Cn^MP STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO>f 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

PffiLIOPS, LLC. 

Complainant, 

V. 

NORWOOD MEMORIAL AIRPORT; 

NORWOOD AIRPORT COMMISSION, 

Respondents. 

Docket No. 16-09-10 

TABLE OF EXHIBITS FOR RESPONDENTS' ANSWER. 

PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Exhibit A 

Exhibit B 

Exhibit C 

Exhibit D 

Exhibit E 

Exhibit F 

Exhibit G 

Exhibit H 

Exhibit I 

Exhibit J 

Affidavit of Airport Manager Russ Maguire 

Norwood Airport Minimum Standards 

Excerpt from General Regulations for Norwood Memorial 

Airport 

Marketing and Internet materials for Heliops 

Email from Len Carroll, Manager - FlightLevel Norwood, 

to Russ Maguire, Norwood Memorial Airport Manager, 

dated March 25, 2009 

Excerpt of Minutes from May 13, 2009 Meeting of the 

Norwood Airport Commission 

Excerpt of Minutes from August 12, 2009 Meeting of the 

Norwood Airport Commission 

Excerpt of Minutes from Jime 10, 2009 Meeting of the 

Norwood Airport Commission 

Excerpt of Minutes from July 8, 2009 Meeting of the ' 

Norwood Airport Commission 

Letter from Russ Maguire, Norwood Memorial Airport 

Manager, to Wes Verkaart, Owner, Heli-Ops Helicopter 

Tours, dated July 15, 2009 
Exhibit K Letter from Wesley H. Verkaart, Heliops LLC, to Norwood 

Airport Commission & Russ Maguire, Airport Manager, 

dated July 22, 2009 

Exhibit L Letter from Russ Maguire, Norwood Memorial Airport 

Manager, to Wes Verkaart, Heli-ops LLC, dated August 13, 

2009 

Exhibit M Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission Agency Directive 

No. MAC AD-001a 

Exhibit N Memorandum from Robert J. Mallard, P.E., MAC 

Executive Director, dated November 16, 2001 concerning 

Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission Agency Directive 

No. MAC AD - 001a 

520402V1 
UNITED STATES DEP^SJITMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVL\TION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

HELIOPS, LLC, 

Complainant, 

NORWOOD MEMORIAL AIRPORT and 

NORWOOD AIRPORT COMMISSION, 

Respondents. 

Docket No. 16-09-10 

RESPONDENTS' ANSWER, PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS, AND 

AFFIRB/lATrVE DEFENSES 

L INTRODUCTION 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.23(d), the Respondents, the Norwood Memorial 

Airport ("Norwood Airport") and Noi'wood Airport Commission ("Airport 

Commission"), hereby respond to the Complainant, Heliops, LLC's ("Heliops"), 

Complaint in the above-referenced docket. (Collectively, Norwood Airport and the 

Airport Commission are referred to as "Respondents"). As stated below, the Airport 

Commission's decision to require Heliops to comply with its minimum standards, 

including office space and hangar/commercial tie-down requirements, and general 

regulations, including a commercial permit requirement, do not violate Grant Assurance 

22 {Economic Nondiscrimination) and is reasonable and justified. 

Moreover, the Federal Aviation Adminisfration ("FAA") does not have 

jurisdiction in a 14 C.F.R. Part 16 proceeding to resolve Heliops' claim for a violation of 

the so-called dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Assuming 
arguendo that jurisdiction does exist, the Minimum Standards do not violate the so-called 

dormant Commerce Clause. 

IL FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Norwood Airport is a public use airport owned by the Town of Norwood 

("Town"), Massachusetts and overseen by the Airport Commission, which is a Town 

agency ("Town"). Accordingly, the Town is an airport sponsor, subject to the 

jurisdiction of the FAA and Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission ("MAC"). Mass. 

Gen. Laws c. 90, §§ 35(a), (e), 39. 

A. Norwood Airport Minimum Standards 

In accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5190-7, the Airport Commission 

adopted the Norwood Airport Minimum Standards ("Minimum Standards") (Ex. B.) 

From time to time, the Commission h;is submitted these Minimum Standards to the FAA 

and MAC for their review. "For the airport's commercially permitted business 

community, [Norwood Airport's] minimum standards are intended to promote fair 

competition by 'leveling the playing field.'" (Ex. B at 2.) "For the general public, the 

enforcement of minimum standards also discourages sub-standard and/or unsafe wouldbe service providers—^thereby protecting the interests of [the Airport's] patrons." (Id.) 

These Minimum Standards constitute "[t]he qualifications established by the [Airport 

Commission] as the minimum requirements to be met for the right to conduct a 

commercial activity on the Norwood Airport." (Id.) (emphasis added). The term 

"commercial activity" is broadly defined and includes activities corrunonly performed on 

airports, including sightseeing and aerial photography. (Id. at 3.) 
The general requirements of the Minimum Standards require commercial 

operators' to provide documentation relating to company organization, office/hangar 

space, and insurance. (Id.) DocumentJition for office/hangar space includes "a copy of 

the applicant's lease or certificate of title, for leased or owned space located on the 

airport, or adjacent to the Airport's north/south property line, along Access Road; also 

required, if necessary, is a copy of the floor plan." (Id.) In addition, commercial 

operators must fiimish the Airport Commission with a current fmancial statement, proof 

of three (3) months of operating expenses, a two (2) year business plan for the proposed 

operation, previous history of payment, three (3) credit references, tax identification 

number, tax re-sale number (if applicable), and copies of any and all pertinent certificates 

and licenses for the proposed operation. (Id.) The foregoing requirements are of general 

application to all commercial operators, regardless of the underlying nature of the 

proposed commercial activity. (See id.) 

Aside from these requirements, the Minimum Standards contain additional 

requirements based upon the type of proposed commercial activity. (See id. at 4-8.) 

Significantly, a commercial operator in the category of "Flight Instruction, Aircraft 

Rental, Sales and Sightseeing Flights" must provide the following: 

1. A well lit and heated office and classroom of at least 200 square 

feet, leased or owned, with fraining equipment such as mock-ups 

and instrument training aids. This area is to be located within 

walking distance of the company aircraft, on, or adjacent to the 

airport, or on Access Road between the north and south airport 

boundary ends. 

2. Suitable commercial tie-down or hangar space for all company 

aircraft. 

' A "commercial operator is "[a]ny company/person that offers any commercial activity or service for 

compensation." (Ex. B at 3) (emphasis added). 
3. For flight instruction, a minimum of two aircraft. 

4. A telephone listed under the company name and attended during 

normal business hours. 

5. An ongoing, demonsfrated ability to meet the certification 

requirements of FAA, state and local authorities. 

6. Premise liability insurance of $1,000,000 combined single limit, 

bodily injury and property damage; and commercial aircraft 

liability insurance of $1,000,000 combined single limit bodily 

injury and property damage for all aircraft owned, leased, leased 

back or rented, with $100,000 minimum per passenger, also 

naming the Town of Norwood, Norwood Airport Commission, 

and the Norwood Airport Management as additionally insured. 

7. For flight instruction, a formal and documented program that will 

educate all students and instructor pilots regarding the Airport's 

noise abatement and safety procedures. 

(Id. at 5) (emphasis in original).'^ Significantly, a "transient commercial flight operator" 

is prohibited from using "the airport as a base of operations to pick up students or clients; 

to advertise and/or use the airport as a point of origin or destination without first 

obtaining from the [Airport Commission] a commercial permit." (Id. at 6.) (emphasis 

added). The Airport Commission instituted this transient commercial flight operator 

permit requirement in response to growing problems with entities (including sightseeing 

businesses) seeking to evade applicable requirements and operate "shadow" businesses 

out of Norwood Airport. 

The Minimum Standards require a commercial operator engaged in aerial 

photography, advertising, surveying, or other such services (i.e. unique services) to 

fiimish the following: 

1. A well lit and heated office of at least 200 square feet, leased or 

owned. This area is to be located within walking distance of the 

^ Heliops does not provide flight instruction and there is not subject to the specific flight instruction 

requirements of the Airport Minimum Standards. 
aircraft, on, or adjacent to the Aiiport, or, on Access Road 

between the north and south ends of the Airport boundary. 

2. Licenses and/or authori:sation to do business in the state of 

Massachusetts. 

3. A listed telephone number under the company name and manned 

during normal business hours. 

4. Premise liability insurance of $1,000,000 combined single limit, 

bodily injury and property damage; and commercial aircraft 

liability insurance of $1,000,000 minimum per passenger, also 

naming the Town of Norwood, the Norwood Airport 

Commission, and Norvs^ood Airport Management as additionally 

insured. 

5. A suitable commercial tie-down. 

(Id. at 7-8) (emphasis in original). 

Thus, the general requirements mandate a commercial operator to have 

office/hangar space, and the minimxun standards for commercial operators providing 

sightseeing, aerial photography, surveying and other unique services fiirther define this 

requirement as well lit and heated office with at least two hundred (200) square feet in 

size, "within walking distance of the aircraft, on, or adjacent to the Airport, or, on Access 

Road between the north and south ends of the Airport boundary." (Id. at 3, 6-8.) 

Commercial operators providing sightseeing services must have a hangar or suitable 

commercial tie-down, whereas commercial operators furnishing aerial photography, 

surveying and other unique services are only required to have a suitable commercial tiedown. (14 at 3, 6-8.) 

R General Regulations for Norwood Memorial Airport 

Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90, Section 51 J, the Airport 

Commission also adopted the General Regulations for Norwood Memorial Airport 
("General Regulations").^ The current version of the General Regulations were revised 

on September 10, 2008 and approved by the MAC on or about November 7, 2008. (Ex. 

C.) Notably, the General Regulations were adopted for the following purposes: (1) "to 

ensure that the public receives responsible, safe and adequate service from those 

businesses conducting permitted activities at the Norwood Memorial Airport"; (2) "to 

ensure that all airport users and commercial operators are freated fairly"; and (3) "to 

ensure that all operations are conducted in conformity with all applicable state and 

federal regulations". (Id at 3.) 

The General Regulations provide that "[n]o person, firm, corporation or entity . .. 

shall use the Airport or any portion thereof as an FBO, SASO or otherwise for revenueproducing commercial, business or aeronautical activities without first obtaining consent 

and a written permit for such activities from the Commission.' (Id. at 12) (emphasis 

added). Permits must be obtained annually, on or before July 1 of any given year, and the 

Airport Commission establishes the permit fee on an annual basis. (Id.) Currently, the 

annual permit fee is thirty ($30.00) dollars, a minimal fee that pales in comparison to the 

' Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90, Section 51J states that "[a]n airport commission shall adopt 

rules and regulations for the use of municipal airports or for the safety of the public upon or beyond the 

limits of aiiports under its control, whether such airport facilities are within or without the territorial limits 

of the city or town. Such rules and regulations shall not be effective imtil approved by the Massachusetts 

aeronautics commission and published in the same manner that by-laws and ordinances are required to be 

published. Such rules and regulations shall conform to and be consistent with the laws of the 

commonwealth and the rules and regulations of the Massachusetts aeronautics commission, and shall not be 

inconsistent with or contrary to any act of the Congress of the United States relating to aeronautics or any 

regulations promulgated or standards established pursuant thereto." 

* The General Regulations define an "aeronautical service" is "any business activity commonly conducted 

at or on the Aiiport which involves, makes possible or is required for the operation of aircraft." (Ex. C at 

6.) The term "aeronautical service" explicitly includes sightseeing, aerial photography, and aerial 

surveying. (Id.) Thus, the defmitions of "aeronautical services" under the General Regulations and 

Advisory Circular 150/5190-7 are virtually identical. The General Regulations define "commercial 

activity" as "any activity conducted at, on, from or in conjunction with the Airport by any person, 

partnership, joint venture, corporation, or company or other entity intended to result in revenue-producing 

and/or monetary gain for the party conducting such activity." (Id. at 7.) A "SASO" includes any entity that 

providers sightseeing rides, performs aerial photography, or aerial surveying. Qd. at 12-13.) 
revenues that commercial operators such as Heliops derive from their use of Norwood 

Airport. In addition to consent and a ^vritten permit, a commercial permit applicant must 

satisfy all of the applicable requirements of the Minimum Standards or obtain a written 

exemption. (Id. at 12.) 

C. Heliops 

Heliops has conducted CFR Title 14, Part 91 operations from Norwood Airport, 

which include sightseeing tours to the general public.^ By providing sightseeing and 

photography services from Norwood Airport, whether based out of Norwood Airport, as 

a "shadow" operation and/or on a transient basis, Heliops is subject to the General 

Regulations and Minimum Standards. In addition to satisfying the Minimum Standards, 

including the office space and hangar/commercial tie-down requirement applicable to 

commercial operators providing sightseeing services, Heliops also must annually obtain a 

commercial permit (or waiver). Even though Heliops suggests that its usage of Norwood 

Airport is limited, the General Regulations and Minimum Standards require Heliops to 

obtain a commercial permit, either as a commercial operator or a "transient commercial 

flight operator." (Ex. C at 6.) To date, however, the Airport Commission has not granted 

a commercial permit (or waiver) to Heliops, nor has Heliops furnished any evidence of 

complying with the office space or hangar/commercial tie-down requirements of the 

Minimum Standards. 

^ In its Complaint, Heliops represents itself as an entity performing sightseeing, photography, and survey 

services. However, at no time has Heliops held itself out to the Airport Commission as anything more than 

a commercial provider of sightseeing and photography services. (See Ex. K.) To the extent that Heliops 

seeks to provide survey services from Norwood Airport, it would also be subject to the "unique services" 

provisions of the Minimiun Standards, including suitable office space on or in prescribed close proximity to 

Norwood Airport and a commercial tie-down. 
Despite its suggestion to the confrary, Heliops has used Norwood Airport as a 

base of operations. In fact, Heliops advertises and holds itself out to the general public as 

basing itself out of Norwood Airport. (Ex. D.) Specifically, Heliops markets a "Boston 

Tour" departing from "Norwood" - this advertisement appears on Heliops' website and 

in its marketing materials.^ (Id.) Notably, the "fransient commercial flight operator" 

provision in the Minimum Standards mandates a commercial permit for entities that pick 

up clients, advertise, and/or use Norwood Airport as a point of origin or destination - the 

same types of uses made by Heliops. 

There is no restriction upon the frequency upon which Heliops can use Norwood 

Airport for flight operations, and any Eillegation that it conducted twenty (20) flight 

operations from Norwood Airport during 2008 must be viewed against Heliops' 

representations to the general public and the absence of any upper limitation upon the 

total number of flight operations it can conduct from Norwood Airport. In effect, 

therefore, Heliops operates a "shadow" business utilizing Norwood Airport, without fully 

complying with the Minimum Standards and General Regulations. 

Thus, Heliops is subject to the commercial permit requirement as an entity using 

Norwood Airport as a "shadow" base of operations, and/or as a transient commercial 

flight operator. The very fact that Heliops markets its business out of Norwood Airport 

seems more closely aligned with a "shadow" base of operations than a mere fransient 

user, who may only use Norwood Airport for one-time fuel or maintenance purposes. 

The Airport Commission's concerns with Heliops date back to March 2009, 

consisting of events omitted from the factual backgroimd in Heliops' Complaint. The 

* Heliops also advertises a "Custom Tour" which departs from whichever location a customer chooses. 

(Ex. D.) Thus, a customer could select Norwood Airport as his or her point of departure. 
Airport Commission and Norwood Airport management was first alerted to the actual 

extent of Heliops' operations when it received a complaint from Len Carroll ("Mr. 

Carroll"), a Manager for FlightLevel Aviation ("FlightLevel"), a fixed-base operator at 

Norwood Airport. (Ex. E.) 

On March 24, 2009, at approximately 9 p.m. (i.e. "after hours"), a Heliops pilot 

landed at FlightLevel's transient aircraft parking apron. (Id.) In particular, Mr. Carroll 

reported that Heliops had dropped off several individuals inside the security fence after 

conducting a paid photo shoot. (Id; Ex. F, G.) Because this incident occurred "after 

hours," airport personnel was limited and security was of great concern. These 

individuals did not have a security badge, nor were they accompanied by an escort with a 

security badge. (Exs. E, F, G.) Proper persormel to account for these unauthorized 

individuals also were absent. (Exs. E, F, G.) Separately, a security concern existed in the 

Norwood Airport parking lot at this time, involving other individuals that Heliops 

dropped off. (Exs. E, F, G.) Yet, the Heliops pilot had already departed from Norwood 

Airport, flying back to Heliops' physical base of operations at Plymouth Airport. (Ex. E, 

F, G.) As a result, the Norwood Police Department was alerted and reported to Norwood 

Airport because unauthorized individuals were present in the secured access area. 

Heliops alone was responsible for the unauthorized individuals present in the 

secured access area "after hours" on March 24, 2009. If Heliops had a commercial 

permit, however, its personnel likely would have possessed the requisite security badge 

and served as a proper escort for the unauthorized individuals. Moreover, this March 24, 

2009 incident may have been averted if Heliops had been physically located at Norwood 

Airport (via compliance with the ofiTice space and hangar/commercial tie-down 
requirements), to supervise, stand accountable for, and prevent the events that took place. 

Instead, Heliops simply used Norwood Airport to gamer business and, after which its 

pilot departed for the Plymouth Airport, it left behind a heightened security concern and 

need for police involvement. 

The March 24, 2009 incident involved Heliops' improper use of an aircraft 

parking apron on FlightLevel's leasehold. In accordance with Norwood Airport's statemandated security plan, this aircraft parking apron had been designated for use for 

fransient aircraft, specifically to accommodate re-fiieling, overnight aircraft parking 

services, minor aircraft parking maintenance, and other activities at the discretion of 

FlightLevel. This fransient parking area was never intended to be used as a security 

and/or commercial permit loophole for businesses lacking a commercial permit and/or a 

subsequent security identification badge from the Norwood Airport Manager. 

During a April 1, 2009 meeting with Norwood Airport Manager Russ Maguire 

("Mr. Maguire"), Wesley Verkaart ("Mr. Verkaart"), owner/operator of Heliops, 

explained that Heliops had been regularly using the transient parking apron and 

FlightLevel's passenger terminal to shuttle sightseeing tour customers. In fact, Mr. 

Verkaart left Heliops' marketing materials at the FlightLevel operations desk, including 

the above-described advertisements listing Norwood Airport as a base of operations. 

Mr. Verkaart attended the Airport Commission's May 13, 2009 meeting^, at 

which time he stated that Heliops wanted to run a satellite operation out of Norwood 

Airport. (Ex. F.) Mr. Verkaart further explained that Heliops had been operating in and 

out of Norwood Airport for five (5) years. (Id.) During this May 13, 2009 meeting, the 

'' A copy of the minutes for the May 13, 2009 meeting is attached as Exhibit F. The Respondents deny the 

accuracy of any alleged statements inconsistent with these meeting minutes. 

10 
Airport Commission and Mr. Maguire discussed the Airport Commission's consistent 

approach in requiring commercial operators, including companies who do business at 

Other airports, to meet all of the Minimum Standards. (Id.) Mr. Magufre also explained 

at the May 13, 2009 meeting that other airports could not be compared to Norwood 

Airport given the differences between them, including the number of businesses 

operating out of the airports, and that the minimum standards differed between them 

accordingly. (Id.) 

Mr. Verkaart appeared at the Airport Commission's Jxme 10, 2009 meeting in 

coimection with Heliops' informal request for a commercial permit. (Ex. H.) However, 

Heliops did not comply with, and to date has not complied with, the requirements for an 

office space or hangar/commercial tie-down location. (Id.) Yet, Heliops sought to 

conduct 14 C.F.R. Part 91 business at Norwood Airport. (Id.) In response, Mr. Magufre 

explained that FAA and the MAC agreed that the Airport Commission had the right to 

impose minimum standards on businesses at the Airport.^ (Id.) Additionally, the Airport 

Commission discussed applying the Minimum Standards uniformly to all applicants or, 

absent such imiformity, the Airport Commission would be at risk for a claim of economic 

discrimination. (Id.) The Airport Commission explained that it was not preventing 

Heliops from conducting business at Norwood Airport, but that the Airport Commission 

would not grant a waiver to the Minimum Standards for Heliops. (Id.) 

* In fact, the Executive Director of the MAC informed Mr. Maguire that he supported Norwood Airport's 

Minimum Standards. (Id.") 

' During the week of June 1, 2009, Mr. Maguire spoke with Donna Witte ("Ms. Witte") at the FAA 

Regional Office in Burlington, Massachusetts and Chris Willenborg ("Mr. Willenborg"), Executive 

Director of the MAC. Both Ms. Witte and Mr. Willenborg were satisfied with Mr. Maguire's explanation 

that Heliops had not met all of the Minimum Standards, even though it marketed Norwood Airport as a 

sightseeing base of operations. 

11 
The Airport Commission again discussed Heliops' request for a commercial 

permit at its Jtily 8, 2009 meeting. ^° (Ex. I.) At that time, Heliops still had not submitted 

a formal permit application, and the Airport Commission was disinclined to entertain 

discussion of a waiver absent such application. (Id.) Nevertheless, Heliops had not 

complied with the office space and hangar/commercial tie-down requfrements of the 

Minimum Standards. (Id.) Consistent with its prior meetings, the Airport Commission 

acknowledged that commercial permit applications must be handled in a uniform maimer, 

and that applicants must meet all of the minimum standards. (Id.) 

The Airport Commission voted unanimously at its July 8, 2009 meeting to 

authorize Mr. Maguire to notify Heliops that it must have an office space and commercial 

tie-down in order to qualify for a commercial permit and, if Heliops sought a waiver, it 

should make such a request. (Id.) Mi'. Maguire sent this letter to Heliops on July 15, 

2009. (Ex. J.) 

In a letter dated July 22, 2009, Heliops requested a blanket waiver from to 

conduct commercial 14 C.F.R. Part 91 flights (sightseeing and photography) originating 

from Norwood Airport as a non-based commercial operator. (Ex. K.) Heliops stated that 

its "persormel would meet passengers at an FBO (Flight Level or other) and escort them 

to the aircraft. For loading and unloading, the helicopter would be parked either at the 

designated helicopter parking circles or, with prior landing permission, the designated 

airport helipad or FBO ramp area." (Id.) As Mr. Maguire explained at the Airport 

Commission's August 13, 2009 meeting, Heliops caimot use the FlightLevel passenger 

'" A copy of the minutes for the July 8, 2009 meeting is attached as Exhibit I. The Respondents deny the 

accuracy of any alleged statements inconsistent with these meeting minutes. 

12 
terminal as a security loophole to channel its customers through and out onto the 

restricted access aircraft parking aprons without a commercial permit. (Ex. G.) 

During its August 13, 2009 meeting, the Airport Commission voted unanimously 

to deny the waiver application because other commercial operators complied with the 

same Minimum Standards requfred for operating at Norwood Airport, including the 

office space and hangar/commercial tie-down provisions. (Id.) The Airport Commission 

declined to provide an exemption to these Minimum Standards simply because one (1) 

entity (i.e. Heliops) made a request. (Id.) 

In a letter dated August 13, 2009, Mr. Magufre notified Heliops of the Airport 

Commission's decision to deny its request for a waiver from the Minimum Standards. 

(Ex. L.) As Mr. Maguire explained, tiie Airport Commission sought "to apply its 

standards fairly and uniformly", particularly because severed commercial permitted 

sightseeing tour operators use Norwood Airport as a home base, and all of these operators 

comply with the same standards for a physical presence at Norwood Airport that apply to 

Heliops. (Id.) 

From the Airport Commission's adoption of the Minimum Standards and General 

Regulations to date, the Airport Commission has consistently required commercial 

operators similarly situated to Heliops (e.g. sightseeing, aerial photography, and/or 

surveying services) to comply with all applicable requfrements, including but not limited 

to the office space, hangar/commercial tie-down, and commercial permit requfrements. 

The Airport Commission will also require fiiture commercial operators similarly situated 

to Heliops to comply with all applicable requfrements of the Minimum Standards and 

General Regulations. 

13 
Heliops competes with, or will compete with, the following entities currently 

operating out of Norwood Airport: Blue Hill Helicopters, LLC ("Blue Hill HeUcopters"), 

which provides sightseeing services; and Aerial Productions, LLC ("Aerial 

Productions"), which provides aerial photography and surveying services. Although 

Heliops competes with Blue Hill Helicopters and Aerial Productions, it nevertheless 

attempts to evade compliance with the office space, hangar/commercial tie-down, and 

commercial permit requirements. By confrast. Blue Hill Helicopters and Aerial 

Productions currently comply with the Minimum Standards and General Regulations. 

Significantly, Blue HOill Helicopters has an office space across the street from Norwood 

Airport at 106 Access Road, Norwood, Massachusetts, while Aerial Productions has an 

office space at Norwood Airport. Further, Blue Hill Helicopters and Aerial Productions 

meet the hangar/commercial tie-down requirements and possess commercial permits. 

Therefore, Heliops seeks to create a double standard for itself as compared to past, 

current and future similarly situated commercial operators using Norwood Airport. 

III. ARGUMENT 

A. The Airport Commission's decision to require Heliops to comply with the 

Minimum Standards does not violate Grant Assurance 22. 

The Complainant in a 14 C.F.R. Part 16 proceeding has the burden of proof, via a 

preponderance of the evidence, to establish that a sponsor has violated the applicable 

federal grant assurance(s). SeaSands Air Transport, Inc. v. Huntsville-Madison County 

Airport Auth.. FAA Docket No. 16-05-17 (Aug. 28, 2006) (Dfrector's Determination). 

Here, Heliops alleges that Norwood Airport and the Airport Commission violated Grant 

Assurance 22 {Economic Nondiscrimination) by denying a waiver or commercial permit. 

14 
"Federal grant assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, (Assurance 22) deals 

with both the reasonableness of airport; access and the prohibition of adopting unjustly 

discriminatory conditions as a potential for limiting access." JetAway Aviation, Inc. v. 

Monfrose County, FAA Docket No. 16-08-01 (July 2, 2009). In pertinent part, this grant 

assurance requires the following: 

[The aiiport owner or sponsor] will make the airport available as an 

airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust 

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

including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the 

public at the airport. [Grant Assurance 22(a)] 

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. [Grant 

Assurance 22(h)] 

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. [Grant Assurance 22(i)] 

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

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

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

needs of the public." JetAway Aviation, Inc. v. Monfrose Coimty, FAA Docket No. 16-

08-01 (July 2, 2009). 

An airport sponsor "has discretion in drawing reasonable distinctions among 

aeronautical users in setting airport .. . terms." See Santa Monica Airport Ass'n v. Santa 

Monica, FAA Docket No. 16-99-21 (Nov. 22, 2000) (Director's Determination). Grant 

Assurance 22 does not prohibit all discrimination among aeronautical users, but instead is 

15 
limited to unjust economic discrimination. R/T-182, LLC v. Portage County Reg. 

Airport Auth., FAA Docket No. 16-05-14 (Nov. 1, 2006) (Director's Determination), 

afTdbv, FAA Docket No. 16-05-14 (Mar. 29, 2007) (Final Agency Decision). 

Although the term "unjust discrimination" is not defined by statute, it is construed 

as occurring when a similarly situated user receives preferential treatment. R/T-182, 

LLC V. FAA, 519 F.3d 307, 309 (6th Cfr. 2008); R/T-182, LLC v. Portage County RegAirport Auth.. FAA Docket No. 16-05-14 (Nov. 1, 2006) (Dfrector's Determination); 

Ashton V. Concord, FAA Docket No. 16-99-09 (Jan. 28, 2000) (Dfrector's 

Determination). The "similarly situated" standard distinguishes between legitimate and 

impermissible grounds for discrimination. R/T-182, 519 F.3d at 309. 

The Minimum Standards, including the office space and hangar/commercial tiedown requirements, carmot be viewed in isolation, but rather as part of the Airport 

Commission's actions taken in accordance with Advisory Circular No. 150/5190-7 

(August 28, 2006) ("AC 150/5190-7"). While optional, the FAA "highly recommends" 

airport sponsors to use and apply minimum standards as a matter of prudence and "as a 

means to minimize the potential for violations of Federal obligations at federally 

obligated airports." AC 150/5190-7 at 1: Flightline Aviation, Inc. v. Shreveport, FAA 

Docket No. 16-07-5 (Mar. 7, 2008) (Director's Determination). Minimum standards 

provide a "safe, efficient and adequate level of operation and services .. . offered to the 

public", "protect airport users from unlicensed and imauthorized products and services, 

[and] maintain and enhance the availability of adequate services for all airport users." 

AC 150/5190-7 at 3. 

16 
AC 150/5190-7 requfres minimum standards to be reasonable and implemented 

without unjust discrimination. Id, at 1. Indeed, AC 150/5190-7 expressly cautions 

airport sponsors to apply minimum standards "objectively and uniformly to all similarly 

situated on-airport aeronautical service providers." Id. at 3-6 (emphasis added); FAA 

Order 5190.6B § 10-2; Flightline Aviation. Inc. v. Shreveport, FAA Docket No. 16-07-5 

(Mar. 7, 2008) (Director's Determination); Carey v. Afton-Lincoln County Municipal 

Airport Joint Powers Bd.. FAA Docket No. 16-06-06 (Jan. 19, 2007) (Dfrector's 

Determination). The failure to so apply minimum standards may result in a violation of 

the prohibition against exclusive rights and/or unjust economic discrimination. AC 

150/5190-7 at 3; FAA Order 5190.6B § 10-2; Flightiine Aviation, hic. v. Shreveport, 

FAA Docket No. 16-07-5 (Mar. 7, 2008) (Director's Determination) 

The specific Minimum Standards that Heliops refuses to comply with are the 

requirements for an office space on or in prescribed close proximity to Norwood Airport 

and a suitable hangar/commercial commercial tie-down. In turn, compliance with the 

Minimum Standards is a requirement for a commercial permit under the General 

Regulations. 

As explained in Section III.B infra, the subject Minimum Standards requfrements 

are "fair and reasonable to all on-airport aeronautical service providers and relevant to the 

aeronautical activity to which it is required," to wit, commercial operators providing 

sightseeing, aerial photography, and/or surveying services. AC 150/5190-7 at 3-5. 

However, these requirements are uniquely tailored to commercial operators providing 

sightseeing, aerial photography and/or surveying services and not applicable to all users 

17 
or commercial operators.'^ Other commercial operators performing services similar to 

those proposed by Heliops are subject to the same requfrements. In particular. Blue Hill 

Helicopters provides sightseeing services and Aerial Productions provides aerial 

photography and surveying, all out of Norwood Airport, and each of these entities is 

subject to and currently complies with the same Minimum Standards and General 

Regulations that the Airport Commission seeks to apply to Heliops. Past commercial 

operators have also been subject to these same Minimum Standards and General 

Regulations. 

The Airport Commission is adhering to objectively and uniformly applying its 

Minimum Standards to all similarly situated aeronautical service providers. AC 

150/5190-7 at 5. Indeed, the Airport Commission is not requfring Heliops to adhere to all 

of the Minimimi Standards, but only the general requfrements (which Heliops does not 

contest) and those specific requirements for specialized aviation service operations 

("SASO") involvuig sightseeing, aerial photography, or surveying services. See AC 

150/5190-7 at 6. 

Heliops has not substantiated its claim by showing that similarly situated users 

were freated dissimilarly without adequate justification. Jimsair Aviation Servs., Inc. v. 

San Diego County Reg. Airport Auth., FAA Docket No. 16-06-08 (Apr. 12, 2007) 

(Director's Determination). Rather, the Airport Commission is uniformly applying its 

Minimum Standards to Heliops and other similarly situated SASOs. The issue is not 

whether Heliops and the other SASOs are the same, but rather whether they are similarly 

situated. 

' ' For example, commercial operators performing fuel storage and dispensing are not subject to the 

requirement of a hangar or suitable commercial tie-dovm. (Ex. B at 6-7.) 

18 
In Jimsair Aviation Services, the FAA applied the "similarly situated" analysis to 

compare the services offered by a complainant fixed-base operator and other providers. 

Even though the complainant in Jimsafr Aviation Services was a fixed-base operator, the 

FAA focused upon the performance of under-the-wing ground handling and related 

services, and determined that the fixed-based operator and other providers "should be 

expected to meet comparable minimum standards and rules and regulations." Although 

the fixed-based operator and non-tenant aeronautical service providers performed ground 

handling and related services, only the fixed-based operator was subject to the airport's 

minimum standards and rules and regulations. Given this disparity in treatment, the FAA 

determined that the airport sponsor violated Grant Assurance 22. 

At a minimum, Heliops is similarly situated to Blue Hill Helicopters (for 

sightseeing services) and Aerial Productions (for aerial photography and surveying 

services) because these entities currently provide commercial (i.e. revenue-producing) 

services out of Norwood Airport. Stated otherwise, Heliops has provided, and seeks to 

provide, the same services under the same or similar circumstances as currently 

compliant entities operating at Norwood Airport. In addition, past commercial operators 

have been, and future commercial operators will be, subject to the same Minimum 

Standards and General Regulations if they are similarly situated to Heliops. Heliops has 

not presented any evidence suggesting an absence of competition with Blue Hill 

Helicopters and Aerial Productions for sightseeing and for aerial photography and 

surveying services, respectively. 

The R/T-182 and BMI Salvage Corp. v. FAA cases cited by Heliops are 

inapposite and distinguishable. Both of those cases involved the propriety of distinctions 

19 
between various entities or user groups. In R/T-182, the Sixth Cfrcuit determined that a 

distinction between transient and based aircraft was permissible because of feasibility 

concerns with fee enforcement. By comparison, in BMI Salvage, the Eleventh Cfrcuit 

held that there was insufficient evidence that two (2) entities were not similarly situated. 

Here, however, the Airport Commission is holding Heliops to the same Minimum 

Standards and General Regulations it applies to similarly situated commercial SASOs 

providing sightseeing, aerial photography, and/or surveying services. In fact, in BMI 

Salvage, the Eleventh Circuit even noted that the business purposes between two (2) 

entities would be less distinct if they both offered aircraft repafr services. 272 Fed. Appx. 

842, 849(1 ItiiCir. 2008). 

The critical issue is not on the basis of discrimination, but instead unjust 

discrimination. Yet, there is no basis to conclude that Heliops and the other SASOs 

providing sightseeing, aerial photography, and/or surveying are not similarly situated for 

purposes of applying the Minimum Standards and General Regulations, particularly 

given the underlying intent of these local requirements. 

Notably, Heliops markets itself to the general public, through print and Internet 

advertising, as operating out of Norwood Airport. (See Ex. D.) In fact, Mr. Verkaart 

explained to Mr. Maguire during an April 1, 2009 meeting that Heliops was regularly 

using the transient parking apron and FlightLevel's passenger terminal to shuttle 

sightseeing tour customers. Therefore, Heliops is more than a mere fransient commercial 

operator, because it picks up and/or drops off its customers at Norwood Airport for 

sightseeing. Heliops' operation out of Norwood Airport cannot be regarded as 

"episodic", because this characterization is counterbalanced by Heliops' use of Norwood 

20 
Airport for sightseeing services over the past five (5) years. Additionally, Heliops' 

contention that it conducted twenty (20) operations during 2008^•^ succumbs to the reality 

that this is more than a de minimis number of operations and unconsfrained in future 

frequency by Heliops' marketing of Norwood Airport as a base of operations to the 

general public. 

Even if Heliops characterizes itself a fransient operation, the Airport Commission 

properly exercised its discretion to require transient commercial operators to obtain 

commercial permits. Relying upon its past experience (including incidents with 

sightseeing tours), the Airport Commission imposed a permit requirement upon fransient 

commercial operators in order to ensure accountability and public trust. Specifically, the 

Airport Commission wanted a business presence for commercial operators in order to 

hold such entities accoimtable for any compliance issues. In addition, the Airport 

Commission wanted the general public to know that a commercial operator doing 

business at Norwood Airport has a business presence, sufficient persormel, proper 

credentials and resources, and could be held accountable if any issues arose. The Airport 

Commission wanted to avoid customers from dealing with commercial operators who 

simply flew into Norwood Airport for a business fransaction and subsequently departed 

without any accountability, and to avoid any uncertainties with the public dealing with 

unknown entities. This is consistent with the local approach necessary for adopting and 

periodically revising minimum standards under AC 150/5190-7. 

Heliops' July 22, 2009 letter appears to request a blanket waiver of the Minimum 

Standards, beyond the office space and hangar/commercial tie-down requfrements. Such 

'^ Heliops has not substantiated its use of Norwood Airport for any period other than 2008, even though it 

has used Norwood Airport for the past five (5) years. 

21 
a broad and encompassing sweep of all applicable requirements under the Minimum 

Standards would effectively result in unresfrained and unregulated Heliops doing 

business out of Norwood Airport. 

In any event, Heliops' request for a waiver from the Minimum Standards and 

General Regulations would be defrimental to similarly situated commercial operators at 

Norwood Airport, either on a blanket basis or with specific regard for the office space, 

hangar/commercial tie-down and commercial permit requfrements. Even though Blue 

Hill Helicopters, Aerial Productions, and similarly situated entities previously operating 

out of Norwood Airport have been subject to, and compliant with, the applicable 

Minimum Standards and General Regulations, Heliops would effectively uneven the 

playing field by avoiding an investment in a business presence at Norwood Airport, to 

wit, by not complying with the office space and hangar/commercial tie-down 

requirements. Equally problematic is that future similarly situated commercial operators 

could be subject to the Minimum Standards and the General Regulations, even as Heliops 

seeks a blanket waiver or specific waivers for itself. 

As currently compliant entities. Blue Hill Helicopters and Aerial Productions 

have made an investment by means of suitable office space and hangar/commercial tiedown space. Minimum standards must "reasonably protect the investment of providers 

of aeronautical services . . . from competition not making a similar investment." AC 

150-5190-7 at 4. If the Airport Commission granted a waiver to Heliops, it would be 

jeopardizing this investment by Blue Hill Helicopters and Aerial Productions. Further, 

the Airport Commission could be subjected to waiver requests by Blue Hill Helicopters 

and Aerial Productions, or other similarly situated entities, which would defeat the 

22 
purposes of the office space and hangar/commercial tie-down space requfrements, 

including safety, accoimtability, security, reliability, accessibility, reputability and 

trustworthiness. 

A waiver to Heliops would also establish a disparity in requfrements and create a 

preference for Heliops, thereby placing Blue Hill Helicoper, Aerial Productions, and 

future similarly situated commercial operators at a competitive disadvantage with 

Heliops. Jimsafr Aviation Servs., Inc. v. San Diego County Reg. Airport Auth.. FAA 

Docket No. 16-06-08 (Apr. 12, 2007) (Director's Determination); Carey v. Afton-Lincoln 

County Municipal Airport Joint Powers Bd.. FAA Docket No. 16-06-06 (Jan. 19, 2007) 

(Dfrector's Determination). Certainly, such a lack in uniform and objective enforcement 

of the Minimum Standards and General Regulations would constitute a violation of Grant 

Assurance 22. Jimsafr Aviation Servs., Inc. v. San Diego County Reg. Airport Auth.. 

FAA Docket No. 16-06-08 (Apr. 12, 2007) (Director's Determination); Carey v. AftonLincoln County Municipal Airport Joint Powers Bd.. FAA Docket No. 16-06-06 (Jan. 19, 

2007) (Director's Determination). 

"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 [and] may 

be conferred .. . by imposition of unreasonable standards or requirements or by another 

means." FAA Order 5190.6B § 8.2. The FAA has concluded that an imreasonable 

requirement standard implemented in an unjustly discriminatory manner may be deemed 

a constructive grant of an exclusive right. Aviation Ctr., Inc. v. Ajnn Arbor. FAA Docket 

No. 16-05-01 (Dec. 16, 2005) (Director's Determination). An exclusive right may also 

exist if a competitor is subject to a significant burden that is not imposed upon another. 

23 
Id; Pompano Beach v. FAA. 774 F.2d 1529 (11th Cfr. 1985). Grant Assurance 23 

requfres an airport sponsor to agree not to, dfrectly or indfrectly, "grant or permit any 

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

activities, including but not limited to .. . sightseeing, aerial photography, and surveying . 

... " Grant Assurance 23; Jimsafr Aviation Servs.. Inc. v. San Diego Coxmty Reg. Airport 

Autii.. FAA Docket No. 16-06-08 (Apr. 12, 2007) (Director's Determination). 

A waiver to the Minimum Standards and General Regulations, specifically the 

office space, hangar/commercial tie-down, and commercial permit requfrements, could be 

construed as the grant of an exclusive right to Heliops at the expense of other commercial 

operators that use Norwood Airport as a base of operations. Yet, exclusive rights are 

prohibited under 49 U.S.C. §§ 40103(e) and 47107(a)(4) and Grant Assurance 23 

{Exclusive Rights). To avoid granting an exclusive right, the Airport Commission caimot 

grant a waiver to Heliops of the office space and hangar/commercial tie-down 

requirements that apply with equal, objective and uniform force to other similarly 

situated SASOs. 

Heliops advances a broad, speculative and unsupported contention that other 

airports' adherence to the same Minimum Standards requfred by the Airport Commission 

would be detrimental to commercial aeronautical activities and the general public. Such 

a sweeping contention is inconsistent with the FAA's direction to airport sponsors to 

develop minimum standards that are specifically tailored to their airport. AC 150/5190-7 

at 4-5. Here, the Minimum Standards are based upon the status of Norwood Airport as an 

active airport, with multiple commercial operators providing flight charter, flight 

instruction, sightseeing, and other services, in close proximity to the City of Boston. 

24 
Therefore, the Minimum Standards are imiquely tailored to Norwood Airport, and may be 

inappropriate for smaller and more remote airports. 

At no time has Heliops ever attempted, or requested permission, to operate out of 

Norwood Airport as a Part 135 operator. Consequently, Heliops cannot contend that it 

has been unjustly discriminated based upon the purported treatment of Part 135 operators. 

In any event, commercial operators performing Part 135 operations are subject to general 

and specific requirements in the Minimum Standards. (Ex. B at 3-4.) Contrary to 

Heliops' suggestion, commercial operators performing Part 135 activities are actually 

subject to more sfringent physical presence requirements than Heliops, including but not 

limited to a well lit and heated reception room of at least two (200) hundred square feet, 

on or adjacent to Norwood Airport. (Ex. B at 4.) Part 135 commercial operators are also 

subject to more sfringent regulation and oversight by the FAA than Heliops. No 

commercial operator may conduct Part 135 operations without complying with the 

Minimum Standards and General Regulations and, to the extent that Heliops contends 

that such activities are taking place, it has not substantiated its allegations.^'' 

In addition, Heliops attempts to draw a distinction between commercial and noncommercial operators performing Part 91 operations. Such a distinction is implicit in the 

applicability of the Minimum Standards. The Minimum Standards apply to "commercial 

operators", who perform "any commercial activity or service for compensation." (Ex. B 

at 3.) Although the Minimum Standards do not address non-commercial operators, 

Heliops is performing Part 91 operations out of Norwood Airport as a revenue-producing, 

commercial operation. In fact, Heliops' marketing materials confirm the absence of any 

'^ At this time, the only commercial operators performing Part 135 activities out of Norwood Airport are 

Boston Air Charter and Kestrel Aviation, both of whom currently satisfy the Minimum Standards. 

25 
altruistic intent behind its Part 91 activities, insofar as it charges customers for 

sightseeing. (Ex. D.) Therefore, Heliops' contention is unfounded because it is being 

subjected to the same Minimum Standards applicable to its commercial competitors. 

Because Heliops services the general public vis-a-vis a commercial operation, the 

need for adherence to the applicable Minimum Standards and General Regulations is only 

more heightened and significant, particular in the areas of safety, accoimtability, security, 

reliability, reputability, accessibility and trustworthiness, as discussed in Section III.B 

infra. The Airport Commission properly exercised its discretion consistent with AC 

150/5190-7 to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial operators. 

Specifically, non-commercial operators do not have the same type of interaction with, 

and need for protection of, the general public as a commercial operator does. A member 

of the general public needs to be assured that the entity he or she does business with is a 

reputable, experienced and compliant operator, and that the operator can be held 

accountable. 

Given the commercial nature of the activities, it is important for the general public 

to know that they are not dealing with "gypsy" or "shadow" operations that exploit the 

benefits of Norwood Airport without complying with the corresponding obligations, and 

that they are not doing business with a noncompliant entity that simply flies in and out of 

Norwood Airport to do business at its convenience. Thus, the Minimum Standards and 

General Regulations discourage substandard and/or unsafe providers from attempting to 

do business with the general public, a concern magnified by revenue-based motives of 

commercial operators. The Minimum Standards and General Regulations also create a 

level playing field for competing commercial entities. In any event, Heliops is similarly 

26 
situated with other commercial operators performing Part 91 activities out of Norwood 

Airport, who are subject to and have complied with the Minimum Standards. 

B. The Airport Commission's decision to requfre Heliops to comply with the 

Minimum Standards is reasonable and justified. 

"It is reasonable to rely on the interpretation of the airport management in 

defining its own minimum standards." Boca Airport. Inc. v. Boca Raton Airport Auth., 

FAA Docket No. 16-00-10 (Mar. 20, 2003) (Final Decision and Order). The FAA 

advises airport sponsors "to develop minimum standards that are fair and reasonable to 

all on-airport aeronautical service providers and relevant to the aeronautical activity to 

which it is applied." Airborne Flying Serv.. Inc. v. Hot Springs. FAA Docket No. 16-07-

06 (May 2, 2008) (Final Decision and Order); AC 150/5190-7. The Minimum Standards 

at issue in this matter, specifically the office space and hangar/commercial tie-down 

requirements, are fair and reasonable to commercial providers of sightseeing, aerial 

photography, and/or surveying services (i.e. those entities similarly situated to Heliops). 

By maintaining office space on or in prescribed close proximity to Norwood 

Airport, the Airport Commission and its staff can contact, hold accountable, and discuss 

any violations of local, state and federal requfrements, including, inter alia, the General 

Regulations, the Minimum Standards, and the security plan for Norwood Airport 

("Security Plan"), with commercial operators and thefr personnel. Absent the office 

space requirement, commercial operators could use the Airport and evade applicable 

requirements, without any accoimtability. It is reasonable for the Airport Commission to 

expect a commercial operator generating revenue from Norwood Airport to comply with 

all applicable requirements, including the Minimum Standards, General Regulations, and 

the Security Plan. These concems cannot be compromised by Heliops' bald and 

27 
unsubstantiated allegation that maintaining a minimal office space and 

hangar/commercial tie-down is financially impracticable. 

The office space requfrement also discourages businesses conducting transient, 

"shadov^', or "gypsy" commercial operations using Norwood Airport, without complying 

with all applicable requfrements, including the Minimum Standards, General Regulations, 

and the Security Plan. Members of the general public need to be assured and confident 

that the commercial entities they are fransacting business with are safe, trustworthy and 

reputable, have a physical location, meet all applicable requirements, and are experienced 

and properly credentialed. Absent the office space requfrement, a commercial operator 

could fly into Norwood Airport, conduct a business fransaction, and take off without any 

fiirther accountability from the general public or the Airport Commission. 

Entities with a physical presence are invested in Norwood Airport, and will be 

motivated to ensure compliance with all local, state and federal requfrements in order to 

continue the privilege of being able to do business at Norwood Airport. Indeed, the 

March 24, 2009 "after hours" security breach incident involving Heliops could have been 

prevented if Heliops had a business presence at Norwood Airport. 

Significantly, the FAA has determined that office space requfrements are 

reasonable and common industry practice. See Roger Leonard Cardinals' Pilot Shop. 

Inc. V. Chesapeake Airport Auth.. F/ ^ Docket No. 16-01-06 (Oct. 22, 2002) (Dfrector's 

Determination). "The FAA agrees that it is reasonable to expect a company 

representative to be easily accessible to the public." Roger Leonard Cardinals' Pilot 

Shop. Inc. V. Chesapeake Airport Auth.. FAA Docket No. 16-01-06 (Oct. 22, 2002) 

(Director's Determination). In fact. Appendix O (Sample Minimum Standards for 

28 
Commercial Aeronautical Activities) to FAA Order 5190.6B includes a requfrement for 

suitable office space for providers of specialized commercial afr activities such as aerial 

photography, survey, and other operations excluded from Part 135. 

The office space requirement constitutes a reasonable obligation for commercial 

operators similarly situated to maintain a business presence on or in prescribed close 

proximity to Norwood Airport. The Airport Commission does not lease office space. 

However, the Airport Commission does enter into groimd leases, if requested and spacepermitting, through which lessees can make office space available on Norwood Airport 

proper. Commercial operators may obtain suitable office space on or within walking 

distance of Norwood Airport, an area that includes private commercial space and a 

nearby business park. In addition, Heliops is only requfred to have two (200) hundred 

square feet of space, which comprises a relatively small area. Although Heliops suggests 

that this is a financial deterrent, such concems must be viewed against the commercial 

nature of its operations out of Norwood Airport; Heliops offers a "Boston Tour" out of 

Norwood Airport at a cost of $299.00 per person, with a two (2) person minimum. (Ex. 

D.) 

The hangar/commercial tie-down requirements are designed for safety purposes 

and involve the very afrcraft that a commercial operates renders available for public use. 

A hangar/commercial tie-down allows Norwood Airport staff to make sure that the 

afrcraft is visible, safe and reliable. Otherwise, SASOs similarly situated to Heliops 

could be fransporting the general public at their peril. 

Compliance with the Minimum Standards is a prerequisite for Heliops to obtain 

the necessary commercial permit. In turn, a commercial permit relates to the security 

29 
badges requfred by the Security Plan, which was adopted by the Airport Commission 

because of MAC Agency Dfrective MAC AD - 001a ("MAC Security Directive"), issued 

in response to the events of September 11, 2001 .^"^ (Ex. M at 1; see also Ex. N.) 

Specifically, the MAC Security Dfrective sought to "establish minimum airport security 

standards for public-use airports located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts [and] 

provide [ ] guidance to airport sponsors for implementing the security standards 

recommended [t]herein." (Ex. M at 1.) Because it is a public use airport, Norwood 

Airport is subject to certain minimum security standards contained in the MAC Security 

Dfrective. (Id Ex. N.) The MAC directed all public-use airport sponsors in 

Massachusetts to create, implement and periodically update an airport sectirity plan 

incorporating the applicable security standards and guidance contained m the MAC 

Security Dfrective. (Ex. Mat 2, 5.) The Security Plan was the first such plan approved 

by the MAC, which approval occurred in January 2002. (Id.) 

The MAC Security Directive mandates that airport sponsors "take necessary steps 

to prevent unauthorized access of persons and ground vehicles into unauthorized areas on 

airport property." (Id. at 2.) "This includes, among other things, preventing imauthorized 

access into the AOA [Afrcraft Operating Area], moving between areas within the AOA, 

and separating/segregating persons and groimd vehicles from aircraft, fueling facilities, 

and other areas of concern within the AOA." (Id. at 2-3.) 

The M[AC Security Dfrective mandates the use of security identification badges 

for anyone seeking access to the AOA and to manage the movement of persons within 

'" The MAC Security Directive was prompted by the MAC's recognition that "[o]n September 11, 2001, 

the United States of America experienced a series of terrorist attacks that involved the mid-air highjacking 

and subsequent destruction of four commercial passenger jets, their occupants, and nearly 5,000 people on 

the ground. Most horrific of all was the intentional use of the airplanes as weapons." (Ex. M at 1.) 

30 
the AOA. (Id. at 3; Ex. N.) This security badge requfrement applies to all public-use 

airports in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including Norwood Airport. (Ex. M at 

3; Ex. N.) 

The Security Plan, in cormection with the MAC Security Dfrective, specifically 

addresses security identification badge user profiles and eligibility requfrements. A 

person without a proper security identification badge "must be escorted at all times while 

in resfricted areas of the AOA by another person with the proper ID badge." (Ex. M at 

3.) The Security Plan defines an acceptable escort as one in which "visible and 

responsible confrol" is administered by an escorting party holding an active security 

identification badge. There are five (5) security identification badge applicant user 

profiles under the Security Plan. Each of these applicant user profiles is subject to 

specific eligibility requirements. (Id.) 

The annual permit required for commercial operators is connected to the security 

badge requirement. Commercial permit holders, and certain persormel, are eligible for 

security badges. On the other hand, individuals cannot be present in the secured access 

areas of Norwood Airport absent security badges, unless they are escorted by a badge 

holder. 

Of particular concern is that Heliops' activities at Norwood Airport, absent a 

commercial permit and the corresponding security badge, create and exploit a security 

loophole. Heliops customers must be escorted within the secured access area. Because 

Heliops does not have a commercial permit, its personnel are ineligible for a security 

badge and must be escorted as well. Significantly, Mr. Verkaart represented to Mr. 

Maguire that Heliops regularly used the fransient parking apron and FlightLevel's 

31 
passenger terminal for its business, which augments the probability of a security breach at 

Norwood Airport. Heliops' volume of business, and its reliance upon thfrd parties with 

security badges, only heightens security concems and raises the risk of unauthorized 

individuals present in the secured access zone via a security breach, whether it be Heliops 

persormel and/or its clients. 

At no tune has Heliops ever formally applied for a "tihrough-the-fence" 

arrangement and its corresponding arguments should be dismissed as premature. Even if 

Heliops ever made such a formal application, it would be doing so as a means of evading 

compliance with the Minimum Standards and General Regulations, notably the office 

space, hangar/commercial tie-down, and commercial permit requirements. An airport 

sponsor is under no obligation to authorize a "through-the-fence" arrangement. AC 

150/5190-7 at 7. In fact, the FAA has cautioned against "through-the-fence" 

arrangements because they "could undermine an airport's minimum standards . . . ." AC 

150/5190-7 at 7. "Through-the-fence arrangements can place an encumbrance upon the 

airport property and reduce the airport's ability to meet its Federal obligations." AC 

150/5190-7 at 7. 

Clearly, "through-the-fence" arrangements are disfavored. Nevertheless, and in 

light of its concems for the operation of Norwood Airport and the general public, the 

Airport Commission decided to objectively and uniformly apply the Minimum Standards, 

including the office space and hangar/commercial tie-down requirements, to Heliops. 

The Airport Commission cannot compromise the purposes of the Minimum Standards, 

General Regulations, and the Security Plan on account of the alleged financial condition 

of Heliops, a commercial operator. 

32 
C. The FAA should dismiss Heliops' claim of an alleged violation of the socalled dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution as 

exceeding the scope of review in a 14 C.F.R. Part 16 proceeding. 

Heliops alleges that the Norwood Airport and Airport Commission's "policies" 

benefit locally-based operators, burden interstate commerce, and violate the so-called 

dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. However, Heliops' 

argument overlooks the limited nature of review for the FAA in the adminisfrative 

complaint process of 14 C.F.R. Part 16. 

An FAA's 14 C.F.R. Part 16 proceeding is specifically restricted to the following 

matters: 

• "49 U.S.C. 40103(e), prohibiting the grant of exclusive rights for the use 

of any landing area or afr navigation facility on which Federal funds 

have been expended (formerly section 308 of the Federal Aviation Act 

of 1958, as amended)"; 

• "Requirements of tiie Anti-Head Tax Act, 49 U.S.C. 40116"; 

• "The assurances contained in grant-in-aid agreements issued under the 

Federal Airport Act of 1946, 49 U.S.C. 1101 et seq (repealed 1970)"; 

• "The assurances contained in grant-in-aid agreements issued imder the 

Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 

1701 et seq." 

• "The assurances contained in grant-in-aid agreements issued under the 

Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA), as amended, 49 

U.S.C. 47101 et seq., specifically section 511(a), 49 U.S.C. 47107(a) 

and (b)"; 

• "Section 505(d) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as 

amended, 49 U.S.C. 47113"; 

• "Obligations contained in property deeds for property transferred 

pursuant to section 16 of the Federal Airport Act (49 U.S.C. 1115), 

section 23 of the Aiiport and Airway Development Act (49 U.S.C. 

1723), or section 516 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act (49 

U.S.C. 47125"; and 

• "Obligations contained in property deeds for property transferred imder 

the Surplus Property Act (49 U.S.C. 47151-47153)". 

33 
14 C.F.R. 16.1 (2009); Ashton v. Concord. FAA Docket No. 16-00-01 (Oct. 16, 2000) 

(Dfrector's Determination), afTd by. FAA Docket No. 16-00-01 (Apr. 17, 2001) (Final 

Decision and Order). 

Conspicuously absent from the scope of a 14 C.F.R. Part 16 proceeding are 

federal constitutional issues. Indeed, the FAA has routinely declined to address 

constitutional issues in the context of a 14 C.F.R. Part 16 proceeding. Ashton v. 

Concord. FAA Docket No. 16-02-01 (Aug. 22, 2003) (Director's Determination); Ashton 

V. Concord. FAA Docket No. 16-00-01 (Oct. 16, 2000) (Dfrector's Determination), afTd 

by, FAA Docket No. 16-00-01 (Apr. 17, 2001) (Final Decision and Order); Martin v. 

Prescott. FAA Docket No. 16-97-01 (June 23, 1997) (Record of Determination), affd by. 

FAA Docket No. 16-97-01 (Oct. 7, 1997) (Final Decision and Order). Courts, rather than 

the FAA, are the proper forum for constitutional claims because the FAA lacks special 

expertise in such issues. Ashton v. Concord. FAA Docket No. 16-00-01 (Oct. 16, 2000) 

(Dfrector's Determination), affdby, FAA Docket No. 16-00-01 (Apr. 17, 2001) (Final 

Decision and Order); Martin v. Prescott. FAA Docket No. 16-97-01 (June 23,1997) 

(Record of Detemunation), afPd by. FAA Docket No. 16-97-01 (Oct. 7, 1997) (Final 

Decision and Order). 

As the FAA has explained, "[wjhile it is often impossible to entirely separate out 

constitutional issues from related findings on reasonable access, the FAA is not the 

appropriate forum for the adjudication of a violation of a constitutional right, as a discrete 

claim, even if airport access is involved." Ashton v. Concord. FAA Docket No. 16-02-01 

(Aug. 22, 2003) (Director's Determination) (emphasis added). Rather, the FAA should 

address issues involving grant assurance, rather than stand-alone allegations of 

34 
constittitional rights. Ashton v. Concord. FAA Docket No. 16-02-01 (Aug. 22, 2003) 

(Dfrector's Determination). 

By alleging a violation of the so-called dormant Commerce Clause of the United 

States Constitution, Heliops attempts to infroduce the type of constitutional claim that is 

outside the scope of the FAA's jurisdiction under 14 C.F.R. 16.1. Consequently, the 

FAA should decline to entertain Heliops' dormant Commerce Clause claim, given that 

such an issue is more appropriate for a court and not the FAA. 

D. Requiring Heliops to comply with the Minimum Standards and General 

Regulations, including the office space, hangar/commercial tie-down and 

commercial permit requirements, does not violate the so-called dormant 

Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. 

Assuming arguendo that the FAA has jurisdiction under 14 C.F.R. Part 16, 

Heliops' claim of a violation of the so-called dormant Commerce Clause of the United 

States Constitution are unfounded. Pursuant to the Commerce Clause, "the Congress 

shall have Power .. . to regulate Commerce . . . among the several States." Art. I, § 8, cl. 

3. fri turn, the "dormant" aspect of the Commerce Clause amounts to a denial of 

authority to local and state governments to "the power imjustifiably to discriminate 

against or burden the interstate flow of articles of commerce." Or. Waste Sys.. Inc. v. 

Dep't of Envtl. Ouality. 511 U.S. 93, 98 (1994). The dormant Commerce Clause 

effectively proscribes economic protection favoring in-state economic concems through 

burdening out-of-state competition. Nat'l Bus. Aviation Ass'n. Inc. v. Naples Airport 

Auth., 162 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (M.D. Fl. 2001). "The central rationale for tiie mle agafrist 

discrimination is to prohibit state or municipal laws whose object is local economic 

protectionism, laws that would excite those jealousies and retaliatory measures the 

35 
Constitution was designed to prevent." C&A Carbone. Inc. v. Clarkstown. 511 U.S. 383, 

390 (1994). 

However, the dormant Commerce Clause is restricted to actions taken by a state 

or local government as a market regulator. Reeves. Inc. v. Stake. 447 U.S. 429 (1980). If 

a state or local government acts as a market participant, it is not subject to the 

consfrictions of the dormant Commerce Clause. S.-Cent. Timber Dev. V. Wunnicke. 467 

U.S. 82, 93 (1984). Here, the Airport Commission has acted as the proprietor of the 

Norwood Airport by restricting the terms and conditions of use of Norwood Airport by 

commercial operators. See E. Hampton Airport Prop. Owners Ass'n. Inc. v. Town Bd. of 

E. Hampton. 72 F. Supp. 2d 139, 149 (E.D.N. Y. 1999). If the Airport Commission is 

viewed as a market participant, then it is not subject to the dormant Commerce Clause 

and Heliops' corresponding arguments must fail. 

If the Airport Commission is regarded as a market regulator, however, a starting 

point in the analysis is whether its actions "regulate[ ] evenhandedly with only 

'incidental' effects on interstate commerce, or discriminates against interstate 

commerce." Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner. 516 U.S. 325. 330 (1996). "Discrimination" 

refers to "differential freatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that 

benefits the former and burdens the latter." Or. Waste Sys., 511 U.S. at 99. A 

government regulation that facially discriminates against interstate commerce is per se 

invalid, unless it "advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served 

by reasonable nondiscriminatory altematives. Id.; Or. Waste Sys.. Inc. v. Dep't of Envtl. 

Quality. 511 U.S. at 101. By comparison, a government regulation "that impose[s] the 

36 
same burden on both in-state and out-of-state interests ... . usually do not violate the 

Commerce Clause." Nat'l Bus. Aviation Ass'n. 162 F. Supp. 2d at 1348. 

The test for a facially nondiscriminatory regulation is as follows: 

Where the statute regulates even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate 

local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only 

incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such 

commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. 

If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes one of 

degree. And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of 

course depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and on 

whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate 

activities. 

Pike V. Bruce Church, fric. 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970). 

The Minimvun Standards and General Regulations, including the subject office 

space, hangar/commercial tie-down, and commercial permit requfrements, are facially 

nondiscriminatory because they apply with equal force to in-state and out-of-state 

economic interests. For example, an in-state commercial operator similarly situated to 

Heliops, such as an SASO based out of Beverly Airport or Plymouth Airport, is subject to 

the same requfrements for office space, a hangar/commercial tie-down, and commercial 

permit, as out-of-state economic interests. Regardless of where a commercial operator is 

based, the subject Minimum Standards and General Regulations require a physical 

presence at or in the close prescribed vicinity of Norwood Airport in the form of office 

space, a hangar/commercial tie-down, and commercial permit in order to operate out of 

Norwood Airport. 

The Minimum Standards clearly have legitimate local purposes as the Airport 

Commission has adopted and implemented minimum requirements for commercial 

operators doing business out of Norwood Airport, pursuant to and consistent with its 

37 
authority under FAA-issued AC 150/5190-7. Specifically, the Minimum Standards and 

General Regulations at issue in this matter serve the purposes of safety, accountability, 

security, reliability, accessibility, reputability and trustworthiness, as explained in Section 

III.B supra. In the context of a very active general aviation public use airport in close 

proximity to the City of Boston, and the impact upon the general public, these local 

concems are substantial. 

Moreover, the Airport Cormnission has tailored the Minimum Standards to 

include general requfrements applicable to all commercial operators and specific 

requirements dependent upon the type of aeronautical service(s) involved. Notably, the 

office space and hangar/commercial tie-down requirements at issue in the present matter 

are tailored to Heliops' activities as a commercial operator providing sightseeing, aerial 

photography, and/or surveying services. These heightened concems cannot be promoted 

with a lesser impact on interstate activities, without imjustifiably compromising safety, 

accountability, security, reliability, accessibility and trustworthiness concems. Because 

the Minimum Standards and General Regulations are consistent with the Pike balancing 

test, the existence and application of such requirements to Heliops does not violate the 

so-called dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. 

IV, AFFIRMATFV^ DEFENSES 

FIRST AFFIRMATFV^E DEFENSE 

Heliops' Complaint does not establish a reasonable basis for further investigation 

by tiie FAA. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Heliops does not have standing to pursue a Complaint under 14 C.F.R. Part 16 

because it has never submitted a completed commercial permit application to the Airport 

Commission, or provided all information required by the Minimum Standards. 

38 
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Heliops does not have standing to pursue a Complaint under 14 C.F.R. Part 16 

relative to a "through-the-fence" arrangement because it has never made a formal request 

to the Airport Commission for such an arrangement. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The FAA does not have subject matter jurisdiction imder 14 C.F.R. Part 16 for 

Heliops' constitutional claim, which consists of an alleged violation of the so-called 

dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Heliops' Complaint does not contain sufficient evidence to meet Heliops' burden 

of proof to establish that the Respondents have violated Grant Assurance 22. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The Airport Commission's Minimum Standards are reasonable and not unjustly 

discriminatory. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Heliops' allegations of a violation of Grant Assurance 22 fail, as a matter of law, 

to state a violation of federal law or applicable grant assurances upon which relief can be 

granted under 14 C.F.R. Part 16. 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Heliops' Complaint does not contain sufficient evidence to meet Heliops' burden 

of proof to establish that the Airport Commission's reasons for denying a commercial 

permit or waiver are untenable. 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Heliops' Complaint does not contain sufficient evidence to meet Heliops' burden 

of proof to establish that the Airport Commission's policies, including the Minimum 

Standards, violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The FAA lacks authority under 14 C.F.R. Part 16 or otherwise to grant the relief 

sought by Heliops. 

39 
V, CONCLUSION 

The Respondents respectfully request that the FAA dismiss Heliops' 

constitutional claim as exceeding the scope of review under 14 C.F.R. Part 16. In 

addition, the Respondents respectfully request that the FAA determine that the 

application of the Minimum Standards to Heliops does not violate Grant Assurance 22 

{Economic Nondiscrimination), that these Minimum Standards are reasonable and 

justified, and, if jurisdiction exists, that the Minimum Standards do not violate the socalled dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. 

Dated: October/^, 2009 Respectfiilly submitted. 

The Re^ondents, 

By TJleir/Attorneys^ 

Michael C. Lehane, BBO# 292520 

mlehane(a),mhtl. com 

Brandon H. Moss, BBO# 657461 

bmoss@mhtl.com 

Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP 

300 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 410 

Qumcy, MA 02169 

(617)479-5000 

40 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Michael C. Lehane, hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing 

Answer, Partial Motion to Dismiss, and Affirmative Defenses on the following persons at 

the following addresses and via the following methods: 

Via First Class Mail. Postage Prepaid: 

Attorneys for the Complainant, Heliops, LLC 

Kevin C. Cain, Esqufre 

Timothy M. Pomarole, Esquire 

Peabody & Amold LLP 

Federal Reserve Plaza 

600 Atlantic Avenue 

Boston, MA 02210-2261 

Via Overnight Delivery: 

Office of Chief Counsel 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., SW 

Room #925 

Washington, DC 20591 

Date Michael C. Lehane 

520351vl 41 
EXHIBIT A 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FtDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON. DC 

HELIOPS. LLC, 

Complainant, 

v. 

NORWOOD MEMOIUAL AIRPORT and 

NORWOOD AIRPORT COMMISSION, 

Respondents. 

Docket No. 16-09-10 

AFFIDAVIT OF AIRPORT MANAGER RUSS MAGUIRE 

1. Russ Maguire, hereby stale as follows: 

). T am the Manager of the Norwood Memorial Airport. 

2. I have served as Manager of tlie Afrport since 1995, under the direction of the 

Norwood Afrport Commission, which is an agency of the municipal 

government. 

3. 1 have personal knowledge of the facts stated in Sections II and 111 of the 

Respondents' Answer, Motion to Dismiss, and Aftirmative Defenses in the 

above-referenced docket. 

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this J''^ day of October, 2009. 

I £2>2 

Russ Maguire ^ ^ -

Manager of the Norwood Memorial Airport 

5205?7vl 
EXHIBIT B 
NORWOOD MEMORIAL AIRPORT 

Minimum Standards 

In accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5190-7 
Norwood Airport Minimum Standards 

Genera l Policy 

The Norwood Airport Commission (NAC) recognizes its responsibility to the afrporfs 

users as well as to the general public, to conduct and to operate the airport with prudence 

and sound judgment, for the social and economic well being of the Town of Norwood. 

For the airport's commercially permitted business community, our minimum standards 

are intended to promote feir competition by "leveling the playing field." For the general 

public, the enforcement of minimum standards also discourages sub-standard and/or 

unsafe would-be service providers— thereby protecting the interests of our airport 

patrons. 

The NAC may, as needed, solicit for a commercial operator in the event that additional 

operators are needed. 

The NAC requires commercial operators to comply with all appropriate local, state and 

federal laws and regulations regarding the commercial operation in question. 

The NAC requires that each commercial operator maintain with the Commission a 

pennanent file of plans and as-builts regarding the respective operation. 

The Commission may, upon written application, grant an exemption(s) to the application 

of the standards, when an examination of the circumstances supporting the request for an 

exemption indicate that the public interest will be best served by granting such an 

exwnption. 

Definitions 

Minimund standards; The qualifications established by the NAC as the minimum 

requirements to be met for the right to conduct a commercial actlvity~un tlie Nofwood 

Airport. 

Commercial activity: The following activities commonly condiKted on airports arc 

deemed 'commercial' within this definition: charter operations, flight training, aircraft 

rental and lea.sing, sighteeeing, aerial photography, aerial advertismg and survey, air 

carrier operations, aircraft sales, aircraft servicing, aircraft fueling; and any other activity 

deemed by the NAC which, because of its direct relalionsliip to tlie operation of aircraft 

can appropriately be regarded as a commercial activity. 
Commercial operator: Any company/person that offers any commercial activity or 

service for compensation. 

Fixed-base operator; Only those commercial operators that oflfer the full spectrum of 

commercial activities including, but not limited to: transient aircraft parking, passenger 

waiting area, line service, ftjel> air charter, flight, traixiing, aircraft servicing, and other 

.•^rvices normally a.<wjociated with a fiiU-service, fixed-base operator, as determined by 

the NAC. 

Space requirements: All square footage requirements for the various categories of 

commercial operations. Tlie requirements are in cumxilative figures. The space required 

must be owned, leased, or sub-leased to the commercial operator, exclusively, and not 

shared with another commercial operator and/or other companies. The entrance to the 

space must have permanent signage noting the company name and hours of operation. 

Genera l Requirements 

• Company organization. The following documentation is required by NAC, and will 

remain on file: a certificate of incorporation, or a d.b.a. certificate, or other 

verification of the company's organization and tax status in the state of 

Massachusetts. 

• Office/hangar space. The following documentation is required by NAC, and will 

remain on file: a copy of the applicant's lease or certificate of title, for leased or 

owned space located on the airport, or adjacent to the Airport's nortti/south property 

line, along Access Road; also required, if necessary, is a copy of the floor plan. 

• Insurance. The following insurance policy documentation is required by NAC, and 

will remain on file: 1) an insurance certificate in the amount required (as stated, 

below) or greater, listing as additionally insured: the Town of Norwood, the 

Norwood Airport Commission, and the Norwood Airport management; 2) insurance 

for all leased/owned aircraft; and 3) a workmen's compensation policy covering ail 

employees. 

Initial Application — Additiona l Requirements 

Ciirrent financial statement 

Proof of minimum of three month's operating expenses 

Two-year business plan for the proposed operation 

Previous history of payment 

Three credit references 

Tax identification number 

Tax re-sale number 

Copies of any and all pertinent certificates (e.g., FAR Part 135 certificate) and 

licenses, relative to the proposed operation 
Commercia l Activities/Minimum Standard s 

I. Flight Operations, Part 135 Charter 

An operator engaged in chartering flight operations will be required to provide the 

following: 

1. A well lit and heated ollice and reception room area of at least 200 square 

feet, leased, rented or owned. This area is to be located within walking 

distance of the company's aircraft, on, or adjacent to the .Airport, or, on 

Access Road between the north and south airport boundaries. 

2. A telephone listed under the company name and attended during normal 

business hom^. 

3. Premise liability insurance of $1,000,000 combined single limit, bodily 

injury and property dainage; and commercial aircraft liability insurance of 

S 1,000,000 combined single-limit, bodily injury and property damage, 

with SlOOfOOO minimum per passenger; also naming as additionally 

insured the Town of Norwood, the Norwood Airport Commission, and the 

Norwood Airport management. 

4. An ongoing, demonstrated ability to meet the certification requirements of 

the FAA, state and local authorities. 

5. Not less than one licensed airworthy aircraft for Part 135 charter 

operations. 

6. Full-time persormel during normal business hours, seven days a week, 

7. Suitable tie-down or hangar space for all company aircraft, 

S. A formal and documented program that educates all company pilots 

regarding the Airport's noise abatement and safety procedures. 

II. Commuter Air Carrier^Scheduled Air Taxi Service 

Corrunutcr air carriers/scheduled air taxi service operators using the Airport will be 

expected to meet eight requirements (above), pliis the following: 

1. Must show all evidence, as may be necessary, to support the need for such 

service, to include a marketing study, the business community support, a 

plan of proposed operations, scheduling and passenger forecasts, an 
environmental impact assessment for the proposed schedule, and the 

approval of destination airports. 

2. Must show the availability of facilities to accommodate public users in the 

numbers forecast. Said facilities should include automobile parking, 

waiting areas, baggage handling, ticketing, enplaning ^md deplaning 

procedmes. 

3. Must show flight schedulmg, which will be subject to the NAC's approval, 

4. Must show monthly reports or daily manifest copies that show the number 

of enplaning and deplaning passengers at the Airport. 

m . Flight Instruction, Aircraft RenUl, Sales; and Sightseeing Flights 

Flight operations will include aircraft that arc rented, lea.">ed, leased back, or owned. The 

commercial operator will provide the following; 

1. A well lit and heated office and classroom of at lea.st 200 square feet, 

leased or owned, with tfaining equipment such as mock-ups and 

instrument training aids. This area is to be located within walking 

distance of the company aircraft, on, or adjacent to the aiiport, or on 

Access Road between the north and south airport boundary ends. 

2. StJitable commercial tie-down of hangar space for all company aircraft. 

3. For flight instruction, a minimum of two aircraft. 

4. A telephone listed under the company name and attended during normal 

business hours. 

5. An ongoing, demonstrated ability to meet the certificaiion requirements of 

FAA. state and local authorities. 

6. Premise liability insurance of 51,000,000 combined single limit, bodily 

iiuury and property damage; and commercial aircraft liability insurance of 

$l»OOO,000 combined single limit bodily injury and propfrty df>mage_foLall aircraft ovwied, leased, leased back or rented, with $100,000 minimum 

per passenger, also naming the Town of Norwood, Norwood Airport 

Conunission, and the Norwood Airport Management as additionally 

insured. 

7. For flight instruction, a formal and documented program tliat will educate 

all students and instructor pilots regarding the Airport's noise abatement 

and safety procedures. 
Special note: Transient commercial flight operators are not authorized to use the airport 

as a base of operations to pick up students or clients; to advertise and/or use the airport as 

a point of origin or destination without first obtairung firom the NAC a comniercial 

permit. 

TV. Ground Operations, Aircraft Servicing, Avionics Servicing 

A commercial operator engaged in ground operations will provide the following: 

1. A well lit and heated waiting room of at least 200 square feet and hangar 

space of at least 2,000 square feet, leased or owned. This area is to be 

located within walking distance of the aircraft, on, or adjacent to the 

Airport, or, on Access Road between the north eind south ends of the 

Airport boundary, 

2. A listed telq>hone number imder the company name, and attended during 

normal business hours. 

3. Liability insurance of at least $1,000,000 naming the Town of Norwood, 

Norwood Airport Commission, and Norwood Airport management as 

addifionally insured. 

4. At least two full-time, licensed mechanics on duty during normal business 

hours, five days a week. 

5. Minimtun equipment, including, but not limited to: jacks and lifts for both 

high- and low-winged aircraft; and engine testing equipment. 

6. A mlnimimi stock of spore parts peculiar to the typje of aircraft maintained 

at the facility. 

7. Suitable facilities for washing and cleaning aircraft. 

8. A service to remove any non-airworthy aircraft from the Airport within a 

reasonable time. 

9-. A plan, flppTr>v'^d thp. Norwond Fire Department and Airport Manager, for 

the storage and removal of any and all waste aircraft fluids or cleaning 

materials. 

y. Fuel Storage and Dispensing 

An operator engaged in the storage and/or dispensing of fiiel will bo expected to provide: 

1. A heated waiting room for passengers and crew of transient aircraft, 

comprising at least 200 square feet, with access within the building to rest 

rooms and a public telephone. This area is to be located within walking 
distance of aircraft, on, or adjacent to the Airport, or on Access Road 

between the north and south ends of the Airport boundary, 

2. A listed telephone, under the company name, and attended during 

operating hours. 

3. Liability insurance of at least SS,000,000, naming the Town of Norwood. 

Norwood Airport Commission, and Norwood Airport management as 

additionally insured. 

4. Approved storage tanks, located on the Airport, with a minimum capacity 

of 10,000 gallons of Jet A and 10,000 gallons of 100 low lead fuel. 

5. Proper space to service the types of aircraft using the Airport, 

6. Fixed and mobile, metered pumping equipment capable of re-fiieling the 

largest aircraft likely to be fueled at the Airport. 

7. Approved grounding cables and fuel nozzles to eliminate static electricity 

hazards. 

8. Auxiliary equipment including at least one pre-heater, one battery cart, 

one compressed air dispenser, and other equipment that may be required to 

serve aircraft using die Airport. 

9. Fueling services by uniformed persormel seven days a week, at least from 

7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

10. A formal training program, approved by both the Fire Department and the 

Airport Manager, for line personnel engaged in aircraft re-fueling. 

11. A formal and docimiented procedure for the maintenance and inspection 

of the fueling facility and a commitment to keep the fUeling area clean and 

free of snow, debris and hazardous conditions. 

^Vt Unique Scryicca 

An operator engaged in, but not limited to, aerial photography, advertising, surveying, or 

other such services must provide the following: 

1, A well lit and heated office of at least 200 square feet, leased or owned. 

This area is to be located within walking distance of the aircraft, on, or 

adjacent to the Airport, or, on Access Road between the north and south 

ends of the Airport boimdary. 

2. Licenses and/or authorization to do business in the state of Massachusetts. 
3. A listed telephone number tmder the company name and manned dming 

normal business hours. 

4. Premise liability insurance of $1,000,000 combined single limit, bodily 

injury and property damage; and commercial aircraft liability insurance of 

$1,000,000 minimimi per passenger, also naming the Town of Norwood, 

the Norwood Airport Commission, and Norwood Airport Management as 

additionally insured. 

5. A suitable commercial tie-down. 
EXHIBIT C 
i 

(5y:c«^p ^^-^ 

Norwood Memorial Airport 

General Regulations 

(w/o attachments) 

4 1 

Revised: October 2008 
T H E COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

EXECUTIVE OFFIC E OF TRANSPORTATION 

MASSACHUSETTS AERONAUTICS COMMISSION 

DEVAL L. PATRICK 

GOVERNOR 

TIMOTH Y P. MURRA Y 

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 

BERNAR D COHE N 

SECRETARY AND CHAIR 

November 7, 2008 

Russ Maguire, Manager 

Norwood Municipal Airport 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062-0040 

Re: Norwood Airport Commission General Regulations 

Dear Russ: 

MAC has received your revised Airport Regulation and hereby approve them. The 

Airport's previous Regulations were also approved on March 15, 2006. 

The MAC will retain the recent Regulations for our files. 

Sincerely yours, 

Wayne Kerchner 

TEN PARK.PLAZA, ROOM 3190, BOSTON, MA 02116-3969 

TELEPHONE: (617) 973-8181 • TELEFAX: (617) 973-8889 • WWW.MASSAERONAUTICS.ORG 
I 

I* 

I 

I NORWOOD AIRPORT COMMISSION 

I 

I 

I 

NORWOOD MEMORIAL AIRPORT 

I (OWD) 

k# 

GENERAL REGULATIONS 

FOR 

REVISED 

September 10, 2008 

Issued by the 

I 

Norwood Airport Commission 

Norwood, IVIassachusetts 
FORWARD 

The Norwood Airport Commission, acting by"*virtue of the powers granted to it by the 

provisions of Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.), Chapter 90, Section 51J and 

amendments thereto, hereby establishes general regulations for implementation at 

Norwood Memorial Airport, operated by the Norwood Airport Commission. 

These regulations: 

• Seek to ensure that the public receives responsible, safe and adequate service fi-om 

those businesses conducting permitted activities at the Norwood Memorial Airport 

• Seek to ensure that all airport users and commercial operators are treated fairly 

• Seek to ensure that all operations are conducted in conformity with all applicable 

state and federal regulations 

feJ 

The Norwood Airport Commission reserves the right to amend, supplement, revise, 

alter, rescind or add to these regulations either in part, or, in their entirety. If any section, 

sub-section, sentence, clause or phrase of these rules and regulations are for any reason 

held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of law, such decision shall not effect or 

impair any of the remaining provisions. 

The Airport Manager at Norwood Memorial Airport, or his/her assistant, acting under 

the authority of the Norwood Airport Commission, is directed to enforce the regulations 

contained herein. 

Any person(s) penalized for violation of these regulations will be given written 

notification by the Airport Manager and may, within ten (10) days of the notification, 

appeal the penalty in writing to the Norwood Airport Commission. 

These regulations approved this day: Octobe r 21, 2008 

By the NORWOOD AIRPORT COMMISSION: 

, Chairman 

, Vice Chairman 

, Secretary 
DEFINITIONS AJSD ABBREVIATIONS 

t 

When used in these regulations, the following terms shall have the meanings 

indicated below, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: 

Aeronautical Activity - Shall mean any business activity commonly conducted 

at or on the Airport which involves, makes possible or is required for the 

operation of aircraft. These activities include, but are not limited to: 

aircraft management, aircraft charter operations, flight training, aircraft 

renting, sight-seeing, aerial photography, crop dusting, aerial advertising, 

aerial surveying, air carrier operations, aircraft sales and servicing, the sale 

of aviation petroleum products, the repair and maintenance of aircraft, or 

the sale of aircraft parts 

AGL - Shall mean above ground level. 

Aircraft - Shall mean and include any and all contrivances now or hereafter used 

for the navigation of, or flight in, air or space, including, but not limited to 

airplanes, airships, dirigibles, helicopters, gliders, amphibians, and 

seaplanes 

Airport - Shall mean the land and developments owned, controlled, operated and 

maintained under the purview of the Norwood Airport Commission, 

including but not limited to the runways, taxiways, rights-of-way, hangars, 

facilities, control tower grounds, ramps, aprons, parking and storage areas, 

improvements, utilities, or other real property, necessary, convenient or 

desirable for the landing, take-off, accommodation, and servicing of 

aircraft or the general public 

Airport Commission - Shall mean the Norwood Airport Commission, the body 

consisting of not less than three and not more than 11 members, appointed 

by the Norwood Board of Selectmen, serving a three-year term, charged 

with policy-making decisions relative to the Airport's operations and 

development, and otherwise authorized to act pursuant to M.G.L. c. 90. 

Airport Maimgpr - Shall mean the Airport Manager, or his/her designee, under 

hire of and executive officer to the Norwood Airport Commission; 

licensed by the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission and charged with 

the overall, day-to-day conduct of the Airport; and responsible for 

administering polices, procedures and best management practices for the 

safe, secure and efficient operation of the Airport 

AIM - Shall mean the Aeronautical Information Manual, published by the FAA 

and amended from time to time, and containing flight information and 

procedures for aircraft operators 
Aircraft Operating Area (AOA) - Shall mean an area of the Airport used, or 

A designated to be used, for the landing, take-off or surface maneuvering of 

aircraft, including the associated^ilangars and navigational/communication 

facilities 

Airside - Shall mean those operational areas involved in any aircraft movement 

or operation, including but not limited to, runways, taxiways, helicopter 

parking and landing areas, ramps, tie-down areas, hangar areas 

' Applicant - Shall mean any person, corporation, company or entity who, or 

which, applies to the Commission for permission to conduct business on 

I or at the Airport 

Apron or Ramp - Shall mean a defined area within the Airport, intended to 

accommodate aircraft for the purpose of parking, loading or unloading 

passengers or cargo, or for re-fueling, pre-flight checks and/or pre-flight 

warm-up 

ATC - Shall mean air traffic control personnel, whose responsibilities include 

but are not limited to the safety and management of all air traffic within 

the controlled surfaces (movement areas and Class D surface area) of the 

Airport 

l^i-j A Authority - See Airport Commission or Commission 

Commercial Activity - Shall mean any activity conducted at, on, from or in 

conjunction with the Airport by any person, partnership, joint venture, 

corporation, or company or other entity intended to result in revenueproducing and/or monetary gain for the party conducting such activity 

Commission - Shall mean the Norwood Airport Commission 

Control Tower - Shall mean the Airport's air traffic control tower, operating 

under FAA guidelines, whose responsibilities include the safety and 

management"of all traffic within the controlled surfaces of the Airport and 

the Class D surface area 

Emergency Vehicle - Shall mean a vehicle of the Police or Fire Department, or 

any vehicle conveying an Airport official or Airport employee in response 

to an Airport emergency 

Entity - Shall mean a person, firm, corporation or partnership 

Fee - Shall mean a payment, charge or reimbursement to the Airport for access 

privileges, or, the use of the Airport's assets 
12 

II. INTRODUCTION: 

These regulations, which supersede the "^ 1*983 regulations, have been adopted in 

compliance with M.G.L., Chapter 90, Section 51 by the NORWOOD AIRPORT 

COMMISSION, hereinafter referred to as the Commission. 

III. COMMERCIAL AERONAUTICAL OPERATIONS: 

A. No person, firm, corporation or entity (including non-profit organizations) 

shall use the Airport or any portion thereof as an FBO, SASO or otherwise 

for revenue-producing commercial, business or aeronautical activities 

without first obtaining consent and a written permit for such activities 

from the Commission and entering into such written leases and other 

agreements as prescribed by the Commission. 

B. Commercial permit applicants must meet all of the applicable minimum 

standards (see Attachment A: Minimum Standards), or be granted in 

writing from the Commission an exemption to a minimum standard(s). 

C. All FBOs and SASOs are required to obtain an annual permit by July 1^' of 

each year from the Commission. The armual permit fee shall be 

established aimually by a Commission vote. The Commission may waive 

the permit fee for non-profit organizations. 

D. An FBO or SASO is a business entity which performs or conducts any one 

or all of the following activities: 

1. The operation of a flight school, which shall mean any person or 

persons or corporation engaged in giving or offering to give 

instruction in aeronautics, either in the flying of aircraft or in 

ground aviation subjects, or both, for hire or reward; and/or 

employs other persons for such purposes. 

2. The operation of aircraft for hire, which shall mean hire to the 

general public or members or classes thereof, and shall not include 

such operations as are incidental to the carrying on of the general 

business of the aircraft owners engaged in a business other than 

aeronautics. 

3. A person or persons engaged in the business of buying, selling or 

exchanging aircraft. 

4. The demonstration or rental of aircraft, the sale of aircraft parts and 

supplies, including the sale of aircraft ftael and oil, or the servicing 

of aircraft with fiael and oil. 
13 

5. The maintenance and repair of aircraft and appurtenances, except 

persons engaged in mi-nbr maintenance in aircraft owned or 

operated by them, as authorized under FAR Part 43. 

6. Aircraft radio sedes or service. 

7. Aircraft management such as fractional ownership. 

8. The fijmishing of aircraft storage, hangars or fie-downs. 

9. The giving of sightseeing rides; or the performing of aerial 

photography; or aerial advertising; aerial surveying; aerial patrol; 

the operation of air ambulance; or cargo services. 

10. Any other activity that involves, makes possible, or is required to 

involve the operation of aircraft, or the Airport, or which 

contributes to, or is required for the safety of such operation. 

E. The foregoing is not intended to include anyone landing at the Airport for 

the purpose of securing service or making a visit, and shall not include 

those transient users operating under FAR Part 135, Air Taxi. 

IV. FEE AND RENTAL STRUCTURE 

The Commission will maintain a fee and rental structure for facilities and 

services at the Airport designed to make the Airport as financially self-sustaining 

as possible. 

V. GENERAL REOUIREMENTS - COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS 

A. Must be in conformance with current FAA, NTSB, local and 

Massachusetts aeronautical regulations and any other applicable 

requirements. 

B. Must demonstrate financial stability, credit rating and curtency with 

respect to payment of all taxes, fees and other agreed charges. 

C. Must demonstrate, where applicable, an initial investment in buildings, 

equipment, fiimiture, fixtures, tools and other assets pertaining to the 

operation on or at the Airport that meets the approval of the Commission. 

D. Must agree to indemnify and defend the TOWN OF NORWOOD, the 

Commission, and Airport management, backed by liability insurance and 
EXHIBIT D 
Sa\t-<-4 a 111'; v-YI i' :.:• .-•:. • 

i ^ ^ 

» 

^ 8 # 

•'•*,-y''f->.. - 'W W J'.',•' •'•!....>.-.I 9f...- . -T.-j:-.^ • 

^iMi * a|!pS&:.:i.,i 

*i:~* ^ 

^days'a^esk by Reservation 

Base 781-934-7079) Cell 617-571-6117 

Hetipps ©Verizon.net 

Spectacular views 

New quiet & smooth 

Eurocopters 

Fantastic Photo 

opportunities 

Lie 

226 South Meadow Road 

Plymouth Airport, MA 02360 

located jusl beyond gate 1 

www.heliops.us 
V ^^^ S 

Ipepans From: Marshfield or Norwood 

South Shore Tour 25 Min 

MriiriirfiTrkT3ciJP^Iffii^iffif^y^ 

On a clear day you can see the Bpstoh SiQriJne 

and Provincetown at the tip of Cape Cod. 

Enjoy Plymouth Harboraind___ _^^ 

famous MayftowelrTepiicafrom the air/ 

Be sure to bring your camera for the photo 

opportunity of a lifetime. 

$185 per person (2 person minimum) 

Departs From: Plymouth 

Custom Tour Contact us 

Design your own tour and make your flying 

dreams come true. We will work with you to 

make your tour the highlight of your trip! 

Departs From: Your choice 

ALL TOURS: No carry-on bags on tour flights. 

Personal cameras and video cameras allowed 

after cleared through security. 

18 and under must be accompanied by an adult. 

Weight restrictions apply. 

Passengers must have valid photo ID. 

(ie. Passport or Driver License) 

Visa, MC, American Express, Discover, cash, check 
Heliops - Helicopter Tours and Rides for Boston, Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard Nantucke... Page 1 of 2 

I) LLC 

*-[ Surprise Someone With A Gift Certificate ] 

Home Tours Charter 

Photo. Video & 

Survey 

Security 

Boston Tour 35 Minutes 

Once you have settled into the comfortable seats 

you will float up from the ground until you see 

the Boston skyline come into view. You will then 

be smoothly whisked over the "model villages" 

below to Boston with close up views of the city's 

wonderfiil mix of new and historic buildings. 

Glide past the rigging of the USS Constitution, 

over the new Zakim Bridge and up the Charles 

River past Harvard and MIT and over the famous 

Fenway Stadium, home of the Boston Red Sox. 

You will see Boston in a way you will always 

remember. 

Rate 

$299 per person 

(2 person 

minimum) 

Departs From 

Marshfield or 

Norwood 

South Shore Tour 25 Minutes 

The super-quiet Eurocopter will be your magic 

carpet ride for spectacular views along the South 

Shore with its lovely light houses, shore birds, 

fishing boats and sandy beaches. On clear days 

you can see the Boston skyline and Provincetown! 

Enjoy Plymouth harbor and the famous 

Mayflower replica from the air. You will easily 

see why the early settlers chose Plymouth Harbor 

Rate 

$185 per person 

(2 person 

minimum) 

Departs From 

as their ideal landing spot. For something 

different and extra special, this tour is also 

available as a sunset flight. 

Plymouth 

Custom Tour 

Feel free to design your own tour and select the 

sites you want to see. You will have exclusive use 

of the helicopter. We will work with you to make 

this your best tour experience. 

Rate 

$750 per 1/2 

hour with 1/2 

hour minimum 

Departs From 

http://heliops.us/Tours.html 10/9/2009 
EXHIBIT E 
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://byl ISw.bayl 15.mail.live.com/mail/PrintSheIl.aspx?type=mes., 

Print Close 

Incident 9 PM / 24 Mar 2009 

From: Len Carroll (len_carroll@hotmail.com) 

Sent: Wed 3/25/09 11:10 AM 

To: Russ Maguire (rmaguire@ci.norwood.ma.us) 

Hello Russ. Upon opening this morning, the Line guys advised me of an incident on the front ramp at just 

about closing time. From what they told me, a "Rap Group" was filming a production on the ramp with the 

helicopter from Heliops from Plymouth. 

The story gets better.... With this group was a couple guys (rappers) in the parking lot with the motor 

running. It appears that Tasos was concerned about this mysterious 

going on and called the Norwood Police, who did respond. 

They were filming some sort of video production. I cailed Wes at Heliops and informed them that this was 

inappropriate, and this type of situation requires advance approval 

from this office and advisement to your office. I was not my usual cheerful self, and was ver/ aggressive on 

compliance in the future. I haven,t seen the Police Report..., and I hope it doesn't get in the local papers. 

//// Len Carroll FBO - Manager 

Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Find out more. 

Qf] 3/25/2009 11-.08 AN' 
EXHIBIT F 
Norwood Airport Commission 

Regular Business Meeting ' " 

May 13, 2p09 

Present: Airport Commissioners: Marie Ryan, Kevin Shaughnessy, Marty Odstrchel, Thomas Wynne 

Airport Manager: Russ Maguire 

Quorum being present, the meeting was called to order by the Chairman Mark: Ryan at 5:00 PM. 

Recent Commission Appointments 

Mark Ryan and Les LeBlanc were reappointed to the Commission by the Board of Selectmen. Marty Odstrchel was newly appointed 

to the Commission by the Board. Mr. Odstrchel will take over former Commissioner Bryan Corbett's term, which will be over in May 

2010 

Motion made by Mr. Shaughnessy and seconded by Mr. Wynne to have Mr. Ryan to continue his role as Chairman. Voted: 3 in 

favor. (Mr. Ryan abstained) 

Motion made by Mr. Shaughnessy and seconded by Mr. Odstrchel to appoint Mr. Wynne Vice Chairman. Voted: 4-0 in favor. 

Motion made by Mr. Ryan and seconded by Mr. Wynne to appoint Mr. Shaughnessy Commission Clerk. 

Voted: 4-0 in favor. 

Minutes 

Motion made by Mr. Wynne and seconded by Mr. Shaughnessy to accept minutes of the regular session of the April meeting. 

Voted: 4-0 in favor. 

Motion made by Mr. Wynne and seconded by Mr. Shaughnessy to accept minutes of the Executive Session of the April meeting. 

Voted; 4-0 in favor. 

Manager's Report 

Manager will let written record stand barring questions from the Commission. 

The Manager reported no further incidents at the airport involving Mrs. Grassso 

During the month of April, a woman tried to access the airport. She had rocks and bricks trying to break the gate locks. Police were 

called and she broke through security gate - police restrained her and paramedics came in and put her on a back board. She liad 

bent a pin and forced the gate open. 

The woman was sectioned (hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation) so there is question as to whether she can be charged for the 

damage. The police had reportedly been looking for this woman all day. 

Mr. Wynne raised a question concerning the SRE building . The Construction fences have not been taken down yet because there 

Hit^ slill iM'iK li-H'tt itfTT"- ""f-t-Tnfl'nc ipi-lnding fnme minor cracking inside, hill needs reseeding etc. When all the work Is done, 

the construction fences will be taken down. The grass will have to be watered and the Manager will reach Bill Oliver or bary Schore 

from DPW to arrange for this. 

Motion made by Mr. Shaughnessy and seconded by Mr. Odstrchel to accept Manager's Report with the provision that Mr. Morse is 

on the agenda for the next meeting. Voted 4-0 in favor. 

Mr Wes Verkaart 

Heli Ops would like to run a satellite operation out of Norwood Airport. Their base is in Plymouth. It is a sightseeing tour company. 

The applicant has been made aware of the minimum standards for a Commercial Permit. 

The owner has been flying in and out of Norwood for five years. The Company operates out of 12 airports and heliports. They do 

not want a base here. In regard to the provision for an exception being granted, the position of Heli Ops is that they can take 4 

passengers. They can carry much more weight than other copters on this airport. They also have a different price point - it is close 

to $300 for a passenger on a Heli Ops flight. In 2008 approximately 20 operations were run out of Norwood Airport. Heli Ops also 

takes handicapped and older people. There is a hot weather option because the aircraft are equipped with air conditioning. 
In regard to the video portion of the operation, the company also does survey work. They use the over water pop out float. There is 

a lot of part 91 survey work. The kind of things Heli Ops does and the number of operations are not a competitive factor in Mr. 

Verkaart's opinion. . j-, , ,- ^ • i • 

Manager's has concerns including security. In March of this year there was a security violation on the part of Heli Ops involving a 

person being dropped off on a transient ramp and activating the pedestrian crosswalk. Many people without badges ended up on 

the airport and the police were called. 

At this point in the meeting it was noted that Paul Shaughnessy was in possession of a camera and was talking photographs 

during the meeting. He was told by Chairman Ryan that was not allowed Mr. Shaughnessy did put the camera away after 

a brief argument. 

As far as minimum standards, this Commission holds other FBO's to the minimum standards. 

Manager expressed opposition to exceptions to minimum standards. 

Chairman agreed stating the Commission has been very consistent in requiring minimum standards - including other companies 

who do business at other airports - we hold them all to the minimum standards. 

Mr Verkaart's response was that he was applying for a permit for a through the fence operator, but then the Manager took it in 

another direction and talked about a particular incident-the video shoot. He (Mr. Verkaarts) had people come up from New York 

city to shoot video- the ride was long etc. and 2 of the guys were sitting the lot with lights off and engine running . The police were 

called and responded. Officer O'Neil came and did not file a police report . 

Chairman Ryan directed The Manager and Mr. Verkaart deal with that issue involving the video shoot between themselves. The 

issue before this Commission is the Commercial Permit Application. 

The Airport Manager spoke with head of MAC and he did support Norwood's minimum standards. 

Mr. Shaughnessy commented that in his time on this Commission there has been consistency with what is asked for from 

commercial permit applicants 

Mr. Verkaart stated that the NAC minimum standards say exceptions can be granted. 

Mr. Shaughnessy explained again that this Commission does not do that. 

Chairman recommended more fact finding . 

Mr. Verkaart was asked to put together a summary of what the other airports are having him do. 

Manager explained that some of these other airports are one business airports unlike Norwood which is 3 flights schools and 2 

charter operations, etc. Every airport is different and so are the minimum standards. 

Mr. Verkaart thanked the Commissioners for their time. 

New business 

Henry Mansour , .. ». n .s + 

Mr Mansour has aircraft based Norwood that have been here since 1976 - now have twin Cessna based here. Mr. Mansour wants 

to talk about FOD and he brought pictures. There is a fuel farm near his tie down that is gravel and not paved, and different 

-machines spread these stooeyetr arnimd the aiqaort. He has had damage to his plane. On Monday, after six months of 

complaining, some of the stones were picked up. Flight Level has blocked off one side and is educating their drivers on how to a^ ^ 

causing this debris. 

The Manager explained that bulk fuel tankers come in and drop fuel into fuel the farm and sometimes pull the gravel out and onto 

the area Mr Mansour is talking about. When the west apron was paved in 2006, the paving was extended a little closer to the fuel 

farm itself. The airport property is paved. On the 1100 foot strip, where the fuel farm is, is leased by BMA and subleased to Flight 

Level. 

Mr. Mansour would like the area paved to eliminate the problem. ,, , ^ . , . . , 

Peter Eichlay spoke on behalf of Flight Level. There is a fuel delivery about every two weeks. He has told the drivers to be careful, 

but has also told Mr. Mansour that it is cost prohibitive for Flight Level to pave the area. Mr. Eichlay also informed Mr. Mansour 

that when he is planning a flight they will come in and sweep off the area for him. 

Mr. Eichlay agreed to make cleaning up the area after all deliveries standard procedure. 
EXHIBIT G 
Norwood Airport Commission Report 

August 12, 2009 

Present: Chairman Mark Ryan, Vice-Chairman ThomaS Wynne, Clerk Kevin Shaughnessy, Les LeBlanc; 

Airport Manager, Russ Maguire; Assistant Manager, Mark Raymond 

Absent: Martin Odstrchel 

The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. 

Appointments: none 

Minutes from July 8, 2009. Mr. Shaughnessy requested clarification of some items from the minutes of 

the previous meeting. Chairman Ryan clarified the items in question. Chairman addressed the board if 

there were any question from the minutes. Mr. LeBlanc made a motion to accept the minutes; Mr. 

Wynne seconded the motion. The board voted unanimously in fayor of the motion. 

Airport Managers Report: Mr. Maguire submitted the manager's report with highlights from the written 

report. 

Taxiway Crack Seal Project- Bids will open on August 20 which will address taxiway areas. 

Runway Markings Project - Mr. Maguire was able to encumber funding, and this project is to be 

advertised on September 4. 

SRE Phase 1 - Mr. Maguire is still waiting to submit a final close-out payment. Federal and state grant 

monies have been received, and local funding has been budgeted. There is an issue with water leakage 

in the glass panels which is minor. However, this does have to be addressed and wanted to address the 

issue while the building is still under warranty. A sub-contractor, J&R Glass, is scheduled to address 

this issue on August 13. Mr. Wynne questioned if it just needed to be re-sealed. Mr. Maguire stated 

that the general contractor had addressed this before and it was assumed that this issue was fixed; but 

the building is still leaking. Chairman Ryan questioned whether the general contractor had been 

notified of the issue. Mr. Maguire stated they had and were scheduled to be there the next day to 

investigate the problem. 

Mr. Wynne asked about the crack seal coating. Mr. Maguire explained that, per the advertising spec, the 

awarded bid contractor is going to remove the existing material in large cracks and replace with new 

bonding material. He also stated the a runway rndfkiiigs project, long overdue, will be performed this— 

fall as well. Mr. Maguire had been waiting on funding from the state aeronautics commission, since 

Norwood Airport had tentatively been programmed by the state for a crack seal project. State funding 

never materialized. So the airport manager is planning to use encumbered funds to address threshold 

markings, center-line markings and aiming points for Runway 35. The advertisement indicates industryspecific reflective paints to be used on the project, 

The Collings Foundation will be at the airport October 2 - October 5, with the following World War II 

aircraft: a P-51 Mustang, a B-24 Liberator and a B-17 Flying Fortress. Mr. LeBlanc questioned whether 
this event was to be on Norwood Day. Mr. Maguire replied no; Norwood Day is scheduled for 

September 19; and the Airport Department will sponsor trolley tours through the airport.' 

Mr. Maguire is requiring the Collings Foundation to put'the town of Norwood, Norwood Airport 

Commission and Norwood Airport management on its certificate of insurance, and to provide—if 

necessary-additional security at the airport's Gate 1. Chairman Ryan suggested advertising the event 

on NPA-V as well as the town web page, specifically on the scrolling marquee and calendar. Mr. Maguire 

agreed and stated there will be a press kit and press release that will follow. 

The air traffic control tower is still slated for a federally funded security fence project, and this is 

scheduled for the spring. The fence will completely enclose the control tower's base building. All level 1 

towers, such as the one at Norwood, are being required to have security fencing with barbed wire; 

however, Mr. Maguire doesn't believe this will affect the public's ability to utilize the airport park and its 

viewing areas. 

Mr. Wynne questioned the charges in the letter from Mr. Bacari, the attorney for Boston Air Charter 

(BAG). Mr. Maguire responded that when the town started negotiating with SAC on its interest to install 

a fueling facility at the Norwood airport, BAC claimed that it had already invested money in two 12,000-

gallon fuel tanks prior to an agreed upon and executed lease with the Airport Commission. Norwood 

Town Counsel stated that this was not necessarily a good business decision for BAC, to invest in this 

fueling equipment prior to signing a lease. Town Counsel has stated that was BAC's business decision, 

and the airport is not liable. Initially, BAC had approached the Airport Commission for a commercial self 

fueling facility, which the company was expecting to derive revenues from. This facility would be similar 

to an automobile self-fueling station. However, when BAC filed their complaint with the FAA, the 

company emphasized its inability to self-fuel its own aircraft, with tittle or no mention of its original 

proposal to the Airport Commission that it be permitted to install a commercial self-fueling facility. 

Mr. Shaughnessey referenced letter from Attorney Lehane which stated that Town Counsel is still 

waiting for a letter from the BAC attorney, Matthew Watsky, for a summary of proposal which would 

state what BAC's proposed plans are, to include the draft terms of its lease with the Airport Commission. 

Mr. Maguire stated should BAC present a proposal that includes a commercial self-fueling operation as 

opposed to a self-service of its aircraft only, the FAA should be kept informed of this. 

Mr. LeBlanc questioned if there were any rules/regulations on the distance to tie down aircraft from 

fuel. Mr. Maguire Stated doesn't recall wheLher there are any required sel-backs, though there are FAA 

advisory circulars and National Fire Protection Association standards for aviation fueling areas. 

Chairman Ryan questioned if board had any addition questions. Mr. Shaughnessy made a motion to 

accept the managers' report, Mr. LeBlanc seconded the motion. The board voted unanimously in favor 

of the motion. 

Old Business 

Heli-Ops waiver request for FY 2010 commercial permit: 
Mr. Maguire stated he has a certificate of insurance which lists the town and Airport Commission as 

additionally insured. Chairman Ryan questioned whether the letter from Heli-Ops was to request a 

waiver of the airport's minimum standards for a commercial permit. Mr. Maguire stated yes. Mr. 

LeBlanc wanted to know why Heli-Ops has gone through this. Mr Maguire explained that Heli-Ops has 

been marketing the Norwood Airport for some time as a base of operations. The company has also been 

using the airport as a base of operations for its sightseeing business-without the required permit. HeliOps cannot use the Flight Level passenger terminal as a security loophole to channel its customers 

through, and out onto the restricted access aircraft parking aprons-without a commercial permit. 

Several months ago, Heli-Ops got caught doing this during a paid photo shoot, which concluded with the 

Heli-Ops pilot dropping off its customers inside the security fence after hours, when Flight Level line 

service personnel were not there to account for them and give them a proper escort. There then was a 

security concern out in the airport parking lot, involving persons from the Heli-Ops photo shoot. But the 

Heli-Ops pilot was already gone, flying back to the company's physical base of operations at the 

Plymouth Airport. 

Mr, Maguire stated that sightseeing is listed in the Norwood Airport minimum standards as a 

commercial aeronautical activity. 

Mr. Shaughnessy stated there are minimum standard requirements if you want a base such an 

operation at Norwood, and it is not fair to require other similar companies to stick with these standards, 

and then make an exception for one company. He stated that if a company wanted a base of operations 

at the airport, then it should have to have a presence on the airport, with a staffed office and aircraft tie 

downs, Mr. Shaughnessey made a motion to deny the application. Mr. Wynne seconded the motion. 

The board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. 

New Business 

Five-year Capital Improvement Program 

Chairman Ryan presented a spreadsheet for the board to review. He questioned if the board's interest 

was in maintaining the same multi-year capital planning as before. Mr. Maguire stated with 

clarification; the AlP funding is federal funding only, and local funding on the spreadsheet includes both 

state and local funding shares. The board discussed various scheduled improvement/reconstruction 

-projects on r-wtways 

Chairman Ryan questioned if the scheduled meeting was with the Massachusetts Aeronautics 

Commission (MAC) was to discuss this. Mr. Maguire replied yes, the meeting is scheduled for September 

8'\ @ 1:00 p.m. Any member of the Norwood Airport Commission is welcome to attend. Chairman 

Ryan questioned whether the board recommended any adjustments to the spreadsheet, and then 

requested a motion to accept. Mr. Wynne questioned what equipment was to be purchased; Mr. 

Maguire replied a sander and sweeper. The board discussed various percentages of funding for 

proposed projects. Mr. Maguire reminded the board that he has received a letter from the FAA which 
EXHIBIT H 
Norwood Airport Cpmmission 

Regular Business Meeting 

June 10,2009 

Present for the Commission: Mark Ryan, Chairman; Thomas Wynne, Vice Chairman; Les LeBlanc; Kevin 

Shaughnessy 

Russ Maguire, Mark Raymond 

Old Business 

Heli Ops 

The Manager introduced Mr. Wes Verkaart representing Heli Ops. Mr. Verkaart is coming before the 

Commission in regard to a commercial permit, but without meeting some of the minimum standards 

required for a that permit. He does not have office space or a lease. 

Mr. Verkaart's statement was that Heli Ops has no intention of having a base in Norwood. They would 

like to come and do part 91 business in Norwood, as they do at other airports. He had to talk to a 

lawyer about this area of the law as it is complicated. His claim, though, is that Norwood has no 

legitimate reason to get a Commercial Permit from Heli Ops except to collect fees and that Norwood 

has the right to impose regulations but they must be balanced on interstate commerce. Many 

customers are out of state or country, so there is an effect on interstate commerce which is regulated 

within federal law. He continued that the NAC is not acting within their authority in regard to interstate 

commerce. Minimum standards privilege local operators for maintaining business in Norwood, and 

burdens those who only periodically use the airport. The burden on interstate commerce outweighs 

everything else. Mr. Verkaart stated that the Norwood minimum standards forego the requirement for 

part 135, so why not for part 91. 

Mr. Verkaart continued that if a permit is denied because Norwood already has that business on the 

airport, that is unfair. Businesses that have secured the right to use Norwood Airport have no more 

jjghtjo^use that airport than Heli Ops. This is discrimination against Heli Ops. This practice could lead to 

violations, according to Mr. Verkaa^rt, one^t whicn being (jcanl Asburdnce-is^ides—ecoftoffik 

discrimination. He went on to say generating revenue is fine but granting exclusive rights or 

discriminating is not. 

The Airport Manager has spoken with Donna Witty, in charge of grant assurances. Both FAA and MAC 

agree the Airport has the right to impose minimum standards on businesses on the airport. Grant 
assurance # 22, Economic Discrimijnation-, provides that a sponsor may establish reasonable and not 

unjustly discriminatory limits -.... 

Once the airport has established minimum standards, they should apply them to all applicants. If the 

standards are not applied uniformly then there is a risk of economic discrimination. 

The Chairman reiterated, Norwood Airport has established standards and has not wavered from them. 

Mr. Wynne will read the legal opinion that Mr. Verkaart is referring to and also pass it along to Town 

Counsel. Mr. Shaughnessy agrees. 

The Norwood Airport security plan has been approved by the state. The minimum standards are a part 

of the regulations. 

The Chairman explained that NAC is not preventing Heli Ops from being on the airport. Heli Ops is 

asking for a waiver for minimum standards and this Commission does not do that. Mr. Verkaart was 

encouraged to come on to the airport and also to adhere to the minimum standards As far as landing 

fees, that is not going to happen. That is something that occurs at airports that have the staff to count 

the landings and do billing. 

The Manager clarified for the Commission, Mr. Verkaart is not trying to run a commercial operation out 

of Logan, he is trying to run a commercial operation out of Norwood. The advertising states Norwood as 

a base of operations. Mr. Verkaart has gone to both FAA and MAC and those agencies, in turn, have 

contacted the Manager directly and assured him NAC is not in violation. 

Mr. Shaughnessy added that this Commission would not be backing the people who do business on this 

airport if they allowed Heli Ops to come in and do business without a presence on the airport. 

Motion made by Thomas Wynne and seconded by Les LeBlanc to forward to Attorney Lehan the 

documents that were submitted by Mr. Verkaart. Voted: 4-0 in favor. 

Mr. Morse was present to discuss his security badge request. 

The Manager explained that Mr. Morse was a one time badge holder on airport, and he owned an 

aircraft. He has since sold his plane. He has remained as an authorized pilot. Under our security plan 

-t^pfp^wt-a-micahpr nf <;itiiat>nn<; that ;^||ow a person to be a badge holder. In Mr. Morse's case, he no 

longer fits the profile, and per our security plan he can no longer get a badge. He is not barred from the 

airport. He is welcome to come onto the airport, but he must have an escort to do so. Town Counsel 

reviewed the situation. They sent at letter to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Morse also submitted a 

letter to the Board of Selectmen in which he objected to the denial, but Town Counsel is backing the 

Manager's and Commission's decision. 

The Manager also spoke with two similar airports and learned that they also don't issue badges to 

people in similar situation as Mr. Morse. We are required to follow the security plan once it is 

approved it must be implemented. 
EXHIBIT I 
Norwood Airport Commission 

Regular Business Meeting 

July 8, 2009 

In attendance: Mark Ryan, Chairman, Thomas Wynne, Vice Chairman, Commissioners Les LeBlanc, 

Kevin Shaughnessy and Marty Odstrchel 

Minutes 

May and June Meetings 

\ 

Comments/Amendments 

Attorney Lehane's name is misspelled on page 2. 

Motion made by Les LeBlanc and seconded by Thomas Wynne to accept the minutes of the June 

meeting with the amendments discussed. Voted: 4-0 in favor (Marty Odstrchel abstained) 

Motion made by Thomas Wynne and seconded by Marty Odstrchel to accept the minutes of the May 

is'*'meeting. Voted: 4-0 in favor (Les LeBlanc abstained) 

Motion made by Kevin Shaughnessy and seconded by Thomas Wynne to accept the June Executive 

Session Minutes. Voted: 4-0 in favor. (Marty Odstrchel abstained) 

Manager's Report 

A window in the SRE building was damageA^/hen it was struck by the wing of an aircraft. It will need to 

be replaced. The cost is $1,620. The bill will be paid by the owner of the Horizon flight school whose 

plane collided with the building. The price will include removal of the window. 

Motion made byKevin Shaughnessy and second-by Les LeB^af^€-to-dtrect the-Manager-tei3foceed-w4t^^— 

directing Horizon to pay for the window. Voted: 5-0 in favor 

Dubois & King 

Engineer Jeff Adier was present at the meeting to discuss payment arrangements. Per the Town 

Accountant, the remainder of the monies owed will be paid out of a FY 2010 sub account to be 

replenished when the Treasurer borrows that Fiscal Year money. The payment to Dubois and King has 

already been processed. At the Town Accountant's request, the payment was put in memo form to 
create a paper trail, including engineering cost for reconstruction of the runway and the snow removal 

equipment. 

The Chairman thanked the Manager for arranging the ^y over for the July 4'*^ parade. It was impressive. 

Flight Level has communicated with Horizon to ensure that the incident involving the plane coming in 

contact with the SRE building does not happen again. From now on the planes will be taxied in a 

different manner. 

Motion made by Kevin Shaughnessy and seconded by Les LeBlanc to accept the Manager's Report. 

Voted: 5-0 in favor. 

Old Business 

Heli Ops was present at the meeting in regard to the request for a commercial permit. The Commission 

has determined there must be an application before any discussion of waivers can take place. 

The applicant mus^ provide evidence of office space and either a hangar or tie down lease because he 

has to base the aircraft at Norwood and have the operation based here also. 

The Commission must be consistent with how these applications are dealt with and with the 

requirement to meet all the minimum standards, including office space and tie down or hangar. In 

support of this there is a Town Counsel letter stating there should have been a permit application first. 

The Manager has confirmed with MAC that Heli Ops has not been given a permit because the applicant 

is unable to meet the minimum standards. 

Motion made by Kevin Shaughnessy and seconded by Thomas Wynne to direct the Manager to send a 

letter to Heli Ops informing them that in order to qualify for a commercial permit they need to meet 

the minimum standards which include having an office and tie down . If they disagree their application 

should state clearly what waivers they are looking for. Voted: 5-0 in favor. 

Mr Morse has made multiple requests for a security badge. The Commission will support the Airport 

Manager. Although tnis Commsision understands Mr. Morse's situation, to deviate from the standard 

would not be right. 

Motion made by Thomas Wynne and seconded by Marty Odstrchel to deny Mr. Morse's request for a 

security badge on the grounds that he does not meet the security requirements because he is not an 

aircraft owner and he is not an authorized pilot to a based aircraft owner; in order to do that you need 

a letter of authorization. Voted: 5-0 in favor. 

New Business 

Flight Level request to begin lease negotiations - we are not obligated to do this, nac could take it over 

themselves - there does not have to be an rfp - nac can start negotiations if they wish to. 
EXHIBIT J 
; . ', ,-,;• < .f •!, -.* %H J i^'. 1 -^i $ „ 'ij .•• T-,i; ^ ,i ' >,, ,„^ \ \": VI' } i t ^^ 'V J^r. t ? *;,' 

OFFICE ADDRESS 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 

Cornmonu)cah]\ of KUniachusni:. 

Norwood Memorial Airport 

Russ Maguire, A.A.E., ACE, Airport Manager 

MAILING ADDRESS 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 

July 15, 2009 

Heli-Ops Helicopter Toiirs 

Attn: Wes Verkaart, Owner 

226 South Meadow Road 

Plymouth, MA 02360 

Dear Wes: 

At its monthly meeting held on July 8, the Norwood Airport Commission (NAC) voted to 

notify you in writing regarding your commercial permit request. Specifically, to receive a 

permit to conduct commercial operations on the Norwood Airport, Heli-Ops is being 

required by the board to meet the Norwood Airport minimum staindards. These include 

having a Norwood Airport-based office, plus a Norwood Airport-based hangar lease 

and/or aircraft tie-down lease. 

If Heli-Ops cannot meet the minimum standards, and still wishes to apply for a 

commercial permit, the company must state clearly in writing what waiver(s) it is seeking 

fi-om the NAC. 

Sincerely, 

'^2^:1 

Russ Maguire, Manager 

Norwood Memorial Airport 

CC: Norwood A irport Commission 

»-ngn7';S-S(^lfi/Fax:C78n255-5617 / Email: rmaguire@ci.norwood.ma.us / VOICE/TTY - Use Phone Relay 
EXHIBIT K 
Heli LLC 

Norwood Airport Commission & 

Russ Maguire; Airport Manager 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 7/22/09 

Subject: Written Waiver Application 

Heliops LLC has a Base of Operations at Plymouth Airport and conducts both Part 91 and Part 

135 helicopter operations from all over the Commonwealth and also in other states. Heliops has 

both DOT and FAA authority for all such operations. It is unrealistic for Heliops or any other 

commercial operator to have a Base of Operations at every location they do operations from. 

Heliops has no intentions of establishing a Base of Operations at Norwood Memorial Airport and 

we believe it unreasonable and illegal for the NAC to require a commercial operator without a 

Base of Operations at Norwood Memorial Airport to meet the same minimum standards as 

commercial operators based at Norwood in order to conduct commercial Part: 91 flights 

(sightseeing & photography) which originate at Norwood, 

As Norwood has no formal procedure whereby non-based commercial operators may apply for a 

permit or waiver to conduct commercial Part 91 operations from Norwood, 

Heliops LLC herby formally applies for a written waiver from the Norwood Airport 

Commission which will allow Heliops LLC to conduct commercial Part 91 flights which 

originate from Norwood Memorial Airport as a non-based commercial operator. 

Granting of this waiver will bring the NAC into compliance with existing Federal Laws. 

Heliops LLC has listed the Town of Norwood , the Norwood Airport Commission, and 

Norwood Airport Management as also insured on its aircraft liability policy (copy attached). 

While at Norwood, Heliops LLC would operate under all Federal Laws and Safety Guidelines 

applicable to rotorcraft using FAA funded airports. Heliops estimates it would conduct 

approximately 20 commercial Part 91 flight per year from Norwood Memorial Airport. 

For Part 91 commercial operations, Heliops LLC personnel would meet passengers at an FBO 

(Flight Level or other) and escr^rt them to the aircraft. For loading and unloading, the helicopter 

would be parked either at the designated helicopter parking circles or, with prior landing 

permission, the designated airport helipad or FBO ramp area. 

Please respond within 15 days with a written Approval or Denial of this Waiver Application 

(with reasons clearly stated) to: 

Wesley H, Verkaart 

Heliops LLC Base of Operations 

226 South Meadow Road 

Plymouth, MA 02360 

/(j^rh,^^ 

Heliops LLC, 226 South Meadow Road, Plymouth, MA 02360 617-571-6117 heliops@verizon.net 
Apr-21-200J 02:53pi« From-USSlC AVIATION +9724472093 T-1B7 p.002/002 F-060 

Pfiscrjptive Schaaul e 

Name<3 insured: 

Address of lnsure<3: 

Company: 

Potk:v Number 

Effective Data: 

Expiration Date: 

Airoaft Covered: 

AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE 

Pate: , 04/2i/2009 

HELIOPS, LLC 

15 MOUNPS DITCH LANE 

DUXeuRY. MA 02332 

U.S, SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY 

RW0Q144077-05 

04/16/2009 

02/27/2010 

N41SAE; 2000 . EUROCOPTER EC120B 

AIRCRAFT LIABILITY 

COVERAGES 

A-Bodil y InJuiyl-iaWllty 

Exclut^lnfi Pawenaer* 

B - Pas««n8er Bcx^lly Injury 

C - Property Damaa» M«bilJty 

D - Single Umi t Bodil y Injury / Propert y 

Damaaa Liability P8«»«n<iei» 

DL - Single Limi t Bodil y Nm y / 

Propert y Damac^e Umfte d Passenger s 

LIMITS OF UABILITY 

« 

1 

« 

% 

> 

« 

Each Occurrenc e 

Each passenger 

^cl ^ Occvrrenc e 

Each Occurrence 

Each Occurrence 

250,000 Each Passenger 

2,000,000 Each Occurrenc e 

AIRCRAFT PHYSICAL DAMAGE 

F - Al l Risks While Not In Motion 

G - Al l Risks While In Motion 

» 

f 

Les s S 

Les s S 

deductible 

deductible 

Payment for aircraft physical damage under Coverage F or G will t>e made to the Named Insured and: 

(Absence of an entry means 'n o exception') 

This Cenificata Is issued to: 

Additional Insured 

See Policy Condition s For Details 

T(WN OF NORWOOD. NORVWOD AIRPORT COMMISSION 

NORWOOD AIRPORT MANAGEMENT 

566 WASHINGTON STREET 

NORWOOD, MA 02062 

With wnom we agrw , if possible, to notify IflLdays before date of cancellation if policy should be cancelled, but the 

Company snail nof be liable in any way for failure to give such notice 

The atiQvfl cnvaranes aro aubjort to atl-policy terrogT-coffditiQflg-^n^^-oxoJ^w^flg^ 

Approved 

SAU 1012GA(01/91) 
EXHIBIT L 
Norwood Memorial A irport 

Russ Maguire, A.A.E,, ACE, Airport Manager 

OFFICE ADDRESS MAILING ADUKhs,s 

125 ,Access Road 1 25 Access Ro;\^-: 

Norwood, MA 02062 Norwood, MA Li2(Jc>: 

August 13, 2009 

Heli-Ops LLC 

Ann: Wesley H, Verkaart 

226 South Meadow Road 

Plymouth, MA 02360 

Dear Wes: 

At its public meeting August 12, the Norwood Airport Commission (NAC) reviewed your July 

22"'' letter requesting a waiver of the Norwood Airport minimum standards. For a commercial 

sightseeing operator, Heli-Ops was required to meet the following standards, which, as you noted 

in your July 22""* letter, you would not attempt to meet, and were therefore requesting a waiver 

of: 

• A well lit and heated office of at least 200 square feet, leased or owned, within walking 

distance of the company aircraft, on or adjacent to the airport, or on Access Road 

between the north and south airport boundary ends 

• Suitable commercial tie-down or hangar space for all company aircraft 

.After some consideration, the NAC voted to deny your request. Its decision was based primaril) 

on the board's efforts to apply its standards fairly and uniformly. As context; The Norwood 

Airport is presently home base to several commercial permitted sightseeing tour operators, all of 

which meet the minimum standards, the same standards we have required of Heli-Ops, i.e., to 

have a physical presence on the Norwood Airport. 

in closing, for our tenant business community, the minimum standards aim to promote fciucompetition by "leveling the playing field." While for the general public, the enforcement of our 

minimum standards discourages sub-standard and/or unsafe would-be service providers—thereb) 

protecting the interests of Norwood Airport's patrons. 

Sincerely, 

Russ Maguire, Manager 

Norwood Memorial Airport 

CC: Norwood Airport Commission 

Phone:(78i)255-5616 / Fax:(781)255-5617 / Email: rmaguire@ci.nonvood.ma.us / VOICE/TTY - Use Phone Relas 
EXHIBIT M 
^ ^ The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

AERONAUTICS COMMISSION 

AGENCY DIRECTIVE 

Date: 11/14/2001 

TITLE: AIRPORT SECURITY MACAD-OOla 

PURPOSE. The purpose of this DIRECTIVE is to establish minimum airport security standards for public-usfr airports 

located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This DIRECTIVE also provides guidance to airport sponsors for 

implementing the security standards recommended herein. 

APPLICABILITY. This DIRECTIVE applies to all public-use airports located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

However it is not intended to replace or supercede airport security standards required by the FAA under FAR Part 107 or 

airline security standards required bv FAR Part 108. Therefore, any part of this DIRECTIVE found to be inconsistent with, 

or contrary to. the security standards required by the FAA shall be deemed inapplicable. 

CANCELLATION. This DIRECTIVE hereby cancels and replaces the emergency DIRECTIVE, dated October 2, 2001 

titled "Jmplementaiion of Airport Security Measures" that was issued by the Commission under emergency conditions in 

response to the September 11* terrorist attacks. 

BACKGROUND. On September 11, 2001, the United States of America experienced a scries of terrorist attacks that 

involved the mid-air highjacking and subsequent destruction of four commercial passenger jets, their occupants, and nearly 

5,000 people on the ground. Most horrific of all was the intentional use of the airplanes as weapons. 

All four planes involved in the attacks originated from major air carrier airports subject to FAA security regulations. In the 

immediate wake of the terrorist attacks, government regulators and airport professionals alike assessed the vulnerability of 

airport security across the country. Sensitive to the fact that aircraft were used as weapons, the Massachusetts Aeronautics 

Commission issued the initial DIRECTIVE on October 2,2001. 

DEFINITIONS. The following terms used in this document shall be defmed as follows: 

AOA shall mean Aircraft Operating Area -.. . 

Commission shall mean the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission 

DIRECTIVE shall mean this AGENCY DIRECTTVE 

FAA shall mean the Federal Aviation Administration 

FAR shall mean Federal Aviation Regulation 

FBO shall mean Fixed Base Operator 

FDA shall mean the federal Food and Drug Administration 

GA shall mean General Aviation, referring to a type of airport or operational characteristic 

Restricted area shall mean any area designated on the airport security plan as requiring ID card access 

Sponsor shall mean the legal owner and/or operator of a public-use airport 

Tenant shall mean any person or legal entity to receive written permission to establish a leasehold at the airport 

1. AIRPORT CLASSIFICATION 

I he publicMiJje aiipui [j. in MasMachasettsH^ange-in size from-smalLrural GA facilities with only a few based aircraft operating 

under visual flight rule conditions to large commercial service airports accommodating jet aircraft operatmg in all-weattier 

flight conditions. It is generally accepted that small airports which can only accommodate single-engine aircraft pose much 

less of a security risk than large airports offering scheduled airline passenger service using jet aircraft. Recognizing the 

difficulty of developing one standard to suit all airports, the following airport categories arc defined to accommodate the 

varied level of (security) risk posed by each facility. 

Class 1 - Airports with scheduled airline passenger service 

Class 2 — Municipally owned airports without scheduled airline passenger service 

Class 3 — Privately owned airports 

The above-noted airport classifications will be referenced throughout this DIRECTIVE, and minimum security standards will 

be developed, and shall be enforced, for each classification. 

MACAEt-OOla A irport Security Page 1 of £ 
2. SECURITY STANDARDS 

Regardless of the size or operational characteristics of a particular facility, the Commission hereby directs that all public-use 

airport sponsors in Massachusetts adopt reasonable security standards to (a) monitor and protect airport users and airport 

property including buildings, facilities and equipment, (b) control the movement of persons and ground vehicles on airport 

property, especially in the AOA. (c) prevent unauthorized access of persons and ground vehicles into unauthorized areas on 

airport property, especially into the AOA, (d) detect and prevent unauthorized deadly or dangerous weapons or devices from 

being transferred into the AOA or onto aircraft, and (e) prevent the theft and subsequent illegal operation of aircraft. 

The following guidance applies to Class 1,2 and 3 Airports except as noted below: 

a. Monitoring & Protecting Airport Users and Property. Airport sponsors shall take reasonable measures to 

monitor and protect airport users, visitors and guests, and airport property including buildings, facilities and 

equipment. Depending on the class of airport, reasonable measures may include the following: 

i) Installation of security fencbg to protect against inadvertent or unauthorized access to the AOA. 

ii) Closing vehicular and pedestrian gates leading into the AOA and locking them when not in use. 

iii) Installing access control devices on gates to manage and control the movement of people into the AOA. 

iv) Periodically changing access codes and locks to vehicular and pedestrian gates leading into the AOA. 

v) Installing locks on fuel cabinets, fill hatches and pumps, and power shutoff switches on fueling facilities. 

vi) Installing locks on airfield electrical vaults and other electrical systems, including (non-FAA) NAVAIDS, 

vii) Installing barriers to protect fueling facilities, HazMat storage areas and other areas of concern. 

viii)Installing sufGcient outside lighting fixtures to illuminate buildings, walkways, aircraft ramps and aprons. 

ix) Monitoring airport property by performing regular inspections, and by means of video s urvcillancc if warranted. 

x) Requesting periodic inspections / patrols of the airport by local law enforcement ofiiccrs. 

xi) If warranted, employment of local law enforcement officers on a regular or part time basis. 

xii) Developing an airport security plan and updating the plan periodically. 

xiii)Requiring tenants to develop their own security plan and to comply with the sponsor's airport security plan. 

EXCEPTIONS: None. 

b. Controlling Movement on the Airport. Airport sponsors shall take reasonable steps to control the movement of 

persons, aircraft and ground vehicles on airport property by instsilling airport user signs, aircraft guidance signs, 

airfield lights and markers, and pavement markings, as appropriate. Airport sponsors sheill: -• 

i) Manage and operate their airport facility in a safe and efficient marmer pursuant to all laws, rules, regulations, 

directives, orders and advisories of applicable federal, state and local authorities. To this end, sponsors are 

expected to utilize an adequate number of people to control and direct the movement of people, aircraft and 

ground vehicles on aiiport property including airside and landside. This may be accomplished by any 

combination of qualified airport staff, lease or contract employees, or volunteer staff. 

ii) Install signs to direct the movement of people and inform patrons of pertinent information regarding the safe 

and efScient use and operation of the facility. This may include, but is not limited to, parking and directional 

signs, informational signs, do-not-enter signs, warning signs, etc. Whatever the sign type, it should 

corrmiunicate the proper message to the appropriate party at the right time and place. 

iii) Install airfield guidance signs and airfield lights and markers, as appropriate, to direct and control the movement 

of aircraft and ground vehicles within the AOA. The installation and operation of airfield guidance signs and 

airfield lights and markers should be accomplished pursuant to applicable FAA standards. 

rv) Install pavement markings to direct and control the movement of aircraft and ground vehicles on airport 

property. The installation of pavement markings in the AOA and elsewhere on the airfield should be 

accomplished pursuant to applicable FAA standards. Pavement markings used to-control-ground vehicles thatoperate on airport property but off the airfield should meet applicable'Highway DepL standards. 

EXCEPTIONS: As noted below. 

' iii) Aircraft guidance signs and airfield lights/markers should be installed at Class 3 Airports as fimding permits. 

Aircraft guidance signs and airfield lights/markers are not required for Class 3 Airports that possess a MAC 

issued Airport Operating Certificate with the following limitation(s): Day VFR Only. 

c. Preventing Unanthorized Access. Airport sponsors shall take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized access of 

persons and ground vehicles into unauthorized areas on airport property. This includes, among other things, 

preventing unauthorized access into the AOA, moving between areas within the AOA, and separating /'segregating 

MACAIXOOU Airport Security PaEeToFe" 
persons and ground vehicles from aircraft, fueling fecilities, and other areas of concern within the AOA. Airport 

sponsors shall: 

i) Install security fencing, and access gates where appropriate, to enclose the AOA and to protect other sensitive 

areas on airport property including all fiiei &rms and HazMat storage areas. Whenever possible, die sponsor 

should enclose fiiel &rms with sufficient fencing to include parking spaces for all fuel trucks. Until such time 

as the entire AOA is enclosed, priority should be given to areas where easy public access to the AOA is of most 

concern, sparming open areas with fence and using terrain, existing vegetative cover and enviroimiental 

conditions as natural barriers. Fencing specifications should meet the following standard: eight foot chain-linkfence, black vinyl-coated, with one foot of barbed wire on top, installed per manufacturer's recommendations. 

Barbed wire is not reconmiended for fencing located in the immediate vicinity of the aiiport terminal building. 

The location and height of fencing should not violate applicable airspace standards or negate airport master plan 

improvements. Security fencing should receive high priority in an airport's Capital Improvement Plan. 

ii) Discourage uimecessary pedestrian and vehicular access to, and movement within, the AOA. For example, 

aircraft owners should park their cars outside the AOA and walk to their planes. 

iii) Restrict pedestrian and vehicular access into the AOA to as fisw locations as possible, balancing the need for 

access by emergency, safety and maintenance personnel inside and outside the AOA. 

iv) Install access control devices (e.g. card readers, mechanical pin latch mechanisms, etc.) on fence gates leading 

into the AOA, where appropriate. 

v) Install video surveillance & detection equipment. The Commission recommends installing video cameras to 

monitor access gates leading into the AOA, where appropriate. Class 1 airports should also consider installing 

video cameras to monitor areas in the terminal building, where appropriate. 

vi) Install heavy-duty barriers to protect fuel farm areas and other areas of special concern fl'ora inadvertent or 

deliberate damage by ground vehicles or aircraft Concrete bollards are the preferred method for protecting 

above ground fueling facilities. Any combination of jersey barriers, concrete blocks, large boulders, telephone 

poles and heavy duty chains may also suffice for protecting or blocking access to other areas of concern. 

vii) Require the use of identification (ID) badges for allowing access to anyone wishing to enter the AOA and for 

controlling the movement of persons within the AOA, Sponsors shall also implement procedures for 

challenging persons who are not displaying the proper identification. Any person authorized to enter the AOA 

or move within the AOA shall display a standard ID badge with sufficient information to clearly identify the 

individual and ascertain the level of security authorization. Anyone without the proper identification must be 

escorted at all times while in restricted areas of the AOA by another person with the proper ID badge. 

Applications for ID badges should be submitted to the-Commission by December 31, 2001. With approval 

from the Commission, sponsors may develop their own distinct ID badge format. Upon request, the 

Commission will supply each airport sponsor with a sufticient number of ID badges for use at their facility, at 

no cost to the sponsor. 

EXCEPTIONS: As noted below. 

i) Other types of fencing may be substituted for standard security fencing recommended by the Commission. 

Examples of this include the use of wooden or plastic fencing within the critical area of a NAVAID facility, or 

the use of wildlife fencing required by environmental regulators to allow for the migration of small mammals. 

Class 3 airports arc exempt from the standard specification for eight-foot chain-link-fence with barbed wire due 

to the length of the runway, size of the aircraft and type of operation at these facilities. Instead, the Commission 

recommends that Class 3 airports install four foot fencing, either:, black vinyl-coaled chainrlink-fenoe, wooden 

fencing (post & rail, split rail, etc.) or some other type of low-profile fencing that is functional (i.e. prevents 

unaathoriaed-vehiculaiLaccess into die AOA) but not too obtrusive. 

rv) Class 3 airports are exempt from this requirement. Class 2 airports should comply as fimding permits. 

v) Class 2 and 3 airports are exempt from this requirement, however Class 2 airports are encouraged to comply. 

vii) Operators of transient aircraft and their guests are not expected, and thus not required, to possess the standard 

[D badge. Nevertheless, the requirement for escorting unidentified individuals while in the AOA still applies. 

Notwithstanding the requirement to possess and display the proper ID Badge to enter and move about within the 

AOAi the sponsor may authorize unescorted access to the following individuals: an employee of federal and 

state government agencies including the FAA and the Commission who, by job function, are required to work 

inside the AOA. 

MACAIXOOIa Airport Security Page 3 of < 
d. Detecting and Preventing Weapons into the ADA. The FAA imposes federal screening requirements on certain 

airlines under FAR Part 108 titled "Airplane Operator Security". More specifically, FAR Part 108 applies to the 

operations of holders of FAA air carrier operating certificates or operating certificates engaging in scheduled 

passenger operations or public charter passenger operations. Notwithstanding FAA security requirements on 

airports under FAR Part 107 or airlines under FAR Part 108, the Commission recommends that Class 1 airports take 

reasonable measures to detect and prevent the transfer of unauthorized deadly or dangerous weapons' or devices into 

the AOA or onto aircraft carrying ticketed passengers for all regularly scheduled airline flights. Accordingly, the 

Commission recommends that Class 1 airports voluntarily screen all passengers, all checked baggage and all carryon baggage for every person intending to board a regularly scheduled airline flight. 

In lieu of any federal screening requirements for Class 1 Airports that are not subject to FAR Part 107, 

the Commission offers the following guidance for consideration: 

i) Electronic metal detection equipment and cabinet-X-ray machines should be installed for detecting unauthorized 

guns, knives £ind other deadly or dangerous weapons being carried by any person prior to entering the AOA in 

advance of boarding a departing aircraft of a regularly scheduled airline flight. Only equipment approved by 

the FDA for this intended use should be installed. The sponsor should assure that such equipment meets or 

exceeds the current standards for installation, operation and performance established by the FDA. The 

equipment should be subject to regular testing in order to maintain operational and performance standards set by 

the FDA. All records of installation and testing should be made available for inspection by the Commission, the 

FAA and the FDA. 

ii) The sponsor should develop a program for initial and recurrent training of staff responsible for the safe, efficient 

and proper use and operation of the screening equipment. 

iii) Appropriate signage should be conspicuously located to notify the general public of screening operations. 

ry) A local law enforcement ofQcer should be stationed at all screening check points to monitor and assist airport 

security personnel during the so-eening process. 

v) All baggage, whether carried on board by crewmembers or passengers or destined for storage as cargo, should 

be screened by electronic means for detecting unauthorized guns, knives and other deadly or dangerous 

weapons prior to entering sterile passenger holding areas or the AOA. 

vi) All crewmembers and passengers of a departing (scheduled airline) aircraft should be subject to metal detection 

screening, questioning, and to bodily search if necessary, for reasonable cause or suspicion of attempting to 

transfer an unauthorized deadly or dangerous weapon into the AOA or onto the aircraft. 

vii) All unauthorized guns, knives and other deadly or dangerous weapons found on a person or in baggage should 

be confiscated by the local law enforcement officer stationed at the screening checkpoint. Airport security 

personnel shall complete a detailed log of information about the confiscation including the location, date and 

time of the event, the person's name, address and phone number, and a detailed description of the confiscated 

weapon. A copy of the event log shall be supplied to any of the following representatives upon written request: 

the Commission, the FAA or any federal, state or local law enforcement official. 

viii) Any person refusing to consent to the sponsor's screening program should be refused permission to enter the 

AOA and to board any departing aircraft. If such an event occurs, airport security personnel should complete a 

detailed log of the event. If warranted, local police should be called for assistance. 

ix) Boarding procedures should be established for segregating screened passengers from those who have not been 

screened so as to keep screened passengers isolated in a sterile environment while waiting to board, and during 

boarding, a departing aircraft. 

x) Airport sponsors should implement other security screening procedures and systems that they believe are 

necessary for detecting unauthorized deadly or dangerous weapons being carried by any person prior to entering 

the AOA through airline passenger screening check points in advance of boarding a departing aircraft. 

EXCEPTIONS: As noted below. 

i-x) Class 2 and 3 airports are exempt (by definition) from this requirement. 

vii) Law enforcement officers, government officials and other individuals possessing legal authorization to carry 

guns or other weapons are exempt from confiscation but shall notity airport security personnel in advance of 

passing through screening procedures. 

e. Preven ting Theft and Illegal Operation of Aircra ft. Airport sponsors shall require that all based aircraft owners 

take reasonable measures of preventing the theft and illegal operation of their aircraft. Consider the following: 

i) Aircraft owners should install einti-theft devices on their aircraft when not in use. 

ii) Aircraft owners should install devices to lock aircraft flight control surfaces when not in use: 

iii) Aircraft owners should remove the keys to their aircraft, if applicable, and lock all doors when not in use. 

MACAD-OOla Airport Security Pagc<lor6 
rv) Aircraft owners should consider lockable devices to secure their aircraft. 

v) Doors on aircraft storage hangars should be kept locked at all times when not in use. 

vi) Aircraft owners and pilots should report suspicious activity to airport management or other authorities. 

vii) Airport sponsors and tenants should install sufficient lighting equipment to illuminate aircraft ramps and aprons. 

EXCEPTIONS: None. 

3. AIRPORT SECURITY PLANS 

The Commission hereby directs that all public-use airport sponsors in Massachusetts create an Airport Security Flan 

incorporating the applicable security standards noted in Section 2 above. However, creating and implementing such a 

plan will take a team effort^ requiring a lot of coordination and cooperation of local, state and federal authorities as well 

as private end users. Therefore the Commission also directs that sponsors assemble an Airport Security Team to advise 

the sponsor in developing its Airport Security Plan. 

a. Airport Security Team. Sponsors shall assemble an Airport Security Team (AST). The AST should be made up 

of representatives from the airport, airport tenants and users including based aircraft owners, local public safety 

officials (police, fire, etc.), local emergency management personnel, and representation of other appropriate parties. 

The purpose of the AST is to advise the sponsor regarding issues to consider in planning for security improvements. 

Good communication and cooperation between all parties is essentia] for balancing the desire for public access and 

utility against the need for public safety and security. The AST shall: 

i) List and clearly define the different types of airport users. The list may include airlines, FBOs, maintenance 

facilities, fueling operators, flight schools, based aircraft owners, restaurants, etc. Based aircraft owners can be 

considered as a user group, 

ii) Document the hours of operation for each user listed above. Aircraft owners can be considered as one group, 

iii) Discuss the access requirements for each specific user, with particular emphasis on those that require access to 

the AOA. Access to the AOA by employees, visitors and guests, and mail & package delivety requirements 

should be discussed in detail, 

rv) Discuss the security requirements for each user. Aircraft owners can be considered as a group, 

v) Discuss emergency response issues, 

vi) Advise the sponsor on all security requirements recommended for inclusion on the Airport Security Plan. 

b. Airport Security Plan. Based on input from the Airport Security Team, Sponsors shall create an Airport Security 

Plan that incorporates the applicable security standards and guidance provided in this DIRECTTVE. This requirement 

is not intended to replace any such requirement promulgated by the FAA or other federal authority. In fact, FAA 

. mandated security plans may be substituted for this state requirement, however these airports are still encouraged to 

create an Airport Security Team to advise airport management on airport security issues. 

The airport sponsor shall develop a written Airport Security Plan pursuant to the following guidance: 

i) Reference the list of airport users developed by the AST. Review it for accuracy, update as necessary, and 

incorporate the list into the plan. The list should include every based aircraft owner. Briefly describe the type 

of operation for each user. Special consideration should be given to agricultural spraying operations, aerial 

demonstrations, blimp operations, banner towers and site-seeing operations. 

ii) Document the normal hours of operation for each user listed above. 

iii) Document the location and access requirements for each specific user, with particular emphasis on those that 

require access to the AOA. Incorporating a scaled airport map may be helpfiil. Aircraft owners can be located 

by apron or hangar in lieu of showing each one individually. 

iv) Document the security requirements for each user. Aircraft own^is-carrbe considered~afa^crapr 

v) Document the likely AOA access points for each user. 

vi) Incorjjorate the security standards and applicable guidance from Section 2. 

vii) Incorporate procedures for reporting suspicious activity from Section 4. 

viii)Incorporate emergency response considerations recommended by the AST and from Section 5. 

ix) Periodically review the plan, consulting with the AST, and update as necessary. 

Given the sensitive nature of this issue, the Commission advises against distribution, disclosure and availability of 

any sensitive information that could compromise airport security. The sponsor should consider seeking legal advice 

regarding applicable public disclosure laws. 

MACAD-OOla Airport Security PagcSof6 
4. REPORTING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY 

Airport sponsors shall implement procedures for reporting unusual or suspicious activity to the proper authorities: 

a. Develop a list of unusual or suspicious activity that warrants particular attention, such as: 

i) Aircraft with unusual or unauthorized modifications. 

ii) Persons loitering for extended periods of time in the vicinity of parked siircraft or elsewhere ui the AOA. 

iii) Pilots who appear to be under the control of other persons. 

iv) Persons wishing to obtain aircraft without presenting proper credentials or persons who present apparenfly valid 

credentials but do not have a corresponding level of aviation knowledge, 

v) Witnessing deadly or dangerous weapons or explosives being loaded onto an aircraft, 

vi) Anything that doesn't look right such as events or circumstances that does not fit the pattern of normal lawful 

activity at the airport 

b. Include the follovWng 24 hour phone numbers on their contact list: 

i) Airport Manager (<W#) ###-#### 

ii) Local Police Department (if#lf) ifftit lllllitt 

iii) Massachusetts State Police Headquarters (508)820-2121 

rv) Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (508)301-2118 

v) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Boston Field Office (617) 742-5533 

vi) FAA. Regional Command Center (781)238-7001 

c. Develop a process to facilitate determining whom to call. 

d. Add any other appropriate contact numbers to the list. 

e. Circulate these reporting procedures to all tenants and others who have a regular presence on the airport 

f. Encoxuage all tenants and based aircraft owners to comply with the sponsor's reporting procedures. 

5. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES 

Airport sponsors shall develop and implement emergency procedures to respond to regional disasters, acts of terrorism, 

and other situations deemed to be an emergency by state or federal authorities. Airport sponsors shall: 

a. Develop a list of reasonably potential emergency situations that could involve the airport either directly or indirectly. 

b. Address ways to adequately respond to each emergency situation noted above, including the development of a 

"communication tree" for prioritizing the proper authorities to contact in emergency situations. 

c. Designate a primary (airport) respondent and two alternates to respond to emergency situations at the airport. 

d. Maintain a list of contact data for all designated respondents and other potential persons likely to be involved in 

emergency situations including their names, various phone numbers (home, work, cell, pager, etc.), fax numbers and 

email addresses. 

e. Share the information noted above with the Commission, FAA, MEMA (Massachusetts Emergency Management 

Agency), and other local, State and"federal authorities"aBTieces5ary. 

f. Periodically review the procedures noted above and update as necessary. 

6. STATE FUNDING OF AIRPORT SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS 

The Commission considers airport security to be a high priority objective. Eligibility for state funding assistance will be 

subject to an approved Airport Security Plan consistent with the guidance contained herein. 

Executive Director, Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission 

MACADWl a Airport Security Page 6 of 6 
EXHIBIT N 
^ ^ ine L^ommonweaun uj iviuaciUi^fLuo^i^io 

Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission 

10 Park Plaza, Room 6620 

Boston, Massachusetts 02116-3966 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Massachusetts' Public-Use Airport Managers & Airport Commission Chairs 

From: Robert J. Mallard, P.E., MAC Executive Director OjA ^ 

Re: New MAC Airport Security Directive 

Date: November 16, 2001 

At the November 14, 2001 Commission Meeting the MAC approved a new Airport Security Directive. Attached is a copy 

of this new Directive. It is also available on MAC's web site at the following address: www.massaeronautics.org. Go to 

File Transfers - Download MAC Files, and choose the file labeled MAC AD-001a.pdf. 

This new Directive is intended to cancel and replace the one issued by the MAC on October 2, 2001. It was initiated after 

receiving comment from ijiany of you at the special Airport Security meeting conducted by the MAC on October 10, 

2001. As promised by me during that meeting, I met with the Massachusetts Airport Managers Assobiation (MAMA) and 

several other representatives including AOPA to develop this new document. 

Please read the document carefully. One of the biggest changes from the old one is that airports have been classified into 

one of three categories. Depending on the class of airport, you will see that some security measures are mandatory, while 

others are only recommended, and some others may not be required at all. 

One item required for all airports is the use of ID badges for anyone based at the airport that is authorized to enter the 

Aircraft Operating Area (AOA). Please note that the MAC will provide each airport with ID badges, if needed, at no cosi 

to the airport. The MAC staff is currently worldngwitlj tbe.MAMA,^ develop a standard ED badge 

format. Once completed, the MAC will cont^(jt}eSeh-.'airpbrt and begin the "badging" process. In the meantime you will 

receive, under separate coyer, an application for requesting the MAC to develop ID Badges for your airport. The 

application will require you, to attach a list of based aircraft owners. As you know, this list is already required by MAC 

regulations [702 CMR 5.04:(3)(f)]. Please be ready to submit an updated copy of this based aircraft list with your 

application. The deadline for submitting the application is December 31, 2001. 

If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (617) 973-8881.