# Q
U.S

. Departmen t o f Transportatio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f Airpor t Complianc e & Fiel d Operation s 

# > S

800 Independenc e Ave.

. S.W

. Washington , D.C

. 2059 1 Certifie dMai l - Retur n Receip t Willia mH
. Keye s 12 1 County Roa d56 9 Englewood , Tennesse e 3732 9 Joh n Gentry , Mayo r McMin n County McMin n County Court

Hous e 6 Eas t Madiso n Avenu e Athens , Tennesse e 3730 3 Dewitt T
. Ferrel l P.O
. Bo x 20 6 Athens , Tennesse e 37371-020 6

Decembe r

18,200 9 Davi dCrews , Chairma n McMin n Count y Commissio n McMin n County Airport

Committe e McMii mCounty Court

Hous e 6 Eas t Madiso n Avenu e Athens , Tennesse e 3730 3 ••Zl i

C D
Re : Willia mH
. Keye s an dDeWit t "Jack " Ferrel l v . McMin n County , TN ; FA A Docke t No
. 16-08-1 2 Dea r Messrs
. Keyes , Ferrell , Gentry , an dCrews : Enclose di s acop y o f

th e determinatio n o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) with respec t

t o th e above-reference dmatter . W e findtha t

McMin n County , TN , owne r an doperato r

o f th e McMir

mCounty Airport , i s no t currentl y i n violatio n o f

it s federal obligation s regairdin g operatio n an d maintenance , economi c nondiscrimination , an dpolicies , procedures , an dstandard s a s se t fort h i n it s airport

gran t assurance s an dexistin g federal statute s with respec t t o thi s consolidate dcomplaint
. Accordingly , th e Complain t i s dismissed
. Th e reason s ar e se t fort h i n th e enclose d Director' s Determination
. Th e Director' s Determinatio n i s a n initia l agenc y determinatio n an ddoe s not constitut e afinal agenc y decisio n an dorde r subjec t t o judicia l review
. Sincerely ,

Randal l S
. Fiert z Director , Offic e o f

Airport Complianc e an dFiel dOperation sUNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C 

# f x Willia mH
. Keye s an d Dewit t T
. (Jack ) Ferrell , Jr
. Complainant s v . McMin n County , Tennesse e Responden t FA A Docke t

16-08-1 2

DIRECTOR' S DETERMINATIO N
I
. INTRODUCTIO N Thi s matte r

i s before th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) base do n th e Complaint s filedunde r

Title 1 4 o f

th e Cod e o f

Federa l Regulation s (CFR) , Par t 16 , b y Willia mH
. Keye s (originall y dockete da s 16-08-12 ) an dDeWit t (Jack ) T
. Ferrel l (originall y dockete da s 16-08-13). ' Both Complaint s wer e filedagains t McMin n County , Termesse e (Respondent , o r Sponsor) , a s owner/sponso r o f th e McMin n County Airport (MM I o r Airport)
. Du e t o th e similar natur e o f th e issue s occurrin g i n th e sam e tim e frame raise db y both Complainant s agains t th e sam e Respondent , an di n th e interes t o f administrativ e efficienc y an deconomy , th e FA A issue dan Orde r t o Consolidat e FAA Docke t Nos
. 16-08-1 2 an d16-08-13 , an dproceed s with thi s Director' s Determinatio n a s FAA Docke t

No
. 16-08-12
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m25 f Complainant s alleg e th e Responden t violate dGran t

Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an d Maintenance , an dGran t

Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. Th e Complainant s clai mth e Responden t

faile dt o maintai n an doperat e th e airport i n asaf e an dserviceabl e condition , that

i t faile dt o respon dt o allegation s o f discriminatio n perpetrate db y th e

' Enforcemen t

procedure s regardin g airpor t complianc e matter s may b e foun da t FA A Rule s o f

practic e for Federall y Assiste dAirpor t Enforcemen t

Proceeding s ( \4 CF RPart 16)
. Thes e enforcemen t

procedure s wer e publishe din th e Federa l Registe r (6 1 F R53998 , Octobe r

16 , 1996 ) an dbecam e effectiv e o n Decembe r

16 , 1996
. ^ Documen t

submitte dt o th e Recor dprio r t o th e issuanc e o f

th e Orde r

t o Consolidat e includ e Complaints, Answers , Replies , an dResponse s amon g tw o Complainant s an dth e Responden t originall y dockete di

n separat e file s a s 16-08-1 2 an d16-08-13
. T o clarif y reference s t o thes e document s o f recor dan dth e partie s in thi s consolidate ddocket , th e Directo r refer s t o Complainant s b y thei r las t names . 1Fixe dBas e Operator (FBO)" ' an dothers , an dthat it transferre dit s powe r

an dauthority t o others
. Responden t

denie s eac h allegatio n an drequest s dismissal s o f th e Complaints
. Respondent' s motion s t o dismis s includ e astatemen t b y McMin n Coimt

y Mayor , Joh n Gentry , notin g that

th e county , a s th e airport sponsor , "continue s t o tak e positiv e step s toward s upgrading , improving , an dsecurin g it s airport, " an ddocimientatio n suggestin g th e airport

i s workin g toward s adoptin g uniformrule s an dregulation s an dminimu m standard s fo

r commercia l aeronautica l activities
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] Th e decisio n i n thi s matte r i s base don : (i. ) applicabl e law an dFAA polic y regardin g th e Respondent' s Federa l obligation s a s impose db y Gran t Assurance s 5 - Preservin g Right s an dPowers , 1 9 - Operatio n an dMaintenance , 2 2 - Economi c Nondiscrimination , 23 , Exclusiv e Rights , an d3 4 - Policies , Standards , an dSpecifications , a s wel l a s Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § 4710 7 et . seq. ; an d(ii. ) argument s an dsupportin g documentatio n submitte db y th e parties , whic h compris e th e administrativ e recor dreflecte di n th e attache dFAA Exhibi t 1
. With respec t

t o th e allegation s presente di n th e Complaints , unde r th e specifi c circumstance s a s discusse dbelo w an dbasedo n th e evidenc e submitte dt o th e recor di n thi s proceeding , th e Directo r finds th e Responden t

i s no t currentl y i n violatio n o f

it s Federa l obligations
. Th e basi s for

th e Director' s decisio n i s se t fort h herein
. II
. PARTIE S A
. Complainant s Th e first Complainant , Willia mH
. Keyes , i s referre dt o a s "Complainan t Keyes " o r "Keyes. " Complainan t

Keye s describe s himsel f a s ause r o f McMin n County Airport wh o ha s bee n "directl y an dsubstantiall y affected " b y th e Respondent' s allege d complianc e violations
. [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m1 ]
Th e othe r Complainant , Dewitt

T
. (Jack ) Ferrell , i s referre dt o a s "Complainan t Ferrell " o r "Ferrell. " Complainan t

Ferrel l describe s himsel f a s ause r an dtenan t

o f McMir m County Airport

sinc e 1971 , agains t

who mth e Responden t

allegedly ha s discriminated
. [FA A Exhibi t

I , Ite m2 ] B
. Responden t McMir mCounty , Tennesse e ("County " o r "Respondent" ) i s arura l communit y locate di n th e southeaster n par t

o f th e state , betwee n Knoxvill e an dNashville
. Th e County i s th e
3 A fixed-base operato r

(FBO ) i s acommercia l entity providin g aeronautica l service s suc h a s fueling , maintenance , storage , groun dan dflight instruction , etc. , t o th e public
. [FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Airport Complianc e Requirements , Octobe r 2 , 1989 , Appendi x 5 ]owner/sponso r o f th e McMin n County Airport (MMI ) [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m23] , whic h ha s asingl e 6,45 0 foo t

lon g b y 100 foo t

wid e asphal t

runway Th e plannin g an d developmen t

o f th e Airport , includin g th e 200 5 runwa y expansio n project , ha s bee n financedi n par t

with fund s provide db y th e FA A unde r th e Airport

Improvemen t Program(AIP) , authorize db y th e Airport an dAirwa y Improvemen t Ac t o f 1982 , a s amended , 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47101 , e t seq . III
. BACKGROUN D AN D PROCEDURA L HISTOR Y Th e evidenc e submitte dt o th e recor dvi apleading s fo r thi s consolidate ddocke t

include s numerou s letter s an dmedi areports , meetin g minutes , severa l photographs , a n advertisement , an dadraf t o f propose drule s an dregulation s i n additio n t o tw o complet e set s o f Complaints , Answers , Replies , an dResponses , whic h wer e filedbefor e th e FAA issue dit s Orde r

t o Consolidate
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m25 ] Th e consolidatio n an d timeline s for

eac h previousl y separat e Complain t wil l b e further

detaile dlate r

i n thi s section
. Fo r

clarity , al l motion s an dpleading s filedprio r t o th e consolidatio n wil l b e identifie db y th e Complainant' s name s rathe r tha n th e origina l documen t number
. Complainant s omitte dfro mth e Recor da s exhibit s o r evidenc e asignifican t

numbe r o f letter s reference db y th e Complainant s i n thei r Complaint s that

wer e writte n b y Termesse e Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Aeronautic s Divisio n (T N DOT ) persorme l an d variou s persorme l withi n th e FAA
. In accordanc e with 1 4 C.F.R
. § 16.29 , th e agenc y requeste d"additiona l ora l an ddocumentar y evidence " an dadde dsom e o f th e pertinen t document s reference di n th e record
. [See , FA A Exhibi t 1 , Item s 16-19 ] Th e backgroun do f

th e tw o Complaint s i s se t ou t i n fou r section s below , eac h o f

whic h describe s th e histor y o f

th e relationship s amon g th e partie s an dth e issue s allege di n thei r pleadings
. Th e fifth sectio n document s th e Procedura l History o f th e Complaint s an d thei r consolidatio n unde r

FA A Docke t

16-08-12
. 1
. Runwa y Lin e o f

Sigh t (LOS ) Issu e Complainant s Keye s an dFerrel l alleg e Responden t violate dGran t

Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an dMaintenance , whe n i t knowingl y allowe danmwa y extensio n projec t t o procee dwith know n desig n flaws. I n 2005 , McMin n County bega n constructio n o n arunway extensio n projec t tha t lengthene dit s onl y nmwa y from5,00 0 feet t o 6,45 0 feet

an dinclude dan extende d paralle l taxiway
. Thi s projec t wa s ftindedwith mor e tha n $2. 6 millio n fro mth e FAA' s Airport Improvemen t

Progra m(AIP ) an dth e Stat e o f Termessee.' ' [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m

In 1996 , th e Stat e o f

Tennesse e bega n participatin g i n th e FAA' s Stat e Bloc k

Gran t Program
. I

n accordanc e with Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. §4712 8 an d1 4 CF RPart 156 , astat e participatin g i n th e FAA' s Stat e Bloc k Gran t progra m"shal l us e monie s distribute dpursuan t t o aStat e bloc k

gran t agreemen t

fo r airport developmen t

an dairpor t

planning , fo

r airport nois e compatibilit y planning , o r t o carry ou t

airpor t nois e compatibility programs , i n accordanc e wit h th e Airport

an dAirway Improvemen t Ac t o f 1982 , a s amended. " (1 4 CF R§ 156.4(a) )24 ] In additio n t o th e runway extension , part o f thi s fiindin g include dth e installatio n an d activatio n o f

ne w runway approac h lightin g systems
- Precisio n Approac h Pat h Indicator s (PAPls ) - fo

r runway s 2 an d20 ; an dedg e lightin g fo r th e extende drunway an dparalle l taxiway
. Th e runway extensio n projec t was complete di n Novembe r 2005
. However , alarg e hum p i n th e runway cause dan obstructe dvie w o n th e norther n en do f th e extende d runway ; thus , on e coul dno t se e th e end s o f

th e runway s fromeithe r

side
. A s note db y TN DO T [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m12 , Exhibi t

7] , thi s obstructio n di dno t compl y wit

h FA A Advisory Circular

150/5300-13 , "Airport

Design, " Sectio n 50 3 (a) , whic h states : A n acceptabl e runwa y profil e permit s an y tw o point s five fee t (1. 5 m ) above th e runwa y centerlin e t o b e mutuall y visibl e fo r th e entir e runwa y length
. However , i f th e runwa y ha s aful l length paralle l taxiway , th e runwa y profil e ma y b e suc h tha t a n unobstructe dlin e o f

sigh t wil l exis t fro man y poin t

fiv e fee t (1. 5 m ) abov e th e runwa y centerlin e t o an y othe r poin t five fee t (1. 5 m ) abov e th e runwa y centerlin e fo r one-hal f th e runwa y length
. Bot h Complainant s describ e ho w Mr
. Kerm y Witt ^ brough t th e lin e o f

sigh t issu e t o th e attentio n o f

th e McMir

mCounty Mayor' s office , T N DOT , an dth e loca l media
. Mr
. Witt als o notifie dth e FA A i n alette r t o th e Nashvill e Fligh t

Standard s Distric t

Offic e (FSDO) , date dNovembe r

26 , 2005
. O n Novembe r 28 , 2005 , Complainan t

Keye s telephone dth e FAA' s Offic e o f

Airports , Safet

y an dStandard s Branc h (AAS-100 ) i n Washington , DC , t o advis e th e agenc y tha t

th e recen t

runway extensio n projec t resulte di n a"lin e o f

sigh t problem, " an dthat

ther e recentl y ha dbee n "a n undocumente dnear mis s sinc e th e completio n o f

th e runway extension. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m16 ] Tha t

sam e day , th e FAA responde dt o th e allegation s b y writin g alette r t o T N DOT , advisin g "th e recen t extende d portio n o f th e runwa y shoul dremai n close dunti l th e (Sectio n 50 3 (a) ) standar dcan b e met. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m16 ] O n Decembe r

1 , 2005 , T N DO T wrot e alette r t o th e McMir

mCounty Mayor , conveyin g th e FAA' s reconmiendatio n t o "mark of f th e runwa y unti l th e situatio n coul db e reviewed
. TN DO T advise dth e Mayo r aconsultan t

ha ddevise datemporary solutio n t o th e matter , statin g th e County coul d"locat e th e ne w runway threshol d650 ' fro mth e Nort h en do f

th e runway.. . (which ) meet s th e five foo t lin e o f sigh t criteri afor

th e entir e runway . Th e markin g o f

thi s threshol dneed s t o b e performe dimmediatel y i n orde r t o eliminat e (sic ) th e potentia l o f alin e o f sigh t relate dincident. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m17 ] Accordin g t o Complainan t Keyes , th e County complie dwith T N DOT' s directive , markin g 65 0 feet

o n th e north en do f

th e nmwa y for

tax i operation s withi n awee k o f th e dat e o n TN DOT' s letter. ^ [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Item s 1 an d12 ] Keye s contends th e County

' Mr
. Kenn y Witt

i s reference dnumerou s time s b y bot h Complainant s i n thei r

pleadings
. Mr
. Wit

t i s no t a part y t o thi s o r

any othe r Part 1 6 Complain t

agains t th e Responden t

a t thi s time
. Complainant s stat e h e i s a certifie dflight

instructo r

(CFI ) wh o wa s employe da s acontracto r b y th e former

FB O unti l January 2006
. * I n hi s Complaint , Keye s allege s th e marking s wer e implemente do n Decembe r 8 , 2005 ; however , in hi s Reply , Keye s state s th e marking s wer e implemente do n Decembe r 7 , 2005
.onl y too k thi s actio n after

th e medi abega n reportin g o n th e allegations
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] O n Decembe r

14 , 2005 , th e FAA Memphi s Airport s Distric t Offic e (ADO ) responde dt o Mr
. Witt' s lette r

t o th e Nashvill e FSD O date dNovembe r 26 , 2005
. Th e lette r

outline s TN DOT' S plan t o mitigat e th e lin e o f sigh t deviation , includin g displacin g th e threshol d o n th e norther n en do f

th e runway b y 640' ' feet
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m18 ] O n Decembe r

16 , 2005 , T N DO T responde dt o Mr
. Witt' s lette r date dDecembe r

9 , 2005
. TN DO T advise dMr
. Witt that th e threshol dmarking s fo r ataxiway wer e i n progres s o r recentl y completed ; however , TN DO T state dthat , "upo n fiirther discussion s with th e FAA , w e hav e decide dsimpl y t o recommen dth e temporary closur e o f th e ne w portio n o f th e taxiwa y unti l w e determin e th e ultimat e solutio n t o th e lin e o f sigh t problem. " [FA A Exhibi t l,Ite m19 ] I n hi s Complaint , Keye s allege s tha t o n Decembe r

20 , 2005 , TN DO T contacte dth e McMir mCounty Airport

Manage r a t tha t time , Mr
. Bil l Johnson, ^ viatelephon e t o advis e hi mthat " arevisio n t o th e markin g pla n woul db e developed. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] Keye s fiirther

allege s TN DO T tol dth e airport manage r tha t th e "paralle l taxiwa y north o f th e connecto r

A- 5 b e close di n additio n t o th e north 64 0 feet o f th e runway. " [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m1 ] Accordin g t o Keyes , th e County di dno t amen dth e marking s t o properl y clos e th e designatedportio n o f th e runway an dparalle l taxiway i n accordanc e with T N DOT' s allege dtelephon e notificatio n unti l January 11 , 2006 , after Mr
. Witt too k th e matte r t o th e medi aagain
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] T o clarif y th e timeline , th e Directo r note s that

i n Keyes ' Reply , th e Complainan t incorrectl y calculate dth e timefram e fro mnotificatio n t o closur e a s "approximatel y si x week s .. . after

Mr
. Witt receive dwritte n notification " fromTN DO T o f th e ne w plan
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m12 ] A s state db y Keye s an dnote dabove , Mr
. Witt receive dwritte n notificatio n o f

th e ne w pla n vi aalette r

date dDecembe r

16 , 2005 ; thi s equate s t o an elapse dtim e o f

2 7 days , whic h i s les s tha n fou r week s at best
. However , Keye s the n contends i n hi s Repl y that TN DO T di dnot

notif y th e Responden t

o f th e ne w plan unti l Decembe r

20 , 200 5 an di t

wa s viatelephone
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Thi s equate s t o an elapse dtim e o f

2 3 day s o r

jus t ove r thre e weeks
.

^ In T N DOT' S lette r

t o th e County date dDecembe r 1,2005 , T N DO T state dth e displacemen t woul db e 65 0 feet
. I

n th e FAA' s lette r

t o Mr
. Witt , th e FA A Memphi s AD O state dth e displacemen t woul db e 64 0 feet
. Th e 640 foo t

displacemen t

wa s als o reiterate db y TN DO T i n it s Decembe r

16 , 200 5 lette r

t o Mr
. Witt
. Whil e th e 1 0 foo t

differential i s negligibl e fo r th e purpose s o f

thi s Determination , th e Directo r note s that , base do n th e letter s fromT N DO T an dFAA , i t appear s eve n th e consultin g engineer s ha dno t agree d upo n th e displacemen t

amount , thereb y indicatin g tha t whe n Responden t

initiall y complie dwit

h th e displacemen t

order , i t di ds o base do n variables no t confirme dunti l approximatel y thre e week s after th e initial orde r

wa s issued
. ' Mr
. Bil l Johnso n wa s th e owne r o f Athen s Air , Inc
. unti l Octobe r 200 6 at whic h tim e h e sol dhi s interest s t o Ms
. Kristy Gentry-Co x an dMr
. Taylo r Newma n o f

Athen s Air , LLC
. Mr
. Johnson' s FB O interest s als o include dacontrac t

wit h McMin n County t o manag e th e airport
. Thi s contrac t wa s transferre db y County Resolutio n in Novembe r

200 6 t o Athen s Air , LLC
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 , Exhibi t

5 ]Th e Directo r surmise s Keyes ' allege dsi x wee k timefram e i s referrin g t o th e initia l correctiv e actio n plan T N DO T issue din it s Decembe r 1 , 200 5 lette r

t o th e Respondent ; however , Keye s himsel f

admitte dth e origina l marking s wer e complete dwithi n awee k o f notification
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 an dFAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12]
. Regardin g th e secon dcorrectiv e actio n plan timeframe , neithe r Complainan t

Keye s no r Complainan t

Ferrel l submitte ddocumentary evidenc e t o th e Recor dsupportin g th e clai m abou t whe n o r ho w th e Responden t

wa s notifie dofficiall y i n writin g o f th e ne w plan
. Complainan t

Keye s onl y note dth e "markin g began " i n complianc e with th e secon d correctiv e actio n pla n o n Januar y 11 , 2006
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Despit e thes e conflictin g an dundocumente dstatements , fo r th e purpos e o f

thi s Determination , th e Directo r wil l accep t

th e Complainants ' suggestio n that o n o r abou t Decembe r 20 , 200 5 Responden t

receive dtelephon e notificatio n o f th e ne w correctiv e actio n pla n fo

r th e revise dmarkings , thereb y settin g th e elapse dtim e betwee n thi s notificatio n an dth e Respondent' s complianc e at abou t thre e week s o r

2 3 days
. I n th e "Background " sectio n o f Keyes ' Complaint , o n whic h h e further elaborates in hi s Reply , Keye s allege s th e Responden t violate d"th e Term s an dCondition s o f Acceptin g Airport Improvemen t

Progra mGrants , II
. Certification s (sic) , B
. Sponso r Certificatio n fo

r Projec t Plan s an dSpecifications, " specificall y Paragraph s 1 an d9 , b y allowin g th e runway expansio n projec t t o procee dwith know n deviation s fromairport desig n standard s containe di n FA A Advisor y Circular 150/5300-13
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] However , Keyes ' referenc e in hi s Complain t erroneousl y point s t o guidanc e provide db y th e FAA' s Souther n Regio n o n it s Airport s website
. Th e Part 1 6 proces s addresse s violation s o f

gran t assurances ; therefore , th e Directo r wil l addres s thi s allegatio n withi n hi s purvie w an dappl y Gran t Assuranc e 3 4 , Policies , Standards , an dSpecifications , a s th e intende dcontex t

o f th e allege dviolation
. In hi s Complaint , Keye s contend s tha t sinc e th e engineer s contracte db y th e Responden t alerte dth e Responden t

an dTN DO T "o f

th e lin e o f

sit e (sic ) proble mdurin g aprojec t revie w meeting, " th e Responden t i s i n violatio n o f

Paragraph s 1 an d9 o f

th e Sponso r Certificatio n Form' ^ [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Th e Responden t

acknowledge s tha t

th e engineer s di dnotif

y TN DO T an dth e County o f th e potentia l lin e o f

sigh t issue ; however
. Responden t clarifies , an dComplainan t Keye s concurs , tha t

TN DO T stil l decide dt o g o forwardwith th e project
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 1 ; FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m9 ; an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ]

' Gran t Assuranc e 3 4 state s tha t

asponso r

wil l "carr y ou t

th e projec t

in accordanc e wit

h policies , standards , an dspecification s approve db y th e Secretary includin g bu t no t limite dt o advisory circulars liste din th e Curren t FA A Advisory Circulzir s fo r AI P Projects. " Th e citatio n provide db y Keye s shoul dreferenc e FAA Orde r 5100.38C , commonl y referre dt o a s th e AI P Handbook , specificall y Appendi x 25 , Standar dSponso r Certificatio n Forms , Paragraph s 1 an d9
. Whil e thi s Appendi x i s no t arequire ddocumen t

unde r th e Stat e Bloc k Programt o execut e grants , th e Directo r wil l conside r

th e inten t o f Gran t Assuranc e 3 4 overal l i

n reviewin g th e Complainants ' allegations
. ' " Se e also
. Footnot e 8
. Th e Sponso r Certificatio n For

mi s foun din FAA Orde r 5100.38C , Appendi x 25 , whic h th e Directo r

ha s adde dt o th e Record
. [See , FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m20 ]I

n earl y 2006 , TN DOT , th e County , an dan engineerin g firmagree dupo n asolutio n to th e lin e o f

sigh t deviatio n issu e an di n Marc h 2006 , arehabilitatio n constructio n projec t commence dwith on e hundre dpercen t o f th e fundin g provide db y th e Stat e o f Tennessee
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 2 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Item14 ] Bot

h Complainant s acknowledg e an dth e Responden t

concur s that

th e reconstructio n projec t wa s complete db y th e en do f 200 6 an dth e lin e o f

sigh t deviatio n issu e was resolve dt o everyone' s satisfaction
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , Exhibi t

1 ; FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m9 ; FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m12 , Exhibi t

24 ; an dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m13 ] 2
. Allegation s o f

Inoperativ e NavAid s an dLighting ; Failur e t o Issu e NOTAM s Complainan t

Keye s allege s th e Respondent' s failure t o operat e th e Airport' s approac h lightin g systems , failure t o maintai n edg e lighting , an dfailure t o issu e NOTAM s amoun t t o violation s o f

Gran t Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an dMaintenance
. Th e runway expansio n projec t that commence di n 200 5 als o include dfederal fiindin g fo r th e installatio n an dactivatio n o f ne w runwa y approac h lightin g systems , calle dPrecisio n Approac h Path Indicator s (PAPIs) , fo r both runway end s (0 2 an d20)
. Prio r t o th e runway expansio n project , MM I ha daVisua l Approac h Slop e Indicato r (VASl ) system . Whil e both system s provid e pilot s with feedbac k o n thei r vertica l approac h t o th e runway (glid e slope) , th e primary differenc e betwee n th e tw o system s i s that aVAS l onl y tell s pilot s i f the y ar e to o hig h o r

to o low ; th e PAP I ha s additiona l light s tha t provid e mor e precis e feedbac k

o n ho w hig h o r

lo w th e aircraf

t i s i n relatio n t o th e glid e slope
. Du e t o th e PAPI' s additiona l guidance , i t i s considere dt o b e an upgrad e ove r th e standar dVAS l system . In o r abou t Januar y 2007 , th e Airport bega n usin g th e newl y installe dPAP I fo r Runway 0 2 an dRunway 20
. Complainan t Keye s allege s an dResponden t acknowledges , "McMin n County ha s encountere dnumerou s problem s with th e ne w PAP I systems " for both runway ends
. [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m9 ] I n Octobe r

2007 , Complainan t

Keye s contends h e appeare dbefor e th e McMin n County Commissio n durin g aregularl y schedule dmeetin g an d"publicl y aske dtha t someon e repai r th e equipment. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] Keye s als o allege s "neithe r th e airport owne r no r th e airport

manage r ha deve r issue dNotam s (sic ) for

equipment , whic h had bee n out o f servic e for

months. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 ] Accordin g t o Keyes , a NOTA M wa s issue dth e nex t day
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 ] Th e Responden t

doe s no t disput e Keyes ' contentio n that ther e wer e extende dperiod s o f tim e whe n th e PAPI s wer e out o f service
. However , ther e ar e conflictin g account s regardin g whe n th e NOTAMs wer e issued
. Contrary t o Complainan t Keyes ' allegations
. Responden t

alleges , "NOTAM s hav e bee n issue ddurin g al l repair s sinc e th e initia l malfunction. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] Complainan t

Ferrel l di dno t

referenc e th e PAPI s i n hi s Complaint
.Keye s an dResponden t agre e that

th e PAPI s fo

r Runway s 0 2 an d2 0 wer e i n operatio n at th e tim e o f

th e respectiv e filings i n thi s matter . In mi dt o lat e 2008 , Complainan t Keye s allege s "th e runway threshol dlight s o n th e northeas t en do f th e runway wer e damage dan ddisplaced
. N o attemp t ha s bee n mad e t o repai r thes e units. " [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] Responden t

state s it contacte dth e FB O upo n receip t o f Keyes ' Par

t 1 6 Complaint ; accordin g t o th e Respondent , th e FB O stated , "en dlight s ar e reporte dt o b e neithe r damage dno r

displaced. " [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m9 ] I n it s Answe r

t o Complainan t

Keyes , Responden t

requeste dmor e informatio n regardin g thi s allegatio n a s i t

wa s not specific , was neve r

mentione dpreviously , no r was i t a n issu e i n hi s Part 13. 1 Complaint
. In hi s Reply , Keye s allege s edg e light s "locate do n th e north en do f th e runway.. . ha d bee n displace dthroughou t th e summer. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Item12] Keye s include s i n hi s Repl y adigita l photograp h showin g asingl e lightin g fixture i n ahorizonta l position , whic h h e allege s was take n o n Novembe r 6 , 2008
. Keye s contends "additiona l displace d lightin g fixtures wer e locate dt o th e righ t o f th e ligh t note dabove " i n hi s photograp h caption
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m12 ] Keye s confirm s th e displace dlightin g wa s "repaire d som e tim e betwee n (Novembe r 6 , 2008 ) an dJanuary 1 , 2009. " [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m12 ] 3
. Allegation s o f

Threat s an dVandalis man dDenia l o f Access/Servic e Complainant s Keye s an dFerrel l alleg e severa l acts perpetrate deithe r agains t the mo r Mr
. Kenn y Witt , wh o i s no t

aparty t o thi s o r

an y othe r

dockete dPar

t 1 6 Complaint
. The y conten dthes e allege dact s amoun t t o threats , th e commissio n o f an ac t o f vandalism , an d denia l o f aeronautica l acces s an dservice
. Allegation s o f

Threat s an dVandalis m In th e first

instanc e o f

allege dthreat s an dvandalism
. Complainan t Keye s claim s that

o n Decembe r

9,2005 , h e was "confronte do n tw o separat e occasion s an dthreatene dwith physica l har minsid e th e mai n termina l an di n fiill sigh t o f th e airport

manager.' ' At

issu e wa s th e fac t

that 1 an dother s neede dt o 'ge t quie t abou t th e airport

an dth e lin e o f

sigh t issue. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 ] I n th e secon dinstance
. Complainan t Keye s provide s tw o varyin g account s o f a conversatio n t o whic h h e was no t apart y occurrin g o n Marc h 20 , 2006
. In both accounts , Keye s allege s th e conversatio n containe dwhat h e deeme dathreat

toward s Mr
. Wit

t an d toward s Keyes ' aircraft
. I n hi s Complaint , Keye s states :

" Durin g thi s time , th e no w decease dMr
. Bil l Johnso n wa s th e airport manage r an downe r

o f th e FB O Athen s Air , Inc
. Th e FB O interest s wer e sol dt o Athen s Air , LLC , curtentl y owne db y Kristy Gentry-Cox , i n Octobe r

200 6 an dth e airport

managemen t

contrac t wa s transferre dt o Athen s Air , LL C in Novembe r 2006
. 8Mr
. Nelson' ^ suggeste dt o Mr
. Wit t tha t shoul dh e eve r

wan t t o retur n t o th e McMinn Count

y Airpor t 'h e shoul dge t

quiet. ' H e furthe r

implie dtha t

'others ' migh t b e incline dt o caus e problem s fo r Mr
. Witt , hi s student s o r

hi s aircraft. [FA A Exhibi t

l,Ite m1 ] Keye s state s Mr
. Witt

tape dthi s conversatio n an dthat th e tap e wa s turne dove r t o th e McMir mCounty Distric t

Attorney ; however , Keye s di dno t submi t acop y o f thi s tape d conversatio n t o th e Recor dno r doe s h e substantiat e whethe r charge s wer e filedo r

th e result s o f an y loca l lega l actio n b y th e Distric t Attorney
. [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 ] I n th e secon daccoun t

o f thi s allege dincident , whic h Keye s include s i n hi s Reply , Keye s n o longe r allege s Mr
. Nelso n wa s th e perso n makin g th e threats ; instea dh e writes : Le t m e b e ver y clea r here , I a mnot suggestin g an y wrongdoin g by Mr
. Nelson
. T o th e contrary , m

y recollectio n o f

th e tap e suggeste dtha t

Mr
. Nelso n wa s tryin g t o mak e Mr
. Wit t awar e o f potentia l problem s an dthreat s tha t Mr
. Nelso n becam e awar e o f fro mothe r

individuals
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12] In th e thir dan dfourt

h instanc e o f

allege dthreat s an dvandalism , Complainant s Keye s an dFerrel l provid e varyin g account s o f wha t appear s t o b e th e sam e allege dthrea t an d th e sam e allege dac t

o f vandalism
. Keyes ' Complain t

state s tha t

sometime i n earl y Apri l 2007 , Complainan t Ferrel l ha d attempte dt o ren t

an aircraf t fromAthen s Air , LLC , t o conduc t abiermial flight

review'" ' with Mr
. Witt

a s hi s instructor
. Keye s alleges : Upo n returnin g t o th e airpor t late r tha t da y o n persona l business , Mr
. Ferrel l was approache dan dthe n threatene dbecaus e o f hi s continuin g associatio n wit h Mr
. Witt
. Returnin g t o hi s truck , h e foun di t ha dbee n 'keyed ' i n th e airpor t parkin g lot
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 ] Complainan t

Ferrell' s statement s regardin g whe n thes e incident s occurre dvary fro m Keyes ' account s an dwithi n hi s ow n accounts . In Ferrell' s Ope n Lette r t o McMir

m County , whic h h e include da s an exhibit i n hi s Complaint , h e allege s that o n th e day h e attempte dt o ren t

th e fraining aircraf

t h e was : Threatene db y on e o f

th e 'in crowd, ' tha t

i f (Ferrell ) wante dt o ge t

alon g an db e accepte db y th e pilot s a t

th e airport..
. (Ferrell ) ha dbette r dro p Kenn y Wit

t fro m (his ) lis t o f associate s o r

(Ferrell ) woul dn o longe r b e welcome a t

thi s airport
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , Exhibi t

1 ]

' ^ Mr
. Charli e Nelso n i s identifie db y document s submitte dt o th e recor da s th e Presiden t o f th e Swif t Museu mFoundation , an aircraf t associatio n whos e office s an dmuseu mar e locate do n MMI
. " A biennia l flight

revie w (als o know n a s flight review ) i s mandate db y 1 4 CF R§ 61.56 , whic h require s a pilo t i n comman do f

an aircraf t t o receiv e minimum , specifie dinstructio n withi n 2 4 month s o f eithe r receivin g a n endorsemen t froman authorize dinstructo r o r receivin g anothe r

authorize dcheck
.Unlik e Complainan t Keyes , wh o allege dth e keyin g inciden t occurre dtha t

sam e day , Ferrel l state s i n hi s Complain t tha t it too k plac e "abou t

thre e week s prio r

t o thi s episode. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Item2 ] Responden t

clarifie s i n it s Answe r

t o Keyes ' Complain t

that th e allege d"threats " Mr
. Keyes ' recount s i n th e first tw o incident s were mad e b y privat e citizen s an dno t employee s o r

contractor s o f

McMir mCounty
. Responden t

states : Mr
. Keyes ' allegation s concer n th e behavio r o f privat e citizens..
. an dconstitut e a privat e lega l matte r

an dnot aviolatio n o f

federa l gran t

assurance s regardin g th e safet y o f operation s an dmaintenanc e o f th e airport
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Item9 ] I n it s Answe r

to Ferrell' s Complain t

regardin g th e allege dthrea t agains t hi man dth e allege dkeyin g o f

Mr
. Ferrell' s car . Responden t reference s it s origina l answe r t o thi s allegatio n durin g th e Par

t 13. 1 process , stating : I f Mr
. Ferrell' s persona l propert y was vandalize di n an y manne r o r hi s healt h threatene di n an y way , I woul dstrongl y recommen dan dsuppor t la w enforcemen t t o b e contacte dfo r

prope r investigatio n du e t o th e crimina l natur e o f th e allegations
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , Exhibi t

1 ] (Emphasi s original)
. Complainan t

Keye s doe s no t

provid e evidentiary support fo r an y o f thes e allege d incident s i n eithe r

hi s Complain t

o r Response
. H e onl y state s that th e Responden t

di dno t dispute th e allegation s regardin g hi s accoun t o n Decembe r

9 , 2005 , an dthe n provide s a slightl y differen t

accoun t o f hi s allegation s regardin g th e Marc h 20 , 200 6 incident
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Wit

h regar dt o th e allege d"keying " incident , Keyes ' Respons e onl y reference s Mr
. Ferrell' s "ope n letter. " [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m1 2 an dExhibi t

1 , Ite m12 , Exhibi t 24 ] I n hi s Reply , Complainan t Ferrel l include s apartia l referenc e t o th e perso n wh o allegedl y threatene dhi man dwhat

th e threat entailed , stating : Afte r [th e attempte drenta l event] , I was out in th e parkin g lo t

an dMr
. Bil l Johnson' s cousin , Ra

y * (las t nam e unknown ) cam e u p t o me an dsaid , 'Jack , i f yo u continu e t o associat e wit h Mr
. Witt

, yo u wil l n o longe r

b e welcom e a t

thi s airport. ' [FA A Exhibi t

I , Ite m13 ] In it s Rebuttal , Responden t restate s it s contentio n that th e allege dkeyin g inciden t doe s no t equat e t o aviolatio n o f

it s gran t assurance s an dinstea dreiterate s it s origina l position :

'' ' Accordin g t o Ferrell' s notes , "Ray " i s th e cousi n o f th e former

FB O owner . Bil l Johnson
. At th e tim e thi s statemen t

wa s allegedl y mad e [Apri l 2007] , Mr
. Johnso n alread y ha dsol dhi s interest s t o th e ne w FB O ownershi p an dwa s n o longe r th e airport

FB O o r managemen t

company . Neithe r

"Ray " no r

Mr
. Johnso n wa s an employe e o r

confracto r

o f McMii mCounty at

thi s time
. [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , Exhibi t

1 ] 1 0[Respondent ] offer s n o additiona l informatio n o n th e allege dvehicl e keyin g incident..
. [Respondent ] i s convince dtha t i t shoul dals o hav e bee n reporte d immediatel y t o la w enforcemen t fo r aprope r investigatio n an dwritte n report . [FA A Exhibi t

Lite m15 ] Allegation s o f

Denia l o f

Acces s an dServic e Complaint s Keye s an dFerrel l alleg e tw o separat e incident s o f denia l o f acces s an d service , on e agains t

Mr
. Wit t an dth e othe r

agains t Complainan t

Ferrell
. Bot

h Complainant s mak e allegation s regardin g thes e incident s that offe r varyin g o r

undefine d timelines
. Complainan t

Keye s state s th e first

allege dinstanc e o f

denia l o f acces s occurre do n January 20 , 200 6 an dwa s directe da t Mr
. Witt
. Keye s allege s Mr
. Witt "receive dacal l fromth e Airport

Manager' ^ severin g thei r relationshi p an dbarrin g Mr
. Witt an dhi s student s acces s t o th e trainin g aircraft. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] Mr
. Keye s note s h e wa s no t aparty t o th e allege dtelephon e conversation
. Responden t

denie s that

Mr
. Witt eithe r was o r "i s h e currentl y barre dfromth e us e o f McMin n County Airport. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 ] Responden t

assert s i n it s Answe r that , "Mr
. Witt , a s alicense dpilo t o r passenger , may fly t o o r

fromth e McMin n County Airport at hi s pleasure " an dals o clarifie s tha t Mr
. Witt' s "servic e a s aprivat e flight instructor , i n th e employmen t o f th e former

FB O was terminatedfor reason s th e lat e Mr
. Johnso n i s n o longe r

availabl e t o confir

mo r deny. " [FA A Exhibi t

I , Ite m9 ] Complainan t

Ferrel l reference s th e sam e conversatio n Keye s did , allegedl y occurrin g vi a telephon e betwee n Mr
. Witt an dMr
. Johnson , th e owne r o f th e FBO , Athen s Air , Inc
. a t thi s time
. Accordin g t o Ferrell' s Complaint , Mr
. Johnso n allegedl y tol dMr
. Witt , h e wa s "barre dfro mth e field, an ddenie dacces s t o all trainin g aircraf t an dtrainin g facilities. " [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 ] Ferrel l doe s no t giv e adat e whe n thi s allege dstatemen t wa s made ; however , base do n Ferrell' s loos e accoun t o f event s an dth e correlatio n t o Mr
. Keyes ' account , th e Directo r infer s it occurre di n earl y Januar y 200 6 a s Ferrel l allege s thi s denia l o f

acces s resulte dfromMr
. Witt goin g "directl y t o th e McMin n County Mayor , Joh n Gentry , requestin g the y d o thei r job , ac t o n th e closur e an dissu e th e appropriat e Notam s (sic). " [FAA Exhibi t I , Ite m2 ] Ferrel l the n allege s tha t after Mayo r Gentry tol dMr
. Wit

t h e "woul dimmediatel y contac t th e airport

operator , Athen s Ai r

Inc
. an dge t i t take n car e of..
. Fiv e minute s late r Mr
. Witt receive d(th e above referenced ) call. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 ] Base do n statement s mad e b y Complainan t Keyes , th e secon dclosur e too k

plac e o n o r

abou t Januar y 11 , 2006
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ]

" Durin g thi s time , th e no w decease dMr
. Bil l Johnso n wa s th e airport manage r an downe r

o f th e FB O Athen s Air , Inc
. Th e FB O interest s wer e sol dt o Athen s Air , LLC , owne db y Kristy Gentry-Cox , in Octobe r 2006
. Th e airport

managemen t

contrac t wa s transferre dt o Athen s Air , LLC , i n Novembe r

2006 , approximatel y 1 1 month s after Mr
. Wit t wa s terminate db y th e former FBO
. 1 1Complainan t Keye s als o reference s aconversatio n betwee n Mr
. Witt an dMs
. Gentry

Cox'^ , t o whic h Keye s wa s no t aparty , tha t

allegedl y occurre d"shortly after final repair s wer e bein g complete dt o fix th e runway (north portio n wa s stil l closed), " durin g whic h Ms
. Gentry-Co x tol dMr
. Witt "h e wa s barre dfromth e airport."' ^ [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 12 ] I n it s Answe r

t o Ferrell' s Complaint , Responden t reiterate s it s positio n that Mr
. Witt "neve r ha s been , no r

i s currentl y barre dfro mth e us e o f th e McMin n County Airport. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m10 ] Responden t

als o demande d"writte n proo f o f thi s fals e claim " agai n denyin g it s veracity
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 ] I n Ferrell' s Reply , th e Complainan t states , " 1 hav e documente di t a s factual; " however , hi s Repl y doe s no t

includ e an y supportin g documentation
. Instead , h e recount s th e attempte drental event , reference s athir dpart y commen t Ferrel l admit s h e hear d"minute s afte r th e allege dinciden t

occurred, " an dreference s astatement' ^ Ms
. Gentry-Co x allegedl y mad e t o Ferrel l at Churc h th e Sunday followin g th e keyin g incident
. [FA A Exhibi t l,lte m13 ] Complainan t

Keyes ' Repl y als o fail s t o provid e evidenc e supportin g th e allegatio n that Mr
. Wit t ma y no t us e th e McMin n County Airport
. Instead , Keye s reference s news storie s that

stat e Mr
. Wit

t wa s n o longe r

employe db y th e former

FB O a s acontrac t

flight instructo r i n 200 6 an dals o state s tha t h e base dhi s allegation s o n "observation s an d conversation s (h e had ) with Mr
. Witt directly. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m12 ] Th e secon dinstanc e o f

allege ddenia l o f

acces s occurre di n Apri l 200 7 agains t Complainan t

Ferrell ; however , neithe r Complainan t

offer s aprecis e date
. Prio r t o thi s allege devent , i n Octobe r 2006 , Athen s Air , LL C becam e th e fixedbas e operato r (FBO ) at MMI , havin g purchase dth e asset s o f th e previou s FBO , Athen s Air , Inc
. Th e sal e als o le dt o th e transferenc e th e airpor t managemen t

agreemen t

i n Novembe r

2006
. [FA A Exhibi t

I , Ite m1 ] B y Apri l 2007 , Complainan t Keye s state s that

Kristy Gentry-Cox , initiall y co-owne r o f Athen s Air , LLC , becam e th e sol e owne r o f th e FBO
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite mI ] Complainant s Ferrel l an dKeye s bot h offe r similar account s o f

a n allege dinciden t

tha t occurre dregardin g th e renta l o f an aircraf t sometim e i n Apri l 2007
. Accordin g t o th e Complainants , Ferrel l attempte dt o ren t aCessn a17 2 fromth e FBO , Athen s Air , LLC ,

' ^ A s previousl y noted , Kristy Gentry-Co x i s th e owne r o f th e curten t

FBO , Athen s Air , LLC
. Ms
. Gentry

Co x began operatin g he r

FB O i n Octobe r

2006 , whe n Mr
. Bil l Johnson , sol dhi s interest s t o her
. At thi s time , McMin n County als o approve dth e transferenc e o f th e managemen t

contrac t fromJohnson' s compan y t o Gentry-Cox's
. Ms
. Gentry-Co x als o i s th e cousi n o f McMii mCounty Mayor , Joh n Gentry
. " Base do n th e evidenc e submitte dt o th e record , th e Directo r infer s thi s allege dinciden t occurre di n late 2006
. ' * Accordin g t o Complainan t Ferrell' s Reply , Ms
. Gentry-Co x allegedl y stated , " I lov e you , Go dlove s you , bu t yo u are reall y makin g i

t difficult! " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 ] 1 2fo

r th e purpos e o f

conductin g hi s flight

revie w (BFR).' ^ Ferrel l ha daske dMr
. Wit t t o perfor mhi s flight

revie w i n thi s aircraft
. Upo n arrivin g a t th e Airport , a

n employe e o f th e FB O informe dComplainan t Ferrel l that

h e coul dno t

ren t th e aircraf

t sinc e Mr
. Witt woul db e conductin g th e flight revie w i n i t

an dh e was no t

o n th e FBO' s insuranc e polic y a s an instructor
. Complainan t Ferrel l an dMr
. Witt

the n lef t th e Airport
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 an dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , Exhibi t

1 ] Responden t

denies that

i t denie dacces s o r

servic e t o Complainan t

Ferrel l whe n th e FB O refuse dt o ren t

a n aircraf t t o hi mfor

hi s flight revie w with Mr
. Witt

a s hi s instructor
. In an attemp t

t o clarif y th e busines s relationshi p betwee n Mr
. Witt an dth e FBO , Responden t

editorialize s that

Mr
. Witt' s service s a s acontrac t employe e with th e former FB O wer e terminate db y Mr
. Johnson , th e previou s FB O owne r an dairport

manager , fo

r dispute dreason s a s note dpreviously
. Responden t state s i t contacte dAthen s Air, LL C regardin g thi s allege dinciden t an dwas tol dthat

"Mr
. Witt

wa s no t liste do n thei r insuranc e polic y t o fly thei r plane s a s h e wa s no t

on e o f thei r contracte demployees. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m10 ] Responden t

state s an dComplainant s d o not objec t t o th e fac t that Mr
. Witt neve r wa s a n employe e o f

Athen s Air , LLC
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 ] Responden t

agai n denies Mr
. Witt

may no t us e th e McMii mCounty Airport an d requeste dproo f

t o whic h Complainan t

Keye s respond s with reference s t o Ferrell' s "ope n letter " t o McMin n County ein dareiteratio n o f

hi s "observation s an dconversation s with Mr
. Witt " wherei n Witt

"fel t h e ha dn o acces s t o th e airport. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] I n hi s Reply , Complainan t Ferrel l expound s upo n hi s qualification s a s apilo t b y recountin g hi s professiona l experience , flight hours , ratings , an dothe r

airme n privilege s an dconclude s b y stating , "i t seem s strang e unde r

th e abov e circumstanc e tha t I was denie drenta l o f

th e Athen s Air , LLC' s Cessn a172. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 ] Ferrel l the n state s what

h e believe s t o b e "norma l procedure " for an FB O t o ren t

a n aircraf t an d add s that , "i f

Mrs
. Gentry-Co x ha dcalle dm e a t home , an dexplaine dt o m e th e circunstane s (sic ) o f

wh y sh e di dno t

wan t t o ren t th e aircraf

t t o me , 1 woul dhav e understoo dhe r

posifion. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m13 ] In it s Rebuttal s t o both Complainants , Responden t repeat s it s assertio n tha t

Mr
. Keyes , Mr
. Witt , an dMr
. Ferrel l ar e welcom e t o us e th e McMir mCounty Airport
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 4 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m15 ] Responden t

als o reiterate s it s understandin g o f th e FBO' s polic y o n aircraf t renta l event s an deligibility
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m15 ] 4
. Allegation s o f

Discriminatio n an dAirpor t Mismanagemen t Complainant s Keye s an dFerrel l both alleg e intentiona l acts o f discriminatio n perpetrate d agains t Keye s an dFerrell , precipitate db y th e FBO' s inadequat e managemen t o f th e Airport , resulte di n th e Responden t violatin g Gran t

Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. Additionally , Complainant s alleg e th e Respondent' s lac k o f oversigh t regardin g th e FBO' s managemen t o f th e Airport' s adminisfrativ e function s resulte di n violation s o f

Gran t Assuranc e 2 2 an dGran t

Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an d Maintenance
.

" Se e Footnot e 1 2 fo

r a n explanatio n o f

biennia l flight

revie w (als o know n a s flight review)
. 1 3Hanga r Waitin g Lis t I n th e first allege dac t

o f discrimination
. Complainant s stat e Keye s wa s no t awarde d renta l o f ahangar i n accordanc e wit

h hi s plac e o n th e hangar waitin g list
. I n 1998 , th e Airport

erecte dtw o set s ofte n (10 ) ne w t-hangars
. Wit h th e additio n o f thes e twenty (20 ) ne w hangars , th e Airport ha datota l o f

thirty (30 ) t-hangars ; th e oldes t te n (10 ) o f

whic h wer e lease dou t

b y th e FB O a s asourc e o f bas e leve l revenue , whil e th e twenty ne w hangar s wer e lease ddirectl y b y th e County
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] Complainan t

Keye s contends h e wa s place do n at-hangar waitin g lis t

at th e Airport

o n Ma y 30 , 200 4 b y th e former

FB O owne r

an dairpor t

manager . Bil l Johnson
. [FAA Exhibi t I , Ite m12 , Exhibi t

25 ] Th e Responden t

doe s no t objec t t o th e clai mtha t

Keye s wa s o n awaitin g lis t fo r at
hanga r at th e Airport
. In it s Answe r t o Keyes ' Complaint , Responden t state s th e waitin g lis t fo r th e County operate dt-hangar s ha dbee n maintaine db y th e Mayor' s Assistan t bu t at som e poin t

prio r t o Octobe r

2006 , th e Mayor' s Assistan t allegedl y transferre dth e lis t t o th e former

FB O owner , Mr
. Johnso n for maintenance
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] Ther e i s n o statemen t

o f clarity regardin g precisel y whe n thi s occurre do r if th e FB O wa s give n instruction s o n ho w t o assig n availabl e hangar s fro mth e County' s waitin g lis t i n combinatio n with Mr
. Johnson' s waitin g list
. Whe n Mr
. Johnso n sol dhi s FB O an dairport managemen t

interest s t o Athen s Air , LL C i n Octobe r 2006 , Responden t

assert s Mr
. Johnso n an dth e ne w FB O owner s me t t o confer o n th e statu s o f

th e FBO' s list
. Responden t allege s th e FBO' s hangar waitin g lis t

wa s no t organize da

t that time , contendin g Mr
. Johnso n kep t mos t o f i t b y memory . [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m9 ] Mr
. Johnso n sinc e passe daway . Responden t state s that

th e ne w FB O managemen t

place dComplainan t

Keye s i n th e to p te n o n it s waitin g lis t base do n th e conversation s hel dwith Mr
. Johnso n i n lat e 2006
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] Sometim e i n o r

£iroun d200 6 an d2007 , Keye s state s ane w se t ofte n (10 ) t-hangar s wa s constructe do n th e Airport
. O n Jul y 5 , 2007 , Complainan t Keye s allege s h e "wa s intentionall y passe dove r for a hange r (sic ) whic h ha dbecom e available, " havin g bee n o n th e hangar waitin g lis t

sinc e Ma y 30 , 2004
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] Complainan t

Ferrel l restate s Keyes ' allegation , notin g tha t

"th e nex t availabl e hangar

(wa s given ) t o apilo t

(Mr
. Stev e Dodd ) that

was belo w Mr
. Keye s o n th e list. " [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m2 ] Keye s contend s Mr
. Dod dnotifie d th e airport

manage r that Keye s was ahea do f

him
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 ] Keye s als o allege s h e ha daconversatio n with McMin n County Mayo r Joh n Gentry an d FB O Owner , Kristy Gentry-Co x o n Jul y 11 , 200 7 regjirdin g hi s plac e o n th e hangar waitin g list
. Keye s include s i n hi s Repl y excerpt s fromnote s h e claim s h e too k durin g thi s meeting
. Accordin g t o Keyes ' account , thi s meetin g conclude dwith th e Mayo r an d
1 4Ms
. Gentry-Co x tellin g Complainan t Keye s that

h e wil l ge t

th e nex t availabl e hangar
. [FA A Exhibi t

l,lte m12 ] Keye s state s h e formall y complaine dabou t th e issu e befor e th e McMin n County Airport Committe e o n Jul y 16 , 2007
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] Bot h Complainan t

Keye s an dComplainan t

Ferrel l alleg e th e ne w FB O owne r intentionall y passe dove r

Keye s o n th e waitin g lis t du e t o hi s involvemen t

in th e lin e o f sigh t issue
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 an dFAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , Exhibi t

4 ] Responden t

denies that

Keye s was intentionall y passe dove r o r lef t of f th e hanga

r waitin g list
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m9 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 ] In it s Answe r t o Keyes ' Complaint , Responden t

admit s "som e administrativ e confusio n i n maintainin g th e hanga r waitin g list; " however
. Responden t contend s th e ne w waitin g lis t "i s publicl y displaye d i n th e termina l a s addition s an ddeletion s occur. " [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m9 ] Responden t

assert s Keye s was offere dan daccepte daCounty t-hangar in 2008 , before hi s Part 1 6 Complain t

was filed. [FA A Exhibi t

I , Ite m9 ] I n hi s Reply , Keye s acknowledge s h e wa s offere dahangar o n o r abou t February 29 , 200 8 b y Mayo r

Gentry o n behal f

o f th e County ; however , Complainan t maintain s th e Responden t

i s i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 22(a. ) because : Whe n th e airpor t

manage r was confronte dwit

h th e fac t tha t th e individua l t o whomsh e was offerin g th e hanga r (prio r t o Keyes , Stev e Dodd ) indicate dtha t h e was no t th e nex t individua l o n th e list , sh e shoul dhav e stoppe dan dcorrecte dhe r mistake..
. an dth e Airpor t Committe e an dCount

y Mayor..
. shoul dhav e intervene dan dremaine dengage dunti l asatisfactor y resolutio n wa s reached
. The y di dnot . [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m12 ] Emai l an dEven t

Invitatio n List s Th e secon dinstanc e o f

allege ddiscriminatio n appear s t o hav e occurre dsometim e aroun d th e summe r

o f 200 7 whe n Complainan t Ferrel l allege s h e was "take n of f (Athen s Air's ) E-mai l list , no t

invite dt o an y airport

publi c functions , includin g monthl y safet y meetings , alon g with Mr
. Witt

an dMr
. Keyes. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 ] Ferrel l als o allege s that becaus e thi s i s Ms
. Gentry-Cox' s "firs t managemen t

job, " th e Responden t

"shoul dhav e give n he r stric t guideline s o f

ho w t o operat e apubli c facilit y whe n sh e assume dth e contrac t t o manag e th e MM I airport..
. i n accordanc e with Stat e an dFedera l Guidelines. " [FA A Exhibi t

I , Ite m2 , Exhibi t

2 ] Responden t

denies "ther e hav e bee n an y willfu l act s o f discrimination " an drequest s "clarificatio n ho w thes e (accusation s regardin g Ferrell' s allege dremova l fromth e FBO' s emai l lis t an dinvitation s t o airpor t fimctions ) woul dviolat e federal gran t assurances. " [FA A Exhibi t

I , Ite m10 ] Furthermore , Responden t state s th e FB O doe s no t

sponso r monthl y safet

y meetings
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 ] 1 5In hi s Reply , Ferrel l onl y reiterate s hi s contentio n that th e FB O stoppe dsendin g hi m email s afte

r th e renta l even t

concernin g Mr
. Witt
. H e als o state s "h e ha s no t bee n insid e th e termina l buildin g a

t th e airport , o r

receive dan y hin t

o f a n apolog y fromMrs
. Gentry

Cox. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m13 ] Airpor t Mismanagemen t In Octobe r

2006 , whe n th e runway lin e o f sigh t deviatio n projec t

wa s concluding
. Bil l Johnson , owne r

o f Athen s Air , Inc. , th e FB O o n th e Airport prio r t o Octobe r

2006 , sol d hi s interest s i n th e busines s t o Kristy Gentry-Co x an dTaylo r Newman , wh o forme d Athen s Air , LLC
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 , Exhibi t

3 ] In Novembe r

2006 , th e county approve dtransfe r

o f th e airport

managemen t

contrac t t o th e ne w FBO
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 , Exhibi t

5 ] B y Apri l 2007 , Ms
. Gentry-Co x purchase dMr
. Newman' s interest s i n Athen s Air, LLC
. Thes e events ar e unconteste di n th e record
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Ther e ar e unsubstantiate dan derran t allegation s by Complainant s tha t Ms
. Gentry-Co x an dMr
. Newma n ha dprearrange dth e Apri l 200 7 buyout.^ " Afte r th e buyout
. Complainant s conten dMs
. Gentry-Co x was give n "complet e contro l o f th e airport " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] an drun s th e facilit y "a s i f i t wer e (her ) privat e Airport. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , Exhibi t

2 ] Complainan t

Ferrel l als o state s tha t

th e Responden t

"shoul dhav e give n (Ms
. Gentry-Cox ) stric t guideline s o n ho w t o operat e apubli c facility whe n sh e assume dth e contac t t o manag e th e MM I airport. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , Exhibi t

2 ] Complainan t

Ferrel l state s the : Airpor t shoul db e manage dby afirmtha t realize s tha t

thi s i s apubli c facilit y an d tha t al l pilot s wh o ar e i n goo dstandin g wit h th e FA A shoul db e welcome t o come an dfly i n th e capacit y the y ar e qualifie dto d o s o in accordanc e th e FA A Regulations^ ' an dno t

discriminat e agains t

an y on e pilot
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , Exhibi t 1 ] Regardin g th e allegation s tha t th e Airport

shoul db e manage db y afirmthat abide s b y FA A regulation s an db e ope n t o th e public
. Responden t reiterate s it s assertio n that Complainant s Keye s an dFerrel l an dMr
. Witt "are welcom e t o us e an denjo y th e airport withou t fea r o f infimidatio n o r

retaliation. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m14 ] Responden t

als o reference s it s progres s draftin g ne w airport rule s an dregulation s an dminimu mstandards
. [FA A Exhibi t

I , Ite m14], a s suggeste db y Complainan t Ferrel l durin g th e Part

13. 1 process . [FA A Exhibi t

I , Ite m2
. Exhibi t

2 ]

2 0 Th e Directo r

wil l no t investigat e allegation s tha t base do n thir dparty conversation s tha t amoun t t o hearsay o r

conjectur e "bein g publicl y discusse dat th e airport " an dmor e importantly , tha t hav e n o relevanc e t o thi s case . [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] ^ ' Th e Directo r

deduce s that

Ferrell' s inferenc e t o "fl y in th e capacit y the y are qualifie dt o d o so " i s referrin g t o Mr
. Witt

no t bein g allowe dt o offe

r independen t

flight instructio n usin g th e FBO' s aircraft
. Th e Directo r

addresse s th e merit s o f

thi s allegatio n unde r

Issu e #4
. 1 65
. Procedura l Histor y

O n Marc h 22 , 2008 , Complainan t Keye s wrot e t o th e TN DO T allegin g th e Responden t violate dGran t

Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an dMaintenance , an dGran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m20 ] O n May 19 , 2008 , Complainan t Ferrel l contacte dth e T N DO T allegin g th e Responden t violate dGran t

Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 1 ] Responden t

provide danswer s t o th e allegation s o f both Complainants
. ] Keyes , FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9-Ex
. 9 ; Ferrell , FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2-Ex
. 3 ] I

n it s answer s Responden t denie dallegation s pertainin g t o maintenanc e an doperation s i n violatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 19
. Responden t als o denie dallegation s pertainin g t o threats , vandalism , denial s o f acces s an dservice , an ddiscriminatio n ascribe dt o violation s o f Gran t Assuranc e 22
. Responden t denie dwillfiill y mismanagin g th e Airport i n £in y manne r that amounte dt o aviolatio n o f it s gran t assurances ; however
. Responden t acknowledge di

t neede dt o improv e it s airport managemen t

practice s an doffere dstep s t o d o so . In Ferrell' s informal complain t proceedings , TN DO T notifie dComplainan t Ferrel l that th e Mayo r

agree dt o educat e th e airport conmiitte e an dmanagemen t o n "certai n ke y federal document s relatin g t o (Ferrell's ) complain t issues. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , Exhibi t 3 ] O n Jul y 11 , 2008 , Complainan t Ferrel l sen t

alette r t o T N DO T expressin g hi s "desir e t o discontinu e th e informal disput e resolution..
. an dmov e forwardt o th e formal part 1 6 process. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , Exhibi t

3 ] O n Septembe r

16 , 2008 , Complainan t

Keye s sen t

alette r t o TN DO T expressin g hi s "desir e t o discontinu e th e informal dispute resolution..
. an dmov e forwardt o th e forma l part 1 6 process. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 , Exhibi t

13 ] O n Decembe r

17 , 2008 , Complainan t

Keye s filedhi s Complain t withou t Exhibits
. [FA A Exhibi t l,Ite m1 ] O n Decembe r

22 , 2008 , Complainan t

Ferrel l filedhi s Complain t with four (4 ) Exhibits
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 , Exhibit s 1-4

]

^ ^ Titl e 1 4 CF R§ 16.21(a ) states , "Prio r t o filing acomplain t

unde r thi s part , aperso n directl y an d substantiall y affecte db y th e allege dnoncomplianc e shal l initiat e an dengag e i n goo dfait h effort s t o resolv e th e dispute dmatte r

informall y wit

h thos e individual s o r

entitie s believe dresponsibl e fo r th e noncompliance
. Thes e effort s at informal resolutio n may include , withou t limitation , at

th e parties ' expense , mediation , arbitration , o r

th e us e o f

adisput e resolutio n board , o r othe r for mo f thir dparty assistance. " Th e Stat e o f Tennesse e participate s in th e FAA' s Bloc k Gran t Programan dassume s th e dutie s associate dwit h administerin g grant s an denforcin g thei r applicabl e Federa l Gran t Assurances
. It

als o provide s th e forum that allow s acomplainan t

t o compl y wit

h 1 4 CFR§16.21(a)
. Th e Complainant s herei n bega n thi s informa l proces s b y filing thes e allegation s o f violation s wit

h th e T N DOT
. Becaus e th e Complainant s wer e unabl e t o resolv e thi s matte r

informall y wit

h th e T N DOT , the y the n filedthes e Complaint s unde r Titl e 1 4 CF R Part 16
. 1 7O n Januar y 16 , 2008 , th e FAA provide dNotices o f Docketin g for

bot h Complaints
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Item s 3 an d4 ] O n February 4 , 2009 , Responden t filed anotic e o f

reques t fo r Extension s o f

Tim e t o file it s Answe r

t o both Complaints
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5 ] O n February 5 , 2009 , Complain t Keyes ' sen t

alette r t o th e FA A Offic e o f

th e Chie f Counse l objectin g t o Respondent' s reques t fo r Extensio n o f

Tim e t o file it s Answe r

t o Complaint
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m6 ] O n February 6 , 2009 , th e FA A greintedResponden t both request s fo

r Extension s o f

Tim e t o Answe r

t o bot h Complaints
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m8 ] O n February 9 , 2009 , Responden t filedit s Answe r

t o Keyes ' Complain t

an dMotio n t o Dismis s with 1 3 exhibits
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 , Exhibit s 1-13 ] O n February 12 , 2009 , Responden t filedit s Answe r

t o Ferrell' s Complain t

an dMotio n t o Dismis s with 2 exhibits
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , Exhibi t

1 ] O n February 16 , 2009 , Responden t sen t aon e pag e documen t

entitled , "Aviatio n Insuranc e Binder/confirmatio n o f coverage " an dafa

x cove r pag e statin g tha t

thi s pag e (Exhibit 2 ) wa s inadvertentl y omitte dfromit s answe r fo r docke t 16-08-13
. [FA A Exhibi t l,lte m10 , Exhibi t

2 ] O n February 18 , 2009 , Complainan t Keye s filedhi s Repl y with 4 0 Exhibits
. (I n th e tex t o f hi s Reply , Keye s reference s a41^ ' an d42"* * endnote/exhibit ; however , th e FA A di dno t receiv e thes e exhibit s an dtherefor e di dno t includ e the mi n th e docket)
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 , Exhibit s 1-40 ] O n February 26 , 2009 , Responden t filedit s Rebutta l t o Keyes ' Reply
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m14 ] O n Marc h 2 , 2009 , Complainan t Ferrel l filedhi s Repl y with 3 Exhibits
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 , Exhibit s 1-3 ] O n Marc h 10 , 2009 , Responden t filedit s Rebutta l t o Ferrell' s Repl y with 4 Exhibits
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m15 , Exhibit s 1-4] O n Jun e 2 5 2009 , th e FA A issue dan Amende dNotic e o f Docketing , Orde r

t o Consolidat e an dNotic e o f Extensio n o f

Tim e for issuanc e o f

Director' s Determination
. Thi s Orde r

an dNotic e consolidate dth e originall y dockete dComplaint s (Keyes , 16-08

- 12 ; an dFerrell , 16-08-13 ) unde r 16-08-1 2 an dextende dth e tim e for th e Directo r

t o issu e hi s Determinatio n unti l Augus t 28 , 2009
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m25 ]

1 8IV
. ISSUE S UNDE RINVESTIGATIO N

Th e FA A i s responsibl e fo r adjudicatin g airport

complianc e matter s involvin g Federally

assiste dairport s arisin g unde r th e Airport

an dAirwa y Improvemen t Ac t (AAIA ) o f

1982 , a s amended ; certai n airport-relate dprovision s o f th e Federal Aviatio n Ac t o f 1994 , a s amended ; th e Surplu s Property Act , a s amended ; predecessor s t o thos e acts ; an d regulations , gran t

agreements , an ddocument s o f conveyanc e issue do r

mad e unde r

thos e acts . [See , FA A Rule s o f

Practic e fo

r Federally-Assiste dAirport Proceedings , 1 4 CF R Par t 16 ] I n accordanc e with thi s mandat e an dwith th e consolidatio n o f th e tw o Complaints , thi s Director' s Determinatio n addresse s th e followin g issues : ISSU E #1 : Whethe r

th e Respondent' s allege dfailur e t o properl y clos e th e Airpor t i n accordanc e wit

h FAA an dStat e directive s du e t o arunwa y lin e o f sigh t discrepanc y constitute s aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e #19 , Operatio n an dMaintenance
. ISSU E #2 : Whethe r

th e Respondent' s allege dfailur e t o properl y certif y th e plan s an dspecification s fo r

th e runwa y extensio n project , allowin g error s an d omission s i n th e plan s an dspecification s tha t wer e foreseeabl e a t

th e tim e o f projec t design , violate dGran t

Assuranc e #34 , Policies , Standards , an dSpecifications ? ISSU E #3 : Whethe r

Responden t

violate dGran t

Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an d Maintenance , whe n i t

allegedl y faile dt o maintai n "th e airpor t an dal l facilities..
. a t

al l time s i n asaf

e an dserviceabl e condition " by allowin g th e visua l approac h lightin g system s an dothe r lightin g system s t o b e i n a"stat e o f

disrepair " an dallegedl y faile dt o promptl y notif y airme n "o f an y conditio n affectin g aeronautica l us e o f th e airport? " ISSU E #4 : Whethe r

th e Respondent' s failur e t o respon dt o allegation s o f threat s an dvandalis ma s wel l a s allege dinstance s o f denia l o f acces s an d servic e constitut e aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an d Maintenance , and/o r

aviolatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscriminatio n ? ISSU E #5 : Whethe r

th e Respondent' s allege dfailur e t o bette r regulat e it s FBO/Airpor t

Managemen t

contracto r

an dth e discriminator y act s allegedl y perpetrate db y th e FBO , constitut e aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination ; an dwhethe r th e Responden t

abdicatio n o f

it s right s an dauthorit y t o th e FB O an dother s constitut e aviolatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 5 ?

1 9V
. APPLICABL E LA W AN D POLIC Y

Th e Federal rol e i n civi l aviatio n i s provide db y variou s legislativ e action s that authoriz e program s fo

r providin g Federa l fiinds an dothe r assistanc e t o loca l communitie s fo r th e developmen t

o f airport facilities
. I

n eac h suc h program , th e airport sponso r assume s certai n obligations , eithe r b y contrac t

o r b y restrictiv e covenant s i n property deed s an d conveyanc e instruments , t o maintai n an doperat e it s airport safel y an defficientl y an din accordanc e with specifie dconditions
. Commitment s assume db y airport sponsor s i n property conveyanc e o r

gran t agreement s ar e importan t factor s i n maintainin g ahig h degre e o f safet y an defficienc y i n airport design , construction , operation , an d maintenance , a s wel l a s ensurin g th e publi c fai r an dreasonabl e acces s t o th e airport
. I n additio n t o managin g th e airport i n accordanc e with th e gran t assurances , ensurin g th e airport operate s fo

r th e us e an dbenefi t

o f th e publi c i s th e prim e obligatio n se t fort h i n th e Federal gran t

assurances . [See , FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Sectio n 4-13.a ] Title 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47101 , e t seq. , provide s fo

r Federa l airport

financial assistanc e for

th e developmen t

o f public-us e airport s unde r th e Airport

Improvemen t

Progra m(AIP ) establishe db y th e Airport an dAirway Improvemen t Ac t o f 1982 , a s amended
. Title 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107 , e t

seq. , set s fort

h assurance s t o whic h a

n airport sponso r agree s a s a conditio n o f

receivin g Federa l fineincial assistance
. Upo n acceptanc e o f a n AI P grsint , th e assurance s becom e abindin g contractua l obligatio n betwee n th e airport sponso r an dth e Federa l govenmient
. Th e eissurance s mad e b y airpor t sponsor s i n AI P gran t

agreement s ar e importan t

factor s i n maintainin g aviabl e nationa l airport system . Th e AI P provide s grant s t o eligibl e airport

sponsor s (recipient s o f

grant s ar e referre dt o a s "sponsors" ) fo r th e plarmin g an ddevelopmen t o f public-us e airports
. Airport sponsor s wh o accep t

a gran t offe r als o accep t

condition s an dobligation s associate dwith th e gran t assurances . Thes e includ e 3 9 specificall y delineate dobligation s suc h a s operatin g an dmaintainin g th e Airport

i n asaf e an dserviceabl e condition , no t grantin g exclusiv e rights , mitigatin g hazard s t o airspace , usin g airport revenu e properly , etc . Airpor t Sponso r Assurance s A s aconditio n preceden t

t o providin g airport

developmen t

assistanc e unde r

th e Airport Improvemen t

Program , 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107 , e t seq. , th e Secretary o f

Transportatio n and , b y extension , th e FA A mus t receiv e certai n assurance s fromth e airport sponsor . Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a ) set s fort h th e statutory sponsorshi p requirement s t o whic h a n airport sponso r receivin g Federa l financial assistanc e mus t agree . Th e FA A ha s astatutory mandat e t o ensur e tha t airpor t owner s compl y with thes e sponso r assurances.^ ^ FA A Orde r 5190.6a , Airpor t

Complianc e Requirement s (FA A Orde r 5190.6a ) issue do n Octobe r 2 , 1989 , provide s th e policie s an dprocedure s t o b e followe db y th e FA A i n carryin g out it s legislativel y mandate dfunction s relate dt o Federall y obligate dairport owners ' complianc e wit h thei r sponso r assurances . Th e FAA

^ ^ See , e.g . th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t o f 1958 , a s amende dan drecodified , Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § § 40101,40113 , 40114 , 46104 , 46105 , 46106,46110 ; an dth e Airport an dAirwa y Improvemen t Ac t o f 1982 , a s amende d an drecodified
. Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § § 47105(d) , 47106(d) , 47107(k) , 47107(1) , 47111(d) , 4712 2 2 0consider s it inappropriat e to provid e Federa l assistanc e fo r improvemen t

t o airport s wher e th e benefit s o f

suc h improvement s wil l no t b e ftilly realize ddu e t o inheren t restriction s o n aeronautica l activities
. Th e gran t assurance s relevan t

t o th e issue s raise d i n th e Complain t

ar e th e following : Gran t Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPower s Gran t Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPowers , implement s th e provision s o f th e Airport an dAirwa y Improvemen t Ac t (AAIA) , 4 9 U.S.C
. Sectio n 47107(a) , e t seq. , an d requires , i n pertinen t

part , that th e sponso r

o f aFederall y obligate dairport : ...wil l not tak e o r permi t an y actio n whic h woul doperat e t o depriv e i t o f an y o f th e right s an dpower s necessar y t o perfor man y o r al l o f th e terms , conditions , an dassurance s in th e gran t agreemen t

withou t th e writte n approva l o f

th e Secretary , an dwil l ac t

promptl y t o acquire , extinguis h o r modif y an y outstandin g right s o r claim s o f

righ t o f other s whic h woul dinterfer e wit h suc h performanc e by th e sponsor . Furthermore , Gran t

Assuranc e 5. f

states : I f a n arrangemen t

i s mad e fo r

managemen t

an doperatio n o f

th e airpor t

b y an y agenc y o r perso n othe r

tha n th e sponso r

o r a n employe e o f

th e sponsor , th e sponso r wil l reserv e sufficient

right s an dauthorit y t o insur e tha t th e airpor t

wil l b e operate dan dmaintaine di n accordanc e wit h Titl e 49 , Unite dState s Code , th e regulation s an dth e terms , condition s an dassurance s i n th e gran t agreemen t

an d shal l insur e tha t

suc h arrangemen t

als o require s complianc e therewith
. FAA Orde r

5190.6 aprovide s additiona l guidanc e o n handlin g airport managemen t agreement s wherei n sponsor s contrac t with privat e entitie s t o maintai n th e airport an d manag e administrativ e fiancfions. Specifically , Sectio n 6-5.c(l. ) addresse s asponsor' s dut y t o uphol dit s gran t

obligation s i n an y agreemen t execute dwith aprivat e party . Thi s sectio n states , i n part , that th e entity t o whic h th e sponso r enter s int o amanagemen t agreement : specificall y agree s t o operat e th e airpor t fo r th e us e an dbenefi t

o f th e public , t o make availabl e al l airpor t facilitie s an dservice s t o th e publi c o n fai r an d reasonabl e term s an dwithou t discrimination ; t o provid e spac e o n th e airport , t o th e exten t available ; an dt o gran t

right s an dprivilege s fo r

us e o f th e landin g facilitie s o f

th e airpor t

t o al l qualifie dpersons , firms an dcorporatio n designin g t o conduc t

aeronautica l operation s o n th e airport
. [FA A Orde r 5190.61 , Sectio n 6-5.c.(l) ]

2 1Gran t

Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscriminatio n Th e owne r

o f an airport

develope dwith Federal assistanc e i s require dt o operat e th e airport fo r th e us e an dbenefi t

o f th e public
. Gran t

Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination , deals with bot h th e reasonablenes s o f

airpor t acces s an dth e prohibitio n o f

adoptin g unjustl y discriminatory condition s a s apotentia l fo r limitin g access . Gran t

Assuranc e 2 2 o f

th e prescribe dsponso r

assurance s implement s th e provision s o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(1 ) throug h (6) , an drequires , i n pertinen t parts :
a . (The airpor t

owner/sponsor ) wil l make th e airpor t availabl e a s a n airpor t

fo r publi c us e o n reasonabl e term s an dwithou t unjus t discriminatio n t o al l types , kind s an dclasse s o f

aeronautica l activities , includin g commercia l aeronautica l activitie s offerin g service s t o th e publi c a t th e airport
. b
. I n an y agreement , contract , leas e o r othe r arrangemen t

unde r whic h arigh t

o r privileg e a t

th e airpor t

i s grante dt o an y person , firm, o r corporatio n to conduc t o r engag e i n an y aeronautica l activity fo r furnishin g service s t o th e publi c a t th e airport , th e sponso r

wil l insert

an denforc e provision s requirin g th e contracto r t o i
. Furnis h sai dservice s o n areasonable , an dno t unjustl y discriminatory , basi s t o al l user s thereo f an d ii
. Charg e reasonable , an dno t unjustl y discriminatory , price s fo r eac h uni t o r service , provide dtha t

th e contracto r

ma y b e allowe d t o make reasonabl e an dnondiscriminator y discounts , rebates , o r othe r simila r type s o f pric e reduction s t o volume purchases
. h
. (The airpor t

owner/sponsor ) may establis h suc h reasonable , an dnot unjustl y discriminatory , condition s t o b e me t by al l user s o f

th e airpor t

a s ma y b e necessar y fo r

th e saf e an defficient

operatio n o f

th e airport
. i
. Th e sponso r ma y prohibi t o r limi t an y give n type , kin do r

clas s o f aeronautica l us e o f th e airpor t

a s suc h actio n i s necessar y fo r th e saf e operatio n o f

th e airpor t

o r necessar y t o serv e th e civi l aviatio n need s o f th e public
. Subsectio n (h ) qualifie s subsectio n (a ) an dsubsectio n (i ) represent s an exceptio n t o subsectio n (a ) t o permi t

th e sponso r

t o exercis e contro l o f

th e airpor

t sufficien t t o preclud e unsaf

e an dinefficien t

condition s tha t

woul db e detrimenta l t o th e civi l aviatio n need s o f th e public
. In al l case s involvin g restriction s o n airport us e impose db y airport

owner s for

safet y an d efficienc y reasons , th e FA A wil l mak e th e final determinatio n o n th e reasonablenes s o f suc h restriction s whe n thos e restriction s den y o r limi t acces s to , o r

us e of , th e airport
. [See , FA A Orde r

5190.6a , par . 4-8a.(l) ]

2 3Gran t

Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an dMaintenanc e Gran t Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an dMaintenance , implement s th e provision s o f th e AAIA , 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(7) , an drequires , i n pertinen t part , that th e sponso r

o f a Federally-obligate dairport assure : "a
. Th e airpor t an dal l facilitie s whic h ar e necessar y to serv e th e aeronautica l user s o f

th e airport , othe r

tha n facilitie s owne do r

controlle d by th e Unite dStates , shal l b e operate da t al l time s i n asaf

e an d serviceabl e conditio n an di n accordanc e wit h th e minimumstandard s a s ma y b e require do r

prescribe dby applicabl e Federal , state , an dloca l agencie s fo r

maintenanc e an doperation
. I t wil l no t caus e o r permi t an y activity o r actio n thereo n whic h woul dinterfer e wit h it s us e fo r

airpor t purposes . I t

wil l suitabl y operat e an dmaintai n th e airpor t an dal l facilitie s thereo n o r

connecte dtherewith , wit h du e regar dt o climati c an d floodconditions
. An

y proposa l t o temporaril y clos e th e airpor t fo r non aeronautica l purpose s mus t first b e approve dby th e Secretary
. I n furtheranc e o f

thi s assurance , th e sponso r wil l hav e in effect

arrangement s for : (1 ) Operatin g th e airport' s aeronautica l facilitie s wheneve r

required ; (2 ) Promptl y markin g an dlightin g hazard s resultin g from airpor t conditions , includin g temporar y conditions ; and , (3 ) Promptl y notifyin g airme n o f an y conditio n affectin g aeronautica l us e o f

th e airport
. Nothin g containe dherei n shal l b e construe dt o requir e tha t th e airpor t

b e operate dfo r

aeronautica l us e durin g temporar y period s whe n snow , flood, o r othe r climati c condition s interfer e wit h suc h operatio n an d maintenance
. Further , nothin g herei n shal l b e construe da s requirin g th e maintenance , repair , restoration , o r replacemen t

o f an y structur e o r facilit y whic h i s substantiall y damage do r destroye ddu e t o a n ac t

o f Go d o r othe r conditio n o r

circumstanc e beyon dth e contro l o f th e sponsor . Additionally , FA A Orde r 5190.6 aprovide s that

th e owne r

shoul dadop t

an denforc e adequat e rules , regulations , o r ordinance s a s necessary t o ensur e safet y an defficienc y o f flight operation s an dt o protec t th e publi c usin g th e airport
. I n fact , th e prim e requiremen t

fo r local regulation s i s t o contro l th e us e o f th e airport

i n amarmer

that wil l eliminat e hzizard s t o aircraf t an dt o peopl e o n th e ground
. A s i n th e operatio n o f an y publi c servic e facility , FA A advise s airport sponsor s t o establis h adequat e rule s covering , inte r alia , vehicular

traffic , sanitation , security , crow dcontrol , acces s t o certai n areas , an dfire protection
. [See , FA A Orde r 5190.6a , Sectio n 4-7(b) ]

2 2Gran t Assuranc e 34 , Policies , Standards , an dSpecification s Gran t Assuranc e 3 4 ascribe s genera l Airport Improvemen t

Program(AIP ) standards, includin g th e incorporatio n o f certai n advisorie s circulars , t o th e Gran t Assuranc e Program
. Specifically , it

state s asponsor : ...wil l carr y out

th e projec t

i n accordanc e wit

h policies , standards , an d specification s approve dby th e Secretar y includin g bu t no t limite dt o th e advisory circular s liste din th e Curren t FA A Advisor

y Circular s fo r

AI P projects , date d an dinclude din thi s grant , an di n accordanc e wit h applicabl e stat e policies , standards , an dspecification s approve dby th e Secretary
. Th e FA A Airpor t

Complianc e Progra m Th e FAA discharge s it s responsibility fo r ensurin g that

airport sponsor s compl y with thei r Federal obligation s throug h it s Airport Complianc e Program
. Sponso r obligation s are th e basi s fo

r th e FAA' s airport

complianc e effort
. Th e airport owne r accept s thes e obligation s whe n receivin g Federa l gran t fund s o r whe n acceptin g th e transfe r o f Federal property fo

r airport purposes . Th e FA A incorporate s thes e obligation s i n gran t agreement s an dinstrument s o f conveyanc e t o protec t

th e public' s interes t

i n civi l aviatio n an dt o ensur e complianc e with Federal laws
. Th e FA A designe dth e Airport Complianc e Progra mt o ensur e th e availabilit y o f a nationa l syste mo f

saf e an dproperl y maintaine dpublic-us e airport s tha t airpor t sponsor s operat e i n amarmer

consisten t

with thei r

Federa l obligation s an dth e public' s investmen t i n civi l aviation
. Th e Airport Complianc e Progra mdoe s no t contro l o r

direc t th e operatio n o f

airports
. Rather , it

monitor s th e administratio n o f th e valuable right s that airport sponsor s pledg e t o th e peopl e o f th e Unite dState s i n exchang e fo r monetary grant s an ddonation s o f

Federal property t o ensur e that airport sponsor s serv e th e publi c interest
. FA A Orde r

5190.6a , Airpor t

Complianc e Requirements , date dOctobe r 2 , 1989 , set s fort

h policie s an dprocedure s fo r th e FA A Airport

Complianc e Program
. Th e Orde r i s no t regulatory an di s no t

controllin g with regar dt o airport sponso r conduct
. Rather , i t establishe s th e policie s an dprocedure s t o b e followe db y FA A personne l i n interpretin g an dadministerin g th e variou s continuin g commitment s airport owner s mak e t o th e Unite dState s a s aconditio n for receivin g Federa l fund s o r Federa l propert y for

airport purposes . Th e Order , inte r alia , analyze s th e variou s obligation s se t fort h i n th e standar d airport sponso r assurances , addresse s th e applicatio n o f th e assurance s i n th e operatio n o f public-us e airports , an dfacilitate s th e interpretatio n o f gran t assurance s b y FA A persormel
. Th e FA A Complianc e Programi s designe dt o achiev e voluntar y complianc e with Federal obligation s accepte db y owner s and/o r operator s o f

public-us e airport s develope dwith FAA-administere dassistance
. Therefore , i n addressin g allegation s o f non-compliance , th e FA A wil l mak e adeterminatio n o f whethe r an airport

sponso r currentl y i s i n 2 4complianc e wit h th e applicabl e Federa l obligations
. Consequently , th e FA A wil l conside r th e successfia

l actio n b y th e airport

t o cur e an y allege do r

potentia l pas t

violatio n o f a n applicabl e Federa l obligatio n t o b e ground s for dismissa l o f

suc h allegation
. [See , Wilso n Air

Cente r v . Memphi s an dShelb y County Airport Authority , FA A Docke t

16

- 99-1 0 (Director' s Determinatio n Issue dAugus t 2 , 2000 ) (Fina l Agenc y Decisio n Issue d Augus t 30 , 2001) ; uphel di n Wilso n Ai r Center , LL C v . FAA , 37 2 F.3 d80 7 (C.A
. 6 , Jun e 23 , 2004) ] Enforcemen t

o f Airpor t Sponso r Assurance s Enforcemen t

procedure s regardin g airport complianc e matter s ma y b e foun da t FA A Rule s o f Practic e for

Federall y Assiste dAirpor t Enforcemen t

Proceedings , (1 4 CF RPar t 16)
. Thes e procedure s wer e publishe di n th e Federa l Registe r (6 1 F R53998 , Octobe r

16 , 1996 ) an dbecam e effectiv e Decembe r 16 , 1996
. Th e Complain t

an dAppea l Proces s Pursuan t t o 1 4 CF R§ 16.23 , aperso n directl y an dsubstantiall y affecte db y an y allege d noncomplianc e ma y file acomplain t with th e FAA
. Th e complainant(s ) shal l provid e a concis e bu t

complet e statemen t

o f th e fact s relie dupo n t o substantiat e eac h allegation
. Th e complaint(s ) shal l als o describ e ho w th e complainant(s ) directl y an dsubstantiall y has/hav e bee n affecte db y th e thing s don e o r omitte db y th e respondent(s)
. [See , 1 4 CF R § l6.23(b)(3-4) ] If , base do n th e pleadings , ther e appear s t o b e areasonabl e basi s for further investigation , th e FAA wil l investigat e th e subjec t matte r o f th e Complaint
. In renderin g it s initia l determination , th e FA A ma y rel y entirel y o n th e Complain t an dth e responsiv e pleading s provided
. Eac h part y shal l file document s tha t i t consider s sufficient

t o presen t

al l relevan t fact s an dargument s necessar y fo r th e FA A t o determin e whethe r th e sponso r

i s i n compliance
. [See , 1 4 CF R§ 16.29 ] Th e proponen t

o f amotion , request , o r

orde r ha s th e burde n o f

proof
. A part y wh o ha s asserte da n affirmativ e defens e ha s th e burde n o f provin g th e affirmativ e defense
. Thi s standar dburde n o f

proo f i s consisten t

with th e Adminisfrativ e Procedure s Ac t (APA ) an d Federa l cas e law
. Th e AP A provisio n [See , 5 U.S.C
. § 556(d) ] states , "(e)xcep t a s otherwis e provide db y statute , th e proponen t o f arul e o r orde r ha s th e burde n o f

proof. " [Se e also
. Director , Offic e Worker' s Compensatio n Programs , Departmen t o f Labo r v . Greenwic h Colleries , 51 2 U S 267 , 27 2 (1994 ) an dAi r Canad ae t

al
. v . Departmen t

o f Transportation
. 14 8 F3 d1142 , 115 5 (D C Cir , 1998) ] Titl e 1 4 CF R§ 16.229(b ) i s consisten t wdt h 1 4 CF R§16.23 , whic h require s th e Complainan t t o submi t

al l document s the n availabl e t o support

hi s o r he r complaint
. Similarly , 1 4 CF R§ 16.2 9 state s that , "(e)ach party shal l file document s tha t i t consider s sufficien t

t o presen t

al l relevan t

fact s an dargument s necessary fo r th e FA A t o determin e whethe r th e sponso r

i s i n compliance. "

2 5Titl e 1 4 CF R§ 16.31(b-d) , i n pertinen t parts , provide s that

"(t)h e Director' s determinatio n wil l se t

fort h aconcis e explanatio n o f th e factual an dlegal basi s fo r th e Director' s determinatio n o n eac h clai mmad e b y th e complainant
. A party adversel y affecte db y th e Director' s determinatio n may appea l th e initia l determinatio n to th e Associat e Administrato r

a s provide di n §16.33. " In accordanc e with 1 4 CF R§ 16.33(b ) an d(e) , upo n issuanc e o f

aDirector' s determination , " aparty adversel y affecte db y th e Director' s determinatio n may file, an appea l with th e Associat e Administrato r withi n 3 0 day s afte r th e dat e o f

servic e o f

th e initia l determination; " however , "(i) f n o appea l i s filedwithi n th e tim e perio dspecifie di n paragrap h (b ) o f thi s section , th e Director' s determinatio n become s th e final decisio n an dorde r o f th e FA A withou t

fiirther action
. A Director' s determinatio n that become s final becaus e ther e i s n o administrativ e appea l i s no t judiciall y reviewable. " Titl e 1 4 CF R§ 16.247(a ) define s procedura l recours e fo r judicia l revie w o f

th e Associat e Administrator' s final decisio n an dorder , a s provide di n 4 9 U.S.C
. § 4611 0 o r sectio n 519(b)(4 ) o f

th e Airport

an dAirwa y Improvemen t Ac t o f 1982 , a s amended , (AAIA) , 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47106(d ) an d47111(d)
. VI
. ANALYSI S AN D DISCUSSIO N Prio r t o analyzin g an ddiscussin g th e pertinen t issue s i n thi s case , i t

i s relevan t

t o restat e that th e FAA' s Offic e o f

Airport s review s matter s pertainin g t o asponsor' s complianc e with it s Federa l gran t

assuranc e agreements . [See , 1 4 CF R§ 16.1 ] Th e agenc y doe s no t replac e o r ac t o n behal f

o f local la w enforcement , civi l courts , o r othe r lega l foraoutsid e th e scop e o f

th e FAA' s Part

1 6 purview
. Th e centra l focu s o f

thi s Complain t

revolve s aroundallegation s o f maintenanc e an d operationa l deficiencie s o n th e par t o f th e sponso r

with regar dt o alin e o f

sigh t deviatio n resultin g fro marunwa y extensio n projec t complete di n 2005
. Additionally , Complainant s alleg e they , an danothe r perso n no t

aparty t o eithe r

complaint , hav e bee n subjecte dt o subsequen t

threats , vandalism , denia l o f access , an ddiscrimination
. Base dupo n th e fact s a s alleged , th e Directo r finds that

i t woul db e appropriat e t o conside r whethe r th e sponso r

i s i n complianc e no t

onl y with Gran t

Assurance s 1 9 an d22 , a s allege db y Complainants , bu t als o Gran t

Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPowers , an dGran t Assuranc e 34 , Policies , Standards , an dSpecifications
. Th e findings fo r eac h issu e ar e base do n th e Respondent' s obligation s unde r it s Federa l gran t

assurances , applicabl e law , an dprecedent
. ISSU E #1 : Whethe r

th e Respondent' s allege dfailur e t o properl y clos e th e Airpor t i n accordanc e wit

h FA A an dStat e directive s du e t o arunwa y lin e o f sigh t discrepanc y constitute s aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e #19 , Operatio n an dMaintenance
.

2 6Lin e o f Sigh t Deviatio n Afte r th e completio n o f

th e origina l runway expansio n projec t i n Novembe r

2005 , Complainant s Keye s an dFerrel l an danothe r pilot , Mr
. Kenn y Witt , notice dther e wa s a hum p i n th e pavemen t

tha t prevente dpilot s frombein g abl e to se e th e opposit e end s o f th e runway . Thi s hump exceede drecommendation s outline din FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 , whic h state s an "unobstructe dlin e o f sigh t wil l exis t fro man y poin t

five feet (1. 5 m ) abov e th e runwa y centerlin e t o an y othe r poin t five feet (1. 5 m ) abov e th e runway centerlin e for

one-hal f th e runway length. " [See , FA A Advisory Circular 150/5300-1 3 503(a) ] Afte r th e FA A was notifie dan dth e situatio n wa s reviewed , FAA an dTN DO T bega n workin g wit h th e Responden t

t o appropriatel y mar

k portion s o f

th e runway closed
. Complainant s alleg e th e Respondent' s di dno t ac t quickl y enoug h t o mark

of f th e affecte d portion s o f

th e runway an dtaxiway i n violatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an d Maintenance , b y "failin g t o ac t t o ensur e th e airpor t

an dal l facilitie s ar e operate dat al l time s i n asaf

e an dserviceabl e condition. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 ] Responden t

contend s "delay s onl y occurre dwhe n th e drawing s fo r th e runwa y an d taxiway closin g marking s ha dt o b e submitted , approve dan dultimatel y executed. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 ] Ultimately , th e Responden t doe s clearl y stat e tha t

th e Complainants ' lin e o f sigh t comment s wer e "factual " an dtha t "correctiv e action " was take n [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m9]
. Accordin g t o Complainan t Keyes , correctiv e actio n base do n th e origina l directive , issue d i n alette r fromT N DO T o n Decembe r 1 , 2005 , wa s take n withi n aweek
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 2 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] A secon dcorrectiv e actio n plan was issue dbu t th e dat e i t

officiall y wa s issue di s no t clear
. However , th e Directo r wil l accep t

Complainan t

Keyes ' contentio n tha t

th e airport manage r at th e time , Mr
. Bil l Johnson , wa s notifie db y telephon e o n Decembe r 20 , 200 5 o f th e secon dcorrectiv e actio n plan
. [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite mI ] Keye s state s "fina l marking s bega n o n January 11 , 2006 " i n accordanc e wdt h th e secon dplan
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Th e Directo r

i s satisfie dthat

th e Responden t

acte dreasonabl y du e t o th e fac t that consultant s neede dt o b e engage di n tw o correctiv e plan s ove r th e holida y season . Furthermore , th e Directo r note s that

a s lat e a s Decembe r

16 , 2005 , TN DOT , th e FAA , an dengineerin g consultant s stil l ha dnot reache dconsensu s with regar dt o th e final plan' s markings
. O n Decembe r

1 , 2005 , T N DO T tol dth e County 65 0 feet woul dhav e t o b e marke dunusable ; o n Decembe r 14 , 2005 , FA A tol dMr
. Witt 64 0 feet woul dhav e t o b e marke dunusable ; the n o n Decembe r 16 , 2006 , TN DO T adopte dth e FAA' s measurement s citin g 64 0 feet t o b e marke dunusable
. Moreover , th e Directo r

note s that

al l partie s acknowledg e i n thei r pleading s that

in earl y 2006 , T N DOT , th e Respondent , an dan engineerin g firmagree dupo n asolutio n t o th e 2 7lin e o f sigh t deviatio n issue
. Both Complainant s acknowledg e an dth e Responden t concur s that

th e reconstructio n projec t wa s complete db y th e en do f 2006, ^ thereb y resolvin g th e lin e o f

sigh t deviatio n issue
. Conclusio n Th e evidenc e submitte dt o th e record , includin g statement s b y both Complainant s an dth e Respondent , clearl y sho w tha t th e lin e o f

sigh t deviatio n wa s fixedi n 200 6 an dth e remediate drunway no w i s complian t with FA A Airport

Desig n Lin e o f

Sigh t Standard s pe r Advisory Circular

150/5300-13
. Th e Par t 1 6 proces s i s no t

intende dto b e apunitiv e avenu e for pas t violations ; instead , it i s intende dt o allo w th e FA A t o correc t curren t non-compliance
. [Roadhous e Aviatio n v . City o f Tulsaan dTulsaAirport

Improvemen t

Trust
. FA A Docke t

No
. 16-05-0 8 (Director' s Determinatio n issue dDecembe r 14 , 2006) ] Th e FAA makes determination s regardin g curren t

compliance
. [See , Wilso n a t p.4. ] Th e Part

1 6 proces s "doe s no t penaliz e sponsor s for

pas t complianc e violation s tha t i t subsequentl y cure do r

i s i n th e proces s o f

curing. " [Goodric h Pilo t Trainin g Center , LLC , an dAviatio n Managemen t Group
. LL C v . Villag e o f Endicott , Ne w York , FA A Docke t No
. 16-08-0 3 (Director' s Determinatio n issue dApri l 3 , 2009) ] Summar y o f

Issu e # 1 Finding s Base do n th e inten t

o f th e Part 1 6 proces s an dth e fact s submitte dt o th e record , th e Directo r finds th e Responden t

i s no t i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e #19 , Operatio n an d Maintenance , because : • Th e lin e o f

sigh t deviatio n ha s bee n cure da s acknowledge db y both Complainant s an dRespondent
.

^ * A s note di

n th e Backgroun dSectio n o f thi s Complaint , Complainan t Keye s reference s apossibl e violatio n o f

"th e Term s an dCondition s o f Acceptin g Airport

Improvemen t

Progra mGrants , II
. Certifications , B
. Sponso r Certificatio n for

Projec t Plan s an dSpecifications, " specificall y Paragraph s 1 an d 9 [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m12] , whe n th e Responden t "knowingl y buil t

th e airport

ou t o f compliance " durin g th e initia l runway expansio n project
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite mI ] Keye s suggest s thi s inciden t make s th e Responden t

ineligibl e fo

r future grant s du e t o th e lin e o f sigh t deviatio n issue
. Th e Directo r wil l addres s th e sponso r

assuranc e aspec t

o f thi s allegatio n unde r

Issu e #2 , a s apotentia l violatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 34
. However , th e Directo r wishe s t o clarif

y th e inten t

an dpurvie w o f

th e Part 1 6 proces s a s i

t pertain s t o allegation s o f

Sponso r Certificatio n fo

r Projec t Plan s an dSpecifications
. Titl e 1 4 CF RPar t 1 6 govern s al l proceeding s involvin g Federally-assiste dairport s unde r th e authorit y o f

th e assurance s containe di n grant
in-ai dagreement s issue dunde r th e AAIA
. Allegation s o f non-complianc e with Sponso r Certificatio n fo

r Projec t Plan s an dSpecification s fall unde r 4 9 CFRPart

18
. Althoug h Gran t

Assuranc e #1 , Genera l Federal Requirements , require s complianc e with 4 9 CF RPart 18 , "i t shoul db e emphasize dtha t th e inclusio n o f Par t 1 8 in Gran t

Assuranc e # 1 i s t o provid e th e Federa l governmen t wit h th e ability t o withhol dfutur e grant s fromsponsor s tha t hav e violate dFedera l law o r regulatio n t o provid e incentiv e fo r th e sponso r

t o tak e correctiv e action. " [Yage r & Association s v . Toledo-Luca s Count y Port Authority
. FAA Docke t

16

- 97-08 , Director s Determinatio n (Apri l 23 , 1998) ] In light o f th e fac t tha t th e Responden t

voluntaril y cure d th e lin e o f

sigh t deviatio n withou t

additiona l Federa l AI P funds , th e Directo r finds th e Responden t

i s no t i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e #1
. Shoul dComplainan t Keye s wis h t o pursu e Par t 1 8 enforcemen t

action , h e may d o s o in accordanc e wit h 4 9 CF R§18.43
. 2 8ISSU E #2 : Whethe r th e Respondent' s allege dfailur e t o properl y certif y th e plan s an dspecification s fo r

th e runwa y extensio n project , allowin g error s an d omission s i n th e plan s an dspecification s tha t were foreseeabl e a t

th e tim e o f projec t design , violate dGran t

Assuranc e #34 , Policies , Standards , an dSpecifications
. Violatio n o f

Sponso r Certificatio n Form s I n th e Backgroun dsection s o f hi s Complain t

an dReply , Complainan t

Keye s allege s "becaus e McMin n Count y was awar e o f th e lin e o f

sigh t deficienc y prio r

t o actua l construction..
. (th e Respondent ) knowingl y buil t th e airport

ou t o f compliance " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] an dthereb y violate dtw o paragraph s o f aguidin g documen t

o n Gran t Assurances , poste do n th e FA A Southern Region' s Airport s website
. Th e Directo r believe s Keyes ' allegation , i n th e contex t an dpurvie w o f

aPar t 1 6 Complaint , mor e appropriatel y fall s unde r

Gran t Assuranc e 34 ; thus , th e Directo r wil l addres s thi s allegatio n i n thi s contex t

a s wel l a s referenc e Appendi x 2 5 o f FAA Orde r

5100. 3 8C , Standar dSponso r

Certificatio n Form s [See , FA A Exhibi t 1 , Item22] , whic h appear s t o b e th e basi s fo

r th e guidin g documen t

Complainan t

Keye s erroneousl y cited
. Th e paragraph s i n th e guidin g document s Keye s cite s referenc e correspondin g paragraph s o f th e Standar dSponsor s Certificatio n Forms , specificall y Paragrap h 1 , whic h state s sponsor s mus t

certify : Th e plan s an dspecification s wer e (wil l be ) prepare di n accordanc e wit h applicabl e Federa l standard s an drequirements , s o n o deviatio n o r modificatio n t o standard s se t

fort h i n th e advisor y circulars , o r Stat e standard , i s necessar y othe r tha n thos e previousl y approve dby th e FAA
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m22 ] An dParagrap h 9 , whic h states : Th e projec t wa s (wil l be ) physicall y complete dwithou t Federa l participatio n i n cost s du e t o error s an domission s i n th e plan s an dspecification s tha t wer e foreseeabl e a t

th e tim e o f

projec t design
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m22 ] Gran t Assuranc e 34 , Policies , Standards , an dSpecifications , addresse s asponsor' s responsibilitie s for

ensurin g gran t

project s ar e carrie dou t

"i n accordanc e with policies , standards , an dspecification s approve db y th e Secretary, " an dincorporate s Advisory Circular s relate dt o AI P project s includin g FA A Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 , "Airport Design. " [See , FA A Airpor t Sponso r Assurances'^^ ] Complainan t

Keye s assert s an dResponden t acknowledge s th e runwa y extensio n was no t complete daccordin g t o th e desig n standard s outline di n A C 150/5300-13
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 2 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] Complainan t

Keye s acknowledges :

^ ' FAA Airport

Sponso r Assurance s may b e foun dat http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/media/airpor t sponsor_assurances.pd f 2 9• TN DO T an dResponden t wer e mad e awar e "o f

th e lin e o f

sit e (sic ) proble m durin g aprojec t

revie w meeting , whic h too k plac e o n January 9 , 200 3 [FA A Exhibi t Lite m12] ; • TN DO T "personne l decide dt o g o ahea dwith th e project " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 12] ; an d
• TN DO T personne l "publicl y accepte dresponsibility fo r th e lin e o f

sigh t problem " after

th e projec t

wa s complete d[FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1] ; Keye s fiirther

contends that

Responden t

"wa s awar e o f

th e lin e o f

sigh t deficienc y prio r t o actua l construction " an dtha t Mayo r Gentry , representin g th e Responden t "a s owne r

o f th e airport " wa s th e onl y responsibl e part y for requestin g gran t

fiinding. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 ] Therefore , despit e hi s acknowledgement s regardin g T N DOT' s directio n t o procee dwith th e project , Keye s allege s Responden t violate dit s gran t

assurances^^ , whe n Responden t

applie dfo

r AI P fiindin g havin g foreknowledg e o f th e runway lin e o f

sigh t deviatio n issue
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Responden t

agree s wit

h Complainan t

Keyes ' allegation s that

TN DO T personne l were awar e o f th e lin e o f

sigh t deviatio n issu e an dstil l advise dthat th e runway extensio n projec t mov e forward
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] Evidenc e include di n th e Recor d support s thes e statements . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 , Exhibi t

1 ] However , Responden t object s t o Keyes ' contention s tha t it s decisio n t o reques t

AI P fiindin g constitute s a violatio n o f

it s gran t assurances , stating , "Whil e (Respondent ) i s technicall y th e owne r o f th e airport , w e rel y heavil y o n (T N DOT's ) fiinding, advic e an dexpertise
. We wen t forwardwith thi s projec t

o n th e expert

advic e o f (T N DOT). " [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] In determinin g th e Respondent' s obligation s pertainin g t o AI P fimde dprojects , th e Directo r examine s Gran t

Assuranc e 34 , th e Stat e Bloc k Gran t ProgramAgreemen t betwee n Tennesse e an dth e FAA , an dth e stat e aeronautica l division' s guidin g documents
. First , Gran t

Assuranc e 3 4 require s asponso r t o carr y ou t AI P project s "i n accordanc e with applicabl e stat e policies , standards, an dspecification s approve db y th e Secretary. " [See , FA A Airport Sponso r Assurances^^ ] FAA Orde r 5100.38 C defines , i n part , th e state' s authorit y unde r th e Stat e Bloc k

Gran t program , regardin g AI P projects : Bloc k gran t State s perfor msom e AI P administrativ e function s traditionall y accomplishe db y th e FAA , suc h a s preparatio n o f airpor t gran t informatio n fo r sponsors , reviewin g o f

th e sponsor' s requests, an daccountin g fo r progra m expenditures
. [See , FA A Orde r 5100.38C , Chapte r

10 , Sectio n 9 , Subsectio n 1090.b ] Finally , T N DOT' s Aeronautics ' Divisio n Sponsor s Manua l specificall y addresse s thi s provision , stating :

^ * Th e Directo r

previousl y note dtha t

Complainan t

Keyes ' referenc e t o th e "Terms an dConditions , II Certifications , B - Sponso r Certification s fo

r Projec t Plan s an dSpecifications " wa s erroneou s an dinstea d wil l analyz e thi s allegatio n unde r Gran t Assuranc e 34 , whic h incorporate s b y referenc e FAA Orde r 5100.38C , Appendi x 25
. " See , Foomot e 25
. 30Participatin g i n th e Federa l Stat e Bloc k Gran t Progra mrequire s th e Aeronautic s Divisio n t o implemen t

certai n responsibilitie s previousl y undertake n b y th e FA A Memphi s Airport s Distric t Office
. [See , Tennesse e Aeronautics ' Divisio n Sponsor' s Manual , Sectio n 1-1 , FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m29 ] Conclusio n Whe n evaluatin g i f

asponso r

i s i n complianc e with it s gran t assurances , th e Directo r consider s th e reasonablenes s o f asponsor' s action s an dit s obligatio n t o exercis e du e diligenc e i n assessin g it s complian t statu s an dposture . In th e instan t Complaint , Complainan t

Keye s allege s th e Responden t violate dit s gran t

assurance s b y intentionall y allowin g th e extende drunway t o b e constructe doutside o f designe dstandard s i n accordanc e with directio n give n b y TN DOT
. Base do n th e undispute dfact s tha t T N DO T approve dth e projec t an dadvise dth e Responden t

t o proceed , it

i s clear th e Respondent , th e airport sponsor , requeste dfederal AI P fundin g vi ath e Stat e DO T fo r th e runway extensio n projec t with know n desig n flaws a s Complainan t

Keyes ' asserts . Additionally , th e fact s entere dint o th e recor dsho w th e Stat e o f Tennesse e participate s i n th e FAA' s Stat e Bloc k Gran t Programa s define dunde r 1 4 CF RPar

t 15 6 an dcodifie dat

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47128
. In accordanc e with Gran t Assuranc e 3 4 an dth e provision s o f

th e Stat e Bloc k

Gran t program , th e Directo r

refer s t o FA A Orde r 5100.38C , Chapte r

2 , Sectio n 209(f

) t o defin e th e state' s authority an drol e i n approvin g th e project , whic h states : Th e mai n differenc e betwee n th e bloc k gran t an dStat e sponsorshi p o f airpor t projec t requirement s unde r

Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. Sectio n 47105(a)(1)(B ) i s responsibilit y fo r

projec t selection
. State s selec t

airpor t project s funde db

y th e bloc k grants . Unde r

th e Stat e sponsorshi p provision , th e FA A select s th e projects
. Whil e th e FA A expect s it s airport sponsor s t o abid e b y it s gran t obligation s a s wel l a s b e knowledgeabl e o f

th e agency' s standard s regardin g airport operations , th e Directo r previousl y ha s hel dthat , "th e issu e o f whethe r th e (Respondent ) acte dunreasonabl y lie s with th e justificatio n fo

r it s action s an dwha t

th e recor destablishes. " [Platinu mAviatio n an dPlatinu mJe t

Cente r BM I v . Bloomington-Norma l Airport Authority , Illinois , FA A Docke t No
. 16-06-0 9 (Director' s Determinatio n issue dJun e 4 , 2007 ) (Fina l Decisio n an d Orde r issue dNovembe r

28 , 2007) ] Th e Directo r woul db e remis s t o assert tha t sponsor s ar e reasonabl y expecte dt o kno w mor e tha n airport consultant s an dstat e engineer s o n airport desig n matters . Therefore , th e Directo r carmo t equat e th e Respondent' s decisio n t o tak e th e expert

advic e it wa s give n b y it s approvin g authority , T N DOT , b y virtu e o f it s Bloc k Gran t Stat e status , t o aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 3 4 o r

an y othe r assurance . Th e Responden t

wa s reasonabl e t o rel y upo n th e expertis e an dguidanc e o f T N DOT ; i t shoul dno t

b e penalize dfo

r suc h reliance
.

3 1Summar y o f Issu e # 2 Finding s Base do n th e undispute dfact s entere dint o th e recor dthat T N DO T approve dan d recommende dth e extensio n projec t with th e know n desig n flaws [See , FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 , Exhibi t

1] , th e Directo r

finds th e Responden t

i s no t in violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e #34 , Policies , Procedures , an dStandards , because : • Th e Respondent' s action s me t th e standard s o f

reasonablenes s an ddu e diligence
. ISSU E #3 : Whethe r

Responden t

violate dGran t

Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an d Maintenance , whe n i t

allegedl y faile dt o maintai n "th e airpor t an dal l facilities..
. a t

al l time s i n asaf

e an dserviceabl e conditio n " by allowin g th e visua l approac h lightin g system s an dothe r lightin g system s t o b e i n a"stat e o f

disrepair " an dallegedly faile dt o promptl y notif y airme n "o f an y conditio n affectin g aeronautica l us e o f th e airport? " Complainan t

Keye s allege s th e Responden t violate dit s obligation s unde r Gran t Assuranc e 1 9 t o "maintai n th e airport an dal l facilities..
. a

t al l time s i n asaf

e an d serviceabl e condition " by : 1
. Failin g t o properl y maintai n th e airport' s ne w visua l approac h system s (PAPIs) ; 2
. Failin g t o repai r

damage dan ddisplace drunway threshol dlights ; an d 3
. Failin g t o properl y issu e NOTAMs regardin g th e ne w visua l approac h systems ' outages . [FA A Exhibi t

I , Ite m1 ] In hi s initia l Complaint , Complainan t Ferrel l allege s th e Responden t violate dGran t Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an dMaintenance , "b y failin g t o promptl y repai r inoperativ e o r damage dequipmen t

an dfaile dt o 'hav e i n effec t an denforc e arrangement s for promptl y notifyin g airme n o f

any conditio n affectin g aeronautica l us e o f th e airport. " [FA A Exhibi t Lite m2 ] In it s Answer , Responden t note s tha t

Complainan t

Ferrel l "doe s no t

offe r an y specifi c instance..
. t o support

thi s allege dviolation. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 ] However , Responden t

assume s th e allegatio n i s similar t o on e lodge db y Complainan t Keye s regardin g th e "delaye dissu e o f aNOTA M concernin g adamage dPAP I light. " [FA A Exhibi t Lite m10]
. Complainan t

Ferrel l state s i n hi s Repl y that hi s Complain t

"ha dn o reference s o r complaint s concernin g Notam s (sic ) o r an y o f th e airport

facilities. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 13 ] Althoug h Ferrell' s initia l Complain t clearl y cite d"notifyin g airmen, " th e Directo r wil l accep t hi s withdrawa l o f

thi s clai mpe r

hi s Reply
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 ] Regardin g Complainan t

Keyes ' allegations , th e Directo r wil l addres s eac h instanc e individuall y t o appropriatel y analyz e th e facts , timelines , an dth e Respondent' s statu s o f complianc e wit

h Gran t Assuranc e 19
. 3 2/
. Fai l in s t o properl y maintai n th e airport' s ne w visua l approac h system s (N A VAIDs) Complainan t

Keye s state s that

th e ne w runwa y expansio n an dsubsequen t remediatio n projec t include da

n upgrad e t o th e Airport' s visua l approac h guidanc e system s fo r bot h runway end s (Runway 0 2 an dRunway 20 ) fro mVisua l Approac h Slop e Indicator s (VASls ) t o mor e advance dPrecisio n Approac h Pat h Indicator s (PAPIs)
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] Keye s allege s "th e ne w visua l approac h system s ar e unreliabl e an dhav e bee n ou t o f servic e fo

r th e majorit

y o f th e tim e sinc e ther e (sic ) installation " i n o r abou t January 2007
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 ] Specifically , Keye s allege s "th e PAP I fo r Runway 2 0 ha s onl y bee n functional fo

r afew week s sinc e it

was installe dalmos t

tw o year s ago " an d adde dthat

it "wa s stil l i n astat e o f

disrepai r afew week s ago."^ * [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] Accordin g t o Keyes , th e PAP I for Runwa y 0 2 "wa s finally repaire dafew month s ago^ ^ an da t las t report remain s i n servic e today. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] Complainan t

Keye s allege s that

becaus e th e newl y installe dPAPI s wer e "ou t o f servic e fo r wel l ove r

ayear, " th e Responden t

violate dGran t

Assuranc e 1 9 b y failin g t o maintai n th e equipmen t

"i n aserviceabl e state. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Responden t

denies i t purposefull y faile dt o operat e o r maintai n th e PAPI s sinc e thei r initia l installation
. In it s Answer , Responden t acknowledge s "problem s with th e syste m operation s manifeste dshortl y after complefio n o f

th e project. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] Responden t

als o state s T N DO T approve dRespondent' s reques t fo r "emergenc y fundin g t o repai r th e syste mafter

McMin n County ha dathir dpart y contracto r loo k at th e syste m an ddeclare dth e caus e o f th e malfimctio n t o possibl y b e alightenin g strike. " [FA A Exhibi t Lite m9 ] Bot h Responden t

an dComplainan t

Keye s acknowledg e th e PAPI s currentl y ar e operational
. Responden t

state s tha t

du e t o th e history o f

pas t malfiinctions , th e County ha s aske dan dTN DO T agree dt o kee p it s "emergenc y fimding reques t open, " an d anothe r contracto r

i s suppose dt o evaluat e th e syste magain
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] 2
. Failin g t o properl y maintai n th e airport' s othe r lishtin s system s Complainan t

Keye s allege s "th e runwa y threshol dlight s o n th e northeas t en do f th e runway wer e damag e (sic ) an ddisplaced, " an d"n o attemp t ha s bee n mad e t o repai r

thes e units. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 ] Accordin g t o Keyes , h e an dhi s unidentifie dinstructo r notice da n unspecifie dnumbe r

o f "displace dlightin g fixtures" whe n the y wer e "flyin g late evenings a

t th e en do f

sprin g 2008. " [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m12 ] Complainan t Keye s

^ ' Th e Directo r

surmise s " afew week s ago " reference s atim e frame approximatel y withi n amont h precedin g th e Decembe r

17 , 200 8 filing o f

hi s Part 1 6 Complaint , whic h woul db e Novembe r 2008
. ' Th e Directo r

surmise s " afew month s ago " reference s atim e frame approximatel y 3- 4 month s precedin g th e Decembe r

17 , 200 8 filing o f

hi s Par t 1 6 Complaint , whic h woul db e aroun dSeptembe r o r Octobe r 2008
. 33acknowledge s th e lightin g unit s wer e repaire d"som e tim e betwee n (November 2 , 2008^*^

) an dJanuary 1 , 2009. " [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Responden t

note s i n it s Answe r

that "thi s i s ane w allegatio n no t mentione di n Mr
. Keye s (sic ) Part 1 3 complaint
. Th e FB O ha s bee n contacte dconcernin g th e allegatio n an den d light s ar e reporte dt o b e neithe r damage dno r

displaced. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] Th e Responden t

the n contend s that

th e FB O responsibl e fo

r managin g th e Airport

stated , "i t

i s no t uncommo n fo

r mowin g crew s t o pus h arunway o r taxiway ligh t

ove r an dthe y hav e t o b e straightened , bu t

non e wer e dow n o r

inoperabl e whe n inspected. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] In hi s Reply , Complainan t Keye s alleges : th e fac t tha t (th e displace dlightin g units ) wer e neglecte dfo r months , i s ye t

furthe r evidenc e o f

McMinn County' s failur e t o ensur e tha t th e airpor t

i s operate da t

al l time s i n asaf

e an dserviceabl e conditio n an danothe r violatio n o f

th e Gran t Assurance
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] 3
. Failin g t o promptl y notif y airme n "o f

an y conditio n affectin g aeronautica l us e o f th e airport " (issuinsNOTAMs ) Complainan t

Keye s allege s th e Responden t faile dt o issu e NOTAMs withi n areasonabl e timefram e for

inoperativ e equipment , specificall y th e PAPIs
. A s Keye s previousl y stated , "th e ne w visua l approac h system s ar e unreliabl e an dhav e bee n out o f servic e fo

r th e majorit

y o f th e tim e sinc e ther e (sic ) installation " i n o r abou t Januar y 2007
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] Keye s cite s Gran t Assuranc e 1 9 i n hi s Complaint , alleging : Neithe r th e (Respondent ) no r

airpor t manage r ha deve r issue dan y Notam s (sic ) fo r (th e PAPIs) , whic h ha dbee n ou t o f servic e fo r

months..
. I t

i s m y contentio n tha t whe n th e airpor t

manage r faile dt o issu e th e require dNotam(sic ) withi n a reasonabl e time , th e sponso r (McMinn County) , faile dt o 'hav e i n effect arrangement s fo r

promptl y notifyin g airme n o f an y conditio n affectin g th e aeronautica l us e o f

th e airport. ' [FA

A Exhibi t 1 , Item1 ] Responden t

denie s Complainan t

Keyes ' allegations , statin g i n it s Answer : NOTAM' s (sic ) hav e bee n issue ddurin g al l repair s sinc e th e initia l malfunctio n an dth e FB O ha s bee n issue dSectio n 3 (c ) 7. 0 o f Volum e I I o f th e Airpor t Managemen t

Guide , Issuin s NOTAMs
. t o ensur e aprope r NOTAM i s issue dwhen condition s affec t

aeronautica l us e o f

th e airport
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ]

^' ' I n hi s Reply , Keye s insert s adigita l photograp h i n th e documen t unde r Complain t

3 , whic h h e identifie d a s Figur e 1
. Thi s photograp h show s an edg e ligh t o n it s sid e an dinclude s th e followin g notation s mad e b y Keyes : "McMin n Count y Airport , Novembe r 6 , 200 8 4:1 4 p.m . Note : Additiona l displace dlightin g fixture s wer e locate dt o th e righ t o f th e li^ t note dabov e bu t

ar e no t visibl e i n thi s photograph. " 3 4In hi s Reply , Keye s assert s that th e Responden t

provide dincorrec t

informatio n regardin g th e issuanc e o f

NOTAMs fo

r th e PAPIs , stating : Mr
. Gentry doe s stat e tha t NOTAM' s (sic ) hav e bee n issue ddurin g al l repair s (underlin e included)
. Thi s migh t b e tru e i f i t refer s t o th e time whe n actua l repai r activitie s were bein g performed
. Suggestin g tha t NOTAM' s (sic ) wer e issue d coverin g al l perio do f

time coincidin g wit

h equipmen t

outage s woul db e incorrect
. [FA A Exhibi t

Lite m12 ] I n hi s Reply , Keye s state s th e Responden t violate dGran t

Assuranc e 1 9 b y no t

holdin g "th e airpor

t managemen t

accountabl e fo

r ther e (sic ) failure " t o issu e NOTAM s i n a reasonabl e timeframe
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Keye s conclude s b y makin g additiona l allegation s o f

noncomplianc e stating , "Failur e t o issu e NOTAM' s ha s bee n a n ongoin g proble man di t

i s importan t

t o poin t ou t thi s wa s no t

a n isolate doccurrence; " however , h e doe s no t provid e evidenc e o f

an y allege doccurrence . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] Conclusio n In additio n t o ensurin g an airport i s "operate dat

al l time s in asaf

e an dserviceabl e condition " froman airport desig n standard
. Gran t

Assuranc e 1 9 als o require s sponsor s t o hav e i n effec t

arrangement s for :

• Operatin g th e airport' s aeronautica l facilitie s wheneve r required ; • Promptl y markin g an dlightin g hazard s resultin g fromairport conditions , includin g temporar y conditions ; an d
• Promptl y notifyin g airma n o f an y conditio n affectin g aeronautica l us e o f th e airport
. [See , FA A Airport Sponso r Assurances , Assuranc e 19.a.^' ] /
. Failur e t o properl y maintai n th e airport' s new visua l approac h system s (N A VAIDs) Th e Responden t

doe s no t dispute Complainant s Keyes ' allegation s that th e PAPI s wer e inoperativ e durin g certai n period s o f time , bu t doe s disput e Keyes ' contentio n that Responden t

faile dt o act . Th e evidenc e entere dint o th e Recor ddoe s no t support Keyes ' allegation s that

th e Responden t

"faile dt o ac t

regardin g th e PAPI' s (sic ) malfunction. " [FA A Exhibi t

I , Ite m12 ] Whil e a n inoperativ e syste mi s not , i n itself , ground s fo

r a gran t assuranc e violation , th e Directo r coul dfind, unde r

certai n circumstances , that a violatio n exist s i f

asponso r

fail s t o repai r

an inoperativ e syste mi n accordanc e with establishe dguidance
. FA A Orde r 5190.6 aoffer s th e followin g guidanc e regardin g satisfactory complianc e with asponsor' s maintenanc e obligations : Th e degre e o f

maintenanc e effor

t require do f

a n airpor t

owne r i s amatte r

o f professiona l judgment
. Complianc e wit h thi s maintenanc e obligatio n i s considere dsatisfactor y whe n th e airpor t owner : (a ) Full y understand s tha t airpor t facilitie s mus t

b e kep t in asaf e an d serviceabl e condition ; ^'5ee , foomote 25
. 3 5(b ) Ha s adopte dan dimplemente dasufficientl y detaile dprogra mo f cyclica l preventiv e maintenanc e tha t i n th e judgmen t

o f FA A i s adequat e to carr y ou t

thi s commitment ; an d (c ) Ha s availabl e th e equipment , personnel , fund s an dothe r resource s includin g contrac t

arrangement s t o effectively implement suc h aprogram . [See , FA A Orde r

5190.6a , Chapte r

4 , Sectio n 2 ] In thi s situation , th e Complainan t faile dt o ente r

evidenc e int o th e Recor dcontradictin g Respondent' s statement s that it ha s me t thes e thre e element s o f

complianc e define din FA A Orde r

5190.6a
. First , b y workin g with a t leas t thre e contractors , th e compan y that create dth e approac h lightin g system , an dTN DO T t o fix th e PAPIs , Responden t me t th e requirement s o f

elements (a ) an d(b)
. In fact , Keye s himsel f acknowledged , "i n actualit y th e proble mwa s containe din th e PAP I unit s themselves. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , he m12 ] Furthermore , th e Respondent' s proactiv e stanc e t o secur e "emergenc y funding " fromTN DO T t o continu e t o addres s th e problem s with th e PAPI s an dit s outreac h t o TN DO T engineers , variou s contractors , an dth e vendo r demonstrat e th e Responden t ha s take n a complian t postur e i n accordanc e with th e thir delemen t o f compliance
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] Accordin g t o th e evidenc e submitte dt o th e Recor dan dth e fac t that th e Complainan t himsel f admit s th e unit s ar e flawed, th e Directo r canno t interpre t Respondent' s action s t o b e non-compliant , particularl y i n ligh t o f th e fact , concede db y Complainant , that th e PAPI s no w ar e operational
. In Wilson , th e Directo r held : I n addressin g allegation s o f noncompliance , th e FA

A wil l mak

e adeterminatio n a s t o whethe r

a n airpor t

sponso r i s currentl y i n complianc e wit h th e applicabl e federa l obligations
. Th

e FA A wil l conside r

th e successfu l actio n by th e Airpor t t o cur e an y allege do r

potentia l pas t

violatio n o f

applicabl e federa l obligatio n t o b e ground s fo r

dismissa l o f

suc h allegations
. [See , Wilso n at p . 4 ] Clearl y Respondent' s action s resulte di n acomplian t outcome ; therefore , th e Directo r finds th e Responden t

i s no t currentl y i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 1 9 regardin g th e operationa l statu s o f

it s visua l glid e slop e guidanc e approac h lightin g system . 2
. Failin g t o properl y maintai n th e airport' s othe r lightin g system s In additio n t o th e allegation s o f th e PAP I unit s bein g inoperable
. Complainan t Keye s state dan unspecifie dnumbe r o f "runwa y threshol dlight s o n th e northeas t en do f th e runway wer e damag e (sic ) an ddisplaced, " an d"n o attemp t ha s bee n mad e t o repai r

thes e units. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 ] In hi s Reply , Complainan t Keye s concede s Responden t correcte dth e damag e fixture(s) sometime betwee n th e dat e Keye s filedhi s Part 1 6 Complain t

(Decembe r

17 , 2008 ) an dJanuar y I , 2009
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ]

3 6Gran t

Assuranc e 1 9 require s a

n airport sponso r t o maintai n Federally-obligate dairport s in asaf e an dserviceabl e conditio n a t al l times
. Thi s include s ensurin g al l necessary lightin g i s operational
. [See , FA A Orde r 5190.6a , Chapte r

5 , Sectio n 5-3 ] I n reviewin g thi s allegation , th e Directo r note s that

Keye s contends th e lightin g fixture i n hi s Novembe r

6 , 200 8 photograp h hadbee n damage dsinc e th e sprin g o f 2008
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Whil e ther e i s n o evidenc e i n th e Recor dsupportin g thi s allegation , i f it i s true , th e Directo r

woul db e concerne dwith th e Respondent' s maintenanc e program . A n additiona l concern th e Directo r discerne dfro mth e Complain t pertain s to Complainant' s informal resolutio n conunents . In hi s Complaint , Keye s contend s that h e "faile dt o reac h aresolutio n (t o hi s allegations ) throug h th e informal Part 1 3 process. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Iteml ] However , th e Directo r finds that

th e allegatio n o f

inoperafiv e edg e lightin g fixture(s) wa s no t include di n any informal discussion s unde r th e informal resolutio n process . In it s Answer , Responden t note s "thi s i s ane w allegatio n no t mentione di n Keyes ' Par

t 1 3 complaint " an drequest s mor e details
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 9 ] Complainan t

fail s t o substantiat e hi s origina l contentio n i n hi s Complain t that h e "mad e agoo dfait

h effor t t o resolv e thi s matte r

informally " a s require dpursuan t t o 1 4 CFR
. § 16.21
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] However , i n accordanc e with JetAwa y Aviatio n LL C V
. Boar do f

County Commissioners
. Montros e County , Colorado
. FA A Docke t No
. 16-06-0 1 (Director' s Determinatio n issue dNovembe r 6 , 2006) , "th e Directo r

wil l procee dwit

h decidin g th e matte r

no w o n th e merit s a s submitte db y th e partie s i n thi s proceeding. " Base do n th e evidenc e submitte dt o th e Record , th e Directo r i s concerne dthat

i t may hav e take n Responden t

nearl y 6 0 day s t o correc t an inoperativ e edg e lightin g fixture, assumin g Complain t

Keyes ' photograp h fromNovembe r 6 , 200 8 i s undisputed
. However , th e Directo r

agai n emphasize s it

i s intereste di n curren t

complianc e a s wel l a s th e Respondent' s behavio r i n adoptin g acomplian t

posture . [Lanie r

Aviatio n LL C v . City o f Gainsville , Georgia : Gainsvill e Airport Authority , FA A Docke t

No
. 16-05-0 5 (Director' s Determinatio n issue dNovembe r 25 , 2005) ] A s Complainan t Keye s admits
. Responden t

fixedth e displace dlightin g fixture onc e mad e awar e throug h Keyes ' Part 1 6 Complaint
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Thi s i s indicativ e o f acomplian t

attitude
. Whil e th e Directo r

finds th e Responden t

currentl y i s i n complianc e with Gran t Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an dMaintenance , regardin g th e operationa l statu s o f it s edg e lightin g fixture(s), th e FA A recommend s Responden t se t an dadher e t o amor e timel y schedul e for self-inspectin g th e Airport
. 3
. Failin g t o promptl y notif y airme n "o f

an y conditio n affectin g aeronautica l us e o f th e airport " (NOTAMs ) Finally , Complainan t

Keye s allege s th e Responden t violate dGran t

Assuranc e 1 9 b y failin g t o issu e NOTAM s fo r th e inoperativ e PAP I unit s an dothe r unspecifie dan d unsupporte d"occurrence(s). " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Base do n th e evidenc e submitte d t o th e Record , th e Directo r canno t determin e i f

NOTAM s fo

r th e PAP I o r

any othe r
37aeronautica l service s o r repair s wer e issue di

n atimel y marmer . Complainant s Keye s state s the y wer e not , whil e Responden t assert s th e opposite
. Titl e 1 4 CF R§ 16.229(b ) state s "th e proponen t o f amotion , request , o r

orde r ha s th e burde n o f proof " Complainan t

Keye s faile dto mee t

th e burde n o f

proo f b y clearl y documentin g th e Respondent' s allege dfailure t o issu e NOTAM s i n atimel y manne r fo r th e PAPI s o r

mak e an y othe r

specifi c an dsupporte dallegation s regardin g othe r occurrences . Furthermore , Responden t note di n it s Answe r

i t ha s take n th e step s necessary to ensur e NOTAMs ar e issue dproperl y b y supplyin g th e FB O managin g th e Airport with th e appropriat e guidin g documents
. Finally , eve n i f Complainan t

Keye s ha d submitte dth e appropriat e supportin g documentatio n clearl y illustratin g hi s clai mtha t NOTAM s wer e no t

issue din areasonabl e timefram e fo r th e PAPIs , Keye s himsel f admit s that whe n h e brough t

th e NOTA M issu e to th e attentio n o f th e McMin n County Mayor , "th e Nota m(sic ) wa s issue dth e nex t day, " thu s bringin g th e Responden t int o compliance
. [FA A Exhibi t

Lite m1 ] A s th e Directo r

note dunde r

Issu e # 1 i n thi s Determination , th e Par t 1 6 proces s i s no t intende dt o b e apunitiv e mean s for punishin g pas t

violations ; instead , it

i s intende dt o return th e sponso r

t o astat e o f

compliance
. [See , Roadhouse. ] Furthermore , contrar y t o Complainan t

Keyes ' allegation s that

th e Responden t

"offer s n o correctiv e action s t o ensur e prope r

oversight, " th e Directo r

point s t o th e Respondent' s citatio n o f Sectio n 3 (c ) 7. 0 o f Volum e II o f

th e Airport

Managemen t

Guide , Issuin g NOTAMs , whic h i t provide d t o it s managin g FBO
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 2 an dFAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] Summar y o f

Issu e # 3 Finding s Base do n th e evidenc e submitte dt o th e Record , th e Directo r finds th e Responden t currentl y i s i n complianc e wit h Gran t Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an dMaintenance , because : 1
. Responden t

di dmak e reasonabl e attempt s an dtak e action s t o properl y maintai n th e Airport' s ne w visua l glid e slop e guidanc e approac h lightin g systems , whic h no w ar e operational ; 2
. Responden t

di daddres s displace do r

damage dlightin g fixtures, whic h no w ar e fixed, withi n areasonabl e tim e onc e brough t it s attention ; an d 3
. Responden t

di dtak e inunediat e actio n t o issu e NOTAM s upo n initia l notificatio n an dha s provide dit s airport managemen t

appropriat e guidanc e for complyin g with th e issuanc e o f

NOTAM s i n th e future
. ISSU E #4 : Whethe r

th e Respondent' s failur e t o respon dt o allegation s o f threat s an dvandalis ma s wel l a s allege dinstance s o f denia l o f acces s an d servic e constitut e aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an d Maintenance , and/o r

aviolatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscriminatio n ? Complainant s Keye s an dFerrel l alleg e that fou r instance s o f

threat s an dvandalis mwer e perpetrate dagains t

the mat th e Airport
. The y conten dRespondent' s failur e t o respon dt o 3 8thes e incident s constitute s aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 1 9 becaus e th e Responden t faile dt o "operat e th e airport in asaf e an dserviceabl e condition. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 1 ] In additio n t o th e threat s an dvandalism
. Complainant s als o alleg e tw o incident s o f denia l o f acces s an dservice ; on e perpetrate dagains t Mr
. Witt an dth e secon dagains t Complainan t

Ferrell
. Neithe r

Complainan t

Keye s no r

Ferrel l succinctl y stat e th e gran t assuranc e o r

assurance s the y believ e wer e violate db y th e Responden t pertainin g t o thes e allege dincidents
. Therefore , th e Directo r wil l conside r

thes e allegation s unde r

Gran t Assuranc e 2 2 sinc e it

addresse s economi c discrimination , specificall y aeronautica l acces s an dusage . Allegation s o f

Threat s an dVandalis m I n hi s Complaint , Complainan t Keye s allege s th e Responden t violate dGran t

Assuranc e 1 9 whe n h e wa s "confronte do n tw o separat e occasion s an dthreatene dwith physica l harminsid e th e mai n termina l an di n fiill sigh t o f th e airport

manage r " o n Decembe r

9 , 200 5 an di n anothe r

inciden t h e allege s occurre do n Marc h 20 , 2006
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] I n it s Answer , Responden t denie s i t i s responsibl e for

th e allege dthreat s o n Decembe r 9 , 2005 , stating , "i f

thi s inciden t

di dindee doccur.. . Mr
. Keyes ' allegation s concer n th e behavio r o f privat e citizens an dno t

with staf f contracte db y McMir

mCounty. " [FA A Exhibi t Lite m9]
. I n hi s Reply , Complainan t Keye s di dno t

tak e th e opportunit y t o provid e evidenc e that thi s inciden t

indee doccurre do r

wa s betwee n Airport

and/o r county staf

f Keye s di dno t submi t an y evidenc e t o th e recor dsupportin g hi s allegation s suc h a s polic e report s o r othe r documentatio n confirmin g thes e incidents
. Instead , h e attempt s t o us e Respondent' s words , "i f

thi s inciden t

di dindee doccur " a s evidence , stating : Mr
. Gentry doe s no t

dispute tha t

th e incident s o f

Decembe r

9 , 200 5 occurred
. Mr
. Gentry doe s not

disput e tha t

th e incident s o f

Decembe r

9 , 200 5 too k

plac e insid e th e airpor t

buildin g i n front

ofhis

_Airpor t Management
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 12 ] (Emphasi s original)
. Complainan t

Keye s state s th e secon dallege dthrea t wa s perpetrate dviaaconversatio n h e contend s occurre do n Marc h 20 , 200 6 betwee n Mr
. Witt an dMr
. Nelso n (See , Footnot e 11)
. Keye s state s h e hear datap e o f thi s conversation , provide dt o hi mb y Mr
. Witt
. Describin g what

h e hear do n th e tape , Complainan t Keye s states , "m y recollectio n o f th e tap e suggeste dthat

Mr
. Nelso n was tryin g t o mak e Mr
. Witt awar e o f potential problem s an dthreat s that

Mr
. Nelso n becam e awar e o f fromothe r

individuals. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Althoug h Keye s initiall y appeare dt o sugges t Mr
. Nelso n delivere dth e threat s in hi s Complain t

[FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1] , i n hi s Repl y Keye s amends hi s contentio n

" A t thi s time , th e airport

manage r wa s Mr
. Bil l Johnson
. 3 9statin g Mr
. Nelso n wa s no t th e perso n makin g threats
. In fact , Keye s himsel f states , " 1 amno t allegin g an y wrongdoin g b y Mr
. Nelson. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Again , Responden t

contend s tha t

thes e allege dincident s occurre dbetwee n privat e citizens an dshoul dhav e bee n reporte dt o loca l la w enforcemen t officials
. Responden t maintain s the y d o no t

constitut e " aviolatio n o f gran t assurance s regardin g th e safet y o f operation s an dmaintenanc e at th e airport. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] Responden t

fiirther maintain s that

"McMin n County woul dneve r knowingl y tolerat e th e threa t o f physica l har mt o person s o r

property at

an y o f ou r facilities , especiall y ou r

airport. " [FA A Exhibi t Lite m9 ] Althoug h Keye s note s i n hi s Repl y that Mr
. Nelso n di dno t

commi t "an y wrongdoing, " h e state s "Mr
. Nelso n havin g bee n grante dth e powe r t o issu e NOTAM s b y th e county represent s no t

onl y th e airport

bu t th e count y i n airport

matters."^ ^ [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 12 ] Afte r Keye s restate s hi s opinio n that th e Responden t

shoul dhav e intervene drathe r than characterizin g th e matte r

a s "a n inciden t

betwee n tw o citizens, " h e contemplate s th e future , addin g that

th e Respondent : Shoul dconside r

themselve s indee dfortunate , tha t a t leas t fo r now , action s by persons , a t

th e airport , hav e onl y resulte di n ope n threats , attempt s a t intimidatio n an dsom e mino r propert y damage
. Shoul dthes e issue s escalat e t o th e poin t wher e aircraf

t becom e involve do r

someon e i s seriousl y hur t o r killed , I believ e th e defens e offere dby Mayo r Gentry tha t

'McMinn Count

y challenge s th e assumptio n tha t

allege dth e poo r

behavio r o n behal f

o f privat e citizen s shoul db e considere daviolatio n o f thi s gran t

assuranc e (19) ' woul db e viewe da s inadequate
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Regardin g th e thir dallege dthrea t an dinstanc e o f

allege dvandalism , both Complainant s appea r t o cit e th e sam e incidents
. Whil e th e Complainants ' account s d o no t align , th e

' ^ In hi s Reply , Complainan t Keye s suggest s "Mr
. Nelso n havin g bee n grante dth e powe r t o issu e NOTAM' s b y th e count y represent s no t onl y th e airport

bu t als o th e county in airport matters. " [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Complainan t Keye s incorrectl y conclude s tha t becaus e Mr
. Nelso n ha d"authority " t o issu e NOTAM s h e therefor e ha dauthority t o represen t th e county in matter s involvin g airport sponso r assuranc e obligations
. Gran t assurance s ar e contract s betwee n th e Sponso r an dth e FAA
. Mr
. Keye s fail s t o submi t an y evidenc e int o th e recor ddelineatin g Mr
. Nelson' s relationshi p wit h th e County , detailin g an y pay h e may receive , identifyin g an y indemnificatio n o r insuranc e th e Count y provide s t o official s wh o ac t a s acounty representative , o r an y documentatio n explainin g ho w requestin g th e FAA t o issu e aNOTA M i s tantamoun t

t o representin g agovernmenta l entit y suc h a s McMin n County
. Mr
. Nelso n may b e authorize d t o verif y NOTAM s i n accordanc e with FA A Orde r J O 7930.2M , bu t

thi s i s no t

tantamoun t

t o havin g authority t o represen t

th e count y in al l airpor t

matters , particularl y i

n contract s wit

h th e Federa l government . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] In fact , i f

th e count y ha dcede dit s power s o f representatio n o f

th e Airport t o Mr
. Nelson , th e Directo r woul db e investigatin g th e county' s possibl e noncomplianc e wit h Gran t Assuranc e #5 , Preservin g Right s an dPowers
. T o th e contrary , in it s Answe r th e Responden t

describe s Mr
. Nelso n a s a"privat e citizen. " Therefore , basedo n th e lac k o f evidenc e supportin g Complainant' s contentio n regardin g Mr
. Nelson' s scop e o f authority , th e Directo r

dismisse s an y inferenc e that Mr
. Nelso n i s acounty official o r

representativ e o f

an y kind
. 4 0Directo r wil l reduc e th e allegation s dow n t o thei r fac e value s an dappl y th e appropriat e GrEin t Assurance s t o know n fact s an dsupporte dallegation s rathe r tha n attemp t

t o recreat e scenario s base do n dispute dan dunsupporte dstatements . Summarily , th e Directo r

conclude s tha t

th e thir dthreat , allegedl y perpetrate dagains t Complainan t

Ferrell , amount s t o Complainants ' contention s that Ferrel l woul dno t

b e "welcome " at

th e Airport

i f h e continue dt o associat e with Mr
. Witt
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 an dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 ] Regardin g th e allege dac t o f vandalism , th e Directo r

recognize s Complainant s conten d Ferrell' s truc k

was keye din th e Airport parkin g lot
. Th e Directo r doe s not e that

th e Complainant s offe

r varyin g account s o f

thi s allege dinciden t

in thei r Complaints
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 an dFAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 ] In it s Answe r

t o Complainan t

Keyes ' Complaint , Responden t denies i t violate dit s gran t assurance s i n an y manne r pertainin g t o thes e allege dacts becaus e it wa s no t aparty t o them
. Moreover , Responden t note s that

Complainant s faile dt o submi t documentar y evidenc e supportin g thes e allegations
. However , th e Responden t recognize s th e severity o f suc h acts an dadvises : An y pilot s o r

othe r airpor t patron s wh o engag e i n an y illega l o r unethica l behavio r wil l b e remove di n accordanc e wit h th e remedie s allowe dby law
. [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m9 ] Allesation s o f

Denia l o f

Acces s an dServic e Complainant s cit e tw o scenario s wherei n the y alleg e Mr
. Wit t an dMr
. Ferrel l wer e denie dacces s an dservice ; however , thei r account s o f

thes e events vary a s well
. Onc e again , th e Directo r

wil l reduc e th e allegation s t o th e fact s that can b e derive dfromth e submission s an dappl y th e appropriat e Gran t Assuranc e t o thes e allegation s sinc e Complainant s faile dt o d o so . I n th e first

instanc e o f

allege ddenia l o f

access . Complainant s conten dMr
. Witt was "barred " fromth e McMin n County Airport after h e wa s fired fromhi s contrac t positio n a s aflight instructo r

with th e former

FB O i n January 2006
. [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m2 an d FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m12 ] Complainants ' appear t o equat e th e followin g allegation s t o th e Responden t

denyin g Mr
. Witt

aeronautica l acces s t o McMin n Count y Airport :

• Th e undispute dfac t

tha t Mr
. Witt ha s not bee n offere dajo b o r

contrac t t o flight instruc t with th e curren t

FBO ; • Complainan t

Keyes ' "observation s an dconversations..
. with Mr
. Witt " i n whic h Mr
. Wit t "felt " h e ha s n o acces s t o th e Airport ; [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] an d
• Othe r thir dpart y statement s relaye da s conjectur e b y Complainants
. Complainants ' statement s regardin g denia l o f aeronautica l acces s infer an allege d violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 22(a) , whic h states : 4 1( A sponsor ) wil l make th e airpor t availabl e a s a n airpor t

fo r publi c us e o n reasonabl e term s an dwithou t unjus t discriminatio n t o al l types , kind s an dclasse s o f aeronautica l activities , includin g commercia l aeronautica l activitie s offerin g service s t o th e publi c a t

th e airport
. [See , FA A Airport Sponso r Assurances'''* ] In it s Answer s t o both Complaints , Responden t emphaticall y denie s Mr
. Wit t eithe r wa s o r "i s currentl y barre dfro mth e us e o f McMir mCount y Airport " an ddemande d"writte n proo f o f thi s fals e claim. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 ] Whil e Responden t doe s no t disput e Mr
. Wit t wa s fireda s acontrac t

flight instructo r

b y th e former

FB O owner , i t

als o note s that Mr
. Witt ha s neve r

bee n employe ddirectl y o r a s acontracto r

with th e curren t

FBO
. [FAA Exhibi t

Lite m10 ] I n thei r Replies , neithe r

Complainan t

provide s supportin g evidenc e demonstratin g Mr
. Wit t ma y no t tak e off , land , o r otherwis e exercis e hi s privilege s a s apilo t t o us e th e McMin n County Airport
. The y onl y alleg e h e canno t us e th e FBO' s aircraf

t t o perfor m flight instruction
. Complainant s Keye s an dFerrel l both alleg e th e secon dinstanc e o f denia l o f acces s an d servic e was perpetrate dagains t Mr
. Ferrel l whe n h e wa s denie dacces s t o th e curren t FBO' s trainin g aircraf

t for aflight revie w with hi s privat e instructor , Mr
. Witt
. Ferrel l state s tha t

becaus e h e was th e on e actuall y rentin g th e aircraft , ther e wa s n o basi s fo r th e FB O t o den y hi macces s t o it s aircraft
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , Exhibi t

1 an d FA A Exhibi t

l,Ite m13 ] Responden t

denies Ferrell' s allegatio n equate s t o agran t assuranc e violation
. First , Responden t

note s that

Ferrel l was offere dth e opportunit y t o ren t th e aircraf

t usin g an FB O employe e a s hi s flight instructo r

an dthereb y no t

denie daccess . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , Exhibi t

1 ] Responden t

the n state s tha t

i t i s th e FBO' s polic y i s no t t o allo w non employe e flight

instructor s t o performinstructiona l activitie s i n thei r aircraf t du e t o insuranc e reasons . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 ] Ferrel l object s t o th e FBO' s polic y a s relaye db y Respondent , statin g that th e fac t that "Mr
. Witt wa s no t o n thei r (th e FBO's ) insuranc e for m(is ) irrelevan t

sinc e Mr
. Wit

t ha d no t contracte dfor

th e aircraft. " [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m13 ] Conclusio n Allegation s o f

Threat s an dVandalis m In evaluatin g Complainants ' allegations , th e Directo r carmo t findevidenc e submitte dt o th e Recor dsupportin g Complainants ' claims
. Amon g th e mos t notabl e item s no t include di n th e Recor dar e insuranc e claim s an dpolic e report s concernin g th e allegation s o f crimina l behavio r

o r at least , civi l misconduct
. Simpl y put . Complainant s faile dt o

' " See , Footnot e 25
. 4 2support thei r contention s that

an y o f thes e incident s occurre do r that the y amounte dt o anythin g mor e tha n adisput e betwee n privat e citizen s a s th e Responden t contends
. Keye s suggest s that

th e Respondent' s lac k

o f outrigh t denia l o f hi s allegation s mus t

resul t i n th e conclusio n that

h e i s correct . Suc h reasonin g doe s no t mee t th e Complainant' s burde n o f proof
. Th e Directo r

foun di n M
. Danie l Care y an dClif f Davenport

v . Afton

Lincol n County Municipa l Airport Join t Power s Board , FA A Docke t No
. 16-06-0 6 (Director' s Determinatio n issue dJanuar y 19 , 2007) , Issu e 7 , that : A complainan t

wil l no t succee dmerel y becaus e aresponden t ha s faile dt o refute a complainant' s allegation
. Th e burde n o f

proo f lie s wit h th e Complainants
. Complainant s wh o file unde r 1 4 CFRPar t

1 6 shal l provid e aconcis e bu t complet e statemen t

o f th e fact s relie dupo n t o substantiat e eac h allegation
. [See , 1 4 CFR§ 16.23(b)(3). ] Complainant s wil l no t b e deeme dto mee t

thi s burde n simpl y becaus e the y hav e submitte dvolume s o f page s i n exhibit s i f

the y hav e faile dt o explai n ho w th e individua l exhibit s suppor t specifi c allegations
. [See , Carey. ] Regardin g th e allege dconversatio n that occurre do n Marc h 20 , 2006 ; th e Directo r finds that n o evidenc e was submitte dt o th e recor ddetailin g th e allege dthrea t an dho w thi s conversatio n coul damoun t t o th e Responden t

violatin g it s Gran t

Assurances
. Th e Directo r remind s Complainant s tha t th e sponso r

gran t assurances ' requiremen t

t o "operat e th e airport

i n asaf e an dserviceabl e condition " refer s t o aircraf t movement , maintenance , an dothe r

aeronautica l uses ; i t

doe s no t exten dt o parkin g lo t

security o r persona l disputes
. In ligh t o f Keyes ' comment s that

"action s b y persons , at

th e airport , hav e onl y resulte di n

.. . som e mino r

propert y damage " an d"thes e issue s (may have ) escalate dt o apoin t where..
. someon e i s seriousl y hurt o r killed, " th e Directo r

i s at alos s a s t o why Keye s an dFerrel l faile dt o pursu e la w enforcemen t interventio n b y filing inciden t reports , insuranc e claims , o r

statements/complaint s wit h local la w enforcement
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Instead , Keye s attempt s t o lay blam e o n th e County Mayo r an dAirport employee s fo

r failin g t o "follo w u p o n an y o f th e issue s raised, " regardles s o f th e fac t tha t Complainant s faile dt o provid e proo f o f thei r allegation s o r

eve n that the y amoun t

t o gran t assuranc e violations
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Th e Directo r

concur s with th e Respondent' s assertio n that Keye s shoul dhav e reporte d th e allege dincident s t o loca l la w enforcement , a s thes e allegation s o f threat s o f

physica l harman dvandalis mwoul db e considere dstat e o r local crimina l matter s an dno t adjudicabl e unde r

Part 16
. Citin g Ken t

J
. Ashto n v . City o f

Concord , NC , FA A Docke t 16-00-0 1 (Director' s Determinatio n issue dOctobe r 16 , 2000 ) (Fina l Agenc y Decisio n issue dApri l 17 , 2001) , th e Directo r hold s "th e FAA' s (Part

16 ) complain t

proces s fo

r matter s pertainin g t o federall y assiste dairport s i s no t th e prope r

foru mfo r revie w o f Complainjint' s claim s o f

violation s o f

constitutional , state , o r

loca l laws. " Fo r

thi s offic e "t o adjudicat e th e allegatio n [o f threat s an dvandalism ] unde r Par t 16 , i t woul dhav e t o first mak e findings o f

fac t o n crimina l matter , whic h i s completel y outside th e jurisdictio n

4 3an dexpertis e o f th e Directo r

unde r Par t 16. " [Boc aAirport

Inc. , d/b/ aBoc aAviatio n v . Boc aRato n Airport

Authority
. FA A Docke t

16-04-0 2 (Fina l Agenc y Decisio n 11/29/04) ] In thi s case , base do n th e evidenc e submitte dto , o r mor e pertinently , omitte dfromth e record , th e Directo r

canno t rejisonabl y conclud e that thes e undocumente dallegation s regardin g non-county representative s an demployee s amoun t t o th e Responden t

operatin g th e Airport

i n an unsaf

e o r unserviceabl e conditio n in violatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 19
. Furthermore , th e Directo r wishe s t o clarif

y that th e term s "saf

e an dserviceable " d o no t appl y t o crimina l activitie s o r persona l harm
. Instead , thes e appl y t o th e Airport' s operationa l statu s with regar dt o adequat e facilitie s t o support aeronautica l activities
. Allegation s o f

Denia l o f

Acces s an dServic e Complainant s alleg e Mr
. Witt an dComplainan t

Ferrel l wer e denie dacces s an dservic e a t th e McMir

mCounty Airport

an dit s facilities
. Althoug h Complainant s fail t o cit e aGran t Assuranc e violation , th e Directo r wil l addres s both allegation s unde r Gran t Assuranc e 22(a ) an d22(h) , whic h discus s acces s an deconomi c nondiscrimination
. Regardin g Mr
. Witt , th e Directo r finds tha t

th e fact s entere dint o th e Recor dsho w Mr
. Witt serve da s an independen t contrac t flight instructo r

with th e former

FB O at th e Airport unti l January 2006
. Th e evidenc e submitte dt o th e recor db y Complainants , an d agree dt o b y Respondent , als o support th e fac t that Mr
. Witt i s n o longe r

acontracte d flight instructo r

o r an employe e at

th e Airport

an dha s no t

bee n sinc e January 2006
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Responden t

ferventl y objecte dt o Complainants ' allegation s that Mr
. Witt i s barre dfromusin g th e Airport an ddemande d proo f o f thes e statements . In addressin g Complainants ' allegation s o f denia l o f access , th e Directo r

wil l appl y Gran t Assuranc e 22(a) , whic h state s asponso r "wil l mak e th e airport

availabl e a s an airport

for publi c us e o n reasonabl e term s an dwithou t unjus t discrimination. " Complainant s alleg e th e curren t

FB O owne r

tol dMr
. Witt

h e was no t

welcom e at

th e Airport ; however , neithe r Complainan t

submit s an y proo f

t o th e recor dsupportin g thes e allegations
. Instead , the y rel y o n thir dparty statement s an dthei r persona l observations t o persuad e th e Director
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ; FA A Exhibi t

I , Ite m2 ; FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m12 ; an dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m13 ] Moreover , Complainant s hav e no t show n ho w the y hav e bee n directl y an dsubstantiall y affecte db y sponso r noncomplianc e directe da t Witt
. A s such , th e FA A ha s n o basi s t o investigat e an ddecid e suc h allegations
. [See , 1 4 C.F.R
. 16.23(a)." ] A s state di n 1 4 CF R§ 16.229 , an duphel di n precedent
. Complainant s hav e th e burde n o f proo f t o sho w ho w aresponden t restricte daeronautica l acces s an ddi ds o unreasonabl y confrar y t o it s gran t

assurances . [See , SeaSand s Ai r Transport , Inc
. v . Huntsville-Madiso n County Airport

Authority , FA A Docke t

16-05-1 7 (Director' s Determinatio n Issue d Augus t 28 , 2006) ] B y failin g t o submi t reliabl e evidenc e o f

sai dallegafion s Complainant s hav e faile dt o mee t thi s burde n i n demonstratin g tha t Mr
. Witt i s barre d fromMcMin n County Airport
. 4 4I

n th e secon dallege dcas e o f denia l o f access , th e Directo r

als o finds th e Responden t di d no t violat e it s gran t

assurance s whe n th e curren t FB O di dno t

ren t it s trainin g aircraf

t t o Complainan t

Ferrel l fo

r th e purpos e o f

conductin g hi s flight

proficienc y chec k

o r flight revie w i n accordanc e wit

h 1 4 CF R§ 61.5 6 ^
. Th e undispute dfact s i n th e Recor dsupport Complainants ' allegation s that Complainan t Ferrel l requeste dMr
. Witt exercis e hi s Certifie dFligh t Instructo r

(CFI ) privilege s t o perfor mFerrell' s flight

revie w usin g a

n aircraf t Ferrel l attempte dt o ren t fromth e FBO
. Al l partie s als o agre e that th e FB O denie dth e renta l even t statin g Mr
. Wit

t wa s no t liste d o n th e FBO' s insuranc e polic y a s an authorize dCertificate dFligh t Instructo r

^ ^ However , Complainan t

Ferrel l object s t o th e FBO' s reasonin g callin g i t "irrelevan t

sinc e Mr
. Witt ha dno t contracte dfo

r th e aircraft. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 ] Responden t

state s th e FB O offere dComplainan t

Ferrel l th e opportunit y t o ren t th e aircraf

t usin g on e o f

th e FBO' s insure dinstructor s i n accordanc e with th e FBO' s policy
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , Exhibi t 1 ] Complainant s d o no t den y Ferrel l wa s offere dthi s opportunity
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 2 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 ] Complainant s stat e Mr
. Witt shoul dhav e bee n allowe dt o conduc t th e flight revie w fo

r Complainan t

Ferrel l usin g th e FBO' s aircraft ; whe n h e was no t allowe dt o d o so , the y equate dthi s t o adenia l o f acces s o r servic e t o Ferrell
. In Goodrich , th e Directo r hel dth e languag e i n Gran t

Assuranc e 22 , whic h state s a n airport mus t b e availabl e fo

r publi c us e o n reasonabl e term s withou t unjus t discrimination : Neithe r equate s t o unfettere d'aeronautica l access ' no r amandat e tha t

anyon e an deveryon e ha s th e righ t t o b e grante dacontrac t

t o conduc t

a n aeronautica l busines s o n a n airport
. [See , Goodrich , p . 20. ] In thi s situation , Mr
. Witt was actin g a s a

n independen t

instructo r

providin g a corrunercial aeronautica l service : conductin g aflight review
. A n airport

sponsor' s gran t assurance s protec t

auser' s privileg e t o us e th e publi c area s o f th e airport ; the y d o no t guarante e one' s righ t

t o conduc t

busines s o n th e airport
. [See , Goodrich ] Furthermore , th e Directo r finds ther e i s n o evidenc e i n th e recor dsupportin g Complainants ' allegation s that Ferrel l was denie dacces s t o th e Airport o r th e FBO' s trainin g aircraf

t o r denie dan y service
. Complainant s neve r dispute dRespondent' s clai m that Ferrel l wa s offere dt o perfor mhi s flight

revie w i n th e aircraf

t with anothe r

instructor
. Therefore , th e Directo r

carmo t findth e Responden t

i s i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 22
.

^ ' 1 4 C.F.R
. 61.5 6 addresse s flight reviews , als o know n a s flight proficienc y checks
. Thi s regulatio n require s pilot s exercisin g th e privilege s o f thei r pilo t certificate s t o receiv e aminimu mo f I hou r o f flight trainin g an d1 hou r

o f groun dtrainin g fi"oman authorize dinstructo r at specifie dintervals
. Th e Directo r note s thi s requiremen t

ma y b e waive di f

apilo t meet s othe r

criteria ; however , tha t

criterio n i s no t

german e t o th e issu e a t

han ds o wil l no t

b e reviewe dhere
. ^ * Th e Aviatio n Insuranc e Binder/Confirmatio n o f Coverag e submitte db y th e Responden t an dComplainan t Ferrel l [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 0 Exhibi t

2 , an dIte m11 ] list s unde r th e heading , "OPW/Special Provisions " th e entry , "A s Respects : Certificate dFligh t Instructors : Name dPilot s Only. " M r Witt i s no t liste da s a "Name dPilot. " 4 5Summar y o f Issu e #4 Finding s Base do n th e evidenc e submitte dt o th e record , th e Directo r finds Responden t

i s no t in violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an dMaintenance , regardin g allegation s o f threat s an dvandalis mbecause :

• Complainant s di dno t provid e an y evidenc e supportin g thei r claim s that

ris e t o th e standar do f

preponderanc e o f

proof; • Complainant s allegation s involv e privat e citizens , no t Airport o r county personnel ; an d
• Allegation s o f

crimina l behavio r

ar e no t withi n th e jurisdictio n o f th e Par t 1 6 process . Base do n th e evidenc e submitte dt o th e record , th e Directo r finds Responden t

i s no t i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination , regardin g allegation s o f denial o f acces s an dservic e because :

• Complainant s di dno t provid e an y evidenc e supportin g thei r clai mtha t

Mr
. Witt i s barre dfromusin g th e McMin n County Airport ; • Airport

sponsor s an dFBO s ar e no t require dt o offe

r contract s t o any an dal l commercia l aeronautica l servic e providers ; an d
• Complainan t

Ferrel l was offere dth e opportunit y t o ren t th e FBO' s trainin g aircraf t t o conduc t

hi s flight revie w i f h e use don e o f

th e FBO' s liste dinstructors
. ISSU E #5 : Whethe r

th e Respondent' s allege dfailur e t o bette r regulat e it s FBO/Airpor t

Managemen t

contracto r

an dth e discriminator y act s allegedl y perpetrate db y th e FBO , constitut e aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination ; an dwhethe r th e Respondent' s allege dabdicatio n o f it s right s an dauthorit y t o th e FB O an dother s constitut e aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 5 ? Complainant s Keye s an dFerrel l alleg e tw o act s o f discriminatio n i n violatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. In th e first instance
. Complaint s conten d Keye s wa s "intentionall y passe dove r for ahangar " whe n th e FB O offere dahangar t o anothe r pilo t o n th e waitin g list
. [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite mI ] Then , Complainan t Ferrel l allege s h e was discriminate dagains t whe n th e FB O too k

hi mof f it s "emai l lis t

(an d Ferrel l was ) no t

invite dt o any airport

publi c functions. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 ] Complainant s Keye s an dFerrel l als o alleg e thes e discriminatory acts b y th e FB O i n additio n t o thei r

othe r allegation s o f

mismanagemen t

serv e t o illustrat e ho w th e Respondent' s failure t o properl y overse e an dregulat e it s airport amount s aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 22
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , Exhibi t

I an dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m12 ] Th e Directo r wil l addres s eac h allegatio n unde r Gran t Assuranc e 2 2 individually
.

4 6Hansa r Waitin g Lis t Complainant s Keye s an dFerrel l conten dKeye s was no t awarde dahanga

r at McMin n County Airport

i n accordanc e with hi s plac e o n th e hangar waitin g list
. The y alleg e thi s wa s an intentiona l ac t

o f discriminatio n du e t o Keyes ' rol e i n th e lin e o f sigh t deviatio n matte r addresse dunde r

Issu e #1
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 ] Responden t

denie s Keye s wa s intentionall y passe dover . Instead , Responden t claim s th e transfer o f th e list s fromth e Mayor' s offic e t o th e former FBO , the n fromth e former FB O t o th e ne w FB O resulte di n "administrafiv e confusio n (not ) willfu l discrimination " agains t Complainan t

Keyes
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m9 ] Complainant s faile dt o submi t an y evidenc e t o th e recor dsupportin g Keyes ' assumptio n wher e h e stoo do n th e waitin g list
. Whil e Complainant s referenc e Mr
. Stev e Dod dan d alleg e h e admitte dh e was belo w Mr
. Keye s o n th e list , ther e i s nothin g i n th e recor dt o support thes e statements . Complainants ' allegation s ar e base do n thei r allegation s an d Respondent' s admittanc e that Responden t

an dit s FB O faile dt o publis h aconsolidate d hangar waitin g list
. [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite mI an dExhibi t

1 , Ite m9 ] Emai l an dEven t

Invitatio n List s Complain t

Ferrel l allege s h e wa s "pu t i n th e sam e category o f

discriminatio n tha t

ha s affecte dMr
. Witt

an dMr
. Keye s [whe n h e was ] take n of f Ms
. Gentry's " E-mai l lis t (and ) no t invite dt o an y airport

publi c functions , includin g th e monthl y safet y meetings. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 ] Accordin g t o Ferrell' s Part 13. 1 Complaint , h e "woul dlike a writte n apolog y fromMs
. Gentry t o (himself ) an dMr
. Witt..
. (and ) woul dlike fo r Ms
. Gentry t o mak e aformal invitation , i n writing , that Mr
. Witt i s welcom e t o resum e hi s flight instructio n at

MM I airport. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , Exhibi t

2 ] In it s Answer , Responden t question s whethe r

Ferrell' s statement s amoun t t o agran t assuranc e violatio n an dals o contends th e FB O doe s no t sponso r monthl y safet

y meetings
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m10 ] Summarily , Responden t denies an y allegation s th e Directo r ma y infer

fro mFerrell' s conmients
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 ] Th e Directo r

surmise s Complainan t

Ferrel l i s attemptin g t o illustrat e th e poin t that h e i s bein g discriminate dagains t becaus e h e i s no t

receivin g th e courtes y treatmen t an dleve l o f servic e h e expect s t o receiv e froman FB O an dairport managemen t

compan y (an dthat ar e afforde dt o othe r

pilot s utilizin g th e airport)
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 , Exhibi t

2 ] Additionally , Ferrell' s Complain t include s objection s t o th e fac t tha t th e FB O refuse dt o allo w Mr
. Witt

t o serv e a s an instructo r

i n it s aircraf

t fo r Ferrell' s flight

review
. Althoug h unsupporte db y documentatio n o r othe r evidence , Ferrel l contend s Ms
. Gentry

Cox' s "custome r

servic e skill s ar e inadequate, " an dsh e "i s i n aposhio n sh e i s no t qualifie dt o b e in. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 ]

Ms
. Gentry refer s t o Ms
. Kristy Gentry-Cox , th e owne r o f th e curren t

FB O at McMin n County Airport
.

4 7Airpor t Mismanagemen t Complainant s bot

h stat e that

th e curren t

FBO , whic h als o ha s acontrac t t o manag e th e Airport , ha s demonstrate dsuc h poo r managemen t

o f th e facilit y that th e Responden t

ha s abrogate dit s gran t

assuranc e obligations , specificall y Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. Th e FA A recognize s that th e operatio n o f

apubli c us e airport

i s comple x an dmany smalle r communitie s ofte n tur n t o privat e enterpris e t o provid e [management ] service s whic h wil l mak e th e us e o f th e airport

b y th e publi c attractiv e an dconvenient
. [See , FAA Orde r 5190.6a , Chapte r

6 , Sectio n 6-2]
. However , suc h agreement s d o no t absolv e a

n airport sponso r fro mit s contractua l obligation s with th e Federa l govenmient
. FAA Orde r 5190.6 adefine s th e relationshi p a s follows : A managemen t

cooperatio n wit

h aleas e o f

th e entir e airport , o r

atenan t operatio n authorize dt o perfor man y o f th e owner' s managemen t responsibilities , shal l b e considere da s residen t agent s o f

th e airpor t

owne r an dno t a s responsibl e principals
. [FA A Orde r

5190.6a , Chapte r

6 , Sectio n 6-5(d) ] Base do n thi s relationshi p an ddefinitio n o f responsibilities , th e Directo r wil l addres s th e Respondent' s oversigh t

o f th e Airport , specificall y it s managemen t contract , unde r

Gran t Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPowers , specifically , sectio n (f ) whic h states : I f a n arrangemen t

i s mad e fo r

managemen t

an doperatio n o f

th e airpor t

b y an y agenc y o r perso n othe r

tha n th e sponso r

o r a n employe e o f

th e sponsor , th e sponso r wil l reserv e sufficient

right s an dauthorit y t o insur e tha t th e airpor t

wil l b e operate dan dmaintaine di n accordanc e Titl e 49 , Unite dState s Code , th e regulation s an dth e terms , condition s an dassurance s i n th e gran t agreemen t

an d shal l insur e tha t

suc h arrangemen t

als o require s complianc e therewith
. In thi s Complaint , Complainant s stat e th e FB O owner' s "ba djudgmen t i n he r busines s practice s i n he r

managemen t

o f th e McMir

mCounty Airport , especiall y custome r relations " precipitate dthei r previousl y addresse dallegations
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 ] The y conten dth e FBO/managemen t company' s deficiencie s an dact s amoun t t o Respondent' s violatio n o f it s gran t assurance s becaus e McMin n County Airport "i s no t managed , ha s n o oversight , i s unresponsiv e t o equipmen t outages , routinel y fail s t o ensur e th e timel y issuanc e o f notice s t o airme n an dha s chose n t o loo k th e othe r wa y whe n the y hav e bee n mad e awar e o f threats , intimidatio n an ddamag e t o persona l property. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m12 ] Responden t

denie s "th e allegation s o f violatin g federal gran t

assuranc e b y willfull y allowin g economi c nondiscriminatio n an dknowingl y operatin g a n unsaf e airport. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m15 ] Furthermore , th e Responden t state s i t ha s bee n proactivel y workin g t o devis e severa l document s t o improv e it s airport managemen t

i n th e future
. [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m9 ]

4 8Conclusio n

Hanga r Waitin g Lis t FA A Orde r

5190.6 astate s that

airport managemen t

agreement s shoul d"provid e fo r acceptabl e practice s suc h a s nondiscriminatory waitin g list s fo r tie-dow n spaces. " [See , FA A Orde r

5190.6a , Sectio n 5 , 4-17(k)(l) ] I n thi s Complaint , th e Directo r accept s th e allegation s that

th e Responden t

di dno t maintai n a

n organize dlis t

whe n th e County assigne dit s hangar

waitin g lis t

t o th e contro l o f

th e forme

r FB O and , subsequently , whe n th e former

FB O transferre dth e list s t o th e cunen t FBO
. Th e Directo r

accept s that

th e list s wer e no t

organize dwhe n transfene dt o th e curren t FB O an dthat

the y wer e no t publishe dunti l recently
. However , Complainant s hav e no t submitte dzin

y evidenc e t o th e recor dprovin g Keyes ' placemen t o n th e lis t

wa s a n intentiona l ac t

o f discrimination
. Th e Directo r

carmo t findsufficien t

evidenc e t o sugges t

that Responden t

ha dengage di n som e for mo f discriminator y behavio r

b y means o f

it s o r th e FBO' s pas t

practice s maintainin g thei r

hangar waitin g lists
. Furthermore , th e Directo r note s that

Complainan t Keye s wa s offere dan dbega n occupyin g ahangar a s o f Marc h 2008 , approximatel y te n month s prio r

t o th e filing o f

Keyes ' Par

t 1 6 Complaint
. I

n Bisti Aviation , Inc
. v . Cit y o f Farmington , Ne w Mexico , FA A Docke t No
. 16-07-0 1 (Director' s Determinatio n issue d Decembe r

4 , 2007) , th e Directo r

held , "'Th

e successfu l actio n by th e airpor t owne r o r sponso r t o cur e apas t

violatio n i s ground s fo r

dismissa l o f

tha t allegation
. " A s aresult , ther e i s n o issu e o f

curren t compliance
. Whil e th e Directo r

doe s believ e th e hangar

waitin g list s coul dhav e bee n manage dbetter , th e fac t tha t th e Responden t

an dth e FB O rectifie dthei r pas t practice s b y offerin g Complainan t

Keye s ahangar

prio r t o th e filing o f

thi s Par t 1 6 Complainan t

clearl y demonstrate s Responden t ha s me t th e burde n o f

curren t compliance
. However , als o i n th e spiri t o f Bisti , th e Directo r

notes : Thi s i s no t

t o sa y tha t

Respondent' s pas t

leasin g practice s were violation s becaus e th e Recor ddoe s no t reflec t an y malfeasanc e o n th e par t o f Responden t regardin g it s pas t

leasin g policies
. [See , Bisti ] Therefore , th e Directo r

finds th e Responden t

i s no t currentl y i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 2 2 regardin g Keyes ' placemen t o n th e former

hangar waitin g lists
. Emai l an dEven t

Invitatio n List s Th e Directo r

take s allegation s o f

discriminatio n ver

y seriousl y an dtherefor e wil l addres s Complainan t

Ferrell' s imcategorize dstatement s unde r Gran t Assuranc e 22 , specificall y subsectio n (a) , whic h states : (A n airpor t sponsor ) wil l mak

e th e airpor t

availabl e a s a n airpor t

fo r publi c us e o n reasonabl e term s an dwithou t unjus t discriminatio n t o al l types , kind s an d classe s o f aeronautica l activities , includin g commercia l aeronautica l activitie s 4 9offerin g service s t o th e publi c a t th e airport
. [See , FAA Airport Sponso r Assurances , Gran t

Assuranc e 22(a) ] A s note dpreviously , ther e i s nothin g i n th e Recor dtha t support s th e clai mComplainan t Ferrel l ha s bee n treate dan y differentl y tha n anyon e els e usin g th e McMin n Coimty Airport
. Althoug h Complainan t

Fenel l object s t o Ms
. Gentry-Cox' s managemen t style , th e Directo r dismisse s Ferrell' s allegatio n that th e FBO' s dispute dcustome r service , particularl y it s failure t o sen demai l invitation s t o publi c function s directl y t o Complainan t

Fenell , rise s t o th e leve l o f agran t assuranc e violation
. Th e Directo r remind s Complainant s tha t "Th e Respondent' s Federa l obligation s d o no t requir e i t t o provid e aspecifi c leve l o f service. " [Monac o Coac h Corporatio n v . Eugen e Airport an d th e City o f

Eugene , Oregon , FAA Docke t No
. 16-03-17 , (Director' s Determinatio n issue d Jul y 27 , 2004 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrde r issue dMarc h 4 , 2005) ] Fenel l the n attempt s t o incorporat e th e FBO' s denia l o f hi s renta l even t

int o a n ac t o f discriminatio n becaus e it

wa s "inconvenient. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 ] A s th e Directo r ha s previousl y held , "[i] t

i s no t sufficient t o sho w th e sponsor' s requirement s ar e merel y les s convenien t

o r eve n mor e costl y than th e complainant' s prefene doptions. " [.S'ee , Airborn e Flyin g Service , Inc
. v . City o f Ho t Springs , Arkansas , FAA Docke t No
. 16-07

- 0 6 (Fina l Decisio n an dOrde r issue dMa

y 2 , 2008) ] Fenell' s statemen t

that h e "ha s no t

bee n insid e th e termina l building " reflect s amatte r o f persona l choic e a s ther e i s n o evidenc e i n th e Recor dindicatin g h e ha s bee n banne dfro m th e facilit y b y th e Respondent
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 ] Furthermore , Fenell' s contentio n that

h e ha s no t

receive d"an apolog y fromMrs
. Gentry-Cox " doe s no t constitut e aviolatio n o f

Respondent' s Federa l gran t assurances . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13 ] Th e Directo r

finds th e fac t

that th e FB O doe s no t

sen dpersona l email s t o Complainan t Fenel l doe s no t

amoun t t o aviolatio n o f

Gran t Assurcinc e 22 , o r

an y othe r assurance . Airpor t Mismanagemen t Complainant s mad e severa l statement s i n thei r pleading s allegin g Ms
. Gentry-Co x i s a poo r airport manage r an dFB O operator . The y als o conten dhe r poo r performanc e an d "complet e control " o f

th e Airport

ha s resulte di n th e Responden t violatin g it s gran t assurance s becaus e thei r

continue dcall s for

Responden t

"t o ensur e th e airport

i s professionall y managed , respect(s ) th e right s o f al l user s an dadhere(s ) t o th e obligation s that the y willin g entere dinto, " hav e gon e unanswered
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite mI an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Eve n i f

th e Complainants ' statement s an dallegation s wer e no t jus t matter s o f opinion , th e Directo r

carmo t mak e th e connectio n ho w Ms
. Gentry-Cox' s allege dpoo r

managemen t

an dcustome r

servic e skill s an dunsupporte dallegation s o f he r retainin g "complet e control " o f th e Airport

amoun t t o aviolatio n o f

an y gran t assurance .

5 0A s previousl y noted , th e FBO' s an dMs
. Gentry-Cox' s custome r servic e skill s d o no t constitut e aviolatio n o f

th e Respondent' s gran t

assurance s sinc e "th e Respondent' s Federal obligation s d o no t requir e it t o provid e aspecifi c leve l o f service, " a s Complainant s allege
. [See , Monac o Coach. ] Furthermore , a s th e Directo r ha s note d throughou t

thi s Determination , Complainant s hav e faile dt o establis h that th e Responden t violate dth e right s o f

an y user s o r

cunentl y i s in violatio n o f an y o f it s gran t assuranc e obligation s throug h it s ow n action s o r th e action s o f

th e FBO/managemen t

company . Regardin g Ms
. Gentry-Cox' s contro l o f th e Airport , th e Directo r

ha s previousl y held : A violatio n o f

Assuranc e 5 ma

y occu r when a n airpor t

sponso r enter s int o a n agreemen t

wit h term s tha t

subsequentl y resul t

i n action s tha t

ma y plac e th e sponso r in noncomplianc e wit

h it s federa l obligations
. [See , Platinu mAviatio n . ] Ther e i s nothin g i n th e recor dt o indicat e th e Responden t ha s crosse dthi s bridge
. Allowin g th e managemen t compan y t o operat e th e facilit y an doffe

r aeronautica l service s utilizin g it s ow n styl e o f

managemen t

whil e th e sponso r

retain s it s right s an dauthority i s no t agran t assuranc e violation
. [See , FA A Orde r 5190.6a ] Th e Directo r

finds Complainants ' contention s that Ms
. Gentry-Co x wa s give n complet e contro l o f MM I t o ru n a s he r privat e airport

ar e base do n conjectur e an dpersona l opinion
. An deve n i f th e conjectur e an dpersona l opinio n wer e prove n t o b e true , th e Complainant s hav e no t provide dapreponderanc e o f evidenc e tha t

thi s styl e o f

managemen t

someho w transfene d th e sponsor' s right s an dauthority t o another
. Ther e i s nothin g i n th e Recor d demonstratin g Responden t ha s cede dit s right s an dpower s t o Ms
. Gentry-Cox , th e FBO , o r anyon e els e i n violatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 5
. Summar y o f

Issu e # 5 Finding s Base do n th e evidenc e submitte dt o th e record , th e Directo r finds Responden t

i s no t i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 2 2 regardin g allegation s o f hangar , emai l list , an dothe r suggestion s o f

discriminatio n because :

• Complainant s di dno t provid e an y evidenc e supportin g thei r clai mthat

Mr
. Keye s wa s no t awarde dahangar

i n prope r orde r an dmor e importantly , h e bega n occupyin g ahangar

te n month s prio r

t o th e filing o f

hi s Part 1 6 Complaint;
• Complainant s allegation s regardin g th e emai l an dinvitatio n list s d o no t amoun t t o discriminatory practice s a s an FBO' s leve l o f servic e i s no t

agran t obligation ; an d Base do n th e evidenc e submitte dt o th e record , th e Directo r finds Responden t

i s no t i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 5 regardin g allegation s o f airport mismanagemen t

an dlac k o f oversigh t b y th e Responden t

because :

• Complainant s faile dt o submi t an y evidenc e t o th e Recor ddemonstratin g b y a preponderanc e o f

evidenc e tha t

th e Responden t

violate dan y users ' rights o r cunentl y i s i n violatio n o f an y o f it s gran t assurance s base do n it s ow n o r it s FBO/Managemen t

company' s actions ; an d
5 1• Complainant s faile dt o establis h Responden t ha s cede dit s right s an dpower s t o Ms
. Gentry-Co x o r

anyon e else
. VII
. FINDING S AN D CONCLUSIO N Upo n consideratio n o f

th e submissions , response s b y th e parties , th e recor dherein , applicabl e law an dpolicy , an dfo r th e reason s state dabove , th e Directo r o f th e FA A Offic e o f Airport Complianc e an dFiel dOperation s finds that McMii mCounty cunentl y i s no t i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPowers ; Gran t Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an dMaintenance ; Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination ; an d Gran t Assuranc e 34 , Policies , Standards , an dSpecifications
. Recommendatio n Th e followin g i s arecommendatio n b y th e Director ; i n n o way shoul dthi s b e constructe d a s afinding o f

non-complianc e o r

an y violatio n o f

th e gran t assurances . B y admissio n o f

th e Respondent , McMin n County relie s heavil y o n th e advic e an d expertis e o f

TN DO T personnel
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] In fact , th e Responden t state d it ha s take n step s necessary t o educat e an dassis t it s managemen t

compan y b y providin g Athen s Air , LL C wit

h acop y o f

appropriat e material s for issuin g NOTAM s an dworkin g wit h TN DO T t o devis e rul e an dregulations , airpor t minimu mstandards , an dcreat e a ne w airport

managemen t

agreement . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 ] Th e FA A recognize s that som e sponsor s prefe r

t o retai n outsid e hel p fo

r managin g it s airport
. Whil e thi s doe s no t preclud e thes e sponsors ' fromabidin g b y thei r gran t assurances , th e Directo r

cite s FA A Orde r 5190.6a , specifically
. Chapte r 5 , Sectio n 5-1
. b(2 ) states : Whil e th e FA A wil l not substitut e it s judgmen t

fo r tha t o f th e airpor t

owne r in matter s o f

administratio n an dmanagemen t o f airpor t facilities , i t

i s i n auniqu e positio n t o assis t

airpor t owner s i n achievin g voluntar y complianc e throug h pruden t advic e an dcounsel
. Thi s wil l b e primaril y directe din assistin g airport s t o understan dth e natur e an dapplicabl e o f complianc e obligation s affectin g thei r airport
. Th e Directo r

acknowledge s Respondent' s effort s t o improv e th e Airport , specificall y b y draftin g minimu mstandard s an dairport rule s an dregulation s a s wel l a s addressin g th e deficiencie s voluntaril y an dprio r t o th e filing o f

an y formal complaints
. Thi s show s a clea r willingnes s t o compl y with it s obligation s prescribe db y th e gran t assurances . ORDE R Accordingly , i t

i s ordere dthat : I
. Th e Complain t

i s dismissed ; an d

5 22
. Al l motion s no t expressl y grante di n thi s Determinatio n ar e denied
.

RIGH T O FAPPEA L Thi s Director' s Determination , FA A Docke t No
. 16-08-12 , i s a

n initia l agenc y determinatio n an ddoe s no t constitut e afinal agenc y decisio n an dorde r subjec t t o judicia l revie w a s provide di n 1 4 CF R§ 16.247(b)(2)
. A part y t o thi s proceedin g adversel y affecte db y th e Director' s Determinatio n ma y appea l th e initia l determinatio n t o th e FAA Associat e Administrato r

fo r Airport s pursuan t

t o 1 4 CF R§ 16.33(b ) withi n thirty (30 ) day s o f servic e o f

thi s Determinatio n o n th e parties
. Signed , 

### DE C 1 8 2GC 9 

# Zy^/?./ L

^^:?= ^ landal l Fiert z Dat e Director , Offic e o f

Airport Complianc e An dFiel dOperation s

5 3CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E
I HEREB Y CERTIF Y that o n Decembe r

| ^ , 2009, 1 cause dt o b e place di n th e Unite dState s mai l (firs t

clas s mail , postag e paid ) o r personall y delivered , atru e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

addresse dto : Willia mH
. Keye s 12 1 Count y Roa d56 9 Englewood , Tennesse e 3732 9

Complainan t Dewitt T
. Fenel l P.O
. Bo x 20 6 Athens , Tennesse e 37371-020 6

Complainan t Joh n Gentry , Mayo r McMir mCount y McMin n Count y Court

Hous e 6 Eas t Madiso n Avenu e Athens , Tennesse e 3730 3

Responden t Davi dCrews , Chairma n McMin n Count y Commissio n McMin n Count y Airport

Committe e McMin n Count y Court

Hous e 6 Eas t Madiso n Avenu e Athens , Tennesse e 3730 3

Responden t FA A Part 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docke t FA A Offic e o f

Airports , CompHanc e an dFiel dOperations , ACO-lO O

perso n Offic e o f Airport Complianc e an d Fiel dOperation sFA A Exhibi t 1 Docke t No
. 16-08-1 2 Inde x o f Administrativ e Recor d Director' s Determinatio n
Dewit t T
. (Jack ) Ferrell , Jr
. an dWillia mH
. Keye s COMPLAINANT S

McMin n County , Tennesse e RESPONDENT/SPONSO R

Ite m1 Complainan t Keyes ' Complaint , date dDecembe r 17 , 200 8 (Originall y dockete d16-08-12 ) Ite m2 Complainan t Ferrell' s Complaint , date dDecembe r 22 , 2008
. (Originall y dockete d16-08-13 ) with 4 exhibit s Exhibi t 1 04/10/0 7 - Ope n Lette r t o McMin n Count y Commissioner s from Complainan t

Ferrell
. Exhibi t 2 07/11/0 8 - Complainan t Ferrell' s lette r

t o T N DO T Bria n Caldwel l Re : Lette r

date dJun e 27 , 2008
. Exhibi t 3 07/29/0 8 - TN DO T Caldwell' s lette r t o Complainan t

Ferrel l Re : Informa l Disput e Determinatio n Regardin g Complain t Lette r date d05/18/0 8 Exhibi t 4 08/06/0 8 - Complainan t Ferrell' s origina l undockete dComplain t (note : thi s documen t

was not docketed ) Ite m3 FAA' s Notic e o f Docketin g t o Complainan t Keye s for

16-08-12 , date d Januar y 16 , 200 9 Ite m4 FAA' s Notic e o f Docketin g t o Complainan t Fenel l for

16-08-13 , date d Januar y 16 , 200 9 Ite m5 Respondent' s notic e o f reques t fo r Extensio n o f

Tim e t o file it s Answe r

t o bot h Complaints , date dFebruar y 4 , 200 9 Ite m6 Complain t Keyes ' lette r

t o FA A AG C Re : Objectin g t o Respondent' s reques t for Extensio n o f

Tim e t o file it s Answe r t o Complaint , date dFebruar y 5 , 200 9

Pag e 1 of 7Ite m7 Respondent' s formal reques t for Extension s o f

Tim e t o file it s Answer s t o Complaints , date dFebruar y 6 , 200 9 Ite m8 FAA' s Lette r t o Responden t

grantin g Extension s o f

Tim e t o file it s Answer s t o Complaints , date dFebruar y 6 , 200 9 Ite m9 Respondent' s Answe r t o Keyes ' Complain t

an dMotio n t o Dismiss , date dFebruar y 9 , 200 9 (Originall y dockete d16-08-12 ) Exhibi t 1 01/09/0 3 - MM I Runwa y & Taxiwa y Extensio n Scopin g Meetin g Minute s

(minute s provide db y HM B Professiona l Engineers , Inc. ) Exhibi t 2 200 9 - Draf

t o f Propose dMM I Rule s an dRegulation s Exhibi t 3 10/12/0 6 - Forme r FB O Willia mJohnson' s lette r t o Responden t Re : Reques t

fo r Consen t o f Sal e t o curren t

FB O Exhibi t 4 10/19/0 6 - Respondent' s Lette r t o Airport

Commissio n Chai r Re : Notic e o f

Affidavit o f Kinshi p regardin g FB O sal e Exhibi t 5 10/19/0 6 - Mayo r Gentry' s Affidavi t

o f Kinshi p Re : FB O Athen s Air , LL C owne r i s Mayor' s Cousi n 11/20/0 6 - Count y Meetin g Minute s

Re : Resolutio n approvin g transfe r o f airpor t managemen t contrac t t o Athen s Air , LL C Exhibi t 6 12/19/0 5 - Lette r t o Mayo r

Gentr y wit h unidentifie dsignature s Re : Genera l suppor t

o f airpor t Exhibi t 7 12/19/0 5 - Charle s Nelson' s Comment s t o McMin n Count y Commissio n

Re : Lin e o f

Sigh t issu e Exhibi t 8 Q)1I\6IQ 1 - Complain t Keyes ' Comment s t o McMin n Count y Airport Committe e Re : Hanga r Waitin g List , includin g Lin e o f Sigh t issue s Exhibi t 9 06/09/0 8 - TN DO T Oliphant' s lette r t o Complain t

Keye s Re : Informa l Disput e Resolutio n Proces s Regardin g Complain t

Lette r date d03/22/0 8 Exhibi t 1 0 07/24/0 8 - T N DO T Oliphant' s lette r t o Complain t

Keye s Re : Statu s o f

Informa l Disput e Resolutio n Concernin g Complain t

Lette r date d03/22/0 8 Exhibi t 1 1 09/08/0 8 - Complain t Keyes ' Lette r

t o Responden t Re : Implementatio n o f

Keyes ' 03/22/0 8 Recommendation s Exhibi t 1 2 09/12/0 8 - Respondent' s Lette r t o Complain t

Keye s Pag e 2 o f 7Re : Implementatio n o f Keyes ' 03/22/0 8 Recommendation s Exhibi t 1 3 09/24/0 8 - T N DO T Ohphant' s lette r t o Complainan t

Keye s Re : Informa l Disput e Determinatio n Regardin g Complain t Lette r date d03/22/0 8 Ite m1 0
Exhibi t 1

Exhibi t 2
Ite m1 1
Ite m1 2 Exhibi t 1
Exhibi t 2
Exhibi t 3
Exhibi t 4 Exhibi t 5 Exhibi t 6
Exhibi t 7
Exhibi t 8
Exhibi t 9
Exhibi t 1 0 Respondent' s Answe r t o Ferrell' s Complain t

an dMotio n t o Dismiss , date dFebruar y 12 , 200 9 (Originall y dockete d16-08-13 ) 06/20/0 8 - Respondent' s Lette r t o TN DOT' s Oliphan t Re : Respons e t o Complainan t Ferrell' s Par t

13. 1 Informa l Disput e Resolutio n Reques t 12/06/0 6 - 12/06/0 7 - Athen s Air , LL C Aviatio n Insuranc e Binder/Confirmatio n o f

Coverag e statemen t Complainan t

Ferrell' s Lette r

t o FA A date dFebruar y 24 , 200 9 Re : Ferrel l state s h e di dnot receiv e Respondent' s Answe r Complainan t

Keyes ' Reply , date dFebruar y 18 , 200 9 Entitle dFootnot e 1 - Runwa y an dTaxiwa y Extensio n Scopin g Meetin g Minutes , date dJanuar y 9
. 200 3 Entitle dFootnot e 2 - Gran t Budge t for McMin n Count y from10/1/200 3 throug h 9/30/200 8 Untitle d- Gran t

Agreemen t

betwee n Stat e o f

T N an dMcMin n County , pag e 1 o f

1 5 Untitle d- Handwritte n not e regardin g hanga r subleas e date d9/1/0 5 Entitle dFootnot e 5 - Pag e 5 6 o f A C 150/5300-1 3 Entitle dFootnot e 6 - "Airpor t reopen s o n limite dbasis, " Articl e fro m Dail y Post-Athenian , date dDecembe r 1 , 200 5 Entitle dFootnot e 7 - Lette r fromT N DO T t o Mayo r Gentry , date d Decembe r

1,200 5 Entitle dFootnot e 8 - "Safet y issue s partiall y clos e McMin n Airport, " Articl e fromDail y Post-Athenian , date dDecembe r 6 , 200 5 Entitle dFootnot e 9 - "Pilot s sa y plane s 'disappear ' o n ne w runway, " Articl e fromWBIR.CO M website , date dDecembe r 7 , 200 5 Entitle dFootnot e 1 0 - "Pilot s see k safet y pact, " Articl e fromDail y Post

Athenian , date dDecembe r 7 , 200 5 Pag e 3 of 7Exhibi t 1 1 Entitle dFootnot e 1 1 - Lette r fromFA A t o Kenn y Witt , date dDecembe r 14,200 5 Exhibi t 1 2 Entitle dFootnot e 1 2 - Lette r from TN DO T t o Kenn y Witt , date d Decembe r

16 , 200 5 Exhibi t 1 3 Entitle dFootnot e 1 3 - Comment s t o McMin n Count y Commissio n from Charle s E
. Nelson , date dDecembe r 19 , 200 5 Exhibi t 1 4 Entitle dFootnot e 1 4 - Lette r t o Mayo r Gentr y wit h variou s signatures , date dDecembe r

19 , 200 5 Exhibi t 1 5 Entitle dFootnot e 1 5 - "Doze n loca l pilot s argu e airport safe, " Articl e from th e Dail y Post-Athenian , date dDecembe r 22 , 200 5 Exhibi t 1 6 Entitle dFootnot e 1 6 - "Safety measure s stil l nee dt o b e take n a t airport, " Articl e fromth e Dail y Post-Athenian , date dDecembe r 30 , 200 5 Exhibi t 1 7 Entitle dFootnot e 1 7 - "Fligh t instructo r

wh o complaine dabou t

runwa y dange r lose s contract, " Articl e fromth e Chattanoog aTime s Fre e Press , date dJanuar y 6 , 200 6 Exhibi t 1 8 Entitle dFootnot e 1 8 - "Fligh t instructo r

say s h e wa s firedfor whistleblowing, " Articl e fromth e Dail y Post-Athenian , date dJanuar y 6 , 200 6 Exhibi t 1 9 Entitle dFootnot e 1 9 - "Fligh t instructo r

say s raisin g safety concern s cos t hi mhi s job, " Articl e fromWBIR.CO M website , date dJanuar y 7 , 200 6 Exhibi t 2 0 Entitle dFootnot e 2 0 - "Ri p u p th e airport' s runwa y t o repai r it? " Newspape r

Articl e fromunidentifie dsource , withou t adat e Exhibi t 2 1 Entitle dFootnot e 2 1 - "W e ar e goin g t o fix that, " Newspape r Articl e from unidentifie dsource , withou t adat e Exhibi t 2 2 Entitle dFootnot e 2 2 - Gran t Budge t for McMin n Count y from10/1/200 5 throug h 9/30/201 0 Exhibi t 2 3 Entitle dFootnot e 2 3 - Gran t Agreemen t

betwee n Stat e o f

TN an dMcMin n County , pag e 1 o f

1 3 Exhibi t 2 4 Entitle dFootnot e 2 4 - Ope n lette r t o McMin n Count y Commissioner s from Complainan t

Fenell , date dApri l 10 , 200 7 Exhibi t 2 5 Entitle dFootnot e 2 5 - Statemen t t o th e McMir

mCount y Airport Committe e fromComplainan t Keyes , date dJul y 16 , 200 7 Exhibi t 2 6 Entitle dFootnot e 2 6 - Lette r fromComplainan t

Keyes ' Attorney , Harol d Stone , t o Christ y Gentry , date dSeptembe r 11 , 200 7 Pag e 4 of 7Exhibi t 2 7 Entitle dFootnot e 2 7 - Lette r fromComplainan t

Keyes ' Attorney , Harold Stone , t o Complainan t

Keyes , date dSeptembe r 14 , 200 7 Exhibi t 2 8 Entitle dFootnot e 2 8 - Lette r fromComplainan t

Keyes ' Attorney , Harol d Stone , t o Complainan t

Keyes , date dSeptembe r 27 , 200 7 Exhibi t 2 9 Entitle dFootnot e 2 9 - Lette r from TN DO T t o Complainan t Keyes , date d Februar y 25 , 200 8 Exhibi t 3 0 Entitle dFootnot e 3 0 - Cop y o f Hanga r Leas e betwee n McMir

mCount y an dComplainan t

Keye s Exhibi t 3 1 Entitle dFootnot e 3 1 - Part 13. 1 Complain t

lette r t o T N DO T from Complainan t

Keyes , date dMarc h 22 , 200 8 Exhibi t 3 2 Entitle dFootnot e 3 2 - Lette r fromTN DO T t o Complainan t Keyes , date d Marc h 26 , 200 8 Exhibi t 3 3
Exhibi t 33 a
Exhibi t 3 4
Exhibi t 3 5
Exhibi t 3 6 Exhibi t 3 7 Exhibi t 3 8
Exhibi t 3 9
Exhibi t 4 0
Ite m1 3 Entitle dFootnot e 3 3 - Lette r fromComplainan t

Keye s t o TN DOT , date d Jun e 25,200 8 Entitle dFootnot e 33 a- Lette r fromComplainan t

Keye s t o TN DOT , date d Jul y 14 , 200 8 Entitle dFootnot e 3 4 - Lette r from TN DO T t o Complainan t Keyes , date d Jul y 24 , 200 8 Entitle dFootnot e 3 5 - Lette r fromComplainan t

Keye s t o TN DOT , date d Septembe r

16 , 200 8 Enfitle dFootnot e 3 6 - FA A Registr y N-Numbe r Inquir y for

C17 2 N129 S Entitle dFootnot e 3 7 - Contac t Informatio n for

Mr
. Kenn y Witt Entitle dFootnot e 3 8 - Term s an dCondition s o f Acceptin g Airport Improvemen t

Progra mGrants , page s 1- 3 Entitle dFootnot e 3 9 - Incomplet e cop y o f Airport Sponso r Assurances , page s 7- 9 Entitle dFootnot e 4 0 - Personall y scribe dnote s fro mJul y 1 1 Meetin g (yea r o f meetin g not

included ) Complainan t

Ferrell' s Reply , date dMarc h 2 , 200 9 includin g Cove r Lette r t o Jonatha n Cros s Exhibi t 1 Entitle dExhibi t

A - Pictur e o f

McMin n Count y Airport Caption : Jus t

bac k ofT.O
. Position , A- 5 no t visibl e Ja n 200 6 Pag e 5 o f 7Exhibi t 2 Enfitle dExhibi t

B - Pictur e o f

McMin n Coimty Airpor t Caption : Fro mA- 5 lookin g North , can not se e rnw y en dmarking s Exhibi t 3 Entitle dExhibi t

C - Pag e o f

Advertisement s fro mAOP A magazin e Re : AOP A insuranc e agenc y advertisemen t Ite m1 4 Respondent' s Rebutta l t o Complainan t Keyes , Februar y 26 , 200 9 Exhibi t 1 TN DO T Audit

o f State/Federa l Dollar s Exhibi t 2 Lin e o f

Sigh t Contrac t Summar y Shee t Exhibi t 3 Lin e o f

Sigh t Attachmen t

Tw o - Gran t

Budge t Exhibi t 4 Origina l Projec t

Contrac t Summar y Shee t Exhibi t 5 Origina l Projec t

Contrac t Attachmen t

Two - Gran t

Budge t Ite m1 5 Respondent' s Rebutta l t o Complainan t Ferrell , date dMarc h 10 , 200 9 Exhibi t 1 Lette r

fromThyssenKrup p Waupac a Re : Athen s Air , LL C servic e Exhibi t 2 Lette r

fromJame s Vreeland , MM I Tenan t Re : Athen s Air , LL C servic e Exhibi t 3 Lette r

fromCar l Bingham , MM I Tenan t Re : Athen s Air , LL C servic e Exhibi t 4 Lette r

fromRL K

Facilitie s Design , LT D Re : Athen s Air, LL C servic e Ite m1 6 FA A ME M AD O Lette r t o T N DOT , date dNovembe r 28 , 200 5 Re : Keyes ' verba l complain t t o AAS-40 0 regardin g lin e o f sigh t Ite m1 7 T N DO T Burgess ' Lette r t o Respondent , date dDecembe r 1 , 200 5 Re : Revisin g runwa y threshol dmarking s Ite m1 8 FA A ME M AD O Lette r t o Kenn y Witt , date dDecembe r 14 , 200 5 Re : Acknowledgin g 11/28/0 5 lette r t o FSD O an dT N DO T acfio n Ite m1 9 T N DO T Fitzpatrick' s Lette r t o Kenn y Witt , date dDecembe r 16 , 200 5 Re : Acknowledgin g 12/9/0 5 lette r an dactio n pla n update Ite m2 0 Complain t Keyes ' Par t

13. 1 Complain t

t o T N DOT , Marc h 22 , 200 8 Ite m2 1 Complain t Ferrell' s Par t

13. 1 Complain t

t o T N DOT , Ma y 19 , 200 8 Pag e 6 of 7Ite m2 2 FA A Orde r 5100.38C , Appendi x 25 , Standar dSponso r Certificafio n Form s Ite m2 3 FA A For m501 0 for McMin n Count y Airport (MMI) , date dMa y 7 , 2009
. Ite m2 4 Stat e Bloc k Gran t Projec t Recor dfor

McMin n Count y Airport (MMI) , Runwa y Extension , e t

a l Ite m2 5 FA A Amende dNotic e o f Docketing , Orde r

t o Consolidat e an dNotic e o f Extensio n o f

Tim e for issuanc e o f

Director' s Determinatio n t o o n o r befor e Augus t

28 , 200 9 Ite m2 6 FA A Notic e o f Extensio n o f

Tim e fo r issuanc e o f

Director' s Determinatio n t o o n o r

befor e Octobe r

27 , 200 9 Ite m2 7 FA A Notic e o f Extensio n o f

Tim e for issuanc e o f

Director' s Determinatio n t o o n o r

befor e Decembe r

1 , 200 9 Ite m2 8 FA A Notic e o f Extensio n o f

Tim e for issuanc e o f

Director' s Determinatio n t o o n o r

befor e Decembe r

31 , 200 9

Pag e 7 of 7