SOAR MINDEN, INC. & MINDEN AVIATIC 'N,I]fg, 

^''MiM 9 2010 

RT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

tAW, AGC-600 

November 22,2010 

The Office of Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket AGC'610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

CERTIFIED Mail, To FAA 7009 3410 0000 5886 4245 

RE: Part 16, Title 14 Complaint 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

This letter is sent as a Complaint against the Douglas County Manager, T. Michael 

Brown, manager of Doi:^as County, the sponsoring organization for the Douglas County 

Airport. It is sent/filed using Certified MaU # 7009 3410 0000 5886 4252 to P.O. Box 218 

Minden, Nevada 89423, telephone 775 782 9821, facsimile number 775 782 6255. It is submitted 

pursuant to Part 16, Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This Complaint is broi^t by 

myself, individually, and through two Nevada corporations vWch I own in their entirety. Soar 

Minden, Inc., and Minden Aviation, Inc. Pursuant to your direction, I have enclosed with this 

original docimient three additional copies. All future communication can be directed back to me 

at the address above. 

I allege, and I believe the enclosed docimients prove, that the Douglas County Airport 

used miniminn standards to protect an exclusive right to Hvitt Aviation to function as a Full 

Service Fixed Base Operator (FSFBO). 

FAA General Order 5190.6B, at Chapter 10, addresses reasonable commercial minimum 

standards. Section 10.2(c) states that the minimum standards must be "reasonable, not unjustiy 

discriminatory, attainable, uniformly applied and reasonably protect providers of aeronautical 

services fix)m unreasonable competition," Section 10.3 provides: 

103. Use of Minimum Standards to Protect an Exclasive Right. 

When the sponsor implements minimum standards for the apparent 

purpose of protecting an exclusive right, the FAA will find the 

sponsor in violation of the exclusive rights prohibition. Evidence 

of intent to grant an exclusive right might be, for example, the 

adoption of a standard that only one particular operator can 

reasonably or practically meet 
Douglas County adopted new minimum standards on October 7,2010. Prior to 

the adoption of the standards, myself and Hutt Aviation were both FSFBO at the Airport. 

Following the adoption of the new standards, there is no way that any other entity, otiier 

than Hutt Aviation, can provide fiieling services as a FSFBO at the Airport I am 

convinced that what Douglas County has done is in violation of your regulations and it 

has put in place a situation vdiere I will be shut out as an FSFBO, or even a purveyor of 

fuel under other standards, and in so doing has created a situation v/besK there will be 

only one possible provider of fuel at the AirporL 

In consonance with FAA General Order 5190.6B at paragraph 1621 (a) and (b) I 

offer the following: 

a. Both the parties associated with this case agreed that the mediation 

session scheduled for October 13,2010 (attachment 54) with a district 

court judge, not in Douglas County was an acceptable, informal manner 

in which to engage a good ^t h effort to resolve disputed matters. 

h. Although I am not a lawyer I must write, the paragraph referenced, 

:l6.21(a) says the "These efforts at informal resolution may include, 

^^^^ w 

limitation*' would seem to allow other reasonable methods toward 

iesolution. Surely written letters, emails, telephone calls and meetings 

fall in the area of "efforts of informal resolution". 

c. Additionally, throughout the course of this dispute I have proposed 

many solutions to this problem. Please see attachments 6,11,15,24,29, 

31 please see page 5, "The Solution", 32,34,35,38 please see page 4, 

paragraph 1, *! think...", 41 please see page 6 "Alternatives A and B", 

42,43,46.47,48,49,51,55,56 and 60. 

d. Failing the County's response to my continued reasonable and good 

Mth efforts I initiated suit against Douglas County on 11 November 

2010 in the Nmth District Court, Douglas County Nevada. 

e. In the followii^ paragraph "Background" (pages 3-6 of this letter) I 

address the issues required in 16.23 (b)(3) and (4). 

WOTld's 
November 21,2010 

Page 3 

Rackgronnd 

I am not a skilled writer and request your patience in working through the 

documentation which I have provided to you. I believe that you will find everything 

necessary to support my Part 16 Complaint in the enclosed documentation. I have 

retained an attorney to file suit against the Airport for various breaches of leases, pennits, 

and other agreements which I have with the Airport I simply cannot afford to pay him 

and also an aviation attomey to bring this Complaint As you will see in the enclosed 

documents what has happened over the last few months is separate and apart fix>m the 

grievances which I have against the County arising out of the lease and other contracts 

that I have with them. 

That said, however, it is important that you understand the bacl^ound. 

Accordingly, you will find various documents enclosed. First, you will see an April 26, 

2010 letter (attachment 38) from my attomey Mr. James R. Hales to Mr. Mchael 

McCormick, an Assistant District Attomey for Douglas County, Nevada. I am providing 

to you the letter and all of the documents that were enclosed in that letter. That letter 

dooanents that under the previous set of minimum standards the Airport issued to me a 

permit as an FSFBO under circumstances where it knew I could not possibly comply with 

the provisions in the permit At that time the County planned to move soaring operations 

to the east side of the airport, and keep power based flights on the west side of the 

Airport It agreed to take utilities to ±B east side of tiie Airport, and we all agreed that 

\mtil the utilities were out there I would not be required to build buildings on that side of 

the Airport For economic reasons the County never took the utilities to the east side of 

the Airport. 

For the last nine years I have continued to operate as I did when the permit was 

first issued, which is witiiout the required hangar space. The ^pril 26,2010 letter fix>m 

James Hales, and the documents attached to the letter, establish that the County knew that 

I was not in comfdiance and waived any compliance requirements. Meanwhile I 

continued to pay money to the County for a leasehold on parcels that were not developed, 

and could not possibly be developed. 

Over the years the Airport Manager changed, as did the Cotmty Commissioners 

and County Manager. Despite the clear written record of the agreement I had with the 

County, the current officers refuse to accept the documentation showing our agreement. 

As a result of my attorney's April 26,2010 letter, the County sent a May 7,2010 

response (attachment 40), which I have also enclosed. My attomey then sent another 

response on May 21,2010 (attachment 41). 

Essentially the County put itself in a position where, because of its own conduct 

in failing to develop the Airport in the manner that it expected and promised, I could not 

complete the buildings and hangar space to put myself in compliance with the minimum 

standards. Meanwhile Hutt Aviation, which had also changed ownership since the permit 
November 21, 2010 

Page 4 

was first issued, began complaining to the County that they were being unfairly treated 

since I was not in compliance. 

Basis of the Fart 16 Complaint 

My attomey, through a civil lawsuit will deal with what happened to the Coimty 

prior to May 16,2010. The acts of the County following May 21,2010 are the basis for 

this Part 16 Complaint 

I believe tiie evidence enclosed would cause any reasonable person to conclude 

that the County knew that through its own actions it had created an ureconcilable 

situation. The minimum standards in place required that an FSFBO have 10,000 square 

feet of hangar space. There simply is not 10,000 square feet of available hangar space for 

me. I have made arrangements with the owner of a hangar to lease hangar space fsom 

him, and then lease back to him tiie portion that I do not need to run my FSFBO. The 

reality is that tiie practicalities of operating an FSFBO in Dov^las County do not require 

10,000 square feet of hangar space to have available on an immediate demand basis. The 

only entity that has the ability to meet that requirement is Hutt Avatioa In an effort to 

present themselves as appearing to address the reality that they had prevented me fix>m 

building 10,000 square feet by not putting the utilities in on the east end of the Airport, 

the County, on October 7,2010, adopted new minimum standards tequking that hangar 

space be oidy 7,500 square feet However, even thou^ I have 7,500 square feet of 

hangar space through my lease and sublease back agreement, the County rejects my 

assertion that tiiis is in compliance with tiie minimum standards. The net impact of this, 

therefore, is that the County has assated that within sixty days fiom October 7,2010,1 

will not be authorized to continue to sell fuel. 

I understand in reviewing the regulations re^rding Part 16 Complaints that I need 

to establish for you that I have attempted to work this otxt directiy witii Douglas County 

and the Minden-Tahoe Airport. After my attomey prepared the Complaint and while the 

Airport then was starting the process of adopting tiie minimum standards, at the request 

of the Airport, a mediation session was arranged between my attomey and Mr. 

McCormick. They had agreed to utilizie a currentiy sitting District Court Judge to preside 

over the mediation session. My attorney's August 4,2010 letter to Mr. McCormick is 

enclosed (attachment 59.5). 

We were prepared to proceed and address all of the issues of the lawsuit, and also 

those raised in this Part 16 Complaint However, Douglas County unilaterally 

discontinued the mediation session. See Mr. McCormick's September 28,2010 letter 

which is also enclose (attachment 59). The County cites two reasons for not proceeding, 

but they are both disingenuous. I was at all times ready, willing and able to attempt to 

mediate tiiese issues. Amazingly, the County asserts that the adoption of the new 

standards eliminates the need for mediation. 

Not to my amazement the County not only created new minimum standards to 

minimize the their forthcoming loss in court, but tailored the new standards to exactiy 
November 21, 2010 

Pages 

match all the improvements the other FSFBO has added to their facility since the 

previous docimient was written. 

Sirs or madam, all the attachments referred to above may be found in the (nearly) 

chronological list of attachments below. In order that you may know the size of the effort 

I have made to work with this county I have presented you pretty much my entire file. 

Should you choose to make a deeper review of these matters you are welcome. 

Attachments (some are multipage, I have signed the first sheet of each attachment only). 

1. Minden Tahoe Airport (MTA) letter May 19,2008 

2. Soar Minden (SM) letter May 21,2008 

3. MTA letter May 22,2008 

4. SM letter May 28,2008 

5. MTAletterJunell,2008 

6. SM letter June 15,2008 

7. MTA letter June 25,2009 

8. SMletterJulylO,2008 

9. MTA letter July 24,2008 

10. SM letter July 28,2008 

11. SM letter 29 September 2008 

12. SM letter July 9,2009 

13. SM letter September 9,2009 

14. MTA letter October 1,2009 

15. SM letter November 15,2009 

16. MTA letter November 18,2009 

17. MTA letter December 1,2009 

18. SM letter December 2,2009 

19. MTA letter December 9,2009 

20. SM letter December 21,2009 

21. MTA letter February 16,2010 

22. MTA letter Febnaary 19,2010 

23. SM letter February 19,2010 

24. SM letter February 23,2009 

25. MTA letter Febnjary 24,2010 

26. Douglas County IMstrict Attomey (DCDA) letter February 26,2010 

27. DCDA letter February 26,2010 (different subject the attachment #26) 

28. SM letter February 28,2010 

29. SM letter March 2,2010 

30. MTA letter March 3,2010 

31. SM letter March 5,2010 

32. SM letter March 10,2010 

33. DCDA email March 23,2010 

34. Rowe & Hales, LLP Attomeys At Law (RH) letter March 25,2010 

35. SM notice March 25,2010 

36. DCDA letter March 31,2010 
November 21, 2010 

Page 6 

37. MTA letter April 15,2010 

38. RH letter 26 April, 2010 

39. RH email May 4,2010 

40. DCDA letter May 7,2010 

41. RH letter May 21,2010 

42. SM letter June 7,2010 

43. RH letter June 10,2010 

44. MTA letter June 11,2010 

45. MTA letter June 14,2010 

46. SM letter June 15,2010 

47. SM letter June 18,2010 

48. SM letter June 22,2010 

49. SM letter June 28,2010 

50.RHleti»rJuly9,2010 

51. SM letter July 13,2010 

52. DCDA email July 14,2010 

53. MTA letter July 20,2010 

54. RH letter August 4,2010 

55. SM letter August 10,2010 (Proposed settlement amoimts blacked out) 

56. SM letter August 25,2010 

57. Douglas County Assistant County Manager (DCACM) letter August 25,2010 

58. DCACM letter August 26,2010 

59. DCDA letter September 28,2010 

59.5 RH letter October 4,2010 

60. SM letter October 7,2010 

61. MTA note, unsigned, hand delivered October 6,2010 

62. MTA letter October 8,2010 

63. MTA letter to Al Gangwish July 9,2009 

64. Hutt Aviation letter to MTA August 5,2009 

65. MTA letter August 5,2009 

Antonio M. Sabtno 

p.doc 

Sincerely, J( n 

Antonio M. Sabinn ^