U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

APR 2 7 2015 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Ronnie Adili, PA 

5645 Coral Ridge Drive, #292 

Coral Springs, FL 33076 

Robert A. Sweetapple 

Sweetapple, Broeker & Vargas, P.L. 

165 East Boca Raton Road 

Boca Raton, FL 33432 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

David Arthur, Esq. Assistant County, Attorney 

Broward County Attorney's Office 

115 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 423 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Dear Messrs. Adili, Sweetapple, and Arthur: 

800 Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, 

Florida, FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

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

r~spect to the above-referenced matter finding Broward County, Florida, not in violation of its 

federal obligations with respect to this complaint. The reasons for the finding of compliance are 

set forth in the enclosed Director's Determination. 

The Director's Determination does not constitute a Final Agency Decision and order subject to 

judicial review. [14 CFR § 16.247(b)(2)] A party adversely affected by the Director's 

Determination once issued may appeal the initial determination to the FAA Associate 

Administrator for Airports pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.33(c) within 30 days after the service of the 

Director's Determination. 

Sincerely, 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

Enclosure 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April n, 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first 

class mail, postage paid) a true copy !ftte FAA's Request for Additional Information and Notice of 

Extension of Time, addressed to: 

For Complainant 

Ronnie Adili, P.A. 

5645 Coral Ridge Drive, #292 

Coral Springs, FL 33076 

Robert A. Sweetapple 

Sweetapple, Broeker & Vargas, P .L. 

165 East Boca Raton Road 

Boca Raton, FL 33432 

For Respondent 

David Arthur, Esq. Assistant County Attorney 

Broward County Attorney's Office 

115 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 423 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

f~d~ Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., 

Complainant, 

v. 

Broward County, Florida 

Respondent. FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., eta!. (Complainant/Tropical) brings tbis complaint pursuant to 

14 CFR Part 16 against Broward County, FL (Respondent/County/Airport), the owner and operator of Fort 

Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL). The complaint alleges violations of Grant Assurance 

22, Economic Nondiscrimination; Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights; Grant Assurance 24, Fee and 

Rental Structure; Grant Assurance 30, Civil Rights; Grant Assurance 37, Disadvantaged Business 

Enterprises; and Grant Assurance 39, Competitive Access. 1 

The Complaint seeks a "writ of mandamus compelling Broward County to honor its legal obligations 

pursuant to its Federal Grant Assurances and grant the Tropical a long-term lease" and "any further relief as 

the court deems just and proper."2 

In response, the County states "it has complied with the applicable Federal law and Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) Grant Assurances."3 The County also states that Complainant had derelict aircraft on 

leased property that were not removed as required by .ordinance, and that Complainant failed to vacate the 

premises within 180 days as required by a settlement agreement entered into by the parties. The County 

further states that this alleged breach of the settlement agreement relieved it of any duty to provide the consent 

required for Tropical or its subsidiary to obtain a sublease at FLL. 4 

The Director finds that the Airport is not in violation of its Federal obligations with respect to Grant 

Assurances 22, Economic Nondiscrimination; Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights; Grant Assurance 24 Fee 

and Rental Structure; Grant Assurance 30, Civil Rights; Grant Assurance 37 Disadvantaged Business 

Enterprises; and Grant Assurance 39 Competitive Access. 

1 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, pages 9-25. 2 FAA Exhibit I, Item 1, pages 25-29. 3 FAA Exhibit 3B, p. I3. 

Page I 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

II. PARTIES 

A. Airport 

FLL is a public-use commercial service airport owned and operated by Broward County, Florida. The 

airport is located approximately 3 miles southwest of Fort Lauderdale and 21 miles nortb of Miami. The 

airport encompasses 1,380 acres and has 2 runways. 5 

There were 96,204 operations at the Airport in 2011 and 13 8 aircraft based on its grounds, according to the 

2011 FAA Terminal Area Forecast. FLL serves more than 23 million passengers annually. FLL offers 268 

daily flights to the U.S., Canada, Caribbean, and Latin Arnerica.6 The Airport has 4 terminals, one of 

which is dedicated to commuter airline service (See Figure 1). The development of the Airport was 

financed, in part, with Airport and Improvement Program (AIP) funding. This funding is authorized by the 

Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, 49 U.S.C. §47101, et seq. According to the 

provisions of this Act, the County is obligated to comply with the FAA sponsor grant assurances and 

related Federal law, 49 U.S.C. §47107. 

Since 1982, the Board has accepted $34 3.3 million in AIP financing for the runway extension and an 

additional $5.6 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009) funding. The Airport was also 

provided Federal assistance in the form of surplus property conveyances. In 1942, it was developed as a 

U.S. Navy Naval Air Station. The military facilities closed in 1946, and in January of 1948, Broward 

County assumed control of the facility. In 1953, the County formally took ownership.7 The United States 

Government conveyed the airfield and its facilities to Broward County as a civil airport. As a result, the 

County has incurred obligations in the form of restrictive deed covenants arising from conveyances ofland 

executed under the powers and authority contained in the provisions of the Surplus Property Act (SPA) of 

1944, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 47151-153.8 The Instrument of Transfer is the means by which the United 

States Government transferred its interests in the Airport to Broward County and, in conjunction with the 

AIP grants, imposes certain obligations on the airport sponsor. 

B. Complainant 

Complainant, Tropical Aviation, is a Florida corporation that leased hangar and ramp space at 3940 SW 12 

Terrace, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315 at FLL. Complainant, Air Sunshine, a Florida corporation, is an 

affiliate of Tropical. According to the complaint, the two companies share the same officers and "have a 

common identity for purposes of ownership."9 Complainant states that Air Sunshine, as an air carrier, 10 

provides air services (passengers and cargo), and sub-leases Tropical's lease space at FLL and uses the 

leasehold at FLL primarily for maintenance of the aircraft used in its operations. 11 Complainant can be 

5 FLL FAA Form 5010 at ht1p://www.gcrl.com/5010WEB/airport.cfm?Site=oFLL&CFID~II926194&CFTOKEN~59432747. 6 ht1p://www.broward.org/AirporVAbout!Pages/History.aspx. 

7 http://www.broward.org/ AirporV About!Pages/history2.aspx. 8 Surplus Property Agreement under Public Law 80-289. In addition, the Airport records indicate that a non-surplus conveyance under Section 

16 or Section 23 was made as part of the transfer to the County. However, the Director finds that additional details on this conveyance, as it 

differs from the surplus conveyance under the SPA mentioned above, are not necessary for the present Complaint. See FAA Order 5190.2R List 

of Public Airports Affected by Agreements with The Federal Government, April 30, 1990. 9 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, pages 1-2. 10 Air Carrier- A person who undertakes directly by lease, or other arrangement, to engage in air transportation. This includes an individual, 

firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint-stock association, governmental entity, and a trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar 

representative of such entities. See 14 CFR Part 1.1, General Definitions. 11 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, page 4. 

Page2 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

represented as a single-service provider (Part 135 service provider), and not a full-service fixed-base 

operator (FB0). 12 Air Sunshine was initially certificated in 1982 by the Miami FSDO. 

! 

.. 

-

~ 

~ lf 

.. 

-

a 

... 

~ 

14261 

AIRPORT DIAGRAM ATIS 

\35¢ 

f~i LAOOEF:DAlE TOWER 

1193 2~3 

GNDCON 

121 .1. 

CtNC DEL 

128,.1. 

m 

i'AN1JI<il'( ?JI 0 

I<NNt;Al RATE Of OiN~Cio 

O.I~W 

RWY 10t-28R 

~'(N 69/f/P,/W/T 

214 

S·<OO. 0-200, 25·17:'1_ 20·.{¢8, XJ/201~DO 

RW~' 10!\·2Sl 

?CN 7.4/R/B/W/T 

S-120. D-2~7. 2D-A61, 20/102-987 

AIRPORT DIAGRAM 14?-61 

FORT lAUDERDALE-HOllYWOOD INn !Fl.L) 

FQ;!:T U.,Ulli:ROALE. HORJO/• 

AS.Df-X S>.·rveJio"l:..,. Sy"~ 1n <.ue 

0~<C!'!' 1fO<)~p¢<1d\!"f• ...,w.-, M~ <: cro elf twy~ ~"d f'Wy'!' 

FOR! lAV'VfRDAtf_ HOI\!DA 

FORT lAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTL CFLLJ 

.,., 

2, 

8 

ll! 

£ 

... 

2 

~' 

ll! 

* 

Figure 1 -Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport diagram dated September 2014. It 

depicts the general airfield configuration but also the 4 tenninals. Terminal 4, encircled in red, 

is the terminal used by commuter airlines. Source: FAA. 

12 See 1996 Lease Agreement and Background section below. Single service providers are common and are permitted by FAA policies. See 

Advisory Circular AC 150/5190-7 Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities, August 28, 2006, pages 4 and 6. 

Page3 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

As of October 1, 2014, a review of the FAA's records on 14 CPR Part 135 operators lists Air Sunshine, 

Inc., with the certificate designator RSHA311A (Licensed to fly US,MX,SA,CB,PR) and three Cessna 402 

aircraft, N347AB, N441TT, N477RS, and N603AB (See Figure 2). 13 Its IATA14 code is YI while its 

ICA015 code is RSI. 16 

Currently, the airline's Web site identifies the following destinations: San Juan (Puerto Rico), St. Thomas, 

St. Maarten, Tortola, St. Kitts, Nevis, Dominica, and Antigua, all in the Caribbean. 17 The airline also 

publishes schedules and rates for both passenger and cargo services.18 The airline employs approximately 

45 people (2011). 19 

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

According to the Complaint, on January 26,2012, Complainant and the County met to resolve outstanding 

issues through an informal process, but were unable to find resolutions to the issues.20 

On September 28, 2012, Complainant filed a formal Part 16 Complaint. 

On October 22, 2012, the FAA issued the Notice of Docketing21 On November 8, 2012, a Notice of Parties' 

Election to File Remaining Pleadings Electronically, was filed with the F AA.22 

On November 14, 2012, the County filled a set of three pleadings: 

(1) Respondent Broward County's Motion to Dismiss Complainant's Complaint with Prejudice 

for Failure to State a Claim upon Relief May be Granted Pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.19 and 

F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6);23 

(2) Respondent Broward County's Answer and Affirmative Defenses;24 and 

(3) Respondent Broward County's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its 

Motion to Dismiss Complainant's Complaint with Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim 

upon Relief May be Granted Pursuant to 14CFR § 16.19 and F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)25 

On April15, 2013, the FAA issued a Notice of Extension of Time. This extension was followed by several 

additional extensions dated June 11, 2013; August 15, 2013; October 16, 2013; February 11, 2014; October 

17, 2014; and January 29, 2015.26 

13 Title 14 CFR Part 135 Operators and Aircraft, FAA, October 1, 2014 at 

https://www.faagov/search/?omni~MainSearch&q~Part+135+operators. Title 14 CFR Part 135 Operators and Aircraft [MS EXCEL]. 

According to FAA Registry data, other aircraft may have been on Air Sunshine certificate in the past including: 122TA, 123HY, 206RH, 

220RS, 251RS, 314AB, 318AB, 327AB, 347AB, 351AB, 36915, 744BA, 792BA, 793BA, 900MX, and 403RM. Some of these aircraft were 

EMB-110, Beech 1900C, and Saab 340 aircraft, not Cessna 402C aircraft. which compose the airline's fleet today. 

15 International Civil Aviation Organization. 16 http://www.airlines-inform.com/world _airlines/ Air~ Sunshine.html. 17 http://www.airsunshine.com/Flight-Schedule.htm. Date: December 17, 2014. 18 http://www .airsunshine.com/STX-VQS.htm and http:/ /www.airsunshine.com/ Air-Freight.htm. 

19 http://www .aviationsupport.cornfmisc/ AirOperators/ AirOperavieW .asp?ID=2339. 2

° FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 30. 21 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2. 22 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5. 23 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3A. 24 FAA Exhibit 1, Hem 3B. 25 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 4. 26 FAA Exhibit 1, Items 6-12. 

Page4 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAADocketNo. 16-12-15 

IV. BACKGROUND 

On January 2, 1996, Tropical and the County entered into a month-to-month lease agreement. The lease 

stated that "it is understood and agreed that if by December 31, 1996, [Com~lainant] has not entered into 

a long-term lease agreement for the area depicted on the attached Exhibit C, 7 

or such area at the airport 

agreed to by both parties, which includes a full development plan for the site and a financial plan 

describing the funding strategy for the development of the site, then this lease Agreement shall terminate 

on December 31, 1996, and the [Complainant] shall vacate the premises leased under this Lease 

Agreement no later than December 31, 1996."28 

According to the 1996, lease, Complainant's services were limited to "the maintenance, storage and 

operation of Lessee's affiliate Air Sunshine, Inc., regularly scheduled Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 

Part 13 5 commuter operation." The same lease stated that Complainant was not entitled to provide several 

services including terminal facilities for passenger operations, other than those covered by FAR Part 135, 

sale of nonaviation products, retail sale of aviation fuel and aviation lubricating oils," "engaging in the 

public offering of aircraft or structural maintenance, or the public sale of aircraft tie-down, storage, or 

fueling of any private or corporate aircraft, or any other aspect of service which normally consists of the 

rights and privileges of a fixed-base operator, and such uses are not permitted of the Premises." 29 

In addition, under the lease, Complainant could not store derelict aircraft. 30 It also stated that "Lessee 

[Complainant] shall not be entitled to provide any aviation-related services pursuant to this subparagraph ... 

unless it has first received the written consent of the Aviation Department." 31 

On the issue of derelict aircraft, the lease stated "Lessee [Complainant] and all sub-lessees shall not permit 

the temporary or permanent storage and shall not allow the arrival at the premises or the presence at the 

premises at any time of any derelict aircraft." The lease defines "derelict aircraft" as one of the following: 

(1) an aircraft that does not hold a current and valid airworthiness certificate 

issued by the FAA, together with necessary aircraft registration and maintenance 

records with a current endorsement by an appropriately rated certificate holder 

that the aircraft is in an airworthy condition; (2) an aircraft which has been issued 

a condition notice by the FAA that specifies that the aircraft has one or more 

conditions which render it un-airworthy, and (3) an aircraft which has had major 

components, accessories, flight controls, portions of the airframe or engines 

removed so as to render the aircraft un-flyable. 32 

On January 30, 1996, Complainant sent a letter to the County raising several problems and issues with its 

lease, including negotiations to secure a long-term lease, signing the lease agreement under duress, and 

difficulty in correcting code violations and other issues by the previous tenant. 33 Complainant also stated 

that its expansion plans have been dealt a serious blow because of these lengthy negotiations, but it could 

27 Site diagram attached to the lease. The reproduction provided to the FAA is very poor in terms of quality and not very helpful in 

visualizing the leased premises. 28 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit A, Lease Agreement section 4.1. 29 See FAA Exhibit I, Item I, ExhibitA(Scope of Lease), pages 1.3 -1.4. 30 See FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit A (Scope of Lease), pages 1.3 -1.4. 31 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit A (Scope of Lease), page 1.2. 32 See FAA Exhibit I, Item 1, Exhibit A (Scope of Lease), page 1.4. 33 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit B. 

Page 5 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

not wait any longer. Complainant expresses the need to enter a long-term lease as soon as possible, and 

asked for a lease similar to what the County offered to other tenants. 34 

On December 10, 1996, Complainant and the County signed an Amendment No. I to Short Term Lease 

Agreement. The agreement extended, on a month-to-month basis, beginning January 1, 1997, the 

Complainant's leasehold at the Airport. 35 Among its provisions, the Amendment stated that "this 

Agreement shall terminate upon thirty (30) days written notice, with or without cause, by either party." 36 

In November 1999, the County enacted Ordinance §2-30(f) Removal of Derelict Aircraft or Derelict Motor 

Vehicles. This ordinance defmes a derelict aircraft and requires such aircraft to be removed within 90 days 

following notice by the County Aviation Department.37 

According to the Complaint, on March 8, 2010, the County notified Tropical that it was in violation of 

Ordinance §2-30(f), and that the county would move forward to terminate Tropical's lease at the March 23, 

2010 meeting of the County Commission. 38 

On March 23,2010, the County sought the Commission's permission to evict Tropical in ninety days [90] 

based on the presence of derelict aircraft?9 The Commission approved the request. 

On or around July 2010, by letter to Complainant, the County announced the termination of the short-term 

lease on August 5, 2010.40 

34 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit B. 35 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit C. 36 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit C, Section 2. 37 According to the Complaint, the Ordinance states, in relevant part: 

(1) Derelict aircraft is defined as an aircraft stored, in the open, to which one or more of the following applies: 

a. An aircraft that does not hold a current and valid airworthiness certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, or other 

appropriate aircraft certificating authority, together 'Nith necessary aircraft registration and maintenance records with a current 

endorsement by an appropriately rated certificate holder that the aircraft is in an airworthy condition; or 

b. An aircraft which has been issued a condition notice by the Federal Aviation Administration that specifies that the aircraft has 

one or more conditions which causes it to be not airworthy; or 

c. An aircraft which has had major components, accessories, flight controls, portions of the airframe, or engines removed so as to 

render the aircraft not airworthy, or 

d. An un-hangared aircraft located on the Airport, whether on a tenant leasehold or public area, which has been continuously parked 

or stored on the AOA, and has not landed or taken off :from the Airport for a period of sixty (60) days or more, unless the owner 

of such aircraft has obtained the prior written consent of the Aviation Department. 

(2) Any derelict aircraft shall be removed from the Airport within a period of ninety (90) calendar days after written notice from the 

Department. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Department may make written request to the owner to demonstrate that an open work 

order is being actively pursued. If the owner fails to provide the Department with satisfactory evidence that such an open work order 

is being actively pursued within three (3) calendar days ofthe date requested, then such derelict aircraft shall be removed from the 

Airport within ninety (90) calendar days from the date the Department makes its written request to the owner for proof that an open 

work order is being actively pursued." 

FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pages 5-6. 

38 FAA Exhibit I, Item 1, pages 6-7. 39 FAA Exhibit 1, Item I, page 7. 4

° FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pages 6-7. 

Page6 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

On August 6, 2010, the County filed an eviction complaint against Tropical in state court In response, 

Tropical filed a counterclaim alleging the County had discriminated against Tropical in attempting to evict 

Tropical and not entering into a long term lease with Tropical for the leased premises.41 

On December 22,2010, the County filed a second complaint against Tropical for "eviction, breach oflease, 

and double rent."42 The County's eviction and double rent claims were set for jury trial on March 22, 

2011.43 However, on March 22,2011, the parties engaged in discussions in an effort to resolve the 

County's eviction and double rent claims. The parties agreed to a Settlement Agreement. 44 As part of that 

agreement, the parties agreed, in part, to the following: 

• Tropical Aviation will vacate the Leased Premises within 180 calendar days from the date the 

County's Board of County Commissioners approves this Settlement (the 180 Days' and in 

vacating the Leased Premises, Tropical Aviation will remove all items not affixed to the Leased 

Premises and not owned by the County, including but not limited to aircraft, equipment, .and 

vehicles, including without limitation, all operable and inoperable aircraft, equipment and 

vehicles located at the Leased Premises ... 

• If Tropical Aviation is prevented by reason of hurricane or other casualty caused by nature from 

vacating the Leased Premises, the County agrees to extend the 180 Days by the amount of time 

Tropical Aviation is prevented from continuing its efforts to vacate the Leased Premises ... 

• To the extent not prohibited or prevented by the Fire Marshal, the County will allow Tropical 

Aviation to locate moving container( s) on the Leased Premises to allow for the removal of the 

aforesaid items, and Tropical Aviation will immediately remove all containers from the Leased 

Premises and from Airport property when the containers are full. No containers shall remain on 

the Leased Premises or on Airport property after the last day of the 180 Days ... 

• The County will not object to Air Sunshine, Inc. entering into a sublease with a prime tenant of 

the County at the Airport, provided that any such sublease by Air Sunshine, Inc., with certain 

conditions ... 

• The Parties will enter into an agreed order to be filed with the Court dismissing County's eviction 

and double rent claims and Tropical Aviation's and its affiliate Air Sunshine, Inc.'s claim for 

temporary injunctive relief and abuse of process and ordering that if Tropical Aviation fails to 

vacate the premises within the 180 Days, the Court, on County's motion, shall enter its order 

requiring the issuance of the writ of possession to the Broward County Sheriff's Office or 

appropriate law enforcement agency for Broward County to take immediate possession of the 

Leased Premises. 

• Tropical Aviation will continue to pay monthly rent during the 180 Days.45 

41 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3B, Exhibit 1, Exhibit A, page 1. 42 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3B, Exhibit 1, Exhibit A, page 2. 43 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3B, Exhibit 1, Exhibit A, page 2. 44 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3B, Exhibit 1, Exhibit A. 45 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3B, Exhibit A, pages 2-3. 

Page 7 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

On May 10, 2011, the Broward County Board of County Commissioners approved the settlement agreement 

negotiated between Tropical and the County. 46 This effective date for the writ of possession, if Tropical 

failed to vacate, was ordered to be by November 6, 2011.47 

On November 18,2011, the court issued a writ of possession against Tropical. 48 

According to the Complaint, on December 23,2011, the County "refused to give consent to the sublease 

between AIR and FLL-AIR [a prime tenant at the Airport]."49 According to the County, it had no 

obligation to consent to a sublease because Complainant had breached the settlement agreement. 50 

According to the Complaint, on January 26, 2012, Complainant and the County met to resolve outstanding 

issues through an informal process. The parties were unable to find resolutions to the issues between 

them. 5

1 On September 28,2012, Complainant filed a formal Part 16 Complaint with the FAA's Office of 

Airports Compliance Division. 52 

V. ISSUES 

The complaint raises the following six issues: 

Issue 1 -Whether the County is in violation of Grant Assurance 22 Economic Nondiscrimination, by (1) 

not entering into a long-term lease with Complainant, (2) by enacting the derelict aircraft 

ordinance and then applying it with respect to Complainant in a manner different from how 

applied to others. 

Issue 2 - Whether the County is in violation of Grant Assurance 23 Exclusive Rights by denying 

Complainant a long-term lease while granting other similarly situated tenants such leases. 

Issue 3- Whether the County is in violation of Grant Assurance 24 Fee and Rental Structure by failing to 

maintain a uniform fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the airport, and by 

failing to provide Complainant a long-term lease or other lease options available to similarly 

situated tenants at the airport. 

Issue 4- Whether the County's denial of either of the Complainant's requests for a long-term lease 

request or to improve their leased property, while other similarly situated tenants were offered 

such conditions, violated Grant Assurance 30, Civil Rights. 

Issue 5- Whether the County's denial of the Complainant's long-term lease request, while granting other 

tenants such leases, violated Grant Assurance 37, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. 

Issue 6- Whether the County's denial of the Complainant's long-term lease request, while granting other 

tenants such leases, violated Grant Assurance 39, Competitive Access. 

46 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3B, Exhibit A, pages 2-3. 47 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3B, Exhibit A, Exhibit 2, page 5. 48 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3B. Exhibit A, Exhibit 2, page 5. 49 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, page 9. 5

° FAA Exhibit, Item 3B, page 5. 51 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, page 30. 52 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, pages 9-I7, I7-I9, I9-20, 20-22, 22-23, and 23-25. 

Page 8 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

VI. APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW AND FAA POLICY 

The Federal role in civil aviation has been augmented by various legislative actions that authorize 

programs for providing Federal funds and other assistance to local communities for the development of 

airport facilities. In each such program, the airport sponsor assumes certain obligations, either by 

contract or by restrictive covenants in property deeds and conveyance instruments, to maintain and 

operate its airport facilities safely and efficiently and in accordance with specified conditions. 

Commitments assumed by airport sponsors in property conveyance or grant agreements are important 

factors in maintaining a high degree of safety and efficiency in airport design, construction, operation 

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

A. The Airport Improvement Program (AlP) 

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

public-use airports under AlP established by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (AAlA) as 

amended. Title 49 U.S.C., § 47107, et seq., sets forth assurances to which an airport sponsor agrees as a 

condition of receiving Federal financial assistance. Upon acceptance of an AlP grant, the assurances 

become a binding contractual obligation between the airport sponsor and the Federal Government. The 

assurances made by airport sponsors in AlP grant agreements are important factors in maintaining a viable 

national airport system. 

B. Airport Sponsor Assurances 

As a condition precedent to providing airport development assistance under AlP, 49 U.S.C., § 47107, et 

seq., the Secretary of Transportation and, by extension, the FAA must receive certain assurances from the 

airport sponsor. Title 49 U.S.C., § 47107(a) sets forth the sponsorship requirements to which an airport 

sponsor receiving Federal financial assistance must agree. The FAA has a statutory mandate to ensure that 

airport owners comply with these sponsor assurances. 53 FAA Order 5190.6B, FAA Airport Compliance 

Manual (Order), issued on September 30, 2009, provides the policies and procedures to be followed by the 

FAA in carrying out its legislatively mandated functions related to compliance with Federal obligations of 

airport sponsors. The FAA considers it inappropriate to provide Federal assistance for improvements to 

airports where the benefits of such improvements will not be fully realized due to restrictions on 

aeronautical activities. The FAA grant assurances that apply to the circumstances set forth in this Complaint 

are as follows: Grant Assurances 22, Economic Nondiscrimination; Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights; 

Grant Assurance 24 Fee and Rental Structure; Grant Assurance 30, Civil Rights; Grant Assurance 37 

Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; and Grant Assurance 39 Competitive Access. 

1. Grant Assurance 22. Economic Nondiscrimination 

Grant Assurance 22 of the prescribed sponsor assurances implement requires, in pertinent part, that the 

sponsor of a federally obligated airport assure: 

"a. It will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without 

unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, including 

commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the airport. 

53 See. e.g .. the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended and re-codified, Title 49 USC,§§ 40101,40113, 40114,46101,46104,46105,46106, 

46110; and the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended and re-codified, Title 49 USC,§§ 47105(d), 47106(d), 47107(k), 

47107(1), 47111(d), 47122. 

Page 9 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

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

airport is granted to any person, firm, or corporation to conduct or engage in any aeronautical 

activity for furnishing services to the public at the airport, the sponsor will insert and enforce 

provisions requiring the contractor to: 

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

users thereof, and 

2 .... charge reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, prices for each unit or service, 

provided that the contractor may be allowed to make reasonable and 

nondiscriminatory discounts, rebates, or other similar types of price reductions to 

volume purchases. 

c. Each FBO at the airport shall be subject to the same rates, fees, rentals, and other charges as are 

uniformly applicable to all other FBOs making the same or similar uses of such airport and 

utilizing the same or sinlllar facilities ... 

e. Each air carrier using such airport (whether as a tenant, non-tenant, or subtenant of another air 

carrier tenant) shall be subject to such nondiscriminatory and substantially comparable rules, 

regulations, conditions, rates, fees, rentals, and other charges with respect to facilities directly and 

substantially related to providing air transportation as are applicable to all such air carriers which 

make similar use of such airport and utilize similar facilities, subject to reasonable classifications 

such as tenants or non-tenants and signatory carriers and non-signatory carriers. Classification or 

status as tenant or signatory shall not be unreasonably withheld by any airport provided an air 

carrier assumes obligations substantially similar to those already imposed on air carriers in such 

classification or status ... 

h. The sponsor may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be met 

by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport ... 

1. The sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical use of the airport if 

such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil 

aviation needs of the public." 

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

the sponsor to exercise control of the airport sufficient to preclude unsafe and inefficient conditions that 

would be detrimental to the civil aviation needs of the public. The owner of an airport developed with 

Federal assistance is required to operate the airport for the use and benefit of the public and to make it 

available to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity on reasonable terms, and without unjust • . • . 54 

Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, deals with both the reasonableness of airport access and 

the prohibition of adopting unjustly discriminatory conditions as a potential for limiting access. In all cases 

involving restrictions on airport use imposed by airport owners for safety and efficiency reasons, the FAA 

will make the final determination on the reasonableness of such restrictions when those restrictions appear 

to deny or limit access to, or use of, the airport. 55 · 

54 FAA Order 5190.68, Section 9.1(a). 55 FAA Order 5190.68, Section 14.3. 

Page 10 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and-Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

FAA Order 5190.6B describes the responsibilities under Assurance 22 assumed by the owners or sponsor of 

public use airports developed with Federal assistance.· Among these is the obligation to treat in a uniform 

manner those users making the same or similar use of the airport and to make all airport facilities and 

services available on reasonable terms without unjust discrimination. 56 

2. Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights 

Title 49 U.S.C. §40103(e), provides, in relevant part, that "there shall be no exclusive right for the use of 

any landing area or air navigation facility upon which Federal funds have been expended." Title 49 U.S.C. 

§47107(a)(4), similarly provides, in pertinent part, that "there will be no exclusive right for the use of the 

airport by any person providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public." 

Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights, of the prescribed sponsor assurances implements both statutory 

provisions requiring, in pertinent part, that the sponsor of a federally obligated airport 

"It will permit no exclusive right for the use of the airport by any person providing, or intending 

to provide, aeronautical services to the public. For purposes of this paragraph, the providing of 

the services at an airport by a single fixed-based operator shall not be construed as an exclusive 

right if both of the following apply: 

a. It would be unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical for more than one fixed-based 

operator to provide such services, and 

b. If allowing more than one fixed-based operator to provide such services would require the 

reduction of space leased pursuant to an existing agreement between such single fixed-based 

operator and such airport. It further agrees that it will not, either directly or indirectly, grant 

or permit any person, firm, or corporation, the exclusive right at the airport to conduct any 

aeronautical activities, including, but not limited to charter flights, pilot training, aircraft 

rental and sightseeing, aerial photography, crop dusting, aerial advertising and surveying, air 

carrier operations, aircraft sales and services, sale of aviation petroleum products whether or 

not conducted in conjunction with other aeronautical activity, repair and maintenance of 

aircraft, sale of aircraft parts, and any other activities which because of their direct 

relationship to the operation of aircraft can be regarded as an aeronautical activity, and that it 

will terminate any exclusive right to conduct an aeronautical activity now existing at such an 

airport before the grant of any assistance under Title 49, United States Code." 

An exclusive right is defined as a power, privilege, or other right excluding or debarring another from 

enjoying or exercising a like power, privilege, or right. An exclusive right can be conferred either by 

express agreement, by the imposition of unreasonable standards or requirements, or by any other means. 

Such a right conferred on one or nrore parties, but excluding otlmrs frorn enjoying or exercising a similar 

right or rights, would be an exclusive right. 5

7 Compliance with Grant Assurance 23 and 49 U.S.C. 

§47107(a)(4) must be balanced with other considerations. For example, an airport sponsor is also bound 

by its obligation to operate the airport in a safe and efficient manner [Grant Assurance 22(h), Economic 

Nondiscrimination]. Clearly, the sponsor may be compelled to make a fiduciary or business decision to 

restrict certain rights to promote more fundamental user rights. When a tenant's activity or rights interfere 

56 FAA Order 5190.6B at Chapter 9. 57 See FAA Advisory Circular 5190-6 Exclusive Rights and Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities, January 4, 2007. 

Page 11 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

with an airport's ability to operate safely or disrupts aeronautical activities on the airport, it is incumbent 

on the sponsor to ensure the best interests of the airport, the user community, and the airport system. 

Therefore, it is FAA's policy that the sponsor of a federally obligated airport will permit no exclusive right 

for the use of the airport by any person providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public 

and will not, either directly or indirectly, grant or permit any person, firm, or corporation, the exclusive right 

at the airport to conduct any aeronautical activities. The Order clarifies the applicability, extent, and 

duration of the prohibition against exclusive rights under 49 U.S.C. § 40103(e) with regard to airports 

developed with FAA-administered grant assistance and Federal property conveyances. The exclusive rights 

prohibition remains in effect as long as the airport is operated as an airport. FAA takes the position that the 

grant of an exclusive right for the conduct of any aeronautical activity on such airports is regarded as 

contrary to the requirements of the applicable laws, whether such exclusive right results from an express 

agreement, from the imposition of unreasonable standards or requirements, or by any other means. FAA 

Order 5190.6B provides additional guidance on the application of the statutory prohibition against exclusive 

rights and FAA policy regarding exclusive rights at public-use airports. 5

8 

3. Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure 

Grant Assurance 24 Fee and Rental Structure, implements the provisions of the AAIA, 49 U.S.C. § 

471 07(a)(l3), and requires, in pertinent part, that the sponsor of a federally obligated airport assure: 

"It will maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the airport which will 

make the airport as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances existing at the particular 

airport, taking into account such factors as the volume of traffic and economy of collection." 

Grant Assurance 24 Fee and Rental Structure addresses fees the owner or sponsor levies on airport users in 

exchange for the services the airport provides and satisfies the requirements of§ 47107(a)(13) by addressing 

self-sustainability. The intent of this assurance is for the airport operator to charge fees that are sufficient to 

cover as much of the airport's costs as is feasible while maintaining a fee and rental structure consistent with 

the sponsor's other Federal obligations. In addition, FAA Order 5190.6B states that "to aid in establishing 

uniform rates and charges applied to aeronautical activities on the airport, the sponsor should establish 

minimum standards to be met as a condition for the right to conduct an aeronautical activity on the 

airport."59 

4. Grant Assurance 30. Civil Rights 

The Secretary of Transportation, through the FAA, must ensure open participation in activities carried out 

with Federal fimding covered under 49 U.S.C. §47123, regardless of physical characteristics, heritage, or 

beliefs. This subchapter is supported by and is similar to the regulations provided under Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1 ~62. Gmnt Assrnance 30, Civil !l:zghzs states, in part that llie airport sponsor: 

" ... will promptly take any measures necessary to ensure that no person in the United States shall, 

on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability be excluded from 

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in any 

activity conducted with, or benefiting from, fimds received from this grant. 

58 FAA Order 5190.6B, Chapter 8. 59 FAA Order 5190.6B at Section 9.6(e). 

Page 12 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

a. Using the definitions of activity, facility and program as found and defined in §§ 21.23(b) and 

21.23 (e) of 49 CFR § 21, the sponsor will facilitate all programs, operate all facilities, or 

conduct all programs in compliance with all non-discrimination requirements imposed by, or 

pursuant to these assurances.60 [Grant Assurance 30]. 

The Director coordinates closely with the Office of Civil Rights, ACR, and relies on their expertise when 

evaluating Grant Assurance 30 allegations61 

5. Grant Assurance 3 7 Disadvantaged Business Enterprises 

Grant Assurance 37 states that: 

The sponsor shall not discriminate on the basis ofrace, color, national origin or sex in the award 

and performance of any DOT -assisted contract covered by 49 CFR Part 26, or in the award and 

performance of any concession activity contract covered by 49 CFR Part 23. 

In addition, the sponsor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in 

the administration of its DBE and A CD BE programs or the requirements of 49 CFR Parts 23 and 

26.62 The sponsor shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Parts 23 and 26 to 

ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts, and/or 

concession contracts. 

The sponsor's DBE and A CD BE programs, as required by 49 CFR Parts 26 and 23, and as 

approved by DOT, are incorporated by reference in this agreement. Implementation of these 

programs is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of 

this agreement. 

Upon notification to the sponsor of its failure to carry out its approved program, the Department 

may impose sanctions as provided for under Parts 26 and 23 and may, in appropriate cases, refer 

60 49 CFR, Subpart 21.3(b) states, in pertinent part: 

In any program receiving Federal financial assistance in the form, or for the acquisition, of real property or an interest in real property, to 

the extent that rights to space on, over, or under any such property are included as part of the program receiving that assistance, the 

nondiscrimination requirement of this part shall extend to any faCility located wholly or in part in that space. 

The Regional Airports Offices, Airports District Offices, and the FAA's Office of Civil Rights are responsible for enforcing Grant 

Assurance 30, Civil Rights. More information is available at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 21 Nondiscrimination in 

Federally Assisted Programs of the Department ofTransportation, and 150/5100-15, Civil Rights Requirements/or the Airport 

Improvement Program. 

61 FAA Airport Compliance Manual, Order 5190.6b, Section 9.9. The Office of Civil Rights (ACR) advises, represents, and assists the FAA 

Administrator on civil rights. diversity, and equal opportunity matters that ensure the elimination of unlawful discrimination on the basis of 

t=aee, eeleF, a:atieaal erigia, SffiE, age, Feligiel'l:, eFeeB, an8 ia:8:i.i8:1:1:als .. ith Bisabilities in fe8era:l1) e{'etttted l:l:ltd fed:etttll) assisted hanspottatioa 

£rograms. 

2 49 CPR Part 26.13 provides, in relevant part: 

The recipient [sic J shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award and performance of any DOTassisted contract or in the administration of its DEE program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The Recipient shall take all necessary 

and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. The 

recipient's DBE program, as required by 49 CFR Part 26, and as approved by DOT, is incorporated by reference in this agreement. 

Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. 

Upon notification to the recipient of its failure to carry out its approved program, the Department may impose sanctions as provided for 

under Part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 USC 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil 

Remedies Act of 1986 (31 US. C. 3801). 

Page 13 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAADocketNo. 16-12-15 

the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act 

ofl936 (31 U.S.C. 3801). [Grant Assurance 37] 

The FAA Office of Civil Rights (ACR) handles alleged violations oflaws relating to disadvantaged 

business enterprises (DBE), persons with disabilities at airports, Access and civil rights.63 The Director 

coordinates closely with ACR and relies on their expertise when evaluating Grant Assurance 37 allegations. 

The criteria for qualification as a DBE is outlined in 49 USC §47107(e) and §47113 

6. Grant Assurance 3 9, Competitive Access 

Grant Assurance 39, Competitive Access, requires operators oflarge and medium hub airports to report to 

the Secretary any denial of a request by an air carrier for access to the airport. A report is due on February 1 

or August 1 if there has been any denial of access in the preceding six-month period.64 

Grant Assurance 39, Competitive Access states that: 

a. If the airport owner or operator of a medium or large hub airport (as defined in section 4 7102 

oftitle 49, U.S.C.) has been unable to accommodate one or more requests by an air carrier 

for access to gates or other facilities at that airport in order to allow the air carrier to provide 

service to the airport or to expand service at the airport, the airport owner or operator shall 

transmit a report to the Secretary that1) Describes the requests; 

2) Provides an explanation as to why the requests could not be accommodated; and 

3) Provides a time frame within which, if any, the airport will be able to accommodate 

the requests. 

b. Such report shall be due on either February 1 or August I of each year if the airport has been 

unable to accommodate the request(s) in the six month period prior to the applicable due 

date. 

C. Surplus Property Obligations 

Surplus property instruments of disposal are issued under the Surplus Property Act of 1944 (SPA). The 

Act authorizes conveyance of property surplus to the needs of the Federal Government.65 Public Law 80-

289, approved July 30, 1947, amended Section 13 of the Surplus Property Act of 1944. These 

conveyances are subject to the terms, conditions, reservations and restrictions prescribed therein. Surplus 

property instruments of transfer are one of the means by which the Federal Government provides airport 

development assistance to public airport sponsors. 

The conveyance of surplus Federal land to public agencies for airport purposes is administered by the FAA 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 47151, 47152, and, 47153. Public Law 81-311 specifically imposes upon the FAA 

the sole responsibility for determining and enforcing compliance with the terms and conditions of all 

63 FAA Airport Compliance Manual, Order 5190.6b, Section 5.3(a). 64 FAA Airport Compliance Manual, Order 5190.6b, section 9.8(b). Also see http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-03-29/html/05-6072.htm. 65 FAA Order 5190.6B. 

Page 14 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAADocketNo. 16-12-15 

instruments of transfer by which surplus airport property is or has been conveyed to non-Federal public 

agencies pursuant to the SPA In this case, under the provisions of the Surplus Property Act of 1944, the 

Airport assumed certain obligations, reservations, and conditions. Upon acceptance of surplus property 

conveyance by the City, the obligations in the instrument of disposal became a binding obligation between 

the City and the Federal Government. Commitments assumed by the City in property conveyance are 

important factors in maintaining a high degree of safety and efficiency in airport design, construction, 

operation, and maintenance as well as ensuring the public reasonable access to the airport. 66 

D. The FAA Airport Compliance Program 

The FAA discharges its responsibilities for ensuring airport owners' compliance with their Federal 

obligations through its Airport Compliance Program. The FAA's airport compliance efforts are based on 

the contractual obligations an airport owner accepts when receiving Federal grant funds or the transfer of 

Federal property for airport purposes. These obligations are incorporated in grant agreements and 

instruments of conveyance in order to protect the public's interest in civil aviation and to ensure compliance 

with Federallaws.67 

The FAA Airport Compliance Program is designed to ensure the availability of a national system of safe 

and properly maintained public-use airports operated in a manner consistent with the airport owners' 

Federal obligations and the public's investment in civil aviation. The Airport Compliance Program does not 

control or direct the operation of airports. Rather, it monitors the administration of the valuable rights 

pledged by airport sponsors to the people of the United States in exchange for monetary grants and 

donations of Federal property to ensure that the public interest is being served. 

FAA Order 5190.6B sets forth policies and procedures for the FAA Airport Compliance Program. 68 The 

Order establishes the policies and procedures to be followed by FAA personnel in carrying out the FAA's 

responsibilities for ensuring airport compliance. It provides basic guidance for FAA personnel in 

interpreting and administering the various continuing commitments made to the United States by airport 

owners as a condition of receiving a grant of Federal funds or the conveyance of Federal property for airport 

purposes. 

FAA Order 5190.6B analyzes the various obligations set forth in the standard airport sponsor assurances, 

addresses the nature of those assurances, addresses the application of those assurances in the operation of 

public-use airports, and facilitates interpretation of the assurances by FAA personnel. The FAA 

Compliance Program is designed to achieve voluntary compliance with Federal obligations accepted by 

owners and/ or operators of public-use airports developed with FAA -administered assistance. 

Therefore, in addressing allegations of noncompliance, the FAA will make a determination as to whether 

an airport sponsor is currently in compliance with the applicable Federal obligations. Consequently, the 

FAA will consider tire successfui action by the airport to cure any alleged or potential past vwlation of 

applicable Federal obligation to be grounds for dismissal of such allegations. 

66 Complainant has not pled a Surplus Property Act issue. The overview of the SPA is provided here in order to establish a complete record of 

the applicable Federal obligations affecting the Airport. 67 The Airport Compliance Program is administered by FAA's AC0-100 Airport Compliance and Management Analysis. The Airport 

Compliance Division oversees the Airport Compliance Program. The division holds primary responsibility for interpreting, recommending, and developing policies and resolving matters that involve the Federal obligations of airport sponsors. It also adjudicates formal complaints and 

FAA-initiated investigations under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 16, Rules of Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement 

Proceedings, and monitors airport sponsor compliance with limits on the use of airport revenue. 68 See http://www .faa.gov/airportslresources/publicationslorders/compliance _ 5190 _ 61. 

Page 15 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAADocketNo. 16-12-15 

E. FAA Enforcement Responsibilities 

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C., § 40101, et seq., assigns the FAA Administrator 

broad responsibilities for the regulation of air commerce in the interests of safety, security, and development 

of ci vi! aeronautics. The Federal role in encouraging and developing civil aviation has been augmented by 

various legislative actions, which authorize programs for providing funds and other assistance to local 

communities for the development of airport facilities. In each such program, the airport owner or sponsor 

assumes certain obligations, either by contract or by restrictive covenants in property deeds and conveyance 

instruments, to maintain and operate its airport facilities safely, efficiently, and in accordance with specified 

conditions. 

Commitments assumed by airport owners or sponsors in property conveyance or grant agreements are 

important factors in maintaining a high degree of safety and efficiency in airport design, construction, 

operation and maintenance, as well as ensuring the public reasonable access to the airport. Pursuant to 49 

U.S.C., § 47122, the FAA has a statutory mandate to ensure that airport owners comply with their Federal 

grant assurances. 

F. The Complaint Process 

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

may file a complaint with the FAA. The complainant shall provide a concise but complete statement of the 

facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation. The complaint shall also describe how the complainant 

was directly and substantially affected by the things done or omitted by the respondents.69 

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

investigate the subject matter of the complaint. In rendering its initial determination, the FAA may rely 

entirely on the complaint and the responsive pleadings provided. Each party shall file documents it considers 

sufficient to present all relevant facts and arguments necessary for the FAA to determine whether the sponsor 

is in compliance. 70 

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

affirmative defense has the burden of proving the affirmative defense. The complainant must submit all 

documents then available to support his or her complaint. 14 CFR §§ 16.23, 16.29. Title 14 CFR, 

§ 16.31 (b-d) provides, in part, that "the Director's determination will set forth a concise explanation of the 

factual and legal basis for the Director's determination on each claim made by the complainant. A party 

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

Administrator as provided in §16.33." 

In accordance with 14 CFR, § 16.33(b) and (e), upon issuance of a Director's determination, "a party 

adversely affected by the Director's determination may file an appeal with the Associate Administrator 

within 30 days after the date of service of the initial determination;" however, "if no appeal is filed within 

the time period specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Director's Determination becomes the final 

decision and order of the FAA without further action." 

A Director's Determination that becomes final because there is no administrative appeal is not judicially 

reviewable. Title 14 CFR, § 16.247(a) provides forjudicial review of the Associate Administrator's final 

69 14 CFR Part 16, § 16.23(b) (3, 4). 70 J4CFR Part 16, § 16.29. 

Page 16 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

decision and order, as provided in 49 U.S.C., § 46110 or section 519(b)(4) of the Airport and Airway 

Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, (AAIA), 49 USC,§ 47106(d) and 4711l(d). 

VII. ANALYSIS 

A. Preliminary Issues 

L Motion to Dismiss 

The County's Motion to Dismiss asserts a 6-year statute of limitations that it claims has run.71 We agree that 

if the 1996 lease is looked at in isolation, this case may very well have warranted dismissal. However, we 

decline to dismiss the complaint because it raises issues that fall within the limitations period. For instance, 

the complaint raises issues associated with an eviction that took place within 201 0 to 2011. The motion to 

dismiss is denied. 

2. Writ of Mandamus and Other Prayers for Relief 

The Complainant seeks a "writ of mandamus compelling Broward County to honor its legal obligations 

pursuant to its Federal Grant Assurances and grant the Tropical a long-term lease" and "any further relief as 

the court [FAA] deems just and proper.',n Complainant also asks the FAA to: 

a. Issue a permanent injunction, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610, preventing Broward County from 

continuing to violate Federal Grant Assurance 22; 

b. Issue a writ of mandamus, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.1630, compelling Broward County to 

fulfill its legal duties pursuant to Federal Grant Assurance 22; 

c. Award Tropical damages caused by Broward County's violation of Federal Grant Assurance 22, 

in the maximum amount allowable by law; and 

d. Grant Tropical all other relief the Court73 deems just and proper.74 

The County responds that "of a writ of mandamus and for money damages" are "not within the jurisdiction 

of the FAA's Part 16 administrative proceedings."75 The Director concurs with the County. The types of 

order that FAA issues under Part 16 are found at 14 CFR § 16.109, and do not include writs and injunctions 

pursuant to Florida Rules of Procedure. 

2. Burden of Proof 

The Complainant carries the burden-of-proof to establish the facts of its allegations. See Rick Aviation, Inc. 

v. Peninsula Airport Commission (FAA Docket No. 16-05-18). The complainant must include all 

documents then available to support the complaint. 76 "Each party shall file documents that it considers 

" FAA Exhibit I, Item 3A. Also, the County cites: Guy Heide, et al. v. MolnaU, 2006 WL 2029134, *43, FAA Docket No. l 6-04-11 (July 7, 

2006), review dismissed 199 Fed. Appx. 582 (81 Cir. 2006); Hill Air Co., Inc. v. Broward County Board of County Commissioners, 2006 WL 

325373, *25- *26, FAA Docket No. 13-93-7 (Jan 31, 2006). 72 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, pages 25-29. 73 The Director notes that many times throughout the Complaint, Complainant keeps referring to FAA as the '"'Court." The Director assumed 

that this was an un-intentional transposition, possibly due to the fact that some of the language used may have been used in a previous legal 

action 

74 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, pages 14-17. 75 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3B, page 6. Also see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3A. In support of its motion, the County cites Larry L. Davis v. Jackson 

Municipal Airnort Authority, 2011 WL273404, *17, FAA Docket No. 16-10-01 (January 18, 2011); Long Island Jet Center Easb Inc. v. County 

of Suffolk. 2005 WL 42889, *IO, FAA Docket No. 16-04-05 (January 21, 2005). 76 14 CFR §16.23. 

Page 17 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward Coun1y, Florida 

FAADocketNo. 16-12-15 

sufficient to present all relevant facts and argument necessary for the FAA to determine whether the sponsor 

is in compliance."77 

B. Issue 1 -Whether the County is in violation of Grant Assurance 22 Economic 

Nondiscrimination, by (1) not entering into a long-term lease with Complainant, (2) by 

enacting the derelict aircraft ordinance and then enforcing it on Complainant in a manner 

which differed from that applied to other similarly situated tenants. 

Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination states in part that the Airport is to 

... make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and 

without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical 

activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the 

public at the airport. 

Grant Assurance 22(e) deals with an airport's obligation to manage tenants through 

... substantially comparable rules, regulations, conditions, rates, fees, rentals, and other charges 

with respect to facilities directly and substantially related to providing air transportation as are 

applicable to all such air carriers which make similar use of such airport and utilize similar 

facilities, subject to reasonable classifications ... 

Complainant states that in 1994, it first applied for a long-term lease at the Airport."78 Following the 

execution of a short-term lease in 1996, Complainant raised concerns because it sought a long-term lease 

similar to that granted to other tenants" but that the "County refused it but did approve "long-term leases 

for other similarly situated tenants."79 The Complaint alleges 3 counts of violation of Grant Assurance 22. 

First, it alleges that Tropical has been harmed by the County's failure to provide access and allow Tropical 

to "expand, grow, change or adapt. "8

° Complainant also argues that the Coun1y "refused to give consent 

to the sublease between AIR and FLL-AIR [prime tenant] on December 23, 2011."81 This alleged 

violation, from what the Director can discern, is not clearly tied to a particular occurrence or incident. 

Nevertheless, giving Complainant the benefit of the doubt, the Director interprets this count as related to 

the County's failure to consent to the sublease. 

Second, the Complaint alleges that the County's ordinance violates Grant Assurance 22. 82 The 

Complainant argues that the ordinance is vague, violates the U.S. Constitution and discriminates against 

users such as it. Among other things, this count also cites - with no specificity -- to "unduly restrictive 

lease covenants." 

Third, the ComElaint alleges that the County's application of the ordinance against Tropical was 

discriminatory. 3 Complainant adds that the County: 

71 14 CFR § 16.29. 

" FAA Exhibit I, Item I, pages 2, 3, 9, 15, 16, and 24. 79 FAA Exhibit 1, Item I, page 3. 8

° FAA Exhibit 1, Item I, pages II-12 (~ 62). 81 FAA Exhibit I, Item 1, Page 9. 82 FAA Exhibit 1, Item I, pages 12-I5 (1~ 63-72). 83 FAA Exhibit I, Item 1, pages I4-I7 (,~ 73-86). 

Page 18 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

"has failed to apply and enforce nondiscriminatory and substantially comparable rules, 

regulations, conditions, rates, fees, rentals, and other charges with respect to facilities directly 

and substantially related to providing air transportation as are applicable to all such air carriers 

which make similar use of such airport and utilize similar facilities, subject to reasonable 

classifications such as tenants or non-tenants and signatory carriers and non-signatory 

carriers. " 84 

These counts are addressed in turn. 

1. Grant Assurance 22 and Access: Count 1 

Although Count 1 is vague, the Director construes this to be a complaint regarding access. In particular we 

construe this to be a complaint that the County did not consent to the sublease. The County has provided 

an executed settlement that provides that the County will not object to a sublease. 85 But, the County has 

pled that Tropical breached this agreement and therefore it had no obligation to consent. 86 

Tropical has the burden of proof to show a violation of Grant Assurance 22. Without more, we conclude 

that it is not unreasonable for the County to withhold its consent to a sublease where Tropical has breached 

a settlement agreement with the County- particularly when the very settlement agreement breached 

provided for the consent at issue. 87 

2. Grant Assurance 22 and the Ordinance: Count 2 

In arguing a violation of Grant Assurance 22, Complainant adds that the County "has created a 

discriminatory condition in the enactment of the derelict aircraft ordinance, § 2-30(f)" and that the: 

"ordinance restricts FLL'S availability for public use and discriminates against any aircraft owner 

or business such as Tropical by placing a restriction on access to the airport with a preset 

condition that he must complete any or all maintenance, repairs, teardowns or restoration of the 

aircraft within a 60 day period or submit justification and seek a written waiver authorization 

which is unduly burdensome, restrictive aiJ.d discriminately favors those individuals and or 

entities that have greater fmancial resources or access. "88 

We note that the 1996 lease, and subsequent leases, prohibited the storage of derelict aircraft. 89 The lease 

was executed in early 1996, (and extended since) and the ordinance was passed in late 1999. We find it 

relevant, albeit not dispositive, that prior to the ordinance, the Complainant had agreed to a provision 

similar to the one to which it now objects. 

The FAA supports a local goverrunent' s right to make and enforce their own laws, regulations, policies, 

and ordinances; provided these are applied in a reasonable manner and consistent with Federal law. The 

Director does not find the ordinance at issue here to be unduly burdensome or improperly vague. 

84 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, page II. 85 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3B, Exhibit A, paragraph 2(D) 86 FAA Exhibit I, Item 38, page 5 (1 50). 87 FAA Exhibit I, Item 38, Exhibit I, section 2(d); paragraph 49. 88 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, page 12. 

"e.g., FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit A, 1996 Lease, Section 1.4, page 4. 

Page 19 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

3_ Grant Assurance 22 and the County's Application of the Ordinance: Count 3 

Complainant argues that the County "refrain[ ed] from enforcing the Ordinance against the various tenants 

who have aircraft that remain un-hangared and un-flown for over 60 days, while selectively enforcing the 

Ordinance against Tropical." Complainant alleges unjust discrimination because "at the time the 

Ordinance was enacted, Tropical's neighbor had various types of aircraft on its property" and that "after the 

Ordinance went into effect, the neighbor's aircraft stayed on non-hangared space on the neighbor's 

leasehold property for at least two years without taking off or landing, which is a violation of§ 

2-30(t) ... "90 

Complainant summarizes the issue by stating that the County, "has established unreasonable, and unjustly 

discriminatory, conditions" 91 related to the operation of the airport "through its application of the 

Ordinance has violated Federal Grant Assurance 22 (e) when it arbitrarily subjected Tropical to 

discriminatory and distinct rules from those applied to other similarly situated tenants, including unduly 

restrictive lease covenants" and that the County "further violated Federal Grant Assurance 22(h) when it 

arbitrarily enforced safety and efficiency regulations[§ 2-30(t)] solely against Tropical, despite visible 

violations committed by other similarly situated tenants."92 

To these allegations, the County simply "denies" all allegations, with very little detail and supporting 

documentation. The County does note that "Tropical entered into a legally-binding lease"93 and asserts that 

"there were no other noncommercial carrier tenants that operated at FLL. The other general aviation 

aircraft operators have been subtenants, of whom some have had derelict aircraft and they either came into 

compliance or their subleases expired. The County admits it has not been compelled to evict other tenants 

for derelict aircraft, but denies there are "many tenants who house aircraft that are not hangared and that 

have not flown for over 60 days. "

94 

The Director notes that the County's identification of Tropical as the only "non-commercial carrier," 

indicates that the County considered the Complainant dissimilar from other airport tenants engaged in 

commercial air transportation, e.g., 14 CFR Part 135. It further distinguishes Tropical as a "general 

aviation aircraft operator." 

The record contains no evidence showing that other entities at the Airport were permitted to store derelict 

aircraft past 60 days. It is relevant, as part of any review of alleged unjust discrimination to analyze the 

alleged treatment of the Complainant, namely by comparing them to the treatment received by other 

similarly situated tenants. The Complainant's service category is especially important in the scope of the 

entire complaint analysis. The Complainant claims other similarly situated tenants were treated more 

favorably. The Complainant relies on, throughout its complaint, comparison with "other tenants" or 

"similarly situated tenants" to establish discriminatory treatment or a granting of exclusive rights. 

Consistent within all these allegations, the Complainant never identifies a s ecific tenant in order to make a 

9

° FAA Exhibit l, Item I. page 6. 91 FAA Exhibit l, Item l, pages 16-17. 92 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, pages 16-17. Enforcement of such laws and standards, against only one tenant or business, provides no basis for a 

Federal law or, in this case, a grant assurance violation unto itself. However, under certain circumstances, such treatment may indicate a 

violation. 

93 FAA Exhibit l, Item 3B, page 2. 94 FAA Exhibit I, Item 3B, page 5. 95 Had Complainant identified other tenants., the Director could have researched or attempted to acquire related leases or other documentation as 

part ofthis investigation. 

Page 20 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAADocketNo. 16-12-15 

While neither the Complainant nor the County discusses how the Complainant's tenancy was defined, the 

County's Minimum Standards Policy for General Aviation at Broward County Airports (Minimmn 

Standards) does describe various types of tenants, within its airport system. The lease outlines the services 

the Complainant was permitted to perform and some services from which they were prohibited to 

undertake. Complainant is an "air agency" (or air carrier) providing passenger and cargo transportation for 

hire. This holds true even when we take into account that Tropical was effectively supporting Air 

Sunshine's operations from the Airport. Thus, under one corporate entity for all intended purposes, 

Complainant can be considered a Non-Scheduled and Air Charter Passengers, Cargo, and Mail Services 

service (a SASO or Specialized Aviation Service Operation). 

As described within the minimmn standards, a SASO offering nonscheduled and charter passenger, cargo, 

and/or mail services shall: (1) Conduct all aircraft charter and air taxi operations in accordance with and 

certificated under FAR Part 135 and amendments thereto and all other applicable rules and regulations, (2) 

Provide services and equipment for servicing passengers and for handling freight, luggage, and ticketing. 

Make available transportation for transient passengers and pilots, i.e. calling a taxi or shuttle service." 

Thus in this case, a similarly situated user is one providing similar transportation for hire, not a full service 

FBO. A more relevant comparison would be with another commuter airline or Part 135 service provider. 

Specifically, one which was permitted to store nonflying aircraft or large components (e.g., fuselages) for 

several months at the Airport. But even these obvious distinctions cannot be made with any certainly in 

this case because of the lack of details or information provided in the record. 

Storage of derelict aircraft has been addressed by the FAA before. See Valley Aviation Services, LLP v. 

Citv of Glendale, AZ, FAA Docket No. 16-09-06. In Valley Aviation, the FAA stated that "enforcing the 

Airport Rules and Regulations against the Complainant for storing disabled aircraft while not enforcing 

these same Rules and Regulations against other users (without a reasonable explanation) is a violation of 

Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination." In this case, the Director found the airport sponsor 

was "in violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, by failing to apply its Airport 

Rules and Regulations consistently among similarly situated tenants. The policy regarding 

storing ... disabled aircraft on the Airport has not been equitably applied to all tenants."96 

There are crucial distinctions between Valley Aviation and the present case. In Valley Aviation, the 

record contained evidence of inconsistent practices. In the present case, Tropical, the party with the 

burden of proof, did not submit information indicating whether or not other leases contained a derelict 

aircraft provision. For example, there is no record of related enforcement or complaints by others, or any 

photos that show derelict aircraft in any leasehold atthe airport.97 Part 16 requires a complainant to 

"provide a concise but complete statement of the facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation." 14 

CFR 16.23(b )(3). The complaint at issue is ambiguous and lacks sufficient information, thus falling short 

of this requirement. The Director therefore finds no violation of Grant Assurance 22. 

Issue 2- Whether the County is in violation of Grant Assurance 23 Exclusive Rights by denying 

Complainant a long-term lease while granting other similarly situated tenants such leases. 

Grant Assurance 23 states in part, an airport sponsor "will permit no exclusive right for the use of the airport 

by any person providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public." Similarly, Title 49 

96 Valley Aviation Services LLP v. City of Glendale. M, FAA Docket No. 16-09-06, page 47. 97 On this the Director points to FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1 and 2, which show. derelict aircraft at the Airport, but it is not indicative that 

discrimination took place or that those aircraft were there past any lease limitation. 

Page 21 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

U.S.C. § 47107(a)(4) provides, in pertinent part, that"there will be no exclusive rightfor the use of the 

airport by any person providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public. "98 

The Complainant asserts the County's "failure to provide Tropical a long term lease or other lease options 

available to similarly situated tenants at the airport while continuing to grant additional land to a select 

number of tenants forcing other tenants such as Tropical to become a sub-lessee of these select tenants is a 

violation Federal Grant Assurance 23." 99 Furthermore, Complainant states that the County "violated 

Federal Grant Assurance 23 when it granted a limited number of companies' long-term leases, and 

continued to award these tenants increasingly larger leaseholds, while continually refusing to provide 

Tropical with a long-term lease." Complaint concludes that the County's "actions effectively [granted] 

other tenants with long-term leases and less restrictive clauses an exclusive right in their operations and 

prevent Tropical from being competitive in its industry, is a violation of Federal Grant Assurance 23."100 In 

response, the County "denies" this allegation, and merely states that "Federal Grant Assurance 23 speaks for 

itseJf."101 

For all intended purposes, Complainant's arguments are very similar to those made under Grant Assurance 

22 above. This similarity also exists with regards to the evidence submitted. As with the issue above, 

Complainant fails to identifY specific "similarly situated tenants," making difficult any comparison on 

which to establish an exclusive right. Even if the Complainant described another similarly situated tenant, 

any difference between two leases is insufficient to establish a violation of Grant Assurance 23 on its 

own.

1 02 This is because in some cases, lease terms may change over time to accommodate evolving 

economic, operational, or other airport conditions or needs of the airport. The fact is that the Complainant 

has provided no evidence or documentation to substantiate the allegation other similarly situated tenants at 

the airport were provided leases. 

Complainant has failed to identifY a particular rejection or inaction on the part of the County with respect to 

a request for a long term lease that falls within the limitations period. To consider such a claim, FAA must 

examine the particular transaction or negotiation between Tropical and the County. General allegations 

regarding trouble obtaining a desired lease are insufficient. FAA carmot determine when Tropical last 

requested a long term lease. It appears that the last time the County rejected Tropical's request for a 

long-term lease was some time before February 1, 1997. 103 

The County very well may have denied a request for a long term lease at a time falling within the limitations 

period, but Complainant has provided no specifics regarding such an event. Complainant failed to provide 

any details such as what other companies, what parcels of property were leased, or what other entities at the 

airport have sub-leases and/or short-term leases. Without this type of information to support the allegation 

that the County granted additional land to "a select" number of similarly situated tenants forcing other 

os :Fedenrl statuWry law prolubits sponsors !rom grantmg an exclustve nght. Consequently, regardless of fiow the sponsor granted the exclusive 

right- e.g. express agreement, unreasonable minimum standards, action of a former sponsor, or other means. See Advisory Circular 150/5190-

6d. 

99 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pages 18-19. 10° FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pages 18-19. 101 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3B, page 8. The Director believes the County's level of response to the allegations, reflect poor communication with 

tenants and the FAA 102 Both minimum standards and lease terms may change over time. The FAA recognizes leases are legal documents, which may 

evolve from year to year. These agreements are rarely identical between users because of differing circumstances of the leases, sites, 

users, negotiations, business plans, economic circumstances, and mar\(et conditions, etc. Additionally, the FAA cannot enforce lease 

provisions through the compliance program, but may interpret the application of the lease terms as discriminatory or a conveyance of 

an exclusive right. 103 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, at I2-l3. 

Page22 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

tenants such as Tropical to become sub-lessees, is unsupported. Simply, the claim lacks sufficient evidence 

for the Director to make his own comparison. 

Because there is no evidence demonstrating what terms and conditions were offered to other similarly 

situated tenants, the FAA cannot determine whether the County's "actions effectively [granted] other 

tenants with long-term leases and less restrictive clauses an exclusive right, as Complainant asserts. This is 

made more difficult by the fact the record also fails to provide much detail on the Complainant's own plans. 

Also, the Complainant does not identifY any precise need(s) for expansion of their leasehold or conversion 

of their short-term lease to a long-term agreement. Even basic information concerning the level of financial 

investment Complainant was willing to make, in terms of"full development plan for the site and a financial 

plan describing the funding strategy for the development" as the County mentioned in its lease, 104 is not 

provided. 

Therefore, any insights about the Complainant's initial intent for growing its business or other plans for a 

larger leasehold space are absent, specifically any goals to repair inoperable or derelict aircraft. Since these 

aircraft and the length of their storage are the primary reason for the eviction, any plans related to repair or 

remove them are potentially pertinent to this case. Without evidence to establish the requests as reasonable, 

an assumption the County denied these requests in a discriminatory manner is problematic. For example, in 

its January 30, 1996, letter to the County, Complainant state that it "need[s] to enter a long-term lease as 

soon as possible, a lease similar to what you offer to your other tenants. A lease without any restrictive 

clauses designed to protect other operators ... " 105 Yet, the record does not include any information of what 

"those other leases" have been or are likely to be. 106 

The Complainant also states that "on or about 1997, Tropical began to request permission from Broward 

County to build a larger hangar in which to house the aircraft on which it continued to work, in order to 

minimize exposure of the aircraft to the South Florida elements."107 The Complainant claims they, at some 

point, requested a larger hangar and permission to expand their overall leasehold. However, they fail to 

explain the specific need for this expansion or provide adequate evidence to demonstrate such a need. Any 

information demonstrating the manner in which additional space would facilitate the repair and removal of 

the aircraft the County deemed derelict would be especially illustrative. 

As the Director found in the previous issue, the Complainant's failure to identifY a specific "other" or 

"similarly situated" tenant for comparison weakens the allegations within this issue. Complainant also fails 

to introduce any evidence showing differences between the Complainant and other tenants. For example, 

another tenant's lease or list of services would be illustrative for purposes of this discussion. 

Absent evidence to prove otherwise, and given these considerations and a lack of sufficient evidence, the 

Director finds the County has not violated Grant Assurance 23 Exclusive Rights. 

104 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit A, Section 4.1. 105 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, Exhibit B. 106 The 1996 lease agreement describes the property leased to the Complainant states that ''the proposal oflessee for the lease from Broward 

County of 1.433 acres ofland, including 6,400 square feet of hangar space, and 42,182 square feet of paved aircraft ramp and 9,025 square feet 

of non-airside asphalt space as depicted on the attached, Exhibit A lOcated at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood international Airport has been 

accepted by County.'" FAA Exhibit I, item 1, Exhibit A. The Complainant also states that "on or about 1997, Tropical began to request 

permission from Broward County to build a larger hangar in which to house the aircraft on which it continued to work, in order to minimize 

exposure of the aircraft to the South Florida elements." FAA Exhibit 1, Item I, page 3. The Complainant claims they, at some point, requested 

a larger hangar and permission to expand their overall leasehold. However, they fail to explain the specific need for this expansion or provide 

adequate evidence to demonstrate such a need. Any information demonstrating the manner in which additional space would facilitate the reprur 

and removal of the aircraft the County deemed derelict would be especially illustrative. 107 FAA Exhibit I, Item I, page 3. 

Page 23 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

Issue 3- Whether the County is in violation of Grant Assurance 24 Fee and Rental Structure by failing 

to maintain a uniform fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the airport, 

and by failing to provide Complainant a long-term lease or other lease options available to 

similarly situated tenants at the airport. 

Grant Assurance 24 Fee and Rental requires, in part, that the sponsor 

... will maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the 

airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible under the 

circumstances existing at the particular airport, taking into account such factors as 

the volume of traffic and economy of collection. 

Complaint states that the County violated this assurance by failing to maintain a uniform fee and rental 

structure and by failing to provide Tropical a long-term lease. 108 The exhibits filed during the proceedings 

provide no firm evidence to support this allegation. For example, other tenant lease rates, a general fee 

schedule applicable to similarly situated tenants, or other evidence of discriminatory fee setting practices 

may have helped give a better foundation for this allegation. The record contains no information 

concerning either overall rates in affect at the time, or any data concerning any other operator at the airport. 

Nothing in the record questions that County's ability to maintain "a fee and rental structure for the facilities 

and services at the airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible." Nothing in the 

record points towards an action on the County's part that it purposely failed to collect revenues or has 

changed lower rates than it should change. 109 In fact, the argument can be made that by attempting to 

recover unpaid rents, as it did in court against Complainant, the County is in fact complying with this grant 

assurance. 

Therefore, against this background, and given these considerations and a Jack of sufficient evidence and 

supporting documentation, the Director finds the County has not violated Grant Assurance 24 Fee and 

Rental Structure. 

Issue 4 - Whether the Country's denial of either of the Complainant's requests for a long-term lease 

request or to improve their leased property, while other similarly situated tenants were 

offered such conditions, violated Grant Assurance 30, Civil Rights. 

Grant Assurance 30. Civil Rights states, in part, that the Aimort 

It will promptly take any measures necessary to ensure that no person in the United States shall, 

on the grounds ofrace, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability be excluded from 

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in any 

activity conducted with, or benefiting from, funds received from this grant. 

The Complainant argues that the County is obligated to comply with federal law and related FAA Sponsor 

Assurances (49 U.S.C. § 47107), including Federal Grant Assurance 30.no [The] "County breached 

108 FAA Exhibit I, Item!, page 20. 109 In Valley Aviation Services. LLP v. Citv of Glendale AZ FAA Docket No. 16-09-06, the Director found that ·'the Respondent is not 

currently in violation of Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure ... by failing to collect taxes and fees_ for commercial aeronautical and 

non-aeronautical businesses operating on the Airport. Even though the Respondent may or may not be administering its lease agreements in 

accordance with its own Airport Rules and Regulations, the administrative record contains no evidence that the Respondent did not establish a 

reasonable fee and rental structure.'' DD at 60. 11 ° FAA Exhibit I, Item I, page 20. 

Page 24 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAADocketNo.\6-12-15 

Federal Grant Assurance 30 when it prevented Tropical from obtaining a long-term lease and making 

improvements to the property based on Tropical's Middle Eastern race, Muslim creed, and/or Iranian 

origin." 111 

Complainant also argues that the County "failed to comply with the Sponsor Assurance 30 in several 

material respects including .... " (1) selective and unjustly enforced§ 2-30, (2) failure to treat Tropical as 

other similar situated tenants at the airport, (3) intentionally mistreated Tropical and its owners based on 

their national origins and religious beliefs, and have denied them opportunities and options that it has 

afforded other similarly situated tenants at the airport."112 As with other issues above, the County denies 

this allegation, without further detail. 113 

Complainant makes a general allegation in the complaint documents alleging it was discriminated against 

because at least one if its principals is of"Middle Eastern race, Muslim creed, and/or Iranian origin."114 

The Civil Rights Grant Assurance requires sponsors to comply with rules promulgated to assure that no 

person shall, on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age or handicap be excluded from 

participating in any activity conducted with or benefiting from funds received from Federal grants. 

To prove a claim of intentional discrimination, one must show that a challenged action was motivated by 

an intent to discriminate. 115 It does not require evidence of"bad faith, ill will or any evil motive on the part 

of the [recipient]." 116 Intentional discrimination claims may be analyzed using the Title VII burden shifting 

analytic framework established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Com. v. Green, 411 U.S. 

792, 802 (1973 ). 117 

Alternatively, under a disparate impact theory of discrimination, an allegation would be made that an 

airport sponsor uses criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of defeating or substantially 

impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the program with respect to individuals of a particular 

race or sex. The theory would support an allegation that an airport sponsor, in violation of agency 

regulations, uses a neutral procedure or practice that has a disparate impact on protected individuals, and 

such practice lacks a substantial legitimate justification. 118 

In Henrihetta and Lindsay Tulloch v. Citv of Harlingen, Texas, FAA Docket 16-05-07, the Director found 

that to prove a claim of intentional discrimination, one must show that "a challenged action was motivated 

by an intent to discriminate." 119 In Docket 16-05-07, the FAA also determined that the Complainant had 

failed to meet the burden to properly proffer allegations of the Civil Rights Grant Assurance under both an 

intentional discrimination claim and a disparate impact claim. The allegations raised by the Complainant 

were vague and unclear. The Complainant in that case was unable to show the airport sponsor or one of its 

agents discriminated against Complainant because [Complainant] was of the female gender. 120 

FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 28. 112 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 21. Although Complainant makes the same references to "selective and unjustly enforced § 2-30" and "f<iilure 

to treat Tropical as other similar situated tenants at the airport," these issue are addressed in the discussions concerning the allegations of 

violation of Grant Assurance 22 and Grant Assurance 23, not Grant Assurance 30. 113 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3B, page 13. 1

" FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pages 21 and 28. 115 Elston v. Talladega Board of Education, 997 F2d 1394, 1406 (11 Cir., 1993). 116 Elston, 997 F.2d, 1406 (quoting Williams v. City of Dothan. 745 F.2d 1406, 1414 (11 Cir., 1984). 117 Henrihetta and Lindsay Tulloch v. City of Harlingen. Texas FAA Docket 16-05-07 at 22-23. Docket No. 16-00-10 (Apri126, 2001) and 

reference to Morris Waller and M & M Transportation v. Wichita Airnort Authoritv. FAA Docket No. 16-98-13 (March 12, 1999). 118 Henrihetta and Lindsay Tulloch v. Citv ofHarlingen. Texas. FAA Docket 16-05-07 at 23. 119 See DD at 22 and Elston v. Talladega Board of Education, 997 F2d 1394, 1406 (11 Cir., 1993) as a reference. 120 DD at 23. 

Page 25 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

In the present case, Tropical has failed to meet the burden to properly proffer allegations of the Civil Rights 

Grant Assurance under both an intentional discrimination claim and a disparate impact claim. The 

allegations raised by Complainant are vague and unclear. No showing has been made that the County or 

one of its agents discriminated against Complainant based on the fact that one of Tropical's principals is of 

Middle Eastern race, of Muslim creed, and/or of Iranian origin. 

The fact remains that as with other allegations made by the Complainant; this allegation is unsubstantiated 

by reasonable evidence. The Complaint fails to describe similarly situated tenants and provide any 

comparison with the owners or operators of these businesses. This allegation alleges discrimination based 

on race, creed, and national origin. The preponderance of evidence suggests the Complainant was never 

denied an opportunity to participate in any airport activity due to race, creed, or national origin. The 

FAA's Office of Civil Rights also reviewed this complaint and affmned this conclusion. 

Therefore, the Director finds the County is compliant with their obligation as outlined under Grant 

Assurance 30. FAA finds no basis for the Complainant's allegations and finds that the City actions are 

consistent with its Federal obligations. 

Issue 5- Whether the County's denial of the Complainant's long-term lease request, while granting 

other tenants such leases, is in of Grant Assurance Grant Assurance 37, Disadvantaged 

Business Enterprises. 

Grant Assurance 37 Disadvantaged Business Enterprises states that: 

The sponsor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award 

and performance of any DOT -assisted contract covered by 49 CPR Part 26, or in the award and 

performance of any concession activity contract covered by 49 CPR Part 23. In addition, the 

sponsor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the 

administration of its DBE and ACDBE programs or the requirements of 49 CPR Parts 23 and 

26.121 

The sponsor shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Parts 23 and 26 to 

ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts, and/or 

concession contracts. 

The sponsor's DBE and ACDBE programs, as required by 49 CFR Parts 26 and 23, and as 

approved by DOT, are incorporated by reference in this agreement. Implementation of these 

programs is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of 

this agreement. 

Upon notification to the sponsor of Its tmlure to carry out rts approved program, the Department 

may impose sanctions as provided for under Parts 26 and 23 and may, in appropriate cases, refer 

121 49 CFR Part 26.13 provides, in relevant part: "The recipient [sic} shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in 

the award and performance of any DOT-assisted contract or in the administration of its DBE program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. 

The Recipient shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration 

of DOT-assisted contracts. The recipient's DBE program, as required by 49 CFR Part 26, and as approved by DOT, is incorporated by reference 

in this agreement. Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this 

agreement. Upon notification to the recipient of its failure to carry out its approved program, the Department may impose sanctions as provided 

for under Part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 US. C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil 

Remedies Act of 1986 (31 US. C. 3801)." 

Page 26 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act 

of1936 (31 U.S.C. 3801). 

The Complainant alleges the County violated Grant Assurance 3 7, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises 

(DBEs). Specifically, Complainant argues that the County "is obligated to comply with federal law and 

related FAA Sponsor Assurances (49 U.S.C. § 47107), including Federal Grant Assurance 37, which 

provides that the recipient shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the 

award and performance of any DOT -assisted contract," (2) that "Grant Assurance 3 7 further provides that 

the recipient shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure 

nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts" (emphasis added)," and(3) 

that "49 CFR Part 26 likewise requires ... that the recipient must never exclude any person from 

participation in, deny any person the benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against anyone in connection 

with the award and performance of any contract ... on the basis ofrace, color, sex, or national origin.',J22 In 

response, the County states that "Grant Assurance 37 speaks for itself," and denies the allegations. 123 

Grant Assurance 37 has criteria for and definition ofDBE contracts. 49 U.S.C. § 26, which governs this 

section, protects DBEs from discrimination during the award and enforcement of"DOT-assisted 

contracts." There is no evidence showing the Complainant is now or has ever participated in such a 

contract. Its tenancy on a federally funded airport is outside of the definition of a DOT-assisted contract. 

Moreover, the Complainant also failed to demonstrate recognition or even qualification as a DBE, under 

the statutory guidance provided in section 26, Appendix E. 49 USC §47107(e)(7). 124 

Consequently, the Director finds the County has not violated Grant Assurance 37, Disadvantaged 

Business Enterprises. 

Issue 6- Whether the County's denial of the Complainant's long-term lease request, while 

granting other tenants such leases, violated Grant Assurance 39, Competitive Access. 

Grant Assurance 39, Competitive Access, requires operators oflarge and medium hub airports to report to 

the Secretary any denial of a request by an air carrier for access to the airport. Grant Assurance 3 9, 

Competitive Access states that: 

"If the airport owner or operator of a medium or large hub airport (as defined in section 47102 

oftitle 49, U.S. C.) has been unable to accommodate one or more requests by an air carrier for 

access to gates or other facilities at that airport in order to allow the air carrier to provide 

service to the airport or to expand service at the airport, the airport owner or operator shall 

transmit a report to the Secretary that1) Describes the requests; 

122 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 22. 

123 FAA Exhibit 1, Item3B, page 10. 124 In Henrihetta and Lindsay Tulloch v. City of Harlingen, Texas [FAA Docket 16-05-07], the Director discussed a Grant Assurance 37 

allegation outside of a federal contract: «The Complainant also references a violation of 49 CFR Part 26. Again in this allegation, the 

Complainant failed to proffer a sufficient claim. In terms of a violation the DBE requirements, the first threshold is that an airport sponsor shall 

not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award and perfonnance of any DOT-assisted contract or in the 

administration of its DBE program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The lease agreement between the Complainant and the County was 

not a federally-assisted contract and is not subject to the County's DBE program requirements. Nor was the Complainants' prior lease with the 

County's former tenant, Harlingen Jet Center. Moreover, the Complainant has not provided any evidence to substantiate a claim that the County 

or its agents acted in a discriminatory manner in the administration of its DBE program." DD at 23. 

Page 27 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

·--·------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) Provides an explanation as to why the requests could not be accommodated; and 

3) Provides a time frame within which, if any, the airport will be able to accommodate the 

requests." 

Complainant argues that the County is "obligated to comply with federal law and related FAA Sponsor 

Assurances (49 U.S.C. § 47107), including Federal Grant Assurance 39, which provides that [i]fthe airport 

owner or operator has been unable to accommodate one or more requests by an air carrier for access to gates 

or other facilities in order to allow the air carrier ... to expand service at the airport, the airport owner or 

operator shall transmit a report to the Secretary that (a) describes the requests; (b) provides an explanation as 

to why the request could not be accommodated; and (c) provides a time-frame within which, if any, the 

airport will be able to accommodate the requests."125 · 

The Complainant claims that "on or about 1997, Tropical began to request permission from [the County] to 

build a larger hangar in which to house the aircraft on which it continued to work, in order to minimize 

exposure of the aircraft to the South Florida elements," and that over many years, has "repeatedly expressed to 

[the County] its desire for a long-term lease and larger leasehold at FLL and for permission to further develop 

its leasehold, including building a hangar suitable to house its aircraft.' 126 

The Complainant summarizes the alleged violation by stating that "although the record is replete with 

Tropical's requests for a long term lease, [the County] has failed to give Tropical a response as to why its 

request could not be accommodated in violation of Federal Grant Assurance 39." Complainant also states that 

the County is in Violation of Grant Assurance 39 because "it failed to provide the [required] report to the 

Secretary."127 The County denies the allegation but states that "FLL is a Large Hub because FLL accounts for 

more than 1% of the annual national hoardings ( enplanements )." 128 

The issue is whether the County had to notify the FAA that an air carrier operator had essentially been 

denied access "to gates or other facilities" at the Airport. The Director notes that this grant assurance was 

intended to ensure accommodation of carrier operations directly related to the movement and care of 

passengers, focusing on gate access and, to a lesser extent, other terminal and baggage processing areas. 

As discussed above, the record establishes is that the County terminated the complainant's lease for cause, 

and evicted it from its leasehold. The record contains no evidence that the County has taken steps to prevent 

Air Sunshine from accessing the Airport's terminal and gates, specifically the commuter gate area in 

Termina14. The Director cannot affirm that a lease termination concerning airport hangars and ramp space, 

is by itself grounds for a finding of violation of Grant Assurance 3 9. This is especially true if the Airport 

has not prevented the operator from accessing its terminal areas or otherwise provide for aircraft and 

baggage access to those terminal areas and gates. Certainly, an air carrier does not need to have a land lease 

for hangar and ramp space in order to serve the Airport. In addition, Grant Assurance 39 is not intended to 

reqmre an a:trport sponsor to file a report every time lease negotiations fail to meet all of the expectations of 

a tenant or prospective tenant. 

Therefore, the Director finds that the County is not i.n violation of Grant Assurance 39 Competitive Access 

because the County did not submit the report to the FAA. 

125 FAA Exhibit 1. Item 38, pages 23-25. 126 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Pages 3, 26. 127 FAA Exhibit I, Item 38, pages 23-25. 128 FAA Exhibit I, Item 38, pages 10-11. 

Page28 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

VII. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 

Upon consideration of the submissions of the parties, and the entire record herein, and the applicable law 

and policy and for the reasons stated above, the Director finds and concludes: 

Issue 1 - The County is not in violation of Grant Assurance 22 Economic Nondiscrimination. 

Issue 2- The County is not in violation of Grant Assurance 23 Exclusive Rights. 

Issue 3 - The County is not in violation of Grant Assurance 24 Fee and Rental Structure. 

Issue 4- The County is not in violation of Grant Assurance 30, Civil Rights. 

Issue 5 - The County is not in violation of Grant Assurance Grant Assurance 3 7, Disadvantaged 

Business Enterprises. 

Issue 6- The County is not in violation of Grant Assurance 39, Competitive Access because it did not 

file the required report with the FAA. 

ORDER 

All Motions not expressly granted in this Determination are denied. 

RIGHT TO APPEAL 

This Director's Determination, FAA Docket No. 16-12-15, is an initial agency determination and does not 

constitute a fmal agency decision and order subject to judicial review. [14 CFR § 16.247(b)(2)]. A party 

to this proceeding adversely affected by the Director's Determination may appeal the initial determination 

pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.33(c) within thirty (30) days after service of the Director's Determination. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

Date 

Page 29 
Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

INDEX OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 

The following items constitute the administrative record in this proceeding: 

FAA Exhibit 1 

Item 1 

Part I6 Complaint dated September 28, 2012, including Exhibits A-C: 

Exhibit A Short Term Lease Agreement, dated January 2, 1996. 

Exhibit B Letter from Air Shun sine to Airport Director, dated January 10, 1996. 

Exhibit C Amendment No. 1 to Short Terms lease Agreement, dated May 14, 1996. 

Item2 

FAA Notice of Docketing, October 22,2012. 

Item3A 

Respondent Broward County's Motion to Dismiss Complainant's Complaint with Prejudice for Failure 

to State a Claim upon Relief May be Granted Pursuant to 14 CFR § I6.I9 and F.R.C.P. I2(b)(6), dated 

November 14, 2012. 

Item3B 

Respondent Broward County's Answer and Affirmative Defenses, dated November 14, 2012, including 

Exhibits 1-4: 

Exhibit 1 Plaintiff Broward County's Agreed Motion to Dismiss Counts I and Ill of Plaintiff's 

Second Amended Complaint and to Dismiss Counts I and VI of Defondants 'Amended 

Counterclaim and for Order Requiring Defendant Tropical Aviation Ground Services, 

Inc. to Vacate the Premises by November 6, 2011, dated May 18,2011. (Includes 

Exhibit A Settlement Agreement, May 10, 2011). Case No. CACE 10041332(5), In the 

Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. 

Exhibit 2 Agreed Order, dated May 18,2011. Case. No. CACE 10041332(5), In the Circuit Court 

for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. 

Exhibit 3 Order, dated November 18,2011. Case. No. CACE 10041332(5), In the Circuit Court 

for the Sevell.teeRth AlaiGial CirGmt iR ana fer Brevfffi'G CeaRty, Fleriea. 

Exhibit 4 Affidavit of Peter Corwin In Support of Broward County's Motion for Summary 

Judgment, dated September 20,2011. CACE 10041332(5), In the Circuit Court for the 

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida 

Item4 

Respondent Broward County's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion to 

Dismiss Complainant's Complaint with Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim upon Relief May be 

Granted Pursuant to 14 CFR § I6.I9 and F.R.C.P. I2(b)(6), dated November 14,2012. 

Page 30 
ItemS 

Tropical Aviation Ground Services, Inc., and Air Sunshine, Inc., v. Broward County, Florida 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-15 

Notice of Parties' Election to File Remaining Pleadings Electronically, dated November 8, 2012. 

Item6 

Notice of Extension ofTime, Apri115, 2013. 

Item 7 

Notice of Extension of Time, June 11, 2013. 

ItemS 

Notice of Extension ofTime, August 15,2013. 

Item9 

Notice of Extension ofTime, October 16,2013. 

Item 10 

Notice of Extension ofTime, February 11,2014. 

Itemll 

Notice of Extension ofTime, October 17,2014. 

Item 12 

Notice of Extension of Time, January 29, 2015. 

Item13 

Minimum Standards Policy for General Aviation at Broward County Airports, 9/18/09. 

Page 31