and Powers, 19 - Operation and Maintenance, 22 - Economic Nondiscrimination, 23, 

Exclusive Rights, and 34 - Policies, Standards, and Specifications, as well as Title 49 

U.S.C. § 47107 et. seq.; and (ii.) arguments and supporting documentation submitted by 

the parties, which comprise the administrative record reflected in the attached FAA 

Exhibit 1. 

With respect to the allegations presented in the Complaints, under the specific 

circumstances as discussed below and based on the evidence submitted to the record in 

this proceeding, the Director finds the Respondent is not currently in violation of its 

Federal obligations. 

The basis for the Director's decision is set forth herein. 

II. PARTIES 

A. Complainants 

The first Complainant, William H. Keyes, is referred to as "Complainant Keyes" or 

"Keyes." Complainant Keyes describes himself as a user of McMinn County Airport 

who has been "directly and substantially affected" by the Respondent's alleged 

compliance violations. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 1 ] 

The other Complainant, Dewitt T. (Jack) Ferrell, is referred to as "Complainant Ferrell" 

or "Ferrell." Complainant Ferrell describes himself as a user and tenant of McMirm 

County Airport since 1971, against whom the Respondent allegedly has discriminated. 

[FAA Exhibit I, Item 2] 

B. Respondent 

McMirm County, Tennessee ("County" or "Respondent") is a rural community located in 

the southeastern part of the state, between Knoxville and Nashville. The County is the 

3 

A fixed-base operator (FBO) is a commercial entity providing aeronautical services such as fueling, 

maintenance, storage, ground and flight instruction, etc., to the public. [FAA Order 5190.6A, Airport 

Compliance Requirements, October 2, 1989, Appendix 5] 
owner/sponsor of the McMinn County Airport (MMI) [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 23], which 

has a single 6,450 foot long by 100 foot wide asphalt runway The planning and 

development of the Airport, including the 2005 runway expansion project, has been 

financed in part with funds provided by the FAA under the Airport Improvement 

Program (AIP), authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as 

amended, 49 U.S.C. § 47101, et seq. 

III. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

The evidence submitted to the record via pleadings for this consolidated docket includes 

numerous letters and media reports, meeting minutes, several photographs, an 

advertisement, and a draft of proposed rules and regulations in addition to two complete 

sets of Complaints, Answers, Replies, and Responses, which were filed before the FAA 

issued its Order to Consolidate. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 25] The consolidation and 

timelines for each previously separate Complaint will be further detailed later in this 

section. For clarity, all motions and pleadings filed prior to the consolidation will be 

identified by the Complainant's names rather than the original document number. 

Complainants omitted from the Record as exhibits or evidence a significant number of 

letters referenced by the Complainants in their Complaints that were written by 

Termessee Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division (TN DOT) persormel and 

various persormel within the FAA. In accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 16.29, the agency 

requested "additional oral and documentary evidence" and added some of the pertinent 

documents referenced in the record. [See, FAA Exhibit 1, Items 16-19] 

The background of the two Complaints is set out in four sections below, each of which 

describes the history of the relationships among the parties and the issues alleged in their 

pleadings. The fifth section documents the Procedural History of the Complaints and 

their consolidation under FAA Docket 16-08-12. 

1. Runway Line of Sight (LOS) Issue 

Complainants Keyes and Ferrell allege Respondent violated Grant Assurance 19, 

Operation and Maintenance, when it knowingly allowed a nmway extension project to 

proceed with known design flaws. 

In 2005, McMinn County began construction on a runway extension project that 

lengthened its only nmway from 5,000 feet to 6,450 feet and included an extended 

parallel taxiway. This project was ftinded with more than $2.6 million from the FAA's 

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and the State of Termessee.'' [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 

In 1996, the State of Tennessee began participating in the FAA's State Block Grant Program. In 

accordance with Title 49 U.S.C. §47128 and 14 CFR Part 156, a state participating in the FAA's State 

Block Grant program "shall use monies distributed pursuant to a State block grant agreement for airport 

development and airport planning, for airport noise compatibility planning, or to carry out airport noise 

compatibility programs, in accordance with the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as 

amended." (14 CFR § 156.4(a)) 
24] In addition to the runway extension, part of this fiinding included the installation and 

activation of new runway approach lighting systems- Precision Approach Path Indicators 

(PAPls) - for runways 2 and 20; and edge lighting for the extended runway and parallel 

taxiway. 

The runway extension project was completed in November 2005. However, a large 

hump in the runway caused an obstructed view on the northern end of the extended 

runway; thus, one could not see the ends of the runways from either side. As noted by 

TN DOT [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12, Exhibit 7], this obstruction did not comply with FAA 

Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, "Airport Design," Section 503 (a), which states: 

An acceptable runway profile permits any two points five feet (1.5 m) above the 

runway centerline to be mutually visible for the entire runway length. However, if 

the runway has a full length parallel taxiway, the runway profile may be such that 

an unobstructed line of sight will exist from any point five feet (1.5 m) above the 

runway centerline to any other point five feet (1.5 m) above the runway centerline 

for one-half the runway length. 

Both Complainants describe how Mr. Kermy Witt^ brought the line of sight issue to the 

attention of the McMirm County Mayor's office, TN DOT, and the local media. Mr. Witt 

also notified the FAA in a letter to the Nashville Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), 

dated November 26, 2005. On November 28, 2005, Complainant Keyes telephoned the 

FAA's Office of Airports, Safety and Standards Branch (AAS-100) in Washington, DC, 

to advise the agency that the recent runway extension project resulted in a "line of sight 

problem," and that there recently had been "an undocumented near miss since the 

completion of the runway extension." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 16] That same day, the FAA 

responded to the allegations by writing a letter to TN DOT, advising "the recent extended 

portion of the runway should remain closed until the (Section 503 (a)) standard can be 

met." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 16] 

On December 1, 2005, TN DOT wrote a letter to the McMirm County Mayor, conveying 

the FAA's reconmiendation to "mark off the runway until the situation could be 

reviewed. TN DOT advised the Mayor a consultant had devised a temporary solution to 

the matter, stating the County could "locate the new runway threshold 650' from the 

North end of the runway... (which) meets the five foot line of sight criteria for the entire 

runway. The marking of this threshold needs to be performed immediately in order to 

eliminate (sic) the potential of a line of sight related incident." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 17] 

According to Complainant Keyes, the County complied with TN DOT's directive, 

marking 650 feet on the north end of the nmway for taxi operations within a week of the 

date on TN DOT's letter.^ [FAA Exhibit 1, Items 1 and 12] Keyes contends the County 

' Mr. Kenny Witt is referenced numerous times by both Complainants in their pleadings. Mr. Witt is not a 

party to this or any other Part 16 Complaint against the Respondent at this time. Complainants state he is a 

certified flight instructor (CFI) who was employed as a contractor by the former FBO until January 2006. 

* In his Complaint, Keyes alleges the markings were implemented on December 8, 2005; however, in his 

Reply, Keyes states the markings were implemented on December 7, 2005. 
only took this action after the media began reporting on the allegations. [FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 1] 

On December 14, 2005, the FAA Memphis Airports District Office (ADO) responded to 

Mr. Witt's letter to the Nashville FSDO dated November 26, 2005. The letter outlines 

TN DOT'S plan to mitigate the line of sight deviation, including displacing the threshold 

on the northern end of the runway by 640'' feet. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 18] 

On December 16, 2005, TN DOT responded to Mr. Witt's letter dated December 9, 2005. 

TN DOT advised Mr. Witt that the threshold markings for a taxiway were in progress or 

recently completed; however, TN DOT stated that, "upon fiirther discussions with the 

FAA, we have decided simply to recommend the temporary closure of the new portion of 

the taxiway until we determine the ultimate solution to the line of sight problem." [FAA 

Exhibit l,Item 19] 

In his Complaint, Keyes alleges that on December 20, 2005, TN DOT contacted the 

McMirm County Airport Manager at that time, Mr. Bill Johnson,^ via telephone to advise 

him that "a revision to the marking plan would be developed." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] 

Keyes fiirther alleges TN DOT told the airport manager that the "parallel taxiway north 

of the connector A-5 be closed in addition to the north 640 feet of the runway." [FAA 

Exhibit I, Item 1] According to Keyes, the County did not amend the markings to 

properly close the designated portion of the runway and parallel taxiway in accordance 

with TN DOT's alleged telephone notification until January 11, 2006, after Mr. Witt took 

the matter to the media again. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

To clarify the timeline, the Director notes that in Keyes' Reply, the Complainant 

incorrectly calculated the timeframe from notification to closure as "approximately six 

weeks ... after Mr. Witt received written notification" from TN DOT of the new plan. 

[FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] As stated by Keyes and noted above, Mr. Witt received written 

notification of the new plan via a letter dated December 16, 2005; this equates to an 

elapsed time of 27 days, which is less than four weeks at best. However, Keyes then 

contends in his Reply that TN DOT did not notify the Respondent of the new plan until 

December 20, 2005 and it was via telephone. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] This equates to 

an elapsed time of 23 days or just over three weeks. 

^ In TN DOT'S letter to the County dated December 1,2005, TN DOT stated the displacement would be 

650 feet. In the FAA's letter to Mr. Witt, the FAA Memphis ADO stated the displacement would be 640 

feet. The 640 foot displacement was also reiterated by TN DOT in its December 16, 2005 letter to Mr. 

Witt. While the 10 foot differential is negligible for the purposes of this Determination, the Director notes 

that, based on the letters from TN DOT and FAA, it appears even the consulting engineers had not agreed 

upon the displacement amount, thereby indicating that when Respondent initially complied with the 

displacement order, it did so based on variables not confirmed until approximately three weeks after the 

initial order was issued. 

' Mr. Bill Johnson was the owner of Athens Air, Inc. until October 2006 at which time he sold his interests 

to Ms. Kristy Gentry-Cox and Mr. Taylor Newman of Athens Air, LLC. Mr. Johnson's FBO interests also 

included a contract with McMinn County to manage the airport. This contract was transferred by County 

Resolution in November 2006 to Athens Air, LLC. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, Exhibit 5] 
The Director surmises Keyes' alleged six week timeframe is referring to the initial 

corrective action plan TN DOT issued in its December 1, 2005 letter to the Respondent; 

however, Keyes himself admitted the original markings were completed within a week of 

notification. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12]. 

Regarding the second corrective action plan timeframe, neither Complainant Keyes nor 

Complainant Ferrell submitted documentary evidence to the Record supporting the claim 

about when or how the Respondent was notified officially in writing of the new plan. 

Complainant Keyes only noted the "marking began" in compliance with the second 

corrective action plan on January 11, 2006. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

Despite these conflicting and undocumented statements, for the purpose of this 

Determination, the Director will accept the Complainants' suggestion that on or about 

December 20, 2005 Respondent received telephone notification of the new corrective 

action plan for the revised markings, thereby setting the elapsed time between this 

notification and the Respondent's compliance at about three weeks or 23 days. 

In the "Background" section of Keyes' Complaint, on which he further elaborates in his 

Reply, Keyes alleges the Respondent violated "the Terms and Conditions of Accepting 

Airport Improvement Program Grants, II. Certifications (sic), B. Sponsor Certification for 

Project Plans and Specifications," specifically Paragraphs 1 and 9, by allowing the 

runway expansion project to proceed with known deviations from airport design 

standards contained in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

However, Keyes' reference in his Complaint erroneously points to guidance provided by 

the FAA's Southern Region on its Airports website. The Part 16 process addresses 

violations of grant assurances; therefore, the Director will address this allegation within 

his purview and apply Grant Assurance 34 , Policies, Standards, and Specifications, as 

the intended context of the alleged violation. 

In his Complaint, Keyes contends that since the engineers contracted by the Respondent 

alerted the Respondent and TN DOT "of the line of site (sic) problem during a project 

review meeting," the Respondent is in violation of Paragraphs 1 and 9 of the Sponsor 

Certification Form'^ [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

The Respondent acknowledges that the engineers did notify TN DOT and the County of 

the potential line of sight issue; however. Respondent clarifies, and Complainant Keyes 

concurs, that TN DOT still decided to go forward with the project. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 

1; FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9; and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

' Grant Assurance 34 states that a sponsor will "carry out the project in accordance with policies, standards, 

and specifications approved by the Secretary including but not limited to advisory circulars listed in the 

Current FAA Advisory Circulzirs for AIP Projects." The citation provided by Keyes should reference FAA 

Order 5100.38C, commonly referred to as the AIP Handbook, specifically Appendix 25, Standard Sponsor 

Certification Forms, Paragraphs 1 and 9. While this Appendix is not a required document under the State 

Block Program to execute grants, the Director will consider the intent of Grant Assurance 34 overall in 

reviewing the Complainants' allegations. 

'" See also. Footnote 8. The Sponsor Certification Form is found in FAA Order 5100.38C, Appendix 25, 

which the Director has added to the Record. [See, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 20] 
In early 2006, TN DOT, the County, and an engineering firm agreed upon a solution to 

the line of sight deviation issue and in March 2006, a rehabilitation construction project 

commenced with one hundred percent of the funding provided by the State of Tennessee. 

[FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 14] Both Complainants acknowledge 

and the Respondent concurs that the reconstruction project was completed by the end of 

2006 and the line of sight deviation issue was resolved to everyone's satisfaction. [FAA 

Exhibit 1, Item 2, Exhibit 1; FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9; FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12, Exhibit 24; 

and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13] 

2. Allegations of Inoperative NavAids and Lighting; Failure to Issue NOTAMs 

Complainant Keyes alleges the Respondent's failure to operate the Airport's approach 

lighting systems, failure to maintain edge lighting, and failure to issue NOTAMs amount 

to violations of Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance. 

The runway expansion project that commenced in 2005 also included federal fiinding for 

the installation and activation of new runway approach lighting systems, called Precision 

Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs), for both runway ends (02 and 20). Prior to the 

runway expansion project, MMI had a Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASl) system. 

While both systems provide pilots with feedback on their vertical approach to the runway 

(glide slope), the primary difference between the two systems is that a VASl only tells 

pilots if they are too high or too low; the PAPI has additional lights that provide more 

precise feedback on how high or low the aircraft is in relation to the glide slope. Due to 

the PAPI's additional guidance, it is considered to be an upgrade over the standard VASl 

system. 

In or about January 2007, the Airport began using the newly installed PAPI for Runway 

02 and Runway 20. Complainant Keyes alleges and Respondent acknowledges, 

"McMinn County has encountered numerous problems with the new PAPI systems" for 

both runway ends. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 9] 

In October 2007, Complainant Keyes contends he appeared before the McMinn County 

Commission during a regularly scheduled meeting and "publicly asked that someone 

repair the equipment." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] Keyes also alleges "neither the airport 

owner nor the airport manager had ever issued Notams (sic) for equipment, which had 

been out of service for months." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1 ] According to Keyes, a 

NOTAM was issued the next day. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1 ] 

The Respondent does not dispute Keyes' contention that there were extended periods of 

time when the PAPIs were out of service. However, there are conflicting accounts 

regarding when the NOTAMs were issued. Contrary to Complainant Keyes' allegations. 

Respondent alleges, "NOTAMs have been issued during all repairs since the initial 

malfunction." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] Complainant Ferrell did not reference the PAPIs 

in his Complaint. 
Keyes and Respondent agree that the PAPIs for Runways 02 and 20 were in operation at 

the time of the respective filings in this matter. 

In mid to late 2008, Complainant Keyes alleges "the runway threshold lights on the 

northeast end of the runway were damaged and displaced. No attempt has been made to 

repair these units." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] 

Respondent states it contacted the FBO upon receipt of Keyes' Part 16 Complaint; 

according to the Respondent, the FBO stated, "end lights are reported to be neither 

damaged nor displaced." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 9] 

In its Answer to Complainant Keyes, Respondent requested more information regarding 

this allegation as it was not specific, was never mentioned previously, nor was it an issue 

in his Part 13.1 Complaint. 

In his Reply, Keyes alleges edge lights "located on the north end of the runway... had 

been displaced throughout the summer." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] Keyes includes in his 

Reply a digital photograph showing a single lighting fixture in a horizontal position, 

which he alleges was taken on November 6, 2008. Keyes contends "additional displaced 

lighting fixtures were located to the right of the light noted above" in his photograph 

caption. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] Keyes confirms the displaced lighting was "repaired 

some time between (November 6, 2008) and January 1, 2009." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 12] 

3. Allegations of Threats and Vandalism and Denial of Access/Service 

Complainants Keyes and Ferrell allege several acts perpetrated either against them or Mr. 

Kenny Witt, who is not a party to this or any other docketed Part 16 Complaint. They 

contend these alleged acts amount to threats, the commission of an act of vandalism, and 

denial of aeronautical access and service. 

Allegations of Threats and Vandalism 

In the first instance of alleged threats and vandalism. Complainant Keyes claims that on 

December 9,2005, he was "confronted on two separate occasions and threatened with 

physical harm inside the main terminal and in fiill sight of the airport manager.'' At issue 

was the fact that 1 and others needed to 'get quiet about the airport and the line of sight 

issue." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] 

In the second instance. Complainant Keyes provides two varying accounts of a 

conversation to which he was not a party occurring on March 20, 2006. In both accounts, 

Keyes alleges the conversation contained what he deemed a threat towards Mr. Witt and 

towards Keyes' aircraft. In his Complaint, Keyes states: 

" During this time, the now deceased Mr. Bill Johnson was the airport manager and owner of the FBO 

Athens Air, Inc. The FBO interests were sold to Athens Air, LLC, curtently owned by Kristy Gentry-Cox, 

in October 2006 and the airport management contract was transferred to Athens Air, LLC in November 

2006. 

8 
Mr. Nelson'^ suggested to Mr. Witt that should he ever want to return to the 

McMinn County Airport 'he should get quiet.' He further implied that 'others' 

might be inclined to cause problems for Mr. Witt, his students or his aircraft. 

[FAA Exhibit l,Item 1] 

Keyes states Mr. Witt taped this conversation and that the tape was turned over to the 

McMirm County District Attorney; however, Keyes did not submit a copy of this taped 

conversation to the Record nor does he substantiate whether charges were filed or the 

results of any local legal action by the District Attorney. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] 

In the second account of this alleged incident, which Keyes includes in his Reply, Keyes 

no longer alleges Mr. Nelson was the person making the threats; instead he writes: 

Let me be very clear here, I am not suggesting any wrongdoing by Mr. Nelson. 

To the contrary, my recollection of the tape suggested that Mr. Nelson was trying 

to make Mr. Witt aware of potential problems and threats that Mr. Nelson became 

aware of from other individuals. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

In the third and fourth instance of alleged threats and vandalism, Complainants Keyes 

and Ferrell provide varying accounts of what appears to be the same alleged threat and 

the same alleged act of vandalism. 

Keyes' Complaint states that sometime in early April 2007, Complainant Ferrell had 

attempted to rent an aircraft from Athens Air, LLC, to conduct a biermial flight review'"' 

with Mr. Witt as his instructor. Keyes alleges: 

Upon returning to the airport later that day on personal business, Mr. Ferrell was 

approached and then threatened because of his continuing association with Mr. 

Witt. Returning to his truck, he found it had been 'keyed' in the airport parking 

lot. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] 

Complainant Ferrell's statements regarding when these incidents occurred vary from 

Keyes' accounts and within his own accounts. In Ferrell's Open Letter to McMirm 

County, which he included as an exhibit in his Complaint, he alleges that on the day he 

attempted to rent the fraining aircraft he was: 

Threatened by one of the 'in crowd,' that if (Ferrell) wanted to get along and be 

accepted by the pilots at the airport... (Ferrell) had better drop Kenny Witt from 

(his) list of associates or (Ferrell) would no longer be welcome at this airport. 

[FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, Exhibit 1] 

'^ Mr. Charlie Nelson is identified by documents submitted to the record as the President of the Swift 

Museum Foundation, an aircraft association whose offices and museum are located on MMI. 

" A biennial flight review (also known as flight review) is mandated by 14 CFR § 61.56, which requires a 

pilot in command of an aircraft to receive minimum, specified instruction within 24 months of either 

receiving an endorsement from an authorized instructor or receiving another authorized check. 
Unlike Complainant Keyes, who alleged the keying incident occurred that same day, 

Ferrell states in his Complaint that it took place "about three weeks prior to this episode." 

[FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2] 

Respondent clarifies in its Answer to Keyes' Complaint that the alleged "threats" Mr. 

Keyes' recounts in the first two incidents were made by private citizens and not 

employees or contractors of McMirm County. Respondent states: 

Mr. Keyes' allegations concern the behavior of private citizens... and constitute a 

private legal matter and not a violation of federal grant assurances regarding the 

safety of operations and maintenance of the airport. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] 

In its Answer to Ferrell's Complaint regarding the alleged threat against him and the 

alleged keying of Mr. Ferrell's car. Respondent references its original answer to this 

allegation during the Part 13.1 process, stating: 

If Mr. Ferrell's personal property was vandalized in any manner or his health 

threatened in any way, I would strongly recommend and support law enforcement 

to be contacted for proper investigation due to the criminal nature of the 

allegations. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10, Exhibit 1 ] (Emphasis original). 

Complainant Keyes does not provide evidentiary support for any of these alleged 

incidents in either his Complaint or Response. He only states that the Respondent did not 

dispute the allegations regarding his account on December 9, 2005, and then provides a 

slightly different account of his allegations regarding the March 20, 2006 incident. [FAA 

Exhibit 1, Item 12] With regard to the alleged "keying" incident, Keyes' Response only 

references Mr. Ferrell's "open letter." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 12 and Exhibit 1, Item 12, 

Exhibit 24] 

In his Reply, Complainant Ferrell includes a partial reference to the person who allegedly 

threatened him and what the threat entailed, stating: 

After [the attempted rental event], I was out in the parking lot and Mr. Bill 

Johnson's cousin, Ray * (last name unknown) came up to me and said, 'Jack, if 

you continue to associate with Mr. Witt, you will no longer be welcome at this 

airport.' [FAA Exhibit I, Item 13] 

In its Rebuttal, Respondent restates its contention that the alleged keying incident does 

not equate to a violation of its grant assurances and instead reiterates its original position: 

''' According to Ferrell's notes, "Ray" is the cousin of the former FBO owner. Bill Johnson. At the time 

this statement was allegedly made [April 2007], Mr. Johnson already had sold his interests to the new FBO 

ownership and was no longer the airport FBO or management company. Neither "Ray" nor Mr. Johnson 

was an employee or confractor of McMiim County at this time. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2 and FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 10, Exhibit 1] 

10 
[Respondent] offers no additional information on the alleged vehicle keying 

incident... [Respondent] is convinced that it should also have been reported 

immediately to law enforcement for a proper investigation and written report. 

[FAA Exhibit Litem 15] 

Allegations of Denial of Access and Service 

Complaints Keyes and Ferrell allege two separate incidents of denial of access and 

service, one against Mr. Witt and the other against Complainant Ferrell. Both 

Complainants make allegations regarding these incidents that offer varying or undefined 

timelines. 

Complainant Keyes states the first alleged instance of denial of access occurred on 

January 20, 2006 and was directed at Mr. Witt. Keyes alleges Mr. Witt "received a call 

from the Airport Manager'^ severing their relationship and barring Mr. Witt and his 

students access to the training aircraft." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1 ] Mr. Keyes notes he was 

not a party to the alleged telephone conversation. 

Respondent denies that Mr. Witt either was or "is he currently barred from the use of 

McMinn County Airport." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10] Respondent asserts in its Answer 

that, "Mr. Witt, as a licensed pilot or passenger, may fly to or from the McMinn County 

Airport at his pleasure" and also clarifies that Mr. Witt's "service as a private flight 

instructor, in the employment of the former FBO was terminated for reasons the late Mr. 

Johnson is no longer available to confirm or deny." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 9] 

Complainant Ferrell references the same conversation Keyes did, allegedly occurring via 

telephone between Mr. Witt and Mr. Johnson, the owner of the FBO, Athens Air, Inc. at 

this time. According to Ferrell's Complaint, Mr. Johnson allegedly told Mr. Witt, he was 

"barred from the field, and denied access to all training aircraft and training facilities." 

[FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2] Ferrell does not give a date when this alleged statement was 

made; however, based on Ferrell's loose account of events and the correlation to Mr. 

Keyes' account, the Director infers it occurred in early January 2006 as Ferrell alleges 

this denial of access resulted from Mr. Witt going "directly to the McMinn County 

Mayor, John Gentry, requesting they do their job, act on the closure and issue the 

appropriate Notams (sic)." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 2] Ferrell then alleges that after Mayor 

Gentry told Mr. Witt he "would immediately contact the airport operator, Athens Air Inc. 

and get it taken care of... Five minutes later Mr. Witt received (the above referenced) 

call." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2] Based on statements made by Complainant Keyes, the 

second closure took place on or about January 11, 2006. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

" During this time, the now deceased Mr. Bill Johnson was the airport manager and owner of the FBO 

Athens Air, Inc. The FBO interests were sold to Athens Air, LLC, owned by Kristy Gentry-Cox, in 

October 2006. The airport management contract was transferred to Athens Air, LLC, in November 2006, 

approximately 11 months after Mr. Witt was terminated by the former FBO. 

11 
Complainant Keyes also references a conversation between Mr. Witt and Ms. GentryCox'^, to which Keyes was not a party, that allegedly occurred "shortly after final repairs 

were being completed to fix the runway (north portion was still closed)," during which 

Ms. Gentry-Cox told Mr. Witt "he was barred from the airport."'^ [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 

12] 

In its Answer to Ferrell's Complaint, Respondent reiterates its position that Mr. Witt 

"never has been, nor is currently barred from the use of the McMinn County Airport." 

[FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10] Respondent also demanded "written proof of this false claim" 

again denying its veracity. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10] 

In Ferrell's Reply, the Complainant states, "1 have documented it as factual;" however, 

his Reply does not include any supporting documentation. Instead, he recounts the 

attempted rental event, references a third party comment Ferrell admits he heard "minutes 

after the alleged incident occurred," and references a statement'^ Ms. Gentry-Cox 

allegedly made to Ferrell at Church the Sunday following the keying incident. [FAA 

Exhibit l,ltem 13] 

Complainant Keyes' Reply also fails to provide evidence supporting the allegation that 

Mr. Witt may not use the McMinn County Airport. Instead, Keyes references news 

stories that state Mr. Witt was no longer employed by the former FBO as a contract flight 

instructor in 2006 and also states that he based his allegations on "observations and 

conversations (he had) with Mr. Witt directly." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

The second instance of alleged denial of access occurred in April 2007 against 

Complainant Ferrell; however, neither Complainant offers a precise date. 

Prior to this alleged event, in October 2006, Athens Air, LLC became the fixed base 

operator (FBO) at MMI, having purchased the assets of the previous FBO, Athens Air, 

Inc. The sale also led to the transference the airport management agreement in 

November 2006. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 1] 

By April 2007, Complainant Keyes states that Kristy Gentry-Cox, initially co-owner of 

Athens Air, LLC, became the sole owner of the FBO. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item I] 

Complainants Ferrell and Keyes both offer similar accounts of an alleged incident that 

occurred regarding the rental of an aircraft sometime in April 2007. According to the 

Complainants, Ferrell attempted to rent a Cessna 172 from the FBO, Athens Air, LLC, 

'^ As previously noted, Kristy Gentry-Cox is the owner of the curtent FBO, Athens Air, LLC. Ms. GentryCox began operating her FBO in October 2006, when Mr. Bill Johnson, sold his interests to her. At this 

time, McMinn County also approved the transference of the management contract from Johnson's company 

to Gentry-Cox's. Ms. Gentry-Cox also is the cousin of McMiim County Mayor, John Gentry. 

" Based on the evidence submitted to the record, the Director infers this alleged incident occurred in late 

2006. 

'* According to Complainant Ferrell's Reply, Ms. Gentry-Cox allegedly stated, "I love you, God loves you, 

but you are really making it difficult!" [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13] 

12 
for the purpose of conducting his flight review (BFR).'^ Ferrell had asked Mr. Witt to 

perform his flight review in this aircraft. Upon arriving at the Airport, an employee of 

the FBO informed Complainant Ferrell that he could not rent the aircraft since Mr. Witt 

would be conducting the flight review in it and he was not on the FBO's insurance policy 

as an instructor. Complainant Ferrell and Mr. Witt then left the Airport. [FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 1 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, Exhibit 1] 

Respondent denies that it denied access or service to Complainant Ferrell when the FBO 

refused to rent an aircraft to him for his flight review with Mr. Witt as his instructor. In 

an attempt to clarify the business relationship between Mr. Witt and the FBO, 

Respondent editorializes that Mr. Witt's services as a contract employee with the former 

FBO were terminated by Mr. Johnson, the previous FBO owner and airport manager, for 

disputed reasons as noted previously. Respondent states it contacted Athens Air, LLC 

regarding this alleged incident and was told that "Mr. Witt was not listed on their 

insurance policy to fly their planes as he was not one of their contracted employees." 

[FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10] Respondent states and Complainants do not object to the fact 

that Mr. Witt never was an employee of Athens Air, LLC. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10] 

Respondent again denies Mr. Witt may not use the McMiim County Airport and 

requested proof to which Complainant Keyes responds with references to Ferrell's "open 

letter" to McMinn County eind a reiteration of his "observations and conversations with 

Mr. Witt" wherein Witt "felt he had no access to the airport." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

In his Reply, Complainant Ferrell expounds upon his qualifications as a pilot by 

recounting his professional experience, flight hours, ratings, and other airmen privileges 

and concludes by stating, "it seems strange under the above circumstance that I was 

denied rental of the Athens Air, LLC's Cessna 172." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13] Ferrell 

then states what he believes to be "normal procedure" for an FBO to rent an aircraft and 

adds that, "if Mrs. Gentry-Cox had called me at home, and explained to me the 

circunstanes (sic) of why she did not want to rent the aircraft to me, 1 would have 

understood her posifion." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13] 

In its Rebuttals to both Complainants, Respondent repeats its assertion that Mr. Keyes, 

Mr. Witt, and Mr. Ferrell are welcome to use the McMirm County Airport. [FAA Exhibit 

1, Item 14 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15] Respondent also reiterates its understanding of 

the FBO's policy on aircraft rental events and eligibility. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15] 

4. Allegations of Discrimination and Airport Mismanagement 

Complainants Keyes and Ferrell both allege intentional acts of discrimination perpetrated 

against Keyes and Ferrell, precipitated by the FBO's inadequate management of the 

Airport, resulted in the Respondent violating Grant Assurance 22, Economic 

Nondiscrimination. Additionally, Complainants allege the Respondent's lack of 

oversight regarding the FBO's management of the Airport's adminisfrative functions 

resulted in violations of Grant Assurance 22 and Grant Assurance 19, Operation and 

Maintenance. 

" See Footnote 12 for an explanation of biennial flight review (also known as flight review). 

13 
Hangar Waiting List 

In the first alleged act of discrimination. Complainants state Keyes was not awarded 

rental of a hangar in accordance with his place on the hangar waiting list. 

In 1998, the Airport erected two sets often (10) new t-hangars. With the addition of 

these twenty (20) new hangars, the Airport had a total of thirty (30) t-hangars; the oldest 

ten (10) of which were leased out by the FBO as a source of base level revenue, while the 

twenty new hangars were leased directly by the County. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] 

Complainant Keyes contends he was placed on a t-hangar waiting list at the Airport on 

May 30, 2004 by the former FBO owner and airport manager. Bill Johnson. [FAA 

Exhibit I, Item 12, Exhibit 25] 

The Respondent does not object to the claim that Keyes was on a waiting list for a thangar at the Airport. In its Answer to Keyes' Complaint, Respondent states the waiting 

list for the County operated t-hangars had been maintained by the Mayor's Assistant but 

at some point prior to October 2006, the Mayor's Assistant allegedly transferred the list 

to the former FBO owner, Mr. Johnson for maintenance. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] There 

is no statement of clarity regarding precisely when this occurred or if the FBO was given 

instructions on how to assign available hangars from the County's waiting list in 

combination with Mr. Johnson's waiting list. 

When Mr. Johnson sold his FBO and airport management interests to Athens Air, LLC in 

October 2006, Respondent asserts Mr. Johnson and the new FBO owners met to confer 

on the status of the FBO's list. Respondent alleges the FBO's hangar waiting list was not 

organized at that time, contending Mr. Johnson kept most of it by memory. [FAA Exhibit 

I, Item 9] Mr. Johnson since passed away. Respondent states that the new FBO 

management placed Complainant Keyes in the top ten on its waiting list based on the 

conversations held with Mr. Johnson in late 2006. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] 

Sometime in or £iround 2006 and 2007, Keyes states a new set often (10) t-hangars was 

constructed on the Airport. 

On July 5, 2007, Complainant Keyes alleges he "was intentionally passed over for a 

hanger (sic) which had become available," having been on the hangar waiting list since 

May 30, 2004. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] Complainant Ferrell restates Keyes' allegation, 

noting that "the next available hangar (was given) to a pilot (Mr. Steve Dodd) that was 

below Mr. Keyes on the list." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 2] Keyes contends Mr. Dodd notified 

the airport manager that Keyes was ahead of him. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1 ] 

Keyes also alleges he had a conversation with McMinn County Mayor John Gentry and 

FBO Owner, Kristy Gentry-Cox on July 11, 2007 regjirding his place on the hangar 

waiting list. Keyes includes in his Reply excerpts from notes he claims he took during 

this meeting. According to Keyes' account, this meeting concluded with the Mayor and 

14 
Ms. Gentry-Cox telling Complainant Keyes that he will get the next available hangar. 

[FAA Exhibit l,ltem 12] 

Keyes states he formally complained about the issue before the McMinn County Airport 

Committee on July 16, 2007. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] 

Both Complainant Keyes and Complainant Ferrell allege the new FBO owner 

intentionally passed over Keyes on the waiting list due to his involvement in the line of 

sight issue. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, Exhibit 4] 

Respondent denies that Keyes was intentionally passed over or left off the hangar waiting 

list. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10] In its Answer to Keyes' 

Complaint, Respondent admits "some administrative confusion in maintaining the hangar 

waiting list;" however. Respondent contends the new waiting list "is publicly displayed 

in the terminal as additions and deletions occur." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 9] 

Respondent asserts Keyes was offered and accepted a County t-hangar in 2008, before his 

Part 16 Complaint was filed. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 9] 

In his Reply, Keyes acknowledges he was offered a hangar on or about February 29, 

2008 by Mayor Gentry on behalf of the County; however, Complainant maintains the 

Respondent is in violation of Grant Assurance 22(a.) because: 

When the airport manager was confronted with the fact that the individual to 

whom she was offering the hangar (prior to Keyes, Steve Dodd) indicated that he 

was not the next individual on the list, she should have stopped and corrected her 

mistake... and the Airport Committee and County Mayor... should have 

intervened and remained engaged until a satisfactory resolution was reached. 

They did not. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

Email and Event Invitation Lists 

The second instance of alleged discrimination appears to have occurred sometime around 

the summer of 2007 when Complainant Ferrell alleges he was "taken off (Athens Air's) 

E-mail list, not invited to any airport public functions, including monthly safety meetings, 

along with Mr. Witt and Mr. Keyes." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2] Ferrell also alleges that 

because this is Ms. Gentry-Cox's "first management job," the Respondent "should have 

given her strict guidelines of how to operate a public facility when she assumed the 

contract to manage the MMI airport... in accordance with State and Federal Guidelines." 

[FAA Exhibit I, Item 2, Exhibit 2] 

Respondent denies "there have been any willful acts of discrimination" and requests 

"clarification how these (accusations regarding Ferrell's alleged removal from the FBO's 

email list and invitations to airport fimctions) would violate federal grant assurances." 

[FAA Exhibit I, Item 10] Furthermore, Respondent states the FBO does not sponsor 

monthly safety meetings. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10] 

15 
In his Reply, Ferrell only reiterates his contention that the FBO stopped sending him 

emails after the rental event concerning Mr. Witt. He also states "he has not been inside 

the terminal building at the airport, or received any hint of an apology from Mrs. GentryCox." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13] 

Airport Mismanagement 

In October 2006, when the runway line of sight deviation project was concluding. Bill 

Johnson, owner of Athens Air, Inc., the FBO on the Airport prior to October 2006, sold 

his interests in the business to Kristy Gentry-Cox and Taylor Newman, who formed 

Athens Air, LLC. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, Exhibit 3] In November 2006, the county 

approved transfer of the airport management contract to the new FBO. [FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 9, Exhibit 5] By April 2007, Ms. Gentry-Cox purchased Mr. Newman's interests in 

Athens Air, LLC. These events are uncontested in the record. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

There are unsubstantiated and errant allegations by Complainants that Ms. Gentry-Cox 

and Mr. Newman had prearranged the April 2007 buyout.^" 

After the buyout. Complainants contend Ms. Gentry-Cox was given "complete control of 

the airport" [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] and runs the facility "as 

if it were (her) private Airport." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, Exhibit 2] Complainant Ferrell 

also states that the Respondent "should have given (Ms. Gentry-Cox) strict guidelines on 

how to operate a public facility when she assumed the contact to manage the MMI 

airport." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, Exhibit 2] Complainant Ferrell states the: 

Airport should be managed by a firm that realizes that this is a public facility and 

that all pilots who are in good standing with the FAA should be welcome to come 

and fly in the capacity they are qualified to do so in accordance the FAA 

Regulations^' and not discriminate against any one pilot. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, 

Exhibit 1] 

Regarding the allegations that the Airport should be managed by a firm that abides by 

FAA regulations and be open to the public. Respondent reiterates its assertion that 

Complainants Keyes and Ferrell and Mr. Witt "are welcome to use and enjoy the airport 

without fear of infimidation or retaliation." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 14] Respondent also 

references its progress drafting new airport rules and regulations and minimum standards. 

[FAA Exhibit I, Item 14], as suggested by Complainant Ferrell during the Part 13.1 

process. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 2. Exhibit 2] 

20 

The Director will not investigate allegations that based on third party conversations that amount to 

hearsay or conjecture "being publicly discussed at the airport" and more importantly, that have no 

relevance to this case. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

^' The Director deduces that Ferrell's inference to "fly in the capacity they are qualified to do so" is 

referring to Mr. Witt not being allowed to offer independent flight instruction using the FBO's aircraft. 

The Director addresses the merits of this allegation under Issue #4. 

16 
5. Procedural History 

On March 22, 2008, Complainant Keyes wrote to the TN DOT alleging the Respondent 

violated Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, and Grant Assurance 22, 

Economic Nondiscrimination. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 20] 

On May 19, 2008, Complainant Ferrell contacted the TN DOT alleging the Respondent 

violated Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21 ] 

Respondent provided answers to the allegations of both Complainants. ] Keyes, FAA 

Exhibit 1, Item 9-Ex. 9; Ferrell, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2-Ex. 3] In its answers Respondent 

denied allegations pertaining to maintenance and operations in violation of Grant 

Assurance 19. Respondent also denied allegations pertaining to threats, vandalism, 

denials of access and service, and discrimination ascribed to violations of Grant 

Assurance 22. Respondent denied willfiilly mismanaging the Airport in £iny manner that 

amounted to a violation of its grant assurances; however. Respondent acknowledged it 

needed to improve its airport management practices and offered steps to do so. 

In Ferrell's informal complaint proceedings, TN DOT notified Complainant Ferrell that 

the Mayor agreed to educate the airport conmiittee and management on "certain key 

federal documents relating to (Ferrell's) complaint issues." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, 

Exhibit 3] 

On July 11, 2008, Complainant Ferrell sent a letter to TN DOT expressing his "desire to 

discontinue the informal dispute resolution... and move forward to the formal part 16 

process." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, Exhibit 3] 

On September 16, 2008, Complainant Keyes sent a letter to TN DOT expressing his 

"desire to discontinue the informal dispute resolution... and move forward to the formal 

part 16 process." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, Exhibit 13] 

On December 17, 2008, Complainant Keyes filed his Complaint without Exhibits. [FAA 

Exhibit l,Item 1] 

On December 22, 2008, Complainant Ferrell filed his Complaint with four (4) Exhibits. 

[FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, Exhibits 1-4] 

^^ Title 14 CFR § 16.21(a) states, "Prior to filing a complaint under this part, a person directly and 

substantially affected by the alleged noncompliance shall initiate and engage in good faith efforts to resolve 

the disputed matter informally with those individuals or entities believed responsible for the 

noncompliance. These efforts at informal resolution may include, without limitation, at the parties' expense, 

mediation, arbitration, or the use of a dispute resolution board, or other form of third party assistance." The 

State of Tennessee participates in the FAA's Block Grant Program and assumes the duties associated with 

administering grants and enforcing their applicable Federal Grant Assurances. It also provides the forum 

that allows a complainant to comply with 14 CFR §16.21(a). The Complainants herein began this informal 

process by filing these allegations of violations with the TN DOT. Because the Complainants were unable 

to resolve this matter informally with the TN DOT, they then filed these Complaints under Title 14 CFR 

Part 16. 

17 
On January 16, 2008, the FAA provided Notices of Docketing for both Complaints. 

[FAA Exhibit 1, Items 3 and 4] 

On February 4, 2009, Respondent filed a notice of request for Extensions of Time to file 

its Answer to both Complaints. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5] 

On February 5, 2009, Complaint Keyes' sent a letter to the FAA Office of the Chief 

Counsel objecting to Respondent's request for Extension of Time to file its Answer to 

Complaint. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6] 

On February 6, 2009, the FAA greinted Respondent both requests for Extensions of Time 

to Answer to both Complaints. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8] 

On February 9, 2009, Respondent filed its Answer to Keyes' Complaint and Motion to 

Dismiss with 13 exhibits. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, Exhibits 1-13] 

On February 12, 2009, Respondent filed its Answer to Ferrell's Complaint and Motion to 

Dismiss with 2 exhibits. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10, Exhibit 1] 

On February 16, 2009, Respondent sent a one page document entitled, "Aviation 

Insurance Binder/confirmation of coverage" and a fax cover page stating that this page 

(Exhibit 2) was inadvertently omitted from its answer for docket 16-08-13. [FAA Exhibit 

l,ltem 10, Exhibit 2] 

On February 18, 2009, Complainant Keyes filed his Reply with 40 Exhibits. (In the text 

of his Reply, Keyes references a 41^' and 42"** endnote/exhibit; however, the FAA did not 

receive these exhibits and therefore did not include them in the docket). [FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 12, Exhibits 1-40] 

On February 26, 2009, Respondent filed its Rebuttal to Keyes' Reply. [FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 14] 

On March 2, 2009, Complainant Ferrell filed his Reply with 3 Exhibits. [FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 13, Exhibits 1-3] 

On March 10, 2009, Respondent filed its Rebuttal to Ferrell's Reply with 4 Exhibits. 

[FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, Exhibits 1-4] 

On June 25 2009, the FAA issued an Amended Notice of Docketing, Order to 

Consolidate and Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's Determination. 

This Order and Notice consolidated the originally docketed Complaints (Keyes, 16-08-

12; and Ferrell, 16-08-13) under 16-08-12 and extended the time for the Director to issue 

his Determination until August 28, 2009. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 25] 

18 
IV. ISSUES UNDER INVESTIGATION 

The FAA is responsible for adjudicating airport compliance matters involving Federallyassisted airports arising under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act (AAIA) of 1982, 

as amended; certain airport-related provisions of the Federal Aviation Act of 1994, as 

amended; the Surplus Property Act, as amended; predecessors to those acts; and 

regulations, grant agreements, and documents of conveyance issued or made under those 

acts. [See, FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Proceedings, 14 CFR 

Part 16] 

In accordance with this mandate and with the consolidation of the two Complaints, this 

Director's Determination addresses the following issues: 

ISSUE #1: Whether the Respondent's alleged failure to properly close the Airport 

in accordance with FAA and State directives due to a runway line of 

sight discrepancy constitutes a violation of Grant Assurance #19, 

Operation and Maintenance. 

ISSUE #2: Whether the Respondent's alleged failure to properly certify the plans 

and specifications for the runway extension project, allowing errors and 

omissions in the plans and specifications that were foreseeable at the 

time of project design, violated Grant Assurance #34, Policies, 

Standards, and Specifications? 

ISSUE #3: Whether Respondent violated Grant Assurance 19, Operation and 

Maintenance, when it allegedly failed to maintain "the airport and all 

facilities... at all times in a safe and serviceable condition" by allowing 

the visual approach lighting systems and other lighting systems to be in 

a "state of disrepair" and allegedly failed to promptly notify airmen "of 

any condition affecting aeronautical use of the airport?" 

ISSUE #4: Whether the Respondent's failure to respond to allegations of threats 

and vandalism as well as alleged instances of denial of access and 

service constitute a violation of Grant Assurance 19, Operation and 

Maintenance, and/or a violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic 

Nondiscrimination ? 

ISSUE #5: Whether the Respondent's alleged failure to better regulate its 

FBO/Airport Management contractor and the discriminatory acts 

allegedly perpetrated by the FBO, constitute a violation of Grant 

Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination; and whether the 

Respondent abdication of its rights and authority to the FBO and others 

constitute a violation of Grant Assurance 5? 

19 
V. APPLICABLE LAW AND POLICY 

The Federal role in civil aviation is provided by various legislative actions that authorize 

programs for providing Federal fiinds and other assistance to local communities for the 

development of airport 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 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 of safety and efficiency in airport design, construction, operation, and 

maintenance, as well as ensuring the public fair and reasonable access to the airport. In 

addition to managing the airport in accordance with the grant assurances, ensuring the 

airport operates for the use and benefit of the public is the prime obligation set forth in 

the Federal grant assurances. [See, FAA Order 5190.6A, Section 4-13.a] 

Title 49 U.S.C. § 47101, et seq., provides for Federal airport financial assistance for the 

development of public-use airports under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 

established by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. Title 49 

U.S.C. § 47107, et seq., sets forth assurances to which an airport sponsor agrees as a 

condition of receiving Federal fineincial assistance. Upon acceptance of an AIP grsint, the 

assurances become a binding contractual obligation between the airport sponsor and the 

Federal govenmient. The eissurances made by airport sponsors in AIP grant agreements 

are important factors in maintaining a viable national airport system. The AIP provides 

grants to eligible airport sponsors (recipients of grants are referred to as "sponsors") for 

the plarming and development of public-use airports. Airport sponsors who accept a 

grant offer also accept conditions and obligations associated with the grant assurances. 

These include 39 specifically delineated obligations such as operating and maintaining 

the Airport in a safe and serviceable condition, not granting exclusive rights, mitigating 

hazards to airspace, using airport revenue properly, etc. 

Airport Sponsor Assurances 

As a condition precedent to providing airport development assistance under the Airport 

Improvement Program, 49 U.S.C. § 47107, et seq., the Secretary of Transportation and, 

by extension, the FAA must receive certain assurances from the airport sponsor. Title 49 

U.S.C. § 47107(a) sets forth the statutory sponsorship requirements to which an airport 

sponsor receiving Federal financial assistance must agree. 

The FAA has a statutory mandate to ensure that airport owners comply with these 

sponsor assurances.^^ FAA Order 5190.6a, Airport Compliance Requirements (FAA 

Order 5190.6a) issued on October 2, 1989, provides the policies and procedures to be 

followed by the FAA in carrying out its legislatively mandated functions related to 

Federally obligated airport owners' compliance with their sponsor assurances. The FAA 

^^ See, e.g. the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended and recodified, Title 49 U.S.C. §§ 40101,40113, 

40114, 46104, 46105, 46106,46110; and the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended 

and recodified. Title 49 U.S.C. §§ 47105(d), 47106(d), 47107(k), 47107(1), 47111(d), 47122 

20 
considers it inappropriate to provide Federal assistance for improvement to airports 

where the benefits of such improvements will not be ftilly realized due to inherent 

restrictions on aeronautical activities. The grant assurances relevant to the issues raised 

in the Complaint are the following: 

Grant Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers 

Grant Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers, implements the provisions of the 

Airport and Airway Improvement Act (AAIA), 49 U.S.C. Section 47107(a), et seq., and 

requires, in pertinent part, that the sponsor of a Federally obligated airport: 

...will not take or permit any action which would operate to deprive it of any of 

the rights and powers necessary to perform any or all of the terms, conditions, 

and assurances in the grant agreement without the written approval of the 

Secretary, and will act promptly to acquire, extinguish or modify any outstanding 

rights or claims of right of others which would interfere with such performance by 

the sponsor. 

Furthermore, Grant Assurance 5.f states: 

If an arrangement is made for management and operation of the airport by any 

agency or person other than the sponsor or an employee of the sponsor, the 

sponsor will reserve sufficient rights and authority to insure that the airport will 

be operated and maintained in accordance with Title 49, United States Code, the 

regulations and the terms, conditions and assurances in the grant agreement and 

shall insure that such arrangement also requires compliance therewith. 

FAA Order 5190.6a provides additional guidance on handling airport management 

agreements wherein sponsors contract with private entities to maintain the airport and 

manage administrative fiancfions. Specifically, Section 6-5.c(l.) addresses a sponsor's 

duty to uphold its grant obligations in any agreement executed with a private party. This 

section states, in part, that the entity to which the sponsor enters into a management 

agreement: 

specifically agrees to operate the airport for the use and benefit of the public, to 

make available all airport facilities and services to the public on fair and 

reasonable terms and without discrimination; to provide space on the airport, to 

the extent available; and to grant rights and privileges for use of the landing 

facilities of the airport to all qualified persons, firms and corporation designing 

to conduct aeronautical operations on the airport. [FAA Order 5190.61, Section 

6-5.c.(l)] 

21 
Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination 

The owner of an airport developed with Federal assistance is required to operate the 

airport for the use and benefit of the public. Grant Assurance 22, Economic 

Nondiscrimination, deals with both the reasonableness of airport access and the 

prohibition of adopting unjustly discriminatory conditions as a potential for limiting 

access. Grant Assurance 22 of the prescribed sponsor assurances implements the 

provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(1) through (6), and requires, in pertinent parts: 

a. (The airport owner/sponsor) will make the airport available as an airport for 

public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, 

kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical 

activities offering services to the public at the airport. 

b. In any agreement, contract, lease or other arrangement under which a right or 

privilege at the airport is granted to any person, firm, or corporation to conduct 

or engage in any aeronautical activity for furnishing services to the public at the 

airport, the sponsor will insert and enforce provisions requiring the contractor to 

i. Furnish said services on a reasonable, and not unjustly 

discriminatory, basis to all users thereof and 

ii. Charge reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, prices for 

each unit or service, provided that the contractor may be allowed 

to make reasonable and nondiscriminatory discounts, rebates, or 

other similar types of price reductions to volume purchases. 

h. (The airport owner/sponsor) may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly 

discriminatory, conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be 

necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport. 

i. The sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical use 

of the airport as such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or 

necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public. 

Subsection (h) qualifies subsection (a) and subsection (i) represents an exception to 

subsection (a) to permit the sponsor to exercise control of the airport sufficient to 

preclude unsafe and inefficient conditions that would be detrimental to the civil aviation 

needs of the public. 

In all cases involving restrictions on airport use imposed by airport owners for safety and 

efficiency reasons, the FAA will make the final determination on the reasonableness of 

such restrictions when those restrictions deny or limit access to, or use of, the airport. 

[See, FAA Order 5190.6a, par. 4-8a.(l)] 

23 
Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance 

Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, implements the provisions of the 

AAIA, 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(7), and requires, in pertinent part, that the sponsor of a 

Federally-obligated airport assure: 

"a. The airport and all facilities which are necessary to serve the 

aeronautical users of the airport, other than facilities owned or controlled 

by the United States, shall be operated at all times in a safe and 

serviceable condition and in accordance with the minimum standards as 

may be required or prescribed by applicable Federal, state, and local 

agencies for maintenance and operation. It will not cause or permit any 

activity or action thereon which would interfere with its use for airport 

purposes. It will suitably operate and maintain the airport and all 

facilities thereon or connected therewith, with due regard to climatic and 

flood conditions. Any proposal to temporarily close the airport for nonaeronautical purposes must first be approved by the Secretary. In 

furtherance of this assurance, the sponsor will have in effect arrangements 

for: 

(1) Operating the airport's aeronautical facilities whenever 

required; 

(2) Promptly marking and lighting hazards resulting from 

airport conditions, including temporary conditions; and, 

(3) Promptly notifying airmen of any condition affecting 

aeronautical use of the airport. 

Nothing contained herein shall be construed to require that the airport be 

operated for aeronautical use during temporary periods when snow, flood, 

or other climatic conditions interfere with such operation and 

maintenance. Further, nothing herein shall be construed as requiring the 

maintenance, repair, restoration, or replacement of any structure or 

facility which is substantially damaged or destroyed due to an act of God 

or other condition or circumstance beyond the control of the sponsor. 

Additionally, FAA Order 5190.6a provides that the owner should adopt and enforce 

adequate rules, regulations, or ordinances as necessary to ensure safety and efficiency of 

flight operations and to protect the public using the airport. In fact, the prime 

requirement for local regulations is to control the use of the airport in a marmer that will 

eliminate hzizards to aircraft and to people on the ground. As in the operation of any 

public service facility, FAA advises airport sponsors to establish adequate rules covering, 

inter alia, vehicular traffic, sanitation, security, crowd control, access to certain areas, 

and fire protection. [See, FAA Order 5190.6a, Section 4-7(b)] 

22 
Grant Assurance 34, Policies, Standards, and Specifications 

Grant Assurance 34 ascribes general Airport Improvement Program (AIP) standards, 

including the incorporation of certain advisories circulars, to the Grant Assurance 

Program. Specifically, it states a sponsor: 

...will carry out the project in accordance with policies, standards, and 

specifications approved by the Secretary including but not limited to the advisory 

circulars listed in the Current FAA Advisory Circulars for AIP projects, dated 

and included in this grant, and in accordance with applicable state 

policies, standards, and specifications approved by the Secretary. 

The FAA Airport Compliance Program 

The FAA discharges its responsibility for ensuring that airport sponsors comply with 

their Federal obligations through its Airport Compliance Program. Sponsor obligations 

are the basis for the FAA's airport compliance effort. The airport owner accepts these 

obligations when receiving Federal grant funds or when accepting the transfer of Federal 

property for airport purposes. The FAA incorporates these obligations in grant 

agreements and instruments of conveyance to protect the public's interest in civil aviation 

and to ensure compliance with Federal laws. 

The FAA designed the Airport Compliance Program to ensure the availability of a 

national system of safe and properly maintained public-use airports that airport sponsors 

operate in a marmer consistent with their Federal obligations and the public's investment 

in civil aviation. The Airport Compliance Program does not control or direct the 

operation of airports. Rather, it monitors the administration of the valuable rights that 

airport sponsors pledge to the people of the United States in exchange for monetary 

grants and donations of Federal property to ensure that airport sponsors serve the public 

interest. 

FAA Order 5190.6a, Airport Compliance Requirements, dated October 2, 1989, sets forth 

policies and procedures for the FAA Airport Compliance Program. The Order is not 

regulatory and is not controlling with regard to airport sponsor conduct. Rather, it 

establishes the policies and procedures to be followed by FAA personnel in interpreting 

and administering the various continuing commitments airport owners make to the 

United States as a condition for receiving Federal funds or Federal property for airport 

purposes. The Order, inter alia, analyzes the various obligations set forth in the standard 

airport sponsor assurances, addresses the application of the assurances in the operation of 

public-use airports, and facilitates the interpretation of grant assurances by FAA 

persormel. 

The FAA Compliance Program is designed to achieve voluntary compliance with Federal 

obligations accepted by owners and/or operators of public-use airports developed with 

F AA-administered assistance. Therefore, in addressing allegations of non-compliance, 

the FAA will make a determination of whether an airport sponsor currently is in 

24 
compliance with the applicable Federal obligations. Consequently, the FAA will 

consider the successfial action by the airport to cure any alleged or potential past violation 

of an applicable Federal obligation to be grounds for dismissal of such allegation. [See, 

Wilson Air Center v. Memphis and Shelby County Airport Authority, FAA Docket 16-

99-10 (Director's Determination Issued August 2, 2000) (Final Agency Decision Issued 

August 30, 2001); upheld in Wilson Air Center, LLC v. FAA, 372 F.3d 807 (C.A. 6, June 

23, 2004)] 

Enforcement of Airport Sponsor Assurances 

Enforcement procedures regarding airport compliance matters may be found at FAA 

Rules of Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, (14 CFR Part 

16). These procedures were published in the Federal Register (61 FR 53998, October 16, 

1996) and became effective December 16, 1996. 

The Complaint and Appeal Process 

Pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.23, a person directly and substantially affected by any alleged 

noncompliance may file a complaint with the FAA. The complainant(s) shall provide a 

concise but complete statement of the facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation. 

The complaint(s) shall also describe how the complainant(s) directly and substantially 

has/have been affected by the things done or omitted by the respondent(s). [See, 14 CFR 

§ l6.23(b)(3-4)] 

If, based on the pleadings, there appears to be a reasonable basis for further investigation, 

the FAA will investigate the subject matter of the Complaint. In rendering its initial 

determination, the FAA may rely entirely on the Complaint and the responsive pleadings 

provided. Each party shall file documents that it considers sufficient to present all 

relevant facts and arguments necessary for the FAA to determine whether the sponsor is 

in compliance. [See, 14 CFR § 16.29] 

The proponent of a motion, request, or order has the burden of proof. A party who has 

asserted an affirmative defense has the burden of proving the affirmative defense. This 

standard burden of proof is consistent with the Adminisfrative Procedures Act (APA) and 

Federal case law. The APA provision [See, 5 U.S.C. § 556(d)] states, "(e)xcept as 

otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof." 

[See also. Director, Office Worker's Compensation Programs, Department of Labor v. 

Greenwich Colleries, 512 US 267, 272 (1994) and Air Canada et al. v. Department of 

Transportation. 148 F3d 1142, 1155 (DC Cir, 1998)] Title 14 CFR § 16.229(b) is 

consistent wdth 14 CFR §16.23, which requires the Complainant to submit all documents 

then available to support his or her complaint. Similarly, 14 CFR § 16.29 states that, 

"(e)ach party shall file documents that it considers sufficient to present all relevant facts 

and arguments necessary for the FAA to determine whether the sponsor is in 

compliance." 

25 
Title 14 CFR § 16.31(b-d), in pertinent parts, provides that "(t)he Director's 

determination will set forth a concise explanation of the factual and legal basis for the 

Director's determination on each claim made by the complainant. A party adversely 

affected by the Director's determination may appeal the initial determination to the 

Associate Administrator as provided in §16.33." In accordance with 14 CFR § 16.33(b) 

and (e), upon issuance of a Director's determination, "a party adversely affected by the 

Director's determination may file, an appeal with the Associate Administrator within 30 

days after the date of service of the initial determination;" however, "(i)f no appeal is 

filed within the time period specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Director's 

determination becomes the final decision and order of the FAA without fiirther action. A 

Director's determination that becomes final because there is no administrative appeal is 

not judicially reviewable." 

Title 14 CFR § 16.247(a) defines procedural recourse for judicial review of the Associate 

Administrator's final decision and order, as provided in 49 U.S.C. § 46110 or section 

519(b)(4) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, (AAIA), 49 

U.S.C. § 47106(d) and 47111(d). 

VI. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 

Prior to analyzing and discussing the pertinent issues in this case, it is relevant to restate 

that the FAA's Office of Airports reviews matters pertaining to a sponsor's compliance 

with its Federal grant assurance agreements. [See, 14 CFR § 16.1] The agency does not 

replace or act on behalf of local law enforcement, civil courts, or other legal fora outside 

the scope of the FAA's Part 16 purview. 

The central focus of this Complaint revolves around allegations of maintenance and 

operational deficiencies on the part of the sponsor with regard to a line of sight deviation 

resulting from a runway extension project completed in 2005. Additionally, 

Complainants allege they, and another person not a party to either complaint, have been 

subjected to subsequent threats, vandalism, denial of access, and discrimination. 

Based upon the facts as alleged, the Director finds that it would be appropriate to 

consider whether the sponsor is in compliance not only with Grant Assurances 19 and 22, 

as alleged by Complainants, but also Grant Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers, 

and Grant Assurance 34, Policies, Standards, and Specifications. The findings for each 

issue are based on the Respondent's obligations under its Federal grant assurances, 

applicable law, and precedent. 

ISSUE #1: Whether the Respondent's alleged failure to properly close the Airport 

in accordance with FAA and State directives due to a runway line of 

sight discrepancy constitutes a violation of Grant Assurance #19, 

Operation and Maintenance. 

26 
Line of Sight Deviation 

After the completion of the original runway expansion project in November 2005, 

Complainants Keyes and Ferrell and another pilot, Mr. Kenny Witt, noticed there was a 

hump in the pavement that prevented pilots from being able to see the opposite ends of 

the runway. This hump exceeded recommendations outlined in FAA Advisory Circular 

150/5300-13, which states an "unobstructed line of sight will exist from any point five 

feet (1.5 m) above the runway centerline to any other point five feet (1.5 m) above the 

runway centerline for one-half the runway length." [See, FAA Advisory Circular 

150/5300-13 503(a)] After the FAA was notified and the situation was reviewed, FAA 

and TN DOT began working with the Respondent to appropriately mark portions of the 

runway closed. 

Complainants allege the Respondent's did not act quickly enough to mark off the affected 

portions of the runway and taxiway in violation of Grant Assurance 19, Operation and 

Maintenance, by "failing to act to ensure the airport and all facilities are operated at all 

times in a safe and serviceable condition." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2] 

Respondent contends "delays only occurred when the drawings for the runway and 

taxiway closing markings had to be submitted, approved and ultimately executed." [FAA 

Exhibit 1, Item 10] Ultimately, the Respondent does clearly state that the Complainants' 

line of sight comments were "factual" and that "corrective action" was taken [FAA 

Exhibit I, Item 9]. 

According to Complainant Keyes, corrective action based on the original directive, issued 

in a letter from TN DOT on December 1, 2005, was taken within a week. [FAA Exhibit 

1, Item 12 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] 

A second corrective action plan was issued but the date it officially was issued is not 

clear. However, the Director will accept Complainant Keyes' contention that the airport 

manager at the time, Mr. Bill Johnson, was notified by telephone on December 20, 2005 

of the second corrective action plan. [FAA Exhibit I, Item I] Keyes states "final 

markings began on January 11, 2006" in accordance wdth the second plan. [FAA Exhibit 

1, Item 12] 

The Director is satisfied that the Respondent acted reasonably due to the fact that 

consultants needed to be engaged in two corrective plans over the holiday season. 

Furthermore, the Director notes that as late as December 16, 2005, TN DOT, the FAA, 

and engineering consultants still had not reached consensus with regard to the final plan's 

markings. On December 1, 2005, TN DOT told the County 650 feet would have to be 

marked unusable; on December 14, 2005, FAA told Mr. Witt 640 feet would have to be 

marked unusable; then on December 16, 2006, TN DOT adopted the FAA's 

measurements citing 640 feet to be marked unusable. 

Moreover, the Director notes that all parties acknowledge in their pleadings that in early 

2006, TN DOT, the Respondent, and an engineering firm agreed upon a solution to the 

27 
line of sight deviation issue. Both Complainants acknowledge and the Respondent 

concurs that the reconstruction project was completed by the end of 2006,^ thereby 

resolving the line of sight deviation issue. 

Conclusion 

The evidence submitted to the record, including statements by both Complainants and the 

Respondent, clearly show that the line of sight deviation was fixed in 2006 and the 

remediated runway now is compliant with FAA Airport Design Line of Sight Standards 

per Advisory Circular 150/5300-13. 

The Part 16 process is not intended to be a punitive avenue for past violations; instead, it 

is intended to allow the FAA to correct current non-compliance. [Roadhouse Aviation v. 

City of Tulsa and Tulsa Airport Improvement Trust. FAA Docket No. 16-05-08 

(Director's Determination issued December 14, 2006)] The FAA makes determinations 

regarding current compliance. [See, Wilson at p.4.] The Part 16 process "does not 

penalize sponsors for past compliance violations that it subsequently cured or is in the 

process of curing." [Goodrich Pilot Training Center, LLC, and Aviation Management 

Group. LLC v. Village of Endicott, New York, FAA Docket No. 16-08-03 (Director's 

Determination issued April 3, 2009)] 

Summary of Issue #1 Findings 

Based on the intent of the Part 16 process and the facts submitted to the record, the 

Director finds the Respondent is not in violation of Grant Assurance #19, Operation and 

Maintenance, because: 

• The line of sight deviation has been cured as acknowledged by both Complainants 

and Respondent. 

^* As noted in the Background Section of this Complaint, Complainant Keyes references a possible 

violation of "the Terms and Conditions of Accepting Airport Improvement Program Grants, II. 

Certifications, B. Sponsor Certification for Project Plans and Specifications," specifically Paragraphs 1 and 

9 [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12], when the Respondent "knowingly built the airport out of compliance" during 

the initial runway expansion project. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item I] Keyes suggests this incident makes the 

Respondent ineligible for future grants due to the line of sight deviation issue. The Director will address 

the sponsor assurance aspect of this allegation under Issue #2, as a potential violation of Grant Assurance 

34. However, the Director wishes to clarify the intent and purview of the Part 16 process as it pertains to 

allegations of Sponsor Certification for Project Plans and Specifications. Title 14 CFR Part 16 governs all 

proceedings involving Federally-assisted airports under the authority of the assurances contained in grantin-aid agreements issued under the AAIA. Allegations of non-compliance with Sponsor Certification for 

Project Plans and Specifications fall under 49 CFR Part 18. Although Grant Assurance #1, General Federal 

Requirements, requires compliance with 49 CFR Part 18, "it should be emphasized that the inclusion of 

Part 18 in Grant Assurance #1 is to provide the Federal government with the ability to withhold future 

grants from sponsors that have violated Federal law or regulation to provide incentive for the sponsor to 

take corrective action." [Yager & Associations v. Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority. FAA Docket 16-

97-08, Directors Determination (April 23, 1998)] In light of the fact that the Respondent voluntarily cured 

the line of sight deviation without additional Federal AIP funds, the Director finds the Respondent is not in 

violation of Grant Assurance #1. Should Complainant Keyes wish to pursue Part 18 enforcement action, he 

may do so in accordance with 49 CFR §18.43. 

28 
ISSUE #2: Whether the Respondent's alleged failure to properly certify the plans 

and specifications for the runway extension project, allowing errors and 

omissions in the plans and specifications that were foreseeable at the 

time of project design, violated Grant Assurance #34, Policies, 

Standards, and Specifications. 

Violation of Sponsor Certification Forms 

In the Background sections of his Complaint and Reply, Complainant Keyes alleges 

"because McMinn County was aware of the line of sight deficiency prior to actual 

construction... (the Respondent) knowingly built the airport out of compliance" [FAA 

Exhibit 1, Item 1] and thereby violated two paragraphs of a guiding document on Grant 

Assurances, posted on the FAA Southern Region's Airports website. The Director 

believes Keyes' allegation, in the context and purview of a Part 16 Complaint, more 

appropriately falls under Grant Assurance 34; thus, the Director will address this 

allegation in this context as well as reference Appendix 25 of FAA Order 5100.3 8C, 

Standard Sponsor Certification Forms [See, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 22], which appears to be 

the basis for the guiding document Complainant Keyes erroneously cited. 

The paragraphs in the guiding documents Keyes cites reference corresponding paragraphs 

of the Standard Sponsors Certification Forms, specifically Paragraph 1, which states 

sponsors must certify: 

The plans and specifications were (will be) prepared in accordance with 

applicable Federal standards and requirements, so no deviation or modification 

to standards set forth in the advisory circulars, or State standard, is necessary 

other than those previously approved by the FAA. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 22] 

And Paragraph 9, which states: 

The project was (will be) physically completed without Federal participation in 

costs due to errors and omissions in the plans and specifications that were 

foreseeable at the time of project design. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 22] 

Grant Assurance 34, Policies, Standards, and Specifications, addresses a sponsor's 

responsibilities for ensuring grant projects are carried out "in accordance with policies, 

standards, and specifications approved by the Secretary," and incorporates Advisory 

Circulars related to AIP projects including FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, "Airport 

Design." [See, FAA Airport Sponsor Assurances'^^] 

Complainant Keyes asserts and Respondent acknowledges the runway extension was not 

completed according to the design standards outlined in AC 150/5300-13. [FAA Exhibit 

1, Item 12 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] Complainant Keyes acknowledges: 

^' FAA Airport Sponsor Assurances may be found at 

http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/media/airport sponsor_assurances.pdf 

29 
• TN DOT and Respondent were made aware "of the line of site (sic) problem 

during a project review meeting, which took place on January 9, 2003 [FAA 

Exhibit Litem 12]; 

• TN DOT "personnel decided to go ahead with the project" [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 

12]; and 

• TN DOT personnel "publicly accepted responsibility for the line of sight 

problem" after the project was completed [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1]; 

Keyes fiirther contends that Respondent "was aware of the line of sight deficiency prior 

to actual construction" and that Mayor Gentry, representing the Respondent "as owner of 

the airport" was the only responsible party for requesting grant fiinding. [FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 1] Therefore, despite his acknowledgements regarding TN DOT's direction to 

proceed with the project, Keyes alleges Respondent violated its grant assurances^^, when 

Respondent applied for AIP fiinding having foreknowledge of the runway line of sight 

deviation issue. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

Respondent agrees with Complainant Keyes' allegations that TN DOT personnel were 

aware of the line of sight deviation issue and still advised that the runway extension 

project move forward. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] Evidence included in the Record 

supports these statements. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12, Exhibit 1] However, Respondent 

objects to Keyes' contentions that its decision to request AIP fiinding constitutes a 

violation of its grant assurances, stating, "While (Respondent) is technically the owner of 

the airport, we rely heavily on (TN DOT's) fiinding, advice and expertise. We went 

forward with this project on the expert advice of (TN DOT)." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] 

In determining the Respondent's obligations pertaining to AIP fimded projects, the 

Director examines Grant Assurance 34, the State Block Grant Program Agreement 

between Tennessee and the FAA, and the state aeronautical division's guiding 

documents. First, Grant Assurance 34 requires a sponsor to carry out AIP projects "in 

accordance with applicable state policies, standards, and specifications approved by the 

Secretary." [See, FAA Airport Sponsor Assurances^^] FAA Order 5100.38C defines, in 

part, the state's authority under the State Block Grant program, regarding AIP projects: 

Block grant States perform some AIP administrative functions traditionally 

accomplished by the FAA, such as preparation of airport grant information for 

sponsors, reviewing of the sponsor's requests, and accounting for program 

expenditures. [See, FAA Order 5100.38C, Chapter 10, Section 9, Subsection 

1090.b] 

Finally, TN DOT's Aeronautics' Division Sponsors Manual specifically addresses this 

provision, stating: 

^* The Director previously noted that Complainant Keyes' reference to the "Terms and Conditions, II 

Certifications, B - Sponsor Certifications for Project Plans and Specifications" was erroneous and instead 

will analyze this allegation under Grant Assurance 34, which incorporates by reference FAA Order 

5100.38C, Appendix 25. 

" See, Foomote 25. 

30 
Participating in the Federal State Block Grant Program requires the Aeronautics 

Division to implement certain responsibilities previously undertaken by the FAA 

Memphis Airports District Office. [See, Tennessee Aeronautics' Division 

Sponsor's Manual, Section 1-1, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 29] 

Conclusion 

When evaluating if a sponsor is in compliance with its grant assurances, the Director 

considers the reasonableness of a sponsor's actions and its obligation to exercise due 

diligence in assessing its compliant status and posture. In the instant Complaint, 

Complainant Keyes alleges the Respondent violated its grant assurances by intentionally 

allowing the extended runway to be constructed outside of designed standards in 

accordance with direction given by TN DOT. 

Based on the undisputed facts that TN DOT approved the project and advised the 

Respondent to proceed, it is clear the Respondent, the airport sponsor, requested federal 

AIP funding via the State DOT for the runway extension project with known design flaws 

as Complainant Keyes' asserts. Additionally, the facts entered into the record show the 

State of Tennessee participates in the FAA's State Block Grant Program as defined under 

14 CFR Part 156 and codified at 49 U.S.C. § 47128. In accordance with Grant Assurance 

34 and the provisions of the State Block Grant program, the Director refers to FAA Order 

5100.38C, Chapter 2, Section 209(f) to define the state's authority and role in approving 

the project, which states: 

The main difference between the block grant and State sponsorship of airport 

project requirements under Title 49 U.S.C. Section 47105(a)(1)(B) is 

responsibility for project selection. States select airport projects funded by the 

block grants. Under the State sponsorship provision, the FAA selects the projects. 

While the FAA expects its airport sponsors to abide by its grant obligations as well as be 

knowledgeable of the agency's standards regarding airport operations, the Director 

previously has held that, "the issue of whether the (Respondent) acted unreasonably lies 

with the justification for its actions and what the record establishes." [Platinum Aviation 

and Platinum Jet Center BMI v. Bloomington-Normal Airport Authority, Illinois, FAA 

Docket No. 16-06-09 (Director's Determination issued June 4, 2007) (Final Decision and 

Order issued November 28, 2007)] The Director would be remiss to assert that sponsors 

are reasonably expected to know more than airport consultants and state engineers on 

airport design matters. Therefore, the Director carmot equate the Respondent's decision 

to take the expert advice it was given by its approving authority, TN DOT, by virtue of its 

Block Grant State status, to a violation of Grant Assurance 34 or any other assurance. 

The Respondent was reasonable to rely upon the expertise and guidance of TN DOT; it 

should not be penalized for such reliance. 

31 
Summary of Issue #2 Findings 

Based on the undisputed facts entered into the record that TN DOT approved and 

recommended the extension project with the known design flaws [See, FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 12, Exhibit 1], the Director finds the Respondent is not in violation of Grant 

Assurance #34, Policies, Procedures, and Standards, because: 

• The Respondent's actions met the standards of reasonableness and due diligence. 

ISSUE #3: Whether Respondent violated Grant Assurance 19, Operation and 

Maintenance, when it allegedly failed to maintain "the airport and all 

facilities... at all times in a safe and serviceable condition " by allowing 

the visual approach lighting systems and other lighting systems to be in 

a "state of disrepair" and allegedly failed to promptly notify airmen "of 

any condition affecting aeronautical use of the airport?" 

Complainant Keyes alleges the Respondent violated its obligations under Grant 

Assurance 19 to "maintain the airport and all facilities... at all times in a safe and 

serviceable condition" by: 

1. Failing to properly maintain the airport's new visual approach systems (PAPIs); 

2. Failing to repair damaged and displaced runway threshold lights; and 

3. Failing to properly issue NOTAMs regarding the new visual approach systems' 

outages. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 1] 

In his initial Complaint, Complainant Ferrell alleges the Respondent violated Grant 

Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, "by failing to promptly repair inoperative or 

damaged equipment and failed to 'have in effect and enforce arrangements for promptly 

notifying airmen of any condition affecting aeronautical use of the airport." [FAA 

Exhibit Litem 2] 

In its Answer, Respondent notes that Complainant Ferrell "does not offer any specific 

instance... to support this alleged violation." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10] However, 

Respondent assumes the allegation is similar to one lodged by Complainant Keyes 

regarding the "delayed issue of a NOTAM concerning a damaged PAPI light." [FAA 

Exhibit Litem 10]. 

Complainant Ferrell states in his Reply that his Complaint "had no references or 

complaints concerning Notams (sic) or any of the airport facilities." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 

13] 

Although Ferrell's initial Complaint clearly cited "notifying airmen," the Director will 

accept his withdrawal of this claim per his Reply. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13] 

Regarding Complainant Keyes' allegations, the Director will address each instance 

individually to appropriately analyze the facts, timelines, and the Respondent's status of 

compliance with Grant Assurance 19. 

32 
/. Fail ins to properly maintain the airport's new visual approach systems (NA VAIDs) 

Complainant Keyes states that the new runway expansion and subsequent remediation 

project included an upgrade to the Airport's visual approach guidance systems for both 

runway ends (Runway 02 and Runway 20) from Visual Approach Slope Indicators 

(VASls) to more advanced Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs). [FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 1 ] Keyes alleges "the new visual approach systems are unreliable and have been out 

of service for the majority of the time since there (sic) installation" in or about January 

2007. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] Specifically, Keyes alleges "the PAPI for Runway 20 has 

only been functional for a few weeks since it was installed almost two years ago" and 

added that it "was still in a state of disrepair a few weeks ago."^* [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] 

According to Keyes, the PAPI for Runway 02 "was finally repaired a few months ago^^ 

and at last report remains in service today." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] 

Complainant Keyes alleges that because the newly installed PAPIs were "out of service 

for well over a year," the Respondent violated Grant Assurance 19 by failing to maintain 

the equipment "in a serviceable state." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

Respondent denies it purposefully failed to operate or maintain the PAPIs since their 

initial installation. In its Answer, Respondent acknowledges "problems with the system 

operations manifested shortly after complefion of the project." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] 

Respondent also states TN DOT approved Respondent's request for "emergency funding 

to repair the system after McMinn County had a third party contractor look at the system 

and declared the cause of the malfimction to possibly be a lightening strike." [FAA 

Exhibit Litem 9] 

Both Respondent and Complainant Keyes acknowledge the PAPIs currently are 

operational. Respondent states that due to the history of past malfiinctions, the County 

has asked and TN DOT agreed to keep its "emergency fimding request open," and 

another contractor is supposed to evaluate the system again. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] 

2. Failing to properly maintain the airport's other lishtins systems 

Complainant Keyes alleges "the runway threshold lights on the northeast end of the 

runway were damage (sic) and displaced," and "no attempt has been made to repair these 

units." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] According to Keyes, he and his unidentified instructor 

noticed an unspecified number of "displaced lighting fixtures" when they were "flying 

late evenings at the end of spring 2008." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 12] Complainant Keyes 

^' The Director surmises "a few weeks ago" references a time frame approximately within a month 

preceding the December 17, 2008 filing of his Part 16 Complaint, which would be November 2008. 

' The Director surmises "a few months ago" references a time frame approximately 3-4 months preceding 

the December 17, 2008 filing of his Part 16 Complaint, which would be around September or October 

2008. 

33 
acknowledges the lighting units were repaired "some time between (November 2, 2008^*^) 

and January 1, 2009." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

Respondent notes in its Answer that "this is a new allegation not mentioned in Mr. Keyes 

(sic) Part 13 complaint. The FBO has been contacted concerning the allegation and end 

lights are reported to be neither damaged nor displaced." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] The 

Respondent then contends that the FBO responsible for managing the Airport stated, "it is 

not uncommon for mowing crews to push a runway or taxiway light over and they have 

to be straightened, but none were down or inoperable when inspected." [FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 9] 

In his Reply, Complainant Keyes alleges: 

the fact that (the displaced lighting units) were neglected for months, is yet further 

evidence of McMinn County's failure to ensure that the airport is operated at all 

times in a safe and serviceable condition and another violation of the Grant 

Assurance. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

3. Failing to promptly notify airmen "of any condition affecting aeronautical use of the 

airport" (issuinsNOTAMs) 

Complainant Keyes alleges the Respondent failed to issue NOTAMs within a reasonable 

timeframe for inoperative equipment, specifically the PAPIs. As Keyes previously 

stated, "the new visual approach systems are unreliable and have been out of service for 

the majority of the time since there (sic) installation" in or about January 2007. [FAA 

Exhibit 1, Item 1] Keyes cites Grant Assurance 19 in his Complaint, alleging: 

Neither the (Respondent) nor airport manager had ever issued any Notams (sic) 

for (the PAPIs), which had been out of service for months... It is my contention 

that when the airport manager failed to issue the required Notam (sic) within a 

reasonable time, the sponsor (McMinn County), failed to 'have in effect 

arrangements for promptly notifying airmen of any condition affecting the 

aeronautical use of the airport.' [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] 

Respondent denies Complainant Keyes' allegations, stating in its Answer: 

NOTAM's (sic) have been issued during all repairs since the initial malfunction 

and the FBO has been issued Section 3 (c) 7.0 of Volume II of the Airport 

Management Guide, Issuins NOTAMs. to ensure a proper NOTAM is issued when 

conditions affect aeronautical use of the airport. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] 

^'' In his Reply, Keyes inserts a digital photograph in the document under Complaint 3, which he identified 

as Figure 1. This photograph shows an edge light on its side and includes the following notations made by 

Keyes: "McMinn County Airport, November 6, 2008 4:14 p.m. Note: Additional displaced lighting 

fixtures were located to the right of the li^ t noted above but are not visible in this photograph." 

34 
In his Reply, Keyes asserts that the Respondent provided incorrect information regarding 

the issuance of NOTAMs for the PAPIs, stating: 

Mr. Gentry does state that NOTAM's (sic) have been issued during all repairs 

(underline included). This might be true if it refers to the time when actual repair 

activities were being performed. Suggesting that NOTAM's (sic) were issued 

covering all period of time coinciding with equipment outages would be incorrect. 

[FAA Exhibit Litem 12] 

In his Reply, Keyes states the Respondent violated Grant Assurance 19 by not holding 

"the airport management accountable for there (sic) failure" to issue NOTAMs in a 

reasonable timeframe. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] Keyes concludes by making additional 

allegations of noncompliance stating, "Failure to issue NOTAM's has been an ongoing 

problem and it is important to point out this was not an isolated occurrence;" however, he 

does not provide evidence of any alleged occurrence. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] 

Conclusion 

In addition to ensuring an airport is "operated at all times in a safe and serviceable 

condition" from an airport design standard. Grant Assurance 19 also requires sponsors to 

have in effect arrangements for: 

• Operating the airport's aeronautical facilities whenever required; 

• Promptly marking and lighting hazards resulting from airport conditions, 

including temporary conditions; and 

• Promptly notifying airman of any condition affecting aeronautical use of the 

airport. [See, FAA Airport Sponsor Assurances, Assurance 19.a.^'] 

/. Failure to properly maintain the airport's new visual approach systems (NA VAIDs) 

The Respondent does not dispute Complainants Keyes' allegations that the PAPIs were 

inoperative during certain periods of time, but does dispute Keyes' contention that 

Respondent failed to act. The evidence entered into the Record does not support Keyes' 

allegations that the Respondent "failed to act regarding the PAPI's (sic) malfunction." 

[FAA Exhibit I, Item 12] While an inoperative system is not, in itself, grounds for a 

grant assurance violation, the Director could find, under certain circumstances, that a 

violation exists if a sponsor fails to repair an inoperative system in accordance with 

established guidance. FAA Order 5190.6a offers the following guidance regarding 

satisfactory compliance with a sponsor's maintenance obligations: 

The degree of maintenance effort required of an airport owner is a matter of 

professional judgment. Compliance with this maintenance obligation is 

considered satisfactory when the airport owner: 

(a) Fully understands that airport facilities must be kept in a safe and 

serviceable condition; 

^'5ee, foomote 25. 

35 
(b) Has adopted and implemented a sufficiently detailed program of 

cyclical preventive maintenance that in the judgment of FAA is adequate 

to carry out this commitment; and 

(c) Has available the equipment, personnel, funds and other resources 

including contract arrangements to effectively implement such a program. 

[See, FAA Order 5190.6a, Chapter 4, Section 2] 

In this situation, the Complainant failed to enter evidence into the Record contradicting 

Respondent's statements that it has met these three elements of compliance defined in 

FAA Order 5190.6a. First, by working with at least three contractors, the company that 

created the approach lighting system, and TN DOT to fix the PAPIs, Respondent met the 

requirements of elements (a) and (b). In fact, Keyes himself acknowledged, "in actuality 

the problem was contained in the PAPI units themselves." [FAA Exhibit 1, hem 12] 

Furthermore, the Respondent's proactive stance to secure "emergency funding" from TN 

DOT to continue to address the problems with the PAPIs and its outreach to TN DOT 

engineers, various contractors, and the vendor demonstrate the Respondent has taken a 

compliant posture in accordance with the third element of compliance. [FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 9] 

According to the evidence submitted to the Record and the fact that the Complainant 

himself admits the units are flawed, the Director cannot interpret Respondent's actions to 

be non-compliant, particularly in light of the fact, conceded by Complainant, that the 

PAPIs now are operational. In Wilson, the Director held: 

In addressing allegations of noncompliance, the FAA will make a determination 

as to whether an airport sponsor is currently in compliance with the applicable 

federal obligations. The FAA will consider the successful action by the Airport to 

cure any alleged or potential past violation of applicable federal obligation to be 

grounds for dismissal of such allegations. [See, Wilson at p. 4] 

Clearly Respondent's actions resulted in a compliant outcome; therefore, the Director 

finds the Respondent is not currently in violation of Grant Assurance 19 regarding the 

operational status of its visual glide slope guidance approach lighting system. 

2. Failing to properly maintain the airport's other lighting systems 

In addition to the allegations of the PAPI units being inoperable. Complainant Keyes 

stated an unspecified number of "runway threshold lights on the northeast end of the 

runway were damage (sic) and displaced," and "no attempt has been made to repair these 

units." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] In his Reply, Complainant Keyes concedes Respondent 

corrected the damage fixture(s) sometime between the date Keyes filed his Part 16 

Complaint (December 17, 2008) and January I, 2009. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

36 
Grant Assurance 19 requires an airport sponsor to maintain Federally-obligated airports 

in a safe and serviceable condition at all times. This includes ensuring all necessary 

lighting is operational. [See, FAA Order 5190.6a, Chapter 5, Section 5-3] 

In reviewing this allegation, the Director notes that Keyes contends the lighting fixture in 

his November 6, 2008 photograph had been damaged since the spring of 2008. [FAA 

Exhibit 1, Item 12] While there is no evidence in the Record supporting this allegation, if 

it is true, the Director would be concerned with the Respondent's maintenance program. 

An additional concern the Director discerned from the Complaint pertains to 

Complainant's informal resolution conunents. In his Complaint, Keyes contends that he 

"failed to reach a resolution (to his allegations) through the informal Part 13 process." 

[FAA Exhibit 1, Iteml] However, the Director finds that the allegation of inoperafive 

edge lighting fixture(s) was not included in any informal discussions under the informal 

resolution process. In its Answer, Respondent notes "this is a new allegation not 

mentioned in Keyes' Part 13 complaint" and requests more details. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 

9] Complainant fails to substantiate his original contention in his Complaint that he 

"made a good faith effort to resolve this matter informally" as required pursuant to 14 

CFR. § 16.21. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1] However, in accordance with JetAway Aviation 

LLC V. Board of County Commissioners. Montrose County, Colorado. FAA Docket No. 

16-06-01 (Director's Determination issued November 6, 2006), "the Director will 

proceed with deciding the matter now on the merits as submitted by the parties in this 

proceeding." 

Based on the evidence submitted to the Record, the Director is concerned that it may 

have taken Respondent nearly 60 days to correct an inoperative edge lighting fixture, 

assuming Complaint Keyes' photograph from November 6, 2008 is undisputed. 

However, the Director again emphasizes it is interested in current compliance as well as 

the Respondent's behavior in adopting a compliant posture. [Lanier Aviation LLC v. City 

of Gainsville, Georgia: Gainsville Airport Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-05-05 

(Director's Determination issued November 25, 2005)] As Complainant Keyes admits. 

Respondent fixed the displaced lighting fixture once made aware through Keyes' Part 16 

Complaint. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] This is indicative of a compliant attitude. While 

the Director finds the Respondent currently is in compliance with Grant Assurance 19, 

Operation and Maintenance, regarding the operational status of its edge lighting 

fixture(s), the FAA recommends Respondent set and adhere to a more timely schedule for 

self-inspecting the Airport. 

3. Failing to promptly notify airmen "of any condition affecting aeronautical use of the 

airport" (NOTAMs) 

Finally, Complainant Keyes alleges the Respondent violated Grant Assurance 19 by 

failing to issue NOTAMs for the inoperative PAPI units and other unspecified and 

unsupported "occurrence(s)." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] Based on the evidence submitted 

to the Record, the Director cannot determine if NOTAMs for the PAPI or any other 

37 
aeronautical services or repairs were issued in a timely marmer. Complainants Keyes 

states they were not, while Respondent asserts the opposite. 

Title 14 CFR § 16.229(b) states "the proponent of a motion, request, or order has the 

burden of proof" Complainant Keyes failed to meet the burden of proof by clearly 

documenting the Respondent's alleged failure to issue NOTAMs in a timely manner for 

the PAPIs or make any other specific and supported allegations regarding other 

occurrences. Furthermore, Respondent noted in its Answer it has taken the steps 

necessary to ensure NOTAMs are issued properly by supplying the FBO managing the 

Airport with the appropriate guiding documents. Finally, even if Complainant Keyes had 

submitted the appropriate supporting documentation clearly illustrating his claim that 

NOTAMs were not issued in a reasonable timeframe for the PAPIs, Keyes himself admits 

that when he brought the NOTAM issue to the attention of the McMinn County Mayor, 

"the Notam (sic) was issued the next day," thus bringing the Respondent into compliance. 

[FAA Exhibit Litem 1] 

As the Director noted under Issue #1 in this Determination, the Part 16 process is not 

intended to be a punitive means for punishing past violations; instead, it is intended to 

return the sponsor to a state of compliance. [See, Roadhouse.] Furthermore, contrary to 

Complainant Keyes' allegations that the Respondent "offers no corrective actions to 

ensure proper oversight," the Director points to the Respondent's citation of Section 3 (c) 

7.0 of Volume II of the Airport Management Guide, Issuing NOTAMs, which it provided 

to its managing FBO. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] 

Summary of Issue #3 Findings 

Based on the evidence submitted to the Record, the Director finds the Respondent 

currently is in compliance with Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, 

because: 

1. Respondent did make reasonable attempts and take actions to properly maintain 

the Airport's new visual glide slope guidance approach lighting systems, which 

now are operational; 

2. Respondent did address displaced or damaged lighting fixtures, which now are 

fixed, within a reasonable time once brought its attention; and 

3. Respondent did take inunediate action to issue NOTAMs upon initial notification 

and has provided its airport management appropriate guidance for complying with 

the issuance of NOTAMs in the future. 

ISSUE #4: Whether the Respondent's failure to respond to allegations of threats 

and vandalism as well as alleged instances of denial of access and 

service constitute a violation of Grant Assurance 19, Operation and 

Maintenance, and/or a violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic 

Nondiscrimination ? 

Complainants Keyes and Ferrell allege that four instances of threats and vandalism were 

perpetrated against them at the Airport. They contend Respondent's failure to respond to 

38 
these incidents constitutes a violation of Grant Assurance 19 because the Respondent 

failed to "operate the airport in a safe and serviceable condition." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 

1] 

In addition to the threats and vandalism. Complainants also allege two incidents of denial 

of access and service; one perpetrated against Mr. Witt and the second against 

Complainant Ferrell. Neither Complainant Keyes nor Ferrell succinctly state the grant 

assurance or assurances they believe were violated by the Respondent pertaining to these 

alleged incidents. Therefore, the Director will consider these allegations under Grant 

Assurance 22 since it addresses economic discrimination, specifically aeronautical access 

and usage. 

Allegations of Threats and Vandalism 

In his Complaint, Complainant Keyes alleges the Respondent violated Grant Assurance 

19 when he was "confronted on two separate occasions and threatened with physical 

harm inside the main terminal and in fiill sight of the airport manager " on December 9, 

2005 and in another incident he alleges occurred on March 20, 2006. [FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 1] 

In its Answer, Respondent denies it is responsible for the alleged threats on December 9, 

2005, stating, "if this incident did indeed occur... Mr. Keyes' allegations concern the 

behavior of private citizens and not with staff contracted by McMirm County." [FAA 

Exhibit Litem 9]. 

In his Reply, Complainant Keyes did not take the opportunity to provide evidence that 

this incident indeed occurred or was between Airport and/or county staff Keyes did not 

submit any evidence to the record supporting his allegations such as police reports or 

other documentation confirming these incidents. Instead, he attempts to use 

Respondent's words, "if this incident did indeed occur" as evidence, stating: 

Mr. Gentry does not dispute that the incidents of December 9, 2005 occurred. Mr. 

Gentry does not dispute that the incidents of December 9, 2005 took place inside 

the airport building in front ofhis_ Airport Management. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 

12] (Emphasis original). 

Complainant Keyes states the second alleged threat was perpetrated via a conversation he 

contends occurred on March 20, 2006 between Mr. Witt and Mr. Nelson (See, Footnote 

11). Keyes states he heard a tape of this conversation, provided to him by Mr. Witt. 

Describing what he heard on the tape, Complainant Keyes states, "my recollection of the 

tape suggested that Mr. Nelson was trying to make Mr. Witt aware of potential problems 

and threats that Mr. Nelson became aware of from other individuals." [FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 12] Although Keyes initially appeared to suggest Mr. Nelson delivered the threats 

in his Complaint [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1], in his Reply Keyes amends his contention 

" At this time, the airport manager was Mr. Bill Johnson. 

39 
stating Mr. Nelson was not the person making threats. In fact, Keyes himself states, "1 

am not alleging any wrongdoing by Mr. Nelson." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

Again, Respondent contends that these alleged incidents occurred between private 

citizens and should have been reported to local law enforcement officials. Respondent 

maintains they do not constitute "a violation of grant assurances regarding the safety of 

operations and maintenance at the airport." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] Respondent fiirther 

maintains that "McMinn County would never knowingly tolerate the threat of physical 

harm to persons or property at any of our facilities, especially our airport." [FAA Exhibit 

Litem 9] 

Although Keyes notes in his Reply that Mr. Nelson did not commit "any wrongdoing," he 

states "Mr. Nelson having been granted the power to issue NOTAMs by the county 

represents not only the airport but the county in airport matters."^^ [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 

12] 

After Keyes restates his opinion that the Respondent should have intervened rather than 

characterizing the matter as "an incident between two citizens," he contemplates the 

future, adding that the Respondent: 

Should consider themselves indeed fortunate, that at least for now, actions by 

persons, at the airport, have only resulted in open threats, attempts at 

intimidation and some minor property damage. Should these issues escalate to 

the point where aircraft become involved or someone is seriously hurt or killed, I 

believe the defense offered by Mayor Gentry that 'McMinn County challenges the 

assumption that alleged the poor behavior on behalf of private citizens should be 

considered a violation of this grant assurance (19)' would be viewed as 

inadequate. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

Regarding the third alleged threat and instance of alleged vandalism, both Complainants 

appear to cite the same incidents. While the Complainants' accounts do not align, the 

'^ In his Reply, Complainant Keyes suggests "Mr. Nelson having been granted the power to issue 

NOTAM's by the county represents not only the airport but also the county in airport matters." [FAA 

Exhibit 1, Item 12] Complainant Keyes incorrectly concludes that because Mr. Nelson had "authority" to 

issue NOTAMs he therefore had authority to represent the county in matters involving airport sponsor 

assurance obligations. Grant assurances are contracts between the Sponsor and the FAA. Mr. Keyes fails 

to submit any evidence into the record delineating Mr. Nelson's relationship with the County, detailing any 

pay he may receive, identifying any indemnification or insurance the County provides to officials who act 

as a county representative, or any documentation explaining how requesting the FAA to issue a NOTAM is 

tantamount to representing a governmental entity such as McMinn County. Mr. Nelson may be authorized 

to verify NOTAMs in accordance with FAA Order JO 7930.2M, but this is not tantamount to having 

authority to represent the county in all airport matters, particularly in contracts with the Federal 

government. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] In fact, if the county had ceded its powers of representation of the 

Airport to Mr. Nelson, the Director would be investigating the county's possible noncompliance with Grant 

Assurance #5, Preserving Rights and Powers. To the contrary, in its Answer the Respondent describes Mr. 

Nelson as a "private citizen." Therefore, based on the lack of evidence supporting Complainant's 

contention regarding Mr. Nelson's scope of authority, the Director dismisses any inference that Mr. Nelson 

is a county official or representative of any kind. 

40 
Director will reduce the allegations down to their face values and apply the appropriate 

GrEint Assurances to known facts and supported allegations rather than attempt to recreate 

scenarios based on disputed and unsupported statements. 

Summarily, the Director concludes that the third threat, allegedly perpetrated against 

Complainant Ferrell, amounts to Complainants' contentions that Ferrell would not be 

"welcome" at the Airport if he continued to associate with Mr. Witt. [FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 1 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2] 

Regarding the alleged act of vandalism, the Director recognizes Complainants contend 

Ferrell's truck was keyed in the Airport parking lot. The Director does note that the 

Complainants offer varying accounts of this alleged incident in their Complaints. [FAA 

Exhibit 1, Item 1 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2] 

In its Answer to Complainant Keyes' Complaint, Respondent denies it violated its grant 

assurances in any manner pertaining to these alleged acts because it was not a party to 

them. Moreover, Respondent notes that Complainants failed to submit documentary 

evidence supporting these allegations. However, the Respondent recognizes the severity 

of such acts and advises: 

Any pilots or other airport patrons who engage in any illegal or unethical 

behavior will be removed in accordance with the remedies allowed by law. [FAA 

Exhibit I, Item 9] 

Allesations of Denial of Access and Service 

Complainants cite two scenarios wherein they allege Mr. Witt and Mr. Ferrell were 

denied access and service; however, their accounts of these events vary as well. Once 

again, the Director will reduce the allegations to the facts that can be derived from the 

submissions and apply the appropriate Grant Assurance to these allegations since 

Complainants failed to do so. 

In the first instance of alleged denial of access. Complainants contend Mr. Witt was 

"barred" from the McMinn County Airport after he was fired from his contract position 

as a flight instructor with the former FBO in January 2006. [FAA Exhibit I, Item 2 and 

FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] Complainants' appear to equate the following allegations to the 

Respondent denying Mr. Witt aeronautical access to McMinn County Airport: 

• The undisputed fact that Mr. Witt has not been offered a job or contract to flight 

instruct with the current FBO; 

• Complainant Keyes' "observations and conversations... with Mr. Witt" in which 

Mr. Witt "felt" he has no access to the Airport; [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] and 

• Other third party statements relayed as conjecture by Complainants. 

Complainants' statements regarding denial of aeronautical access infer an alleged 

violation of Grant Assurance 22(a), which states: 

41 
(A sponsor) will make the airport available as an airport for public use on 

reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes 

of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering 

services to the public at the airport. [See, FAA Airport Sponsor Assurances'''*] 

In its Answers to both Complaints, Respondent emphatically denies Mr. Witt either was 

or "is currently barred from the use of McMirm County Airport" and demanded "written 

proof of this false claim." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10] While Respondent does not dispute 

Mr. Witt was fired as a contract flight instructor by the former FBO owner, it also notes 

that Mr. Witt has never been employed directly or as a contractor with the current FBO. 

[FAA Exhibit Litem 10] 

In their Replies, neither Complainant provides supporting evidence demonstrating Mr. 

Witt may not take off, land, or otherwise exercise his privileges as a pilot to use the 

McMinn County Airport. They only allege he cannot use the FBO's aircraft to perform 

flight instruction. 

Complainants Keyes and Ferrell both allege the second instance of denial of access and 

service was perpetrated against Mr. Ferrell when he was denied access to the current 

FBO's training aircraft for a flight review with his private instructor, Mr. Witt. 

Ferrell states that because he was the one actually renting the aircraft, there was no basis 

for the FBO to deny him access to its aircraft. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, Exhibit 1 and 

FAA Exhibit l,Item 13] 

Respondent denies Ferrell's allegation equates to a grant assurance violation. First, 

Respondent notes that Ferrell was offered the opportunity to rent the aircraft using an 

FBO employee as his flight instructor and thereby not denied access. [FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 10, Exhibit 1] Respondent then states that it is the FBO's policy is not to allow nonemployee flight instructors to perform instructional activities in their aircraft due to 

insurance reasons. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10] 

Ferrell objects to the FBO's policy as relayed by Respondent, stating that the fact that 

"Mr. Witt was not on their (the FBO's) insurance form (is) irrelevant since Mr. Witt had 

not contracted for the aircraft." [FAA Exhibit I, Item 13] 

Conclusion 

Allegations of Threats and Vandalism 

In evaluating Complainants' allegations, the Director carmot find evidence submitted to 

the Record supporting Complainants' claims. Among the most notable items not 

included in the Record are insurance claims and police reports concerning the allegations 

of criminal behavior or at least, civil misconduct. Simply put. Complainants failed to 

'" See, Footnote 25. 

42 
support their contentions that any of these incidents occurred or that they amounted to 

anything more than a dispute between private citizens as the Respondent contends. 

Keyes suggests that the Respondent's lack of outright denial of his allegations must result 

in the conclusion that he is correct. Such reasoning does not meet the Complainant's 

burden of proof. The Director found in M. Daniel Carey and Cliff Davenport v. AftonLincoln County Municipal Airport Joint Powers Board, FAA Docket No. 16-06-06 

(Director's Determination issued January 19, 2007), Issue 7, that: 

A complainant will not succeed merely because a respondent has failed to refute a 

complainant's allegation. The burden of proof lies with the Complainants. 

Complainants who file under 14 CFR Part 16 shall provide a concise but 

complete statement of the facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation. [See, 

14 CFR § 16.23(b)(3).] Complainants will not be deemed to meet this burden 

simply because they have submitted volumes of pages in exhibits if they have 

failed to explain how the individual exhibits support specific allegations. [See, 

Carey.] 

Regarding the alleged conversation that occurred on March 20, 2006; the Director finds 

that no evidence was submitted to the record detailing the alleged threat and how this 

conversation could amount to the Respondent violating its Grant Assurances. The 

Director reminds Complainants that the sponsor grant assurances' requirement to 

"operate the airport in a safe and serviceable condition" refers to aircraft movement, 

maintenance, and other aeronautical uses; it does not extend to parking lot security or 

personal disputes. 

In light of Keyes' comments that "actions by persons, at the airport, have only resulted in 

... some minor property damage" and "these issues (may have) escalated to a point 

where... someone is seriously hurt or killed," the Director is at a loss as to why Keyes 

and Ferrell failed to pursue law enforcement intervention by filing incident reports, 

insurance claims, or statements/complaints with local law enforcement. [FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 12] Instead, Keyes attempts to lay blame on the County Mayor and Airport 

employees for failing to "follow up on any of the issues raised," regardless of the fact that 

Complainants failed to provide proof of their allegations or even that they amount to 

grant assurance violations. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

The Director concurs with the Respondent's assertion that Keyes should have reported 

the alleged incidents to local law enforcement, as these allegations of threats of physical 

harm and vandalism would be considered state or local criminal matters and not 

adjudicable under Part 16. Citing Kent J. Ashton v. City of Concord, NC, FAA Docket 

16-00-01 (Director's Determination issued October 16, 2000) (Final Agency Decision 

issued April 17, 2001), the Director holds "the FAA's (Part 16) complaint process for 

matters pertaining to federally assisted airports is not the proper forum for review of 

Complainjint's claims of violations of constitutional, state, or local laws." For this office 

"to adjudicate the allegation [of threats and vandalism] under Part 16, it would have to 

first make findings of fact on criminal matter, which is completely outside the jurisdiction 

43 
and expertise of the Director under Part 16." [Boca Airport Inc., d/b/a Boca Aviation v. 

Boca Raton Airport Authority. FAA Docket 16-04-02 (Final Agency Decision 11/29/04)] 

In this case, based on the evidence submitted to, or more pertinently, omitted from the 

record, the Director cannot rejisonably conclude that these undocumented allegations 

regarding non-county representatives and employees amount to the Respondent operating 

the Airport in an unsafe or unserviceable condition in violation of Grant Assurance 19. 

Furthermore, the Director wishes to clarify that the terms "safe and serviceable" do not 

apply to criminal activities or personal harm. Instead, these apply to the Airport's 

operational status with regard to adequate facilities to support aeronautical activities. 

Allegations of Denial of Access and Service 

Complainants allege Mr. Witt and Complainant Ferrell were denied access and service at 

the McMirm County Airport and its facilities. Although Complainants fail to cite a Grant 

Assurance violation, the Director will address both allegations under Grant Assurance 

22(a) and 22(h), which discuss access and economic nondiscrimination. 

Regarding Mr. Witt, the Director finds that the facts entered into the Record show Mr. 

Witt served as an independent contract flight instructor with the former FBO at the 

Airport until January 2006. The evidence submitted to the record by Complainants, and 

agreed to by Respondent, also support the fact that Mr. Witt is no longer a contracted 

flight instructor or an employee at the Airport and has not been since January 2006. [FAA 

Exhibit 1, Item 9 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] Respondent fervently objected to 

Complainants' allegations that Mr. Witt is barred from using the Airport and demanded 

proof of these statements. 

In addressing Complainants' allegations of denial of access, the Director will apply Grant 

Assurance 22(a), which states a sponsor "will make the airport available as an airport for 

public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination." Complainants allege 

the current FBO owner told Mr. Witt he was not welcome at the Airport; however, 

neither Complainant submits any proof to the record supporting these allegations. 

Instead, they rely on third party statements and their personal observations to persuade 

the Director. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1; FAA Exhibit I, Item 2; FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12; 

and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13] Moreover, Complainants have not shown how they have 

been directly and substantially affected by sponsor noncompliance directed at Witt. As 

such, the FAA has no basis to investigate and decide such allegations. [See, 14 C.F.R. 

16.23(a)."] 

As stated in 14 CFR § 16.229, and upheld in precedent. Complainants have the burden of 

proof to show how a respondent restricted aeronautical access and did so unreasonably 

confrary to its grant assurances. [See, SeaSands Air Transport, Inc. v. Huntsville-Madison 

County Airport Authority, FAA Docket 16-05-17 (Director's Determination Issued 

August 28, 2006)] By failing to submit reliable evidence of said allegafions 

Complainants have failed to meet this burden in demonstrating that Mr. Witt is barred 

from McMinn County Airport. 

44 
In the second alleged case of denial of access, the Director also finds the Respondent did 

not violate its grant assurances when the current FBO did not rent its training aircraft to 

Complainant Ferrell for the purpose of conducting his flight proficiency check or flight 

review in accordance with 14 CFR § 61.56 ^. 

The undisputed facts in the Record support Complainants' allegations that Complainant 

Ferrell requested Mr. Witt exercise his Certified Flight Instructor (CFI) privileges to 

perform Ferrell's flight review using an aircraft Ferrell attempted to rent from the FBO. 

All parties also agree that the FBO denied the rental event stating Mr. Witt was not listed 

on the FBO's insurance policy as an authorized Certificated Flight Instructor ^^ However, 

Complainant Ferrell objects to the FBO's reasoning calling it "irrelevant since Mr. Witt 

had not contracted for the aircraft." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13] Respondent states the FBO 

offered Complainant Ferrell the opportunity to rent the aircraft using one of the FBO's 

insured instructors in accordance with the FBO's policy. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10, 

Exhibit 1 ] Complainants do not deny Ferrell was offered this opportunity. [FAA Exhibit 

1, Item 12 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13] 

Complainants state Mr. Witt should have been allowed to conduct the flight review for 

Complainant Ferrell using the FBO's aircraft; when he was not allowed to do so, they 

equated this to a denial of access or service to Ferrell. In Goodrich, the Director held the 

language in Grant Assurance 22, which states an airport must be available for public use 

on reasonable terms without unjust discrimination: 

Neither equates to unfettered 'aeronautical access' nor a mandate that anyone 

and everyone has the right to be granted a contract to conduct an aeronautical 

business on an airport. [See, Goodrich, p. 20.] 

In this situation, Mr. Witt was acting as an independent instructor providing a 

corrunercial aeronautical service: conducting a flight review. An airport sponsor's grant 

assurances protect a user's privilege to use the public areas of the airport; they do not 

guarantee one's right to conduct business on the airport. [See, Goodrich] 

Furthermore, the Director finds there is no evidence in the record supporting 

Complainants' allegations that Ferrell was denied access to the Airport or the FBO's 

training aircraft or denied any service. Complainants never disputed Respondent's claim 

that Ferrell was offered to perform his flight review in the aircraft with another instructor. 

Therefore, the Director carmot find the Respondent is in violation of Grant Assurance 22. 

^' 14 C.F.R. 61.56 addresses flight reviews, also known as flight proficiency checks. This regulation 

requires pilots exercising the privileges of their pilot certificates to receive a minimum of I hour of flight 

training and 1 hour of ground training fi"om an authorized instructor at specified intervals. The Director 

notes this requirement may be waived if a pilot meets other criteria; however, that criterion is not germane 

to the issue at hand so will not be reviewed here. 

^* The Aviation Insurance Binder/Confirmation of Coverage submitted by the Respondent and Complainant 

Ferrell [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10 Exhibit 2, and Item 11] lists under the heading, "OPW/Special Provisions" 

the entry, "As Respects: Certificated Flight Instructors: Named Pilots Only." Mr Witt is not listed as a 

"Named Pilot." 

45 
Summary of Issue #4 Findings 

Based on the evidence submitted to the record, the Director finds Respondent is not in 

violation of Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, regarding allegations of 

threats and vandalism because: 

• Complainants did not provide any evidence supporting their claims that rise to the 

standard of preponderance of proof; 

• Complainants allegations involve private citizens, not Airport or county 

personnel; and 

• Allegations of criminal behavior are not within the jurisdiction of the Part 16 

process. 

Based on the evidence submitted to the record, the Director finds Respondent is not in 

violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, regarding allegations of 

denial of access and service because: 

• Complainants did not provide any evidence supporting their claim that Mr. Witt is 

barred from using the McMinn County Airport; 

• Airport sponsors and FBOs are not required to offer contracts to any and all 

commercial aeronautical service providers; and 

• Complainant Ferrell was offered the opportunity to rent the FBO's training 

aircraft to conduct his flight review if he used one of the FBO's listed instructors. 

ISSUE #5: Whether the Respondent's alleged failure to better regulate its 

FBO/Airport Management contractor and the discriminatory acts 

allegedly perpetrated by the FBO, constitute a violation of Grant 

Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination; and whether the 

Respondent's alleged abdication of its rights and authority to the FBO 

and others constitute a violation of Grant Assurance 5 ? 

Complainants Keyes and Ferrell allege two acts of discrimination in violation of Grant 

Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination. In the first instance. Complaints contend 

Keyes was "intentionally passed over for a hangar" when the FBO offered a hangar to 

another pilot on the waiting list. [FAA Exhibit I, Item I] Then, Complainant Ferrell 

alleges he was discriminated against when the FBO took him off its "email list (and 

Ferrell was) not invited to any airport public functions." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2] 

Complainants Keyes and Ferrell also allege these discriminatory acts by the FBO in 

addition to their other allegations of mismanagement serve to illustrate how the 

Respondent's failure to properly oversee and regulate its airport amounts a violation of 

Grant Assurance 22. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, Exhibit I and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] The 

Director will address each allegation under Grant Assurance 22 individually. 

46 
Hansar Waiting List 

Complainants Keyes and Ferrell contend Keyes was not awarded a hangar at McMinn 

County Airport in accordance with his place on the hangar waiting list. They allege this 

was an intentional act of discrimination due to Keyes' role in the line of sight deviation 

matter addressed under Issue #1. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2] 

Respondent denies Keyes was intentionally passed over. Instead, Respondent claims the 

transfer of the lists from the Mayor's office to the former FBO, then from the former 

FBO to the new FBO resulted in "administrafive confusion (not) willful discrimination" 

against Complainant Keyes. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] 

Complainants failed to submit any evidence to the record supporting Keyes' assumption 

where he stood on the waiting list. While Complainants reference Mr. Steve Dodd and 

allege he admitted he was below Mr. Keyes on the list, there is nothing in the record to 

support these statements. Complainants' allegations are based on their allegations and 

Respondent's admittance that Respondent and its FBO failed to publish a consolidated 

hangar waiting list. [FAA Exhibit I, Item I and Exhibit 1, Item 9] 

Email and Event Invitation Lists 

Complaint Ferrell alleges he was "put in the same category of discrimination that has 

affected Mr. Witt and Mr. Keyes [when he was] taken off Ms. Gentry's" E-mail list 

(and) not invited to any airport public functions, including the monthly safety meetings." 

[FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2] According to Ferrell's Part 13.1 Complaint, he "would like a 

written apology from Ms. Gentry to (himself) and Mr. Witt... (and) would like for Ms. 

Gentry to make a formal invitation, in writing, that Mr. Witt is welcome to resume his 

flight instruction at MMI airport." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, Exhibit 2] 

In its Answer, Respondent questions whether Ferrell's statements amount to a grant 

assurance violation and also contends the FBO does not sponsor monthly safety 

meetings. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10] Summarily, Respondent denies any allegations the 

Director may infer from Ferrell's conmients. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10] 

The Director surmises Complainant Ferrell is attempting to illustrate the point that he is 

being discriminated against because he is not receiving the courtesy treatment and level 

of service he expects to receive from an FBO and airport management company (and that 

are afforded to other pilots utilizing the airport). [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, Exhibit 2] 

Additionally, Ferrell's Complaint includes objections to the fact that the FBO refused to 

allow Mr. Witt to serve as an instructor in its aircraft for Ferrell's flight review. 

Although unsupported by documentation or other evidence, Ferrell contends Ms. GentryCox's "customer service skills are inadequate," and she "is in a poshion she is not 

qualified to be in." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13] 

Ms. Gentry refers to Ms. Kristy Gentry-Cox, the owner of the current FBO at McMinn County Airport. 

47 
Airport Mismanagement 

Complainants both state that the current FBO, which also has a contract to manage the 

Airport, has demonstrated such poor management of the facility that the Respondent has 

abrogated its grant assurance obligations, specifically Grant Assurance 22, Economic 

Nondiscrimination. 

The FAA recognizes that the operation of a public use airport is complex and many 

smaller communities often turn to private enterprise to provide [management] services 

which will make the use of the airport by the public attractive and convenient. [See, FAA 

Order 5190.6a, Chapter 6, Section 6-2]. However, such agreements do not absolve an 

airport sponsor from its contractual obligations with the Federal govenmient. FAA Order 

5190.6a defines the relationship as follows: 

A management cooperation with a lease of the entire airport, or a tenant 

operation authorized to perform any of the owner's management responsibilities, 

shall be considered as resident agents of the airport owner and not as responsible 

principals. [FAA Order 5190.6a, Chapter 6, Section 6-5(d)] 

Based on this relationship and definition of responsibilities, the Director will address the 

Respondent's oversight of the Airport, specifically its management contract, under Grant 

Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers, specifically, section (f) which states: 

If an arrangement is made for management and operation of the airport by any 

agency or person other than the sponsor or an employee of the sponsor, the 

sponsor will reserve sufficient rights and authority to insure that the airport will 

be operated and maintained in accordance Title 49, United States Code, the 

regulations and the terms, conditions and assurances in the grant agreement and 

shall insure that such arrangement also requires compliance therewith. 

In this Complaint, Complainants state the FBO owner's "bad judgment in her business 

practices in her management of the McMirm County Airport, especially customer 

relations" precipitated their previously addressed allegations. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13] 

They contend the FBO/management company's deficiencies and acts amount to 

Respondent's violation of its grant assurances because McMinn County Airport "is not 

managed, has no oversight, is unresponsive to equipment outages, routinely fails to 

ensure the timely issuance of notices to airmen and has chosen to look the other way 

when they have been made aware of threats, intimidation and damage to personal 

property." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12] 

Respondent denies "the allegations of violating federal grant assurance by willfully 

allowing economic nondiscrimination and knowingly operating an unsafe airport." [FAA 

Exhibit 1, Item 15] Furthermore, the Respondent states it has been proactively working 

to devise several documents to improve its airport management in the future. [FAA 

Exhibit I, Item 9] 

48 
Conclusion 

Hangar Waiting List 

FAA Order 5190.6a states that airport management agreements should "provide for 

acceptable practices such as nondiscriminatory waiting lists for tie-down spaces." [See, 

FAA Order 5190.6a, Section 5, 4-17(k)(l)] In this Complaint, the Director accepts the 

allegations that the Respondent did not maintain an organized list when the County 

assigned its hangar waiting list to the control of the former FBO and, subsequently, when 

the former FBO transferred the lists to the cunent FBO. The Director accepts that the 

lists were not organized when transfened to the current FBO and that they were not 

published until recently. However, Complainants have not submitted ziny evidence to 

the record proving Keyes' placement on the list was an intentional act of discrimination. 

The Director carmot find sufficient evidence to suggest that Respondent had engaged in 

some form of discriminatory behavior by means of its or the FBO's past practices 

maintaining their hangar waiting lists. Furthermore, the Director notes that Complainant 

Keyes was offered and began occupying a hangar as of March 2008, approximately ten 

months prior to the filing of Keyes' Part 16 Complaint. In Bisti Aviation, Inc. v. City of 

Farmington, New Mexico, FAA Docket No. 16-07-01 (Director's Determination issued 

December 4, 2007), the Director held, "'The successful action by the airport owner or 

sponsor to cure a past violation is grounds for dismissal of that allegation. " As a result, 

there is no issue of current compliance. 

While the Director does believe the hangar waiting lists could have been managed better, 

the fact that the Respondent and the FBO rectified their past practices by offering 

Complainant Keyes a hangar prior to the filing of this Part 16 Complainant clearly 

demonstrates Respondent has met the burden of current compliance. However, also in 

the spirit of Bisti, the Director notes: 

This is not to say that Respondent's past leasing practices were violations 

because the Record does not reflect any malfeasance on the part of Respondent 

regarding its past leasing policies. [See, Bisti] 

Therefore, the Director finds the Respondent is not currently in violation of Grant 

Assurance 22 regarding Keyes' placement on the former hangar waiting lists. 

Email and Event Invitation Lists 

The Director takes allegations of discrimination very seriously and therefore will address 

Complainant Ferrell's imcategorized statements under Grant Assurance 22, specifically 

subsection (a), which states: 

(An airport sponsor) will make the airport available as an airport for public use 

on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and 

classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities 

49 
offering services to the public at the airport. [See, FAA Airport Sponsor 

Assurances, Grant Assurance 22(a)] 

As noted previously, there is nothing in the Record that supports the claim Complainant 

Ferrell has been treated any differently than anyone else using the McMinn Coimty 

Airport. 

Although Complainant Fenell objects to Ms. Gentry-Cox's management style, the 

Director dismisses Ferrell's allegation that the FBO's disputed customer service, 

particularly its failure to send email invitations to public functions directly to 

Complainant Fenell, rises to the level of a grant assurance violation. The Director 

reminds Complainants that "The Respondent's Federal obligations do not require it to 

provide a specific level of service." [Monaco Coach Corporation v. Eugene Airport and 

the City of Eugene, Oregon, FAA Docket No. 16-03-17, (Director's Determination issued 

July 27, 2004) (Final Decision and Order issued March 4, 2005)] 

Fenell then attempts to incorporate the FBO's denial of his rental event into an act of 

discrimination because it was "inconvenient." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13] As the Director 

has previously held, "[i]t is not sufficient to show the sponsor's requirements are merely 

less convenient or even more costly than the complainant's prefened options." [.S'ee, 

Airborne Flying Service, Inc. v. City of Hot Springs, Arkansas, FAA Docket No. 16-07-

06 (Final Decision and Order issued May 2, 2008)] 

Fenell's statement that he "has not been inside the terminal building" reflects a matter of 

personal choice as there is no evidence in the Record indicating he has been banned from 

the facility by the Respondent. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13] Furthermore, Fenell's 

contention that he has not received "an apology from Mrs. Gentry-Cox" does not 

constitute a violation of Respondent's Federal grant assurances. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13] 

The Director finds the fact that the FBO does not send personal emails to Complainant 

Fenell does not amount to a violation of Grant Assurcince 22, or any other assurance. 

Airport Mismanagement 

Complainants made several statements in their pleadings alleging Ms. Gentry-Cox is a 

poor airport manager and FBO operator. They also contend her poor performance and 

"complete control" of the Airport has resulted in the Respondent violating its grant 

assurances because their continued calls for Respondent "to ensure the airport is 

professionally managed, respect(s) the rights of all users and adhere(s) to the obligations 

that they willing entered into," have gone unanswered. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item I and FAA 

Exhibit 1, Item 12] Even if the Complainants' statements and allegations were not just 

matters of opinion, the Director carmot make the connection how Ms. Gentry-Cox's 

alleged poor management and customer service skills and unsupported allegations of her 

retaining "complete control" of the Airport amount to a violation of any grant assurance. 

50 
As previously noted, the FBO's and Ms. Gentry-Cox's customer service skills do not 

constitute a violation of the Respondent's grant assurances since "the Respondent's 

Federal obligations do not require it to provide a specific level of service," as 

Complainants allege. [See, Monaco Coach.] Furthermore, as the Director has noted 

throughout this Determination, Complainants have failed to establish that the Respondent 

violated the rights of any users or cunently is in violation of any of its grant assurance 

obligations through its own actions or the actions of the FBO/management company. 

Regarding Ms. Gentry-Cox's control of the Airport, the Director has previously held: 

A violation of Assurance 5 may occur when an airport sponsor enters into an 

agreement with terms that subsequently result in actions that may place the 

sponsor in noncompliance with its federal obligations. [See, Platinum Aviation .] 

There is nothing in the record to indicate the Respondent has crossed this bridge. 

Allowing the management company to operate the facility and offer aeronautical services 

utilizing its own style of management while the sponsor retains its rights and authority is 

not a grant assurance violation. [See, FAA Order 5190.6a] The Director finds 

Complainants' contentions that Ms. Gentry-Cox was given complete control of MMI to 

run as her private airport are based on conjecture and personal opinion. And even if the 

conjecture and personal opinion were proven to be true, the Complainants have not 

provided a preponderance of evidence that this style of management somehow transfened 

the sponsor's rights and authority to another. There is nothing in the Record 

demonstrating Respondent has ceded its rights and powers to Ms. Gentry-Cox, the FBO, 

or anyone else in violation of Grant Assurance 5. 

Summary of Issue #5 Findings 

Based on the evidence submitted to the record, the Director finds Respondent is not in 

violation of Grant Assurance 22 regarding allegations of hangar, email list, and other 

suggestions of discrimination because: 

• Complainants did not provide any evidence supporting their claim that Mr. Keyes 

was not awarded a hangar in proper order and more importantly, he began 

occupying a hangar ten months prior to the filing of his Part 16 Complaint; 

• Complainants allegations regarding the email and invitation lists do not amount to 

discriminatory practices as an FBO's level of service is not a grant obligation; and 

Based on the evidence submitted to the record, the Director finds Respondent is not in 

violation of Grant Assurance 5 regarding allegations of airport mismanagement and lack 

of oversight by the Respondent because: 

• Complainants failed to submit any evidence to the Record demonstrating by a 

preponderance of evidence that the Respondent violated any users' rights or 

cunently is in violation of any of its grant assurances based on its own or its 

FBO/Management company's actions; and 

51 
• Complainants failed to establish Respondent has ceded its rights and powers to 

Ms. Gentry-Cox or anyone else. 

VII. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 

Upon consideration of the submissions, responses by the parties, the record herein, 

applicable law and policy, and for the reasons stated above, the Director of the FAA 

Office of Airport Compliance and Field Operations finds that McMiim County cunently 

is not in violation of Grant Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers; Grant Assurance 

19, Operation and Maintenance; Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination; and 

Grant Assurance 34, Policies, Standards, and Specifications. 

Recommendation 

The following is a recommendation by the Director; in no way should this be constructed 

as a finding of non-compliance or any violation of the grant assurances. 

By admission of the Respondent, McMinn County relies heavily on the advice and 

expertise of TN DOT personnel. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] In fact, the Respondent stated 

it has taken steps necessary to educate and assist its management company by providing 

Athens Air, LLC with a copy of appropriate materials for issuing NOTAMs and working 

with TN DOT to devise rule and regulations, airport minimum standards, and create a 

new airport management agreement. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9] The FAA recognizes that 

some sponsors prefer to retain outside help for managing its airport. While this does not 

preclude these sponsors' from abiding by their grant assurances, the Director cites FAA 

Order 5190.6a, specifically. Chapter 5, Section 5-1. b(2) states: 

While the FAA will not substitute its judgment for that of the airport owner in 

matters of administration and management of airport facilities, it is in a unique 

position to assist airport owners in achieving voluntary compliance through 

prudent advice and counsel. This will be primarily directed in assisting airports 

to understand the nature and applicable of compliance obligations affecting their 

airport. 

The Director acknowledges Respondent's efforts to improve the Airport, specifically by 

drafting minimum standards and airport rules and regulations as well as addressing the 

deficiencies voluntarily and prior to the filing of any formal complaints. This shows a 

clear willingness to comply with its obligations prescribed by the grant assurances. 

ORDER 

Accordingly, it is ordered that: 

I. The Complaint is dismissed; and 

52 
2. All motions not expressly granted in this Determination are denied. 

RIGHT OF APPEAL 

This Director's Determination, FAA Docket No. 16-08-12, is an initial agency 

determination and does not constitute a final agency decision and order subject to judicial 

review as provided in 14 CFR § 16.247(b)(2). A party to this proceeding adversely 

affected by the Director's Determination may appeal the initial determination to the FAA 

Associate Administrator for Airports pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.33(b) within thirty (30) 

days of service of this Determination on the parties. 

Signed, 

DEC 1 8 2GC9 Zy^/?./L ^^:?= ^ 

landall Fiertz Date 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

And Field Operations 

53 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December | ^ , 2009,1 caused to be placed in the 

United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) or personally delivered, a true copy of 

the foregoing document addressed to: 

William H. Keyes 

121 County Road 569 

Englewood, Tennessee 37329 

Complainant 

Dewitt T. Fenell 

P.O. Box 206 

Athens, Tennessee 37371-0206 

Complainant 

John Gentry, Mayor 

McMirm County 

McMinn County Court House 

6 East Madison Avenue 

Athens, Tennessee 37303 

Respondent 

David Crews, Chairman 

McMinn County Commission 

McMinn County Airport Committee 

McMinn County Court House 

6 East Madison Avenue 

Athens, Tennessee 37303 

Respondent 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

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

person 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Field Operations 
FAA Exhibit 1 

Docket No. 16-08-12 

Index of Administrative Record 

Director's Determination 

Dewitt T. (Jack) Ferrell, Jr. 

and William H. Keyes 

COMPLAINANTS 

McMinn County, Tennessee 

RESPONDENT/SPONSOR 

Item 1 Complainant Keyes' Complaint, dated December 17, 2008 

(Originally docketed 16-08-12) 

Item 2 Complainant Ferrell's Complaint, dated December 22, 2008. 

(Originally docketed 16-08-13) with 4 exhibits 

Exhibit 1 04/10/07 - Open Letter to McMinn County Commissioners from 

Complainant Ferrell. 

Exhibit 2 07/11/08 - Complainant Ferrell's letter to TN DOT Brian Caldwell 

Re: Letter dated June 27, 2008. 

Exhibit 3 07/29/08 - TN DOT Caldwell's letter to Complainant Ferrell 

Re: Informal Dispute Determination Regarding Complaint 

Letter dated 05/18/08 

Exhibit 4 08/06/08 - Complainant Ferrell's original undocketed Complaint 

(note: this document was not docketed) 

Item 3 FAA's Notice of Docketing to Complainant Keyes for 16-08-12, dated 

January 16, 2009 

Item 4 FAA's Notice of Docketing to Complainant Fenell for 16-08-13, dated 

January 16, 2009 

Item 5 Respondent's notice of request for Extension of Time to file its Answer to 

both Complaints, dated February 4, 2009 

Item 6 Complaint Keyes' letter to FAA AGC 

Re: Objecting to Respondent's request for Extension of Time to file its 

Answer to Complaint, dated February 5, 2009 

Page 1 of7 
Item 7 Respondent's formal request for Extensions of Time to file its Answers to 

Complaints, dated February 6, 2009 

Item 8 FAA's Letter to Respondent granting Extensions of Time to file its 

Answers to Complaints, dated February 6, 2009 

Item 9 Respondent's Answer to Keyes' Complaint and Motion to Dismiss, 

dated February 9, 2009 (Originally docketed 16-08-12) 

Exhibit 1 01/09/03 - MMI Runway & Taxiway Extension Scoping Meeting Minutes 

(minutes provided by HMB Professional Engineers, Inc.) 

Exhibit 2 2009 - Draft of Proposed MMI Rules and Regulations 

Exhibit 3 10/12/06 - Former FBO William Johnson's letter to Respondent 

Re: Request for Consent of Sale to current FBO 

Exhibit 4 10/19/06 - Respondent's Letter to Airport Commission Chair 

Re: Notice of Affidavit of Kinship regarding FBO sale 

Exhibit 5 10/19/06 - Mayor Gentry's Affidavit of Kinship 

Re: FBO Athens Air, LLC owner is Mayor's Cousin 

11/20/06 - County Meeting Minutes 

Re: Resolution approving transfer of airport management 

contract to Athens Air, LLC 

Exhibit 6 12/19/05 - Letter to Mayor Gentry with unidentified signatures 

Re: General support of airport 

Exhibit 7 12/19/05 - Charles Nelson's Comments to McMinn County Commission 

Re: Line of Sight issue 

Exhibit 8 Q)1I\6IQ1 - Complaint Keyes' Comments to McMinn County Airport 

Committee 

Re: Hangar Waiting List, including Line of Sight issues 

Exhibit 9 06/09/08 - TN DOT Oliphant's letter to Complaint Keyes 

Re: Informal Dispute Resolution Process Regarding 

Complaint Letter dated 03/22/08 

Exhibit 10 07/24/08 - TN DOT Oliphant's letter to Complaint Keyes 

Re: Status of Informal Dispute Resolution Concerning 

Complaint Letter dated 03/22/08 

Exhibit 11 09/08/08 - Complaint Keyes' Letter to Respondent 

Re: Implementation of Keyes' 03/22/08 Recommendations 

Exhibit 12 09/12/08 - Respondent's Letter to Complaint Keyes 

Page 2 of 7 
Re: Implementation of Keyes' 03/22/08 Recommendations 

Exhibit 13 09/24/08 - TN DOT Ohphant's letter to Complainant Keyes 

Re: Informal Dispute Determination Regarding Complaint 

Letter dated 03/22/08 

Item 10 

Exhibit 1 

Exhibit 2 

Item 11 

Item 12 

Exhibit 1 

Exhibit 2 

Exhibit 3 

Exhibit 4 

Exhibit 5 

Exhibit 6 

Exhibit 7 

Exhibit 8 

Exhibit 9 

Exhibit 10 

Respondent's Answer to Ferrell's Complaint and Motion to Dismiss, 

dated February 12, 2009 (Originally docketed 16-08-13) 

06/20/08 - Respondent's Letter to TN DOT's Oliphant 

Re: Response to Complainant Ferrell's Part 13.1 Informal 

Dispute Resolution Request 

12/06/06 - 12/06/07 - Athens Air, LLC Aviation Insurance 

Binder/Confirmation of Coverage statement 

Complainant Ferrell's Letter to FAA dated February 24, 2009 

Re: Ferrell states he did not receive Respondent's Answer 

Complainant Keyes' Reply, dated February 18, 2009 

Entitled Footnote 1 - Runway and Taxiway Extension Scoping Meeting 

Minutes, dated January 9. 2003 

Entitled Footnote 2 - Grant Budget for McMinn County from 10/1/2003 

through 9/30/2008 

Untitled - Grant Agreement between State of TN and McMinn County, 

page 1 of 15 

Untitled - Handwritten note regarding hangar sublease dated 9/1/05 

Entitled Footnote 5 - Page 56 of AC 150/5300-13 

Entitled Footnote 6 - "Airport reopens on limited basis," Article from 

Daily Post-Athenian, dated December 1, 2005 

Entitled Footnote 7 - Letter from TN DOT to Mayor Gentry, dated 

December 1,2005 

Entitled Footnote 8 - "Safety issues partially close McMinn Airport," 

Article from Daily Post-Athenian, dated December 6, 2005 

Entitled Footnote 9 - "Pilots say planes 'disappear' on new runway," 

Article from WBIR.COM website, dated December 7, 2005 

Entitled Footnote 10 - "Pilots seek safety pact," Article from Daily PostAthenian, dated December 7, 2005 

Page 3 of7 
Exhibit 11 Entitled Footnote 11 - Letter from FAA to Kenny Witt, dated December 

14,2005 

Exhibit 12 Entitled Footnote 12 - Letter from TN DOT to Kenny Witt, dated 

December 16, 2005 

Exhibit 13 Entitled Footnote 13 - Comments to McMinn County Commission from 

Charles E. Nelson, dated December 19, 2005 

Exhibit 14 Entitled Footnote 14 - Letter to Mayor Gentry with various signatures, 

dated December 19, 2005 

Exhibit 15 Entitled Footnote 15 - "Dozen local pilots argue airport safe," Article from 

the Daily Post-Athenian, dated December 22, 2005 

Exhibit 16 Entitled Footnote 16 - "Safety measures still need to be taken at airport," 

Article from the Daily Post-Athenian, dated December 30, 2005 

Exhibit 17 Entitled Footnote 17 - "Flight instructor who complained about runway 

danger loses contract," Article from the Chattanooga Times Free Press, 

dated January 6, 2006 

Exhibit 18 Entitled Footnote 18 - "Flight instructor says he was fired for 

whistleblowing," Article from the Daily Post-Athenian, dated January 6, 

2006 

Exhibit 19 Entitled Footnote 19 - "Flight instructor says raising safety concerns cost 

him his job," Article from WBIR.COM website, dated January 7, 2006 

Exhibit 20 Entitled Footnote 20 - "Rip up the airport's runway to repair it?" 

Newspaper Article from unidentified source, without a date 

Exhibit 21 Entitled Footnote 21 - "We are going to fix that," Newspaper Article from 

unidentified source, without a date 

Exhibit 22 Entitled Footnote 22 - Grant Budget for McMinn County from 10/1/2005 

through 9/30/2010 

Exhibit 23 Entitled Footnote 23 - Grant Agreement between State of TN and McMinn 

County, page 1 of 13 

Exhibit 24 Entitled Footnote 24 - Open letter to McMinn County Commissioners from 

Complainant Fenell, dated April 10, 2007 

Exhibit 25 Entitled Footnote 25 - Statement to the McMirm County Airport 

Committee from Complainant Keyes, dated July 16, 2007 

Exhibit 26 Entitled Footnote 26 - Letter from Complainant Keyes' Attorney, Harold 

Stone, to Christy Gentry, dated September 11, 2007 

Page 4 of7 
Exhibit 27 Entitled Footnote 27 - Letter from Complainant Keyes' Attorney, Harold 

Stone, to Complainant Keyes, dated September 14, 2007 

Exhibit 28 Entitled Footnote 28 - Letter from Complainant Keyes' Attorney, Harold 

Stone, to Complainant Keyes, dated September 27, 2007 

Exhibit 29 Entitled Footnote 29 - Letter from TN DOT to Complainant Keyes, dated 

February 25, 2008 

Exhibit 30 Entitled Footnote 30 - Copy of Hangar Lease between McMirm County 

and Complainant Keyes 

Exhibit 31 Entitled Footnote 31 - Part 13.1 Complaint letter to TN DOT from 

Complainant Keyes, dated March 22, 2008 

Exhibit 32 Entitled Footnote 32 - Letter from TN DOT to Complainant Keyes, dated 

March 26, 2008 

Exhibit 33 

Exhibit 33a 

Exhibit 34 

Exhibit 35 

Exhibit 36 

Exhibit 37 

Exhibit 38 

Exhibit 39 

Exhibit 40 

Item 13 

Entitled Footnote 33 - Letter from Complainant Keyes to TN DOT, dated 

June 25,2008 

Entitled Footnote 33a - Letter from Complainant Keyes to TN DOT, dated 

July 14, 2008 

Entitled Footnote 34 - Letter from TN DOT to Complainant Keyes, dated 

July 24, 2008 

Entitled Footnote 35 - Letter from Complainant Keyes to TN DOT, dated 

September 16, 2008 

Enfitled Footnote 36 - FAA Registry N-Number Inquiry for C172 N129S 

Entitled Footnote 37 - Contact Information for Mr. Kenny Witt 

Entitled Footnote 38 - Terms and Conditions of Accepting Airport 

Improvement Program Grants, pages 1-3 

Entitled Footnote 39 - Incomplete copy of Airport Sponsor Assurances, 

pages 7-9 

Entitled Footnote 40 - Personally scribed notes from July 11 Meeting (year 

of meeting not included) 

Complainant Ferrell's Reply, dated March 2, 2009 including Cover Letter 

to Jonathan Cross 

Exhibit 1 Entitled Exhibit A - Picture of McMinn County Airport 

Caption: Just back ofT.O. Position, A-5 not visible Jan 2006 

Page 5 of 7 
Exhibit 2 Enfitled Exhibit B - Picture of McMinn Coimty Airport 

Caption: From A-5 looking North, can not see rnwy end markings 

Exhibit 3 Entitled Exhibit C - Page of Advertisements from AOPA magazine 

Re: AOPA insurance agency advertisement 

Item 14 Respondent's Rebuttal to Complainant Keyes, February 26, 2009 

Exhibit 1 TN DOT Audit of State/Federal Dollars 

Exhibit 2 Line of Sight Contract Summary Sheet 

Exhibit 3 Line of Sight Attachment Two - Grant Budget 

Exhibit 4 Original Project Contract Summary Sheet 

Exhibit 5 Original Project Contract Attachment Two - Grant Budget 

Item 15 Respondent's Rebuttal to Complainant Ferrell, dated March 10, 2009 

Exhibit 1 Letter from ThyssenKrupp Waupaca 

Re: Athens Air, LLC service 

Exhibit 2 Letter from James Vreeland, MMI Tenant 

Re: Athens Air, LLC service 

Exhibit 3 Letter from Carl Bingham, MMI Tenant 

Re: Athens Air, LLC service 

Exhibit 4 Letter from RLK Facilities Design, LTD 

Re: Athens Air, LLC service 

Item 16 FAA MEM ADO Letter to TN DOT, dated November 28, 2005 

Re: Keyes' verbal complaint to AAS-400 regarding line of sight 

Item 17 TN DOT Burgess' Letter to Respondent, dated December 1, 2005 

Re: Revising runway threshold markings 

Item 18 FAA MEM ADO Letter to Kenny Witt, dated December 14, 2005 

Re: Acknowledging 11/28/05 letter to FSDO and TN DOT acfion 

Item 19 TN DOT Fitzpatrick's Letter to Kenny Witt, dated December 16, 2005 

Re: Acknowledging 12/9/05 letter and action plan update 

Item 20 Complaint Keyes' Part 13.1 Complaint to TN DOT, March 22, 2008 

Item 21 Complaint Ferrell's Part 13.1 Complaint to TN DOT, May 19, 2008 

Page 6 of7 
Item 22 FAA Order 5100.38C, Appendix 25, Standard Sponsor Certificafion 

Forms 

Item 23 FAA Form 5010 for McMinn County Airport (MMI), dated May 7, 2009. 

Item 24 State Block Grant Project Record for McMinn County Airport (MMI), 

Runway Extension, et al 

Item 25 FAA Amended Notice of Docketing, Order to Consolidate and Notice 

of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's Determination to on or 

before August 28, 2009 

Item 26 FAA Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to on or before October 27, 2009 

Item 27 FAA Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to on or before December 1, 2009 

Item 28 FAA Notice of Extension of Time for issuance of Director's 

Determination to on or before December 31, 2009 

Page 7 of7