# e

U.S

. Departmen t Qff ^ ^ j Airpor t Complianc

e 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , SW

. o f Transportatio n an d Fiel d Operation s Wastiington , DC 2059 1 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 

### AP R 

### 1 3 201 0 Certifie dMai l - Retur n Receip t Ken t S.Jackso n Lor i N
. Edward s Jackso n & Wade , L.L.C
. 2162 8 Midlan dDriv e Shawnee , K S 6621 8 1 ; Scott P
. Lewi s Meliss aC
. Alliso n Anderso n & Kreige r

LL P ; ^:
. j Onc e Cana l Park , Suit e 20 0 z ^ Cambridge , MA 0214 1 ' iiE J Timoth y R
. Karaskiewic z Offic e o f th e Milwauke e Count y Corporatio n Counse l Milwauke e Count y an dGenera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport 90 1 North Ninth Street , Roo m30 3 Milwaukee, W

I 5323 3 Re : Sterlin g Aviation , LL C v . Milwauke e County , Wisconsin , FA A Docke t No
. 16-09-0 3 Dea r Counsel : Enclose di s acop y o f

th e determinatio n o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) with respec t t o th e above-reference dmatter . W e findthat

Milwauke e County , owne r an doperator

o f th e Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport , i s no t currentl y i

n violatio n o f

it s federal obligation s regardin g unjus t economi c discriminatio n o r exclusiv e right s a s se t

fort h i n it s airpor t

gran t assurance s an dexistin g federa l statute s with respec t t o thi s complaint
. Accordingly, th e above-reference dmatte r i s dismissed
. Th e reason s fo

r dismissa l ar e se t

fort h i n th e enclose dDirector' s Determination
. Sincerely ,

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

Airport Complianc e an dFiel dOperation sCERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I HEREB Y CERTIF Y that o n Hf^uJ/ ^ (^H/O , I cause dt o b e place di n th e Unite d State s mai l (firs t

clas s mail , postag e pai3^ , atru e co'py o f th e foregoin g documen t

addresse dto : Ken t S
. Jackso n Lor i N
. Edward s Jackso n & Wade , L.L.C
. 2162 8 Midlan dDriv e Shawnee , K S 6621 8

Counse l fo

r Complainan t Scott P
. Lewi s Meliss aC
. Alliso n Anderso n & Kreige r

LL P Onc e Canal Park , Suit e 20 0 Cambridge , M A 0214 1 Timoth y R
. Karaskiewic z Offic e o f th e Milwauke e County Corporatio n Counse l Milwauke e County an dGenera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airpor t 90 1 North Nint h Street , Roo m30 3 Milwaukee , WI 5323 3

Counse l for

Responden t FAA Great

Lake s Regiona l Offic e FA A Minneapoli s Airport Distric t Offic e Han dDelivere dto : Par t 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docke t

Ann e Torgerso n Offic e o f Airport Complianc e an d Fiel dOperation sUNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C Sterlin g Aviation , LL C

COMPLAINAN T

V
. Milwauke e County , Wisconsi n

RESPONDEN T Docke t No
. 16-09-0 3

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

i s before th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) basedo n aformal complain t filedi n accordanc e with th e Rule s o f Practic e fo r

Federally-Assiste dAirpor t Enforcemen t Proceedings , Titl e 1 4 Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s (CFR ) Par t 16. ' Sterlin g Aviation , LL C (Complainant ) filed aformal Complain t pursuan t t o 1 4 CF RPart

1 6 agains t Milwauke e County , Wisconsi n (County o r Respondent) , sponso r

an doperato r

o f th e Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport (Airport o r GMIA)
. Th e Complainan t allege s th e Responden t

i s engage di n disparat e treatmen t o f similarl y situate daeronautica l servic e provider s with regar dt o fuelin g practices
. Specifically , th e Complainan t allege s th e City i s i n violatio n o f 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(1 ) an dGran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscriminatio n a s wel l a s 4 9 U.S.C
. § 40103(e ) an dGran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights
. With respec t

t o th e allegation s presente di n thi s Complaint , unde r th e specifi c circumstance s at th e Airport

a s discusse dbelo w an dbase do n th e evidenc e o f recor di n thi s proceeding , th e FA A finds th e Airport

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

it s Federa l obligations
. Th e FAA' s decisio n i n thi s matte r

i s base do n applicabl e Federa l law an dFA A policy , revie w o f th e pleading s an d supportin g documentatio n submitte db y th e parties , reviewe db y th e FAA , whic h comprises th e Administrativ e Recor dreflecte di n th e attache dFA A Exhibi t 1
. II
. PARTIE S In Marc h o f

2004 , Sterlin g Aviatio n Holding s acquire dth e stoc k o f Scott Aviation , acompan y base dat GMI A sinc e 1984
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , ^ 6 an d7 ] Th e business ' nam e wa s change d

' Enforcemen t

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

Practic e fo r Federall y Assiste dAirport Enforcemen t

Proceeding s (1 4 CF RPart 16)
. Thes e eoffjtrcemen

t procedute s wer e publishe di

n th e Federal Registe r

(6 1 F R53998 , Octobe r

16 , 1996 ) an dbecam e effectiv e o n Decembe r 16 , 1996
.t o Sterlin g Aviatio n an dlate r converte dt o alimite dliabilit y corporation
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 1,117] Sterlin g Aviation , LL C i s an FA A approve dPar t 14 5 Repai r

Station ^ fo r

airframe , instrument , an dradi o repairs
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , Tjl] Th e Complainan t i s als o aPart

13 5 charte r operator^ with 1 3 aircraf t liste do n it s certificate
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , ^l ] Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport (Airport ) i s apublic-us e airport owne dan doperate db y Milwauke e County , Wisconsin
. Th e Airport , five nautica l mile s south o f Milwaukee , i s classifie da s amedium-hu b commercia l servic e airpor t wit h 11 0 basedaircraf

t an d196,04 5 annua l operations
. Th e Airport ha s five runway s an dan ai r traffi c contro l tower . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m12 ] Th e plannin g an ddevelopmen t o f th e Airpor t

ha s bee n financed, i n part , with fund s provide db y th e FA A unde r th e Airport

Improvemen t

Progra m(AIP) , authorize db y th e Airport an dAirwa y Improvemen t Ac t o f 1982 , a s amended , 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47101 , e t seq . Sinc e 1982 , th e County ha s accepte d$167,812,06 1 i n Federa l AI P grant s for GMIA
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m11 ] III
. BACKGROUN D AN D PROCEDURA L HISTOR Y Factua l Backgroun d In 1983 , To mScott

founde dScott

Aviation , formerl y know n a s (f/k/a ) Scott Ai r Charter ; thi s compan y move s ont o GMI A o n o r abou t Jun e 1,1984
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , ^6 ] O n Septembe r

11 , 1989 , Milwauke e County execute s aleas e agreemen t with Th e Cessn a Aircraf t Compan y (Cessna)
. Th e initia l termi s approximatel y five years' * an dautomaticall y renews , subjec t

t o a n adjustmen t

o f th e lessee' s renta l payments , fo r seve n additional consecutiv e term s o f five years . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

A ] O n Septembe r

1 , 1993 , th e FA A certifie s Scott Ai r Charte r a s aPar t 14 5 Aircraf

t Repai r Station
. [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1,1[6] O n Apri l 17 , 1997 , Milwauke e County execute s aleas e agreemen t with Scott

Ai r Charter , Inc
. Th e leas e provide s for

an initia l ten-year

terman dallow s th e lesse e t o renew , o n th e sam e term s an dconditions , for

tw o additiona l five-year

periods
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exhibit

C ] In Octobe r

2003 , th e Responden t

amend s it s Schedul e o f

Minimu mStandard s fo r

Commercia l Aeronautica l Activitie s o n Milwauke e County' s Airports
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibit

B ] Th e Responden t

als o execute s aleas e amendmen t with Scott

Ai r Charte r "fo r th e right s t o perfor mairfram e an dpowe r

plan t overhauls , lo t

sections , inspection s an drepai r service s o n aircraf t engines " a

t th e Airport
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m17 , exhibi t

C ]

^ Th e term"Part

145 " refer s t o 1 4 CFRPar t 145 , Repai r

Stations
. Thi s regulatio n prescribe s th e FAA' s requirement s for

issuin g repai r

statio n certificate s an dassociate dratings
. ^ Th e ter m"Part 135 " refer s t o 1 4 CFRPar t 135 , Operatin g Requirements : Commute r an dO n Deman dOperation s an dRule s Governin g Person s o n Boar dSuc h Aircraft
. 1 4 CFR§ 135. 1 require s entitie s conductin g commute r an d on-deman doperation s t o hol da n Ai r Carrie r Certificat e o r

Operatin g Certificat e a s prescribe db y 1 4 CFRPar t 119
. • * Cessna' s leas e describe s it s initia l ter ma s runnin g "fro mth e dat e th e agreemen t i s execute dunti l th e expiratio n o f five (5 ) year s fromth e dat e aCity o f Milwauke e occupanc y permi t i s issue dfor

the^propose dCessn aiianga r facility , o r unti l Decembe r

31,1995 , whicheve r

dat e i s earlier. " [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

A , p . 2 ]In Marc h 2004 , Scot t Aviatio n i s sol dt o Sterlin g Aviatio n Holdings. ^ [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t D , ^2 ] A s part

o f thi s transaction
. Sterlin g assume s tw o hangar leas e agreement s fro m Scott Aviation
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

B , f4 ] Sterlin g Aviatio n the n enter s int o agreement s with Milwauke e County for th e operatio n o f

commercia l aeronautica l activitie s at GMIA
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m5 , AF2 ] A t ameetin g hel do n Septembe r 13 , 2005 , representative s fi-omGMI A an dSterlin g Aviatio n discus s Sterling' s ability t o dispens e fuel a s specifie dunde r it s leas e with regar dt o it s commercia l aeronautica l operatin g permits ^ an dth e Airport' s Minimu mStandards
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

F ] A follo w u p lette r

firomth e Responden t

t o th e Complainan t summarize s th e Respondent' s view s a s follows : "A t ou r meeting , w e clarifie dSterling' s authorit y t o dispens e fue l unde r thes e permit s an dth e Schedul e o f Minimu mStandard s fo r

Commercia l Aeronautica l Activitie s o n Milwauke e County' s Airport s (Minimu mStandards)
. 1
. Unde r it s aircraf

t charte r authority
. Sterlin g i s authorize dt o fue l aircraf t liste d o n it s FA A charte r certificat e whe n thos e aircraf t ar e bein g use dfo r

FA RPar t J 3 5 publi c charte r

purposes . 2
. Unde r

it s aircraf

t managemen t

authority
. Sterlin g i s no t authorize dt o fue l aircraf t bein g manage db y Sterling
. 3
. Aircraft , eve n thoug h the y ma y b e o n th e Sterlin g charte r certificate , (FA

RPar t 9 1 operation ) may not

b e fuele db y Sterlin g whe n the y wil l b e operate db y o r fo r th e transportatio n o f

th e aircraf

t owner . 4
. Aircraf

t tha t Sterlin g charter s fro mothe r operator s t o augmen t

it s charte r operatio n may not

b e fuele dby Sterling
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

F , p . 1 ] I n Marc h 2006 , GMI A initiate s acomplianc e audi t o f Sterlin g Aviation
. Th e audi t finds tha t Sterlin g Aviatio n appear s t o b e fuelin g Par t 9 1 flights i n violatio n o f it s lease , handlin g aircraf t that ar e not owne db y Sterlin g o r

liste do n it s Part

13 5 Certificate , an dofferin g commercia l fuelin g service s i n conjunctio n with managemen t o f aircraft
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m5 , AF1 2 an d FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

B , ^11 ] O n Septembe r

22 , 2006 , GMI A write s alette r t o Sterlin g Aviatio n expressin g thes e concern s an drequestin g mor e specifi c informatio n neede dt o begi n a forma l complianc e audit
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

B ^1 2 an dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t C ] Sterlin g Aviatio n neve r respond s t o thi s request . [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

B 113 ]

' Th e Recor di s unclea r

a s t o whe n thi s transactio n occurred
. Whil e a n affidavi t provide db y To mScott

state s h e sol dhi s busines s i n Marc h o f 2004 , th e Responden t

execute daleas e amendmen t wit h Scott Ai r Charte r date dMarc h 5 , 2004
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

D , H 2 an dFAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m17 , exhibi t

D ] Thi s leas e amendmen t authorize dScott

Ai r Charte r t o perfor maircraf t managemen t

service s a

t GMIA
. However , th e amendmen t specificall y states , "Permitte e agree s tha t i t wil l no t sell , convey , transfer , pledge , o r assig n thi s Agreemen t

o f [sic ] any par t hereo f o r any right s create dhereby
. An y attempte dsale , conveyance , transfer , pledg e o r assignmen t

o f th e Agreement , o r

an y rights o f

Permitte e hereunder , shal l b e nul l an dvoid , an dshal l b e amateria l breac h hereo f an d thi s Agreemen t

shal l immediatel y an dautomaticall y terminat e at th e tim e Permitte e sells , conveys , transfers , pledge s o r assign s thi s Agreement. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m17 , exhibi t

D , \7 ] * A t thi s time , Sterlin g hold s Commercia l Operatin g Permit s t o perfor maircraf t chatte r operations , aircraf

t managemen t

services , an dpowe r

plan t an dairfram e repai r

services
. [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

F , p . 1 ]O n Januar y 26 , 2007 , Sterlin g Aviatio n notifie s GMI A o f it s decisio n t o exercis e th e first five year leas e renewa l option
. Thi s extend s Sterling' s leas e throug h Marc h 31 , 2012
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m17 , exhibi t

E ] Durin g 2007 , Sterlin g Aviatio n an dGMI A mee t an dexchang e correspondenc e discussin g Sterling' s fuelin g rights
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5,1[AF14 ; FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibit s G , H , an dI ; an dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m18 , exhibit s A an dB ] A n Augus t 1 , 200 7 lette r

firomSterlin g t o GMI A states : "Sterlin g Aviatio n seek s t o clarif y th e fue l right s afforde dt o u s by ou r lan dleas e wit h th e County
. I t

i s ou r desir e t o perform , an dconfir mou r right s t o fuel : 1
. Onl y aircraf

t liste do n ou r

Ai r Carrie r Certificat e i n whic h w e hav e eithe r a n operatin g agreemen t

o r alease , regardles s o f

whethe r thos e flight s ar e conducte d unde r FA R9 1 o r FA RPar t 13 5 regulation s and ; 2
. Aircraf

t o f othe r Ai r Carrier s wit

h who mw e hav e contracte dwit h t o transpor t ou r client s unde r

FA RPar t 13 5 regulations ; an d 3
. Aircraf

t w e ar e demonstratin g t o purchas e o r whic h hav e bee n recentl y purchase db y eithe r

ourselve s o r

on e o f ou r clients ; an dwhic h ar e o r wil l b e goin g throug h th e FA

A proces s o f

bein g liste do n ou r

Ai r Carrie r Certificate ; an d 4
. Aircraf

t i n whic h ou r

FA A approve drepai r

statio n i s performin g maintenance
. (Th e sam e right s afforde dCessna' s Citation' s Servic e Cente r i n thei r lan dlease. ) I t i s Sterlin g Aviation'spositio n tha t ou r existin g lan dleas e wit

h th e County allow s fo r al l th e above fuelin g right s an dw e ar e i n possessio n o f th e appropriat e County issue dpermit s t o conduc t commercia l operation s a t Mitchel l Field
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m18 , exhibi t

B ] I n response , GMI A offer s t o amen dSterling' s leas e t o permi t Sterlin g t o fuel aircraf

t i t i s demonstratin g t o purchas e an daircraf t tha t ha dbee n repaire dat

Sterling' s repai r

station , a s lon g a s Sterling' s proposa l doe s not violat e th e term s o f

it s leas e o r

th e Minimu mStandards
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5 , AF13 ; FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

G , p p 2-3 ; an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibit H , p . 2 ] O n Octobe r

10 , 2007 , th e Complainant , throug h it s counsel , write s t o th e Responden t statin g i t ha s th e righ t

t o fue l th e following : "1
. Aircraf

t liste do n Sterling' s Ai r

Carrie r Certificat e in whic h it

ha s eithe r

a n operatin g agreemen t

o r alease , regardles s o f

whethe r thos e flights ar e conducte d unde r FA A Par t 9 1 o r FA A Par t 13 5 Regulations ; 2
. Aircraf

t o f othe r Ai r Carrier s wit

h who mit ha s contracte dt o transpor t it s client s unde r

FA A Par t 13 5 Regulations ;3
. Aircraf t tha t i t i s demonstratin g t o purchas e o r whic h hav e bee n recentl y purchase dby eithe r

Sterlin g o r

on e o f it s clients ; an dwhic h ar e o r wil l b e goin g throug h th e FA

A proces s o f

bein g liste do n Sterling' s Ai r Carrie r Certificate ; and..
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

I , p . 1 ] I n Jun e o f 200 8 GMI A complete s acompetitiv e reques t for proposa l proces s t o selec t asecon d Fixe dBas e Operator. ^ Sterlin g Aviatio n doe s no t submi t aproposal
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5 , ^AF1 8 an dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

B , ^19 ] I n Augus t 2008 , th e Responden t

seek s a n advisory opinio n fro mth e FA A regardin g th e Complainant' s righ t

t o provid e into-plan e fuelin g services
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5 , ^lAFl 5 an d FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

D ] I n response , th e FAA' s Airport s Divisio n Manage r for th e Great Lake s Regio n provide s genera l guidanc e o n self-fiielin g an denclose s acop y o f alette r th e FA A sen t t o aPart 13 5 operato r

discussin g it s self-fiielin g right s i n 200 3 (AmA v letter)
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

J ] O n February 15 , 2009 , th e Complainant' s counse l me t with th e Respondent' s counse l i n an attemp t t o resolv e th e issue
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , ^1 5 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5 , Tj

l 5 ] O n Marc h 30 , 2009 , th e Complainan t request s th e FAA' s opinio n o n issue s no w raise di n thi s forma l Complaint
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m14 ] Th e FAA' s Airport s Divisio n Manager for th e Grea t Leike s Regio n responds wit h informatio n regardin g th e gran t assurance s an dth e Part

1 6 complain t process . A cop y o f

th e AmA v lette r

i s als o enclosed
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m15 ] Procedura l Histor y O n Jun e 8 , 2009 , FAA receive dth e Complaint
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] O n Jun e 19 , 2009 , FA A dockete dSterlin g Aviation , LL C v . Milwauke e County , Wisconsin
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m2 ] O n Jun e 30 , 2009 , th e Responden t requeste dadditiona l tim e t o file it s answe r an dadvise dtha t Complainan t

ha dn o objection
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m4 ] O n Jul y 31 , 2009 , th e Responden t filedan Answer , Motion t o Dismiss , an dMemorandu mi n Support o f Respondent' s Motion t o Dismiss
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Item s 5 , 6 , an d7 ] O n Augus t

7 , 2009 , th e Complainan t filed aRepl y an da

n Answe r t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismiss
. [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Item s 8 an d9 ] O n Augus t

20 , 2009 , th e Responden t filed aRebuttal
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 ] O n Novembe r

12 , 2009 , th e FA A requeste dadditiona l informatio n fromboth partie s an d extende dth e du e dat e o f

th e Director' s Determinatio n t o o n o r befor e February 12
. 2010
. [FA A Exhibi t l,Ite m13 ]

^ A fixed-base operato r

(FBO ) i s a

n individua l o r

firmoperatin g a

t a n airpor t and-providin g genera l aircraf t service s suc h a s maintenance , storage , an dground , an dflight instruction
. [FAA Orde r 5190.6B , Appendi x Z ]O n Decembe r 8,2009 , th e Responden t submit s additional informatio n requeste db y th e FAA
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m18 ] O n Decembe r

9 , 2009 , th e Complainan t submit s additiona l informatio n requeste db y th e FAA
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m17 ] O n February 12 , 2010 , th e FA A extende dth e du e dat e o f th e Director' s Determinatio n t o o n o r befor e Marc h 12 , 2010
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m21 ] O n Marc h 10 , 2010 , th e FA A extende dth e du e dat e o f th e Director' s Determinatio n t o o n o r before Apri l 16 , 2010
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m22 ] IV
. ISSUE S Upo n revie w o f

th e allegation s an dth e relevan t airport-specifi c circumstances , summarize d above , th e FA A ha s determine dthat th e followin g issue s requir e analysi s i n orde r t o provid e a complet e revie w o f

th e County' s complianc e with applicabl e Federa l la w an dpolicy :

• Whethe r

th e Respondent' s refusal t o gran t th e Complainan t

th e sam e fuelin g right s a s thos e purportedl y grante dt o anothe r aeronautica l servic e provide r constitute s imjus t discriminatio n i n violatio n o f 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(1 ) an dGran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. • Whethe r

th e Responden t

ha s grante dan Exclusiv e Righ t t o Th e Cessn aAircraf

t Compan y b y refusin g t o recogniz e th e Complainan t a s aSpecialize dAircraf

t Repai r Servic e operato r

i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(4 ) an dGran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights
. • Whethe r

th e Responden t

ha s grante da

n Exclusiv e Righ t

t o Th e Cessn aAircraf

t Compan y b y refiisin g t o allo w th e Complainan t th e righ t t o fuel it s customers , busines s invitees , an dguest s i n violatio n o f 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(4 ) an dGran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights
. V
. APPLICABL E LA W AN D POLIC Y Th e federal rol e i n civi l aviatio n ha s bee n augmente db y variou s legislativ e action s tha t authoriz e program s for

providin g federal fiind s an dothe r assistanc e t o loca l communitie s for th e developmen t

o f airport facilities
. In eac h suc h program , th e airport sponso r assume s certai n obligations , eithe r

b y contrac t

o r by restrictiv e covenant s i n propert y deed s an dconveyanc e instruments , t o maintai n an doperat e it s airport facilitie s safel y an defficientl y an di n accordanc e wit h specifie dconditions
. Commitment s assume db y airport sponsor s i n propert y conveyanc e o r gran t agreement s ar e importan t factor s i n maintainin g ahig h degre e o f safet y an defficienc y i n airport design , construction , operatio n an dmaintenance , a s wel l a s ensurin g th e publi c fair an d reasonabl e acces s t o th e airport
.Th e followin g i s adiscussio n pertainin g t o th e Airpor t Improvemen t

Program , Airpor t

Sponso r Assurances , th e FA A Airpor t Complianc e Program , enforcemen t o f Airpor t Sponso r Assurances , an dth e Complain t

an dAppea l Process
.

Th e Airpor t

Improvemen t

Progra m Title 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47101 , e r seq. , provide s for

federa l airpor t

financial assistanc e fo r

th e developmen t

o f public-us e airport s unde r th e Airpor t

Improvemen t

Progra m(AIP ) establishe db y th e Airport

an dAirwa y Improvemen t Ac t o f 1982 , a s amended
. Title 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107 , e t seq. , set s fort h assurance s t o whic h an airport sponso r agree s a s aconditio n o f

receivin g federal financial assistance
. Upo n acceptanc e o f a n AI P grant , th e assurance s becom e abindin g contractua l obligatio n betwee n th e airpor t sponso r an dth e federal government . Th e assurance s mad e b y airport

sponsor s i n AI P gran t

agreement s ar e importan t factor s i n maintainin g aviabl e nationa l airport

system . Airpor t Sponso r Assurance s A s aconditio n preceden t

t o providin g airport

developmen t

assistanc e unde r

th e Airpor t Improvemen t

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

Transportatio n and , b y extension , th e FA A mus t

receiv e certai n assurance s fro mth e airport sponsor . Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a ) set s fort

h th e statutory sponsorshi p requirement s t o whic h an airpor t sponso r receivin g federal financial assistanc e mus t agree . Th e FA A ha s astatutory mandat e t o ensur e tha t airpor t owner s compl y wit h thes e sponso r assurances. ^ FA A Orde r

5190.6B , Airpor t

Complianc e Requirement s (FA A Orde r 5190.6B) , issue do n Septembe r

30 , 2009 , provide s th e policie s an dprocedure s t o b e followe db y th e FA A i n carryin g ou t

it s legislativel y mandate dfunction s relate dt o complianc e wit h federal obligation s o f airpor t sponsors . Th e FA A consider s i t inappropriat e t o provid e federal assistanc e for improvement s t o airport s wher e th e benefit s o f suc h improvement s wil l no t b e full y realize ddu e t o inheren t

restriction s o n aeronautica l activities
. Two federa

l gran t assurance s appl y t o th e circumstance s se t fort h i n thi s Complaint : (1 ) Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscriminatio n an d(2 ) Gran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights
. Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscriminatio n Th e owne r

o f any airport

develope dwit

h federal gran t

assistanc e i s require dt o operat e th e airport for th e us e zin

dbenefi t o f th e publi c an dt o mak e i t availabl e t o al l types , kinds , zin d classe s o f aeronautica l activity o n fai r an dreasonabl e terms , an dwithou t unjus t discrimination
. Federal Gran t

Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscriminatio n deal s wit h both th e reasonablenes s o f airport acces s an dth e prohibitio n o f adoptin g unjustl y discriminator y condition s a s apotential

See , e.g. , th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t o f 1958 , a s amende dan drecodified , Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § § 40101,40113,40114 , 46101,46104 , 46105 , 46106,46110 ; an dth e Airport an dAirwa y Improvement/ft t o f 1982 , a s amende dan d recodified
. Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § § 47105(d) , 47106(d) , 47]07(k) , 47107(1) , 47111(d) , 47122
.for

limitin g access . Gran t

Assuranc e 2 2 o f

th e prescribe dsponso r

assurance s implement s th e provision s o f

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

" ...wil l make th e airpor t

availabl e a s a n airpor t

fo r publi c us e o n reasonabl e term s an d withou t unjus t discriminatio n t o al l types , kind s an dclasse s o f aeronautica l activities , includin g commercia l aeronautica l activitie s offerin g service s t o th e publi c a t th e airport
. [(a) ] b
. I n an y agreement , contract , lease , o r othe r arrangemen t

unde r whic h arigh t o r privileg e a t

th e airpor t

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

wil l inser t

an denforc e provision s requirin g th e contracto r

to
- (1 ) furnis h sai dservice s o n areasonable , an dno t unjustl y discriminatory , basi s t o al l user s thereof , an d (2 ) charg e reasonable , an dno t unjustl y discriminatory , price s fo r eac h uni t o r service , provide dtha t

th e contracto r

ma y b e allowe dt o make reasonabl e an dnondiscriminator y discounts , rebates , o r othe r simila r type s o f pric e reduction s t o volume purchasers
. c . Eac h fixed-base operato r a t th e airpor t

shal l b e subjec t

t o th e sam e rates , fees , rentals , an dothe r

charge s a s ar e uniforml y applicabl e t o al l othe r fixed-base operator s makin g th e sam e o r

simila r use s o f suc h airpor t

an dutilizin g th e sam e o r simila r facilities
. d
. Eac h ai r

carrie r usin g suc h airpor t

shal l hav e th e righ t

t o servic e itsel f

o r t o us e an y fixed-base operato r

tha t i s authorize do r

permitte db y th e airpor t

t o serv e an y ai r

carrie r a t suc h airport
. f I t wil l no t exercis e o r

gran t an y righ t o r privileg e whic h operate s t o preven t an y person , firm, o r

corporatio n operatin g aircraf t o n th e airpor t

fromperformin g an y service s o n it s ow n aircraf t wit h it s ow n employee s [including , bu t no t limite dt o maintenance , repair , an dfueling ] tha t i t may choos e t o perform
. g . I n th e event

th e sponso r

itsel f exercis e an y o f

th e right s an dprivilege s referre dt o i n thi s assurance , th e service s involve dwil l b e provide do n th e sam e condition s a s woul d appl y t o th e furnishin g o f suc h service s b y commercia l aeronautica l servic e provider s authorize db y th e sponso r unde r thes e provisions
. h
. Th e sponso r ma y establis h suc h reasonable , an dno t unjustl y discriminatory , condition s t o b e met

b y al l user s o f

th e airpor t

a s ma y b e necessar y fo r

th e saf e an d efficien t operatio n o f

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

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

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

th e airpor t

o r necessar y t o serv e th e civi l aviatio n need s o f th e public.' ' ^ -Subsectio n (h ) qualifie s subsectio n (a) , an dsubsectio n (i ) represent s an exceptio n t o subsectio n

(a ) t o permi t

th e sponso r

t o exercis e contro l o f

th e airport

sufficien t t o preclud e unsaf

e an d inefficien t condition s tha t

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

owner s fo r

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

us e of , th e airport
. \Se e FA A Orde r 5190.6B , 1114.3. ] FA A Orde r

5190.6 B describe s th e responsibilitie s unde r Assuranc e 2 2 assume db y th e ovmer s o r sponso r o f publi c us e airport s develope dwith federal assistance
. Amon g thes e i s th e obligatio n t o trea t i n auniformmanne r

thos e user s makin g th e sam e o r similar us e o f th e airpor t

an dt o mak e al l airpor t

facilitie s an dservice s availabl e o n reasonabl e term s withou t unjus t discrimination
. [Se e FA A Orde r 5190.6B , Chapte r

9 ] Th e ov^oie

r o f an airport

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

o f th e publi c an dt o mak e i t availabl e t o al l types , kinds , an dclasse s o f aeronautica l activit y o n reasonabl e terms , an dwithou t imjus t discrimination
. [Se e FA A Orde r 5190.6B , Sec.t9.1.(a) ] Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Right s Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § 40103(e) , provide s tha t "[a ] perso n doe s no t

hav e a n exclusiv e righ t

t o us e an ai r navigatio n facility o n whic h Governmen t mone y ha s bee n expended. " Titl e 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(4) , similarl y provide s tha t " aperso n providing , o r

intendin g t o provide , aeronautica l service s t o th e publi c wil l not b e give n an exclusiv e right t o us e th e airport... " Gran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights , o f th e prescribe dsponso r

assurance s implement s both statutory provision s requiring , i n pertinen t part , tha t th e sponso r

o f afederall y obligate dairport :

" ...wil l permi t

n o exclusiv e righ t

fo r th e us e o f

th e airpor t

b y an y perso n providing , o r

intendin g t o provide , aeronautica l service s t o th e public...an dtha t i t wil l terminat e an y exclusiv e righ t t o conduc t

a n aeronautica l activit y no w existin g a t suc h a n airpor t

before th e gran t

o f an y assistanc e unde r

Titl e 49 , Unite dState s Code
. " A n exclusiv e right

i s define da s apower , privilege , o r othe r right excludin g o r

debarrin g anothe r fro menjoyin g o r

exercisin g alik e power , privilege , o r right. A n exclusiv e right can b e conferre d eithe r b y expres s agreement , b y th e impositio n o f unreasonabl e standard s o r requirements , o r

b y any othe r means . Suc h aright

conferre do n on e o r

mor e parties , but

excludin g other s from enjoyin g o r

exercisin g asimilar

right o r rights, woul db e a

n exclusiv e right. \See

_FA A Advisory Circular 5190- 6 Exclusiv e Right s a t Federall y Obligate dAirports , Januar y 4 , 2007 ]1 0

Therefore , i t

i s FAA' s polic y tha t

th e sponso r

o f afederall y obligate dairport wil l permi t

n o exclusiv e right

for th e us e o f

th e airport

b y an y perso n providing , o r intendin g t o provide , aeronautica l service s t o th e publi c an dwil l not , eithe r directl y o r

indirectly , gran t

o r permi t an y person , firm, o r

corporation , th e exclusiv e righ t a t th e airport

t o conduc t

an y aeronautica l activities
. FA A Orde r

5190.6 B clarifie s th e applicability , extent , an dduratio n o f th e prohibitio n agains t exclusiv e rights unde r

4 9 U.S.C
. § 40103(e ) wit h regar dt o airport s develope dv^t h FAA

administere dgran t

assistanc e an dFedera l property conveyances . Th e exclusiv e rights prohibitio n remain s i n effec t a s lon g a s th e airpor t

i s operate da s a

n airport
. FA A take s th e positio n that th e gran t o f a n exclusiv e right

for th e conduc t

o f an y aeronautica l activity o n suc h airport s i s regarde da s contrar y t o th e requirement s o f th e applicabl e laws , whethe r suc h exclusiv e right

result s fro ma

n expres s agreement , fro mth e impositio n o f unreasonabl e standard s o r requirements , o r

b y any othe r

means . Th e FA A Airpor t

Complianc e Progra m Th e FA A discharge s it s responsibilitie s for ensurin g airport

owners ' complianc e with thei r federal obligation s throug h it s Airport Complianc e Program
. Th e FAA' s airpor t complianc e effort s ar e base do n th e contractua l obligation s a n airpor t owne r accept s whe n receivin g federal gran t fiind s o r th e transfe r

o f federal propert y for

airport purposes . Thes e obligation s ar e incorporate di n gran t

agreement s an dinstrument s o f conveyanc e i n orde r

t o protec t

th e public' s interes t i n civi l aviatio n an dt o ensur e complianc e with federal laws
. Th e FA A Airport

Complianc e Progra mi s designe dt o ensur e th e availabilit y o f anationa l syste m o f saf e an dproperl y maintaine dpublic-us e airport s operate di n amanne r consisten t

with th e airport owners ' federa

l obligation s an dth e public' s investmen t i n civi l aviation
. Th e Airport

Complianc e Progra mdoe s no t contro l o r

direc t th e operatio n o f

airports
. Rather , i t monitor s th e administratio n o f th e valuable rights pledge db y airport sponsor s t o th e peopl e o f th e Unite dState s i n exchang e for monetar y grant s an ddonation s o f federal property t o ensur e tha t th e publi c interes t

i s bein g served
. FA A Orde r 5190.6 B set s fort

h policie s an dprocedure s for th e FAA Airport

Complianc e Program
. FA A Orde r 5190.6 B i s no t

regulator y an di s no t controllin g with regar dt o airport sponso r conduct
. Rather , i t

establishe s th e policie s an d procedure s t o b e followe db y FA A personne l i n carryin g out th e FAA' s responsibilitie s for ensurin g airport

compliance
. I t

provide s basi c guidanc e fo r FA A personne l i n interpretin g an d administerin g th e variou s continuin g commitment s mad e t o th e Unite dState s b y airport owner s a s aconditio n o f

receivin g agran t

o f federal fund s o r

th e conveyanc e o f

federal property for airport purposes . FA A Orde r

5190.6 B analyze s th e variou s obligation s se t fort h i n th e standar d airport sponso r assurances , addresse s th e natur e o f thos e assurances , addresse s th e applicatio n o f thos e assurance s i n th e operatio n o f public-us e airports , an dfacilitate s interpretatio n o f th e assurance s b y FA A persormel
. Th e FA A Complianc e progra mi s designe dt o achiev e voluntary complianc e with federal obligation s accepte db y owner s and/o r operator s o f

public-us e airport s develope dwith FAA

administere dassistance
. Therefore , i n addressin g allegation s o f noncompliance , th e FA A wil l mak e adeterminatio n a s t o whethe r a n airport sponso r i s currentl y i n complianc e with th e1 1

applicabl e federal obligations
. Consequently , th e FA A wil l conside r th e successfii l actio n b y th e airport t o cur e an y allege do r

potentia l pas t

violatio n o f

applicabl e federal obligatio n t o b e ground s for

dismissa l o f

suc h allegations
. [Se e e.g . Wilso n Ai r Cente r v . Memphi s an dShelb y County Airport

Authority , FA A Docke t

No
. 16-99-1 0 (Augus t

30 , 2001 ) (Fina l Decisio n an d Order ) (Wilson) ] FA A Orde r

5190.6 B outline s th e standar dfor compliance , stating , " A sponso r meet s commitment s when : (1)
. Th e federal obligation s ar e fiilly understood ; (2)
. A progra m(e.g. , preventiv e maintenance , leasin g policies , operatin g regulations , etc. ) i s i n plac e that th e FA A deem s adequat e t o carry out th e sponsor' s commitments ; (3)
. Th e sponso r satisfactoril y demonstrate s that

suc h aprogra mi s bein g carrie dout ; an d(4)
. Pas t complianc e issue s hav e bee n addressed. " [Se e FA A Orde r 5190.6B , 1[2.8.(b.) ] Enforcemen t

o f Airpor t Sponso r Assurance s Th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t o f 1958 , a s amende d(FAAct) , 4 9 U.S.C
. § 40101 , e t seq. , assign s th e FA A Administrato r

broadresponsibilitie s for th e regulatio n o f

ai r commerc e i n th e interest s o f safety , security , an ddevelopmen t o f civi l aeronautics
. Th e federal rol e i n encouragin g an d developin g civi l aviatio n ha s bee n augmente db y variou s legislativ e actions , whic h authoriz e program s for

providin g fund s an dothe r assistanc e t o loca l communitie s for th e developmen t

o f airport facilities
. In eac h suc h program , th e airpor t owne r o r sponso r assume s certai n obligations , eithe r

b y contrac t

o r b y restrictiv e covenant s i n propert y deed s an dconveyanc e instruments , t o maintai n an doperat e it s airport facilitie s safely , efficiently , an di n accordanc e with specifie dconditions
. Commitment s assume db y airpor t owner s o r

sponsor s i n propert y conveyanc e o r

gran t agreement s ar e importan t factor s i n maintainin g ahig h degre e o f safet y an d efficienc y i n airport

design , construction , operatio n an dmaintenance , a s wel l a s ensurin g th e publi c reasonabl e acces s t o th e airport
. Pursuan t t o 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47122 , th e FA A ha s astatutory mandat e t o ensur e that

airpor t owner s compl y with thei r federal gran t

assurances . Th e Complain t

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

o f th e fact s relie dupo n t o substantiat e eac h allegation
. Th e complaint(s ) shal l als o describ e ho w th e complainant(s ) directl y an dsubstantiall y has/hav e bee n affecte db y th e thing s don e o r

omitte db y th e respondent(s)
. [See_ , 1 4 CF R§ 16.23(b)(3-4) ] If , base do n th e pleadings , ther e appear s t o b e areasonabl e basi s for further investigation , th e FA A wil l investigat e th e subjec t matte r o f th e Complaint

- I n renderin g it s initia l determination , th e FA A may rel y entirel y o n th e Complain t an dth e responsiv e pleading s provided
. Eac h party shal l file document s tha t

i t consider s sufficien t

t o presen t

al l relevan t

fact s an dargument s necessary for

th e FA A t o determin e whethe r th e sponso r

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

o f amotion , request , o r

orde r ha s th e burde n o f

proof
. A party wh o ha s asserte d a n affirmativ e defens e ha s th e burde n o f provin g th e affirmativ e defeilse
. Thi s standar dburde n1 2

o f proo f i s consisten t

with th e Administrativ e Procedure s Ac t (APA ) an dfederal cas e law
. Th e AP A provisio n [^ee , 5 U.S.C
. § 556(d) ] states , "(e)xcep t a s otherwis e provide db y statute , th e proponen t

o f arul e o r orde r ha s th e burde n o f

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

al
. v . Departmen t

o f Transportation
. 14 8 F3 d1142 , 115 5 (D C Cir , 1998) ] Titl e 1 4 CF R§ 16.229(b ) i s consisten t with 1 4 CF R§16.23 , whic h require s th e Complainan t t o submi t al l document s the n availabl e t o support hi s o r he r complaint
. Similarly , 1 4 CF R§ 16.2 9 state s that , "(e)ac h part y shal l file document s tha t i t consider s sufficien t

t o presen t

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

i s i n compliance. " Title 1 4 CF R§ 16.31(b) , i n pertinen t parts , provide s tha t

"(t)h e Director' s determinatio n wil l se t fort h aconcis e explanatio n o f th e factual an dlega l basi s for th e Director' s determinatio n o n eac h clai mmad e b y th e complainant. " I n accordanc e wit h 1 4 CF R§ 16.33(b ) an d(e) , upo n issuanc e o f aDirector' s determination , " aparty adversel y affecte db y th e Director' s determinatio n may file an appea l with th e Associat e Administrato r withi n 3 0 day s after

th e dat e o f

servic e o f

th e initia l determination; " however , "(i) f n o appea l i s filedwithi n th e tim e perio dspecifie di n paragrap h (b ) o f

thi s section , th e Director' s determinatio n become s th e final decisio n an dorde r o f th e FA A withou t

further action
. A Director' s determinatio n tha t become s final becaus e ther e i s n o administrativ e appea l i s not judiciall y reviewable. " Titl e 1 4 CF R§ 16.247(a ) define s procedura l recours e for judicia l revie w o f

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

an dAirwa y Improvemen t Ac t o f 1982 , a s amended , (AAIA) , 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47106(d ) an d47111(d)
. VI
. ANALYSI S AN D DISCUSSIO N Prio r t o th e filing o f

thi s Complaint , both partie s sough t th e FAA' s informa l guidanc e o n matter s relate dt o self-fiieling
. Belo w i s adiscussio n o f thos e exchanges
. Revie w o f

FAA' s Informa l Guidanc e t o Bot h Partie s In Augus t o f 2008 , th e Responden t

requeste dinforma l guidanc e regardin g it s responsibilitie s unde r Gran t Assuranc e 22(d ) an d(f)
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

D ] Th e FAA' s Manage r o f th e Airport s Divisio n for th e Great Lake s Regio n responde db y lette r advisin g o f

genera l guidanc e o n self-fiieling
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

J ] Thi s lette r

specificall y state s that Gran t Assuranc e 22(d ) "allow s a n ai r carrie r t o servic e itsel f

o r t o us e an y fixed-base operato r that i s authorize do r

permitte db y th e airport

t o servic e an ai r

carrier. " Th e lette r

note s that

Gran t Assuranc e 22(f

) "prohibit s an airport

firo mrestrictin g acorporation' s right t o performservice s o n it s ow n aircraf

t but ther e mus t

b e evidenc e tha t

ther e i s adequat e ownershi p interes t i n th e aircraf t t o qualif y a s 'ow n aircraft, ' for

th e purpose s o f

thi s Assurance. " T o fiirther explai n ho w self-fuelin g rights ma

y b e practice db y Part

13 5 operators , th e FA A enclose dacop y o f alette r sent t o AmAv , Inc
. (AmA v letter) , in 2003
. Thi s lette r note s that

whe n acorporatio n lack s adequat e ownershi p interes t in a n aircraft , that

particula r

aircraf t doe s no t qualif y a s th e corporation' s "own " aircraf t fo r th e purpose s o f

Gran t Assuranc e 22(f)

- Th e Directo r reaffirm s thi s guidance
. " '1 3

In Marc h o f

2009 , th e Complainan t

requeste dth e FA A provid e informal guidanc e o n issue s similar t o th e question s no w befor e th e Director
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m14 ] Th e FAA' s Manager o f th e Airport s Divisio n for th e Great Lake s Regio n responde db y letter
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 15 ] I n additio n t o discussin g th e obligation s containe di n Gran t Assuranc e 22(d ) an d(f) , a s wa s explaine dt o th e Respondent , th e lette r stated : "Fo r a n airpor t

sponso r t o offe r atenan t th e righ t t o expan dit s self-fuelin g activit y t o aircraf

t tha t i t doe s not own , lease , rent , o r

operat e fo r

it s exclusiv e use , woul db e outsid e th e definitio n an dprotectio n o f Assuranc e 22
. Thi s coul d lea dt o allegation s tha t

a n airpor t

sponso r wa s actin g i n a n unjustl y discriminator y manne r

toward s it s tenant s tha t

hav e th e righ t

t o sel l fue l commercially
. " [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m15 ] Th e FA A als o enclose dacop y o f th e AmA v lette r

t o fiirther explai n ho w self-fiielin g rights appl y t o Part

13 5 operators . Th e Directo r reaffirm s thi s guidance
. I t i s importan t

t o clarif y tha t issue s raise di n thi s Complain t d o no t pertai n t o th e Complainant' s righ t t o self-fue l unde r

Gran t Assuranc e 22(d ) o r

(f)
. Gran t

Assuranc e 22(d ) protect s a n ai r carrier' s right

t o servic e it s ow n aircraft
. Gran t Assuranc e 22(f

) explicitl y protect s th e rights o f individual s an dcorporation s t o perfor mservices , suc h a s fueling , o n thei r ow n aircraf

t with thei r ow n employees
. Th e Directo r note s thi s distinctio n du e t o previou s documente drequest s for informal guidanc e fr-o

mboth partie s regardin g self-fueling
. Issue s Identifie dfo r

Analysi s an dDiscussio n Issu e 1 : Whether

th e Respondent' s refusa l t o gran t th e Complainan t

th e sam e fuelin g right s a s thos e purportedl y grante dt o asimilarl y situate daeronautica l servic e provide r constitute s unjus t discriminatio n i n violatio n o f 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(1 ) an dGran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. A s note dabov e an dpreviousl y explaine dt o th e Complainant , whe n an airpor t sponso r allow s a tenan t t o expan dit s self-fiielin g activitie s t o aircraf t i t doe s no t own , lease , ren t

o r operat e for

it s exclusiv e use , i t

offer s aprivileg e outsid e it s obligation s containe di n Gran t Assuranc e 22(d ) an d (f)
. Th e extan t

Complain t

thu s center s aroun daprivileg e negotiate dan darticulate di n on e leas e betwee n th e Responden t

an da n aeronautica l servic e provide r a t th e Airport
. I n 1989 , GMI A entere dint o aleas e with Cessna
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

A ] Thi s leas e allow s Cessn at o fiiel it s "customers , busines s invitees , an dguest s only"
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 1 , exhibi t A , p . 9 ] Eigh t

year s later , in 1997 , Scott Ai r Charter , Inc
. entere dint o aleas e whic h limit s it s fiieling rights t o self-fueling
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

C , p . 6 ] I n Marc h o f 2004 , th e Complainan t

acquire dScot

t Ai r Charter' s stoc k

an dassume dth e 199 7 lease
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1,1(6 ]1 4

Give n th e tim e whic h ha s elapse dsinc e th e Complainant' s leas e wa s execute dan drenewed ' - 1 2 year s - th e Directo r

relie s o n aprincipl e involvin g aren t disparit y issu e fro mPenobsco t Ai r Service s v . Kno x County , FA A Docke t No
. 16-97-0 4 (Septembe r 25 , 1997 ) (Director' s Determination) ( Penobsco t DD) : "Th e purpos e o f

th e gran t assurance s i s t o protec t

th e publi c interes t

i n th e operatio n o f

Federall y obligate dairports
. The purpos e i s not t o provid e alternativ e o r

supplementa l right s t o thos e normall y availabl e t o commercia l tenant s i n dispute s wit

h thei r landlords , i.e
. negotiatio n o r commercia l litigatio n unde r applicabl e stat e an dloca l laws
. The FA A doe s no t

conside r tha t Congres s intende dgran t

assurance s an dth e FA

A complianc e proces s t o provid e adevic e b y whic h acommercia l aeronautica l tenan t ca n abrogat e a n otherwis e vali d commercia l leas e with asponso r becaus e th e operation s unde r th e leas e ar e les s profitabl e tha n th e tenan t anticipated
. Suc h us e o f

th e gran t assurance s woul db e especiall y inappropriat e i n acas e lik e this , wher e th e complainan t di dnot negotiat e directl y wit

h th e sponso r

bu t electe dt o assum e aprio r tenant' s leas e throug h acquisition
. " [Penobsco t DD , a t pag e 24 , citin g t o Sk

y Eas t Services , Inc
. an dHampto n Ai r

Transport

System
. Inc
. v . Suffolk

County , Ne w York , FA A Docke t Nos
. 13-88- 6 an d13-89-1 ] Aerodynamic s o f

Reading , Inc
. v Readin g Regiona l Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

No
. 16-00

- 03 , (Jul y 23 , 2001 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder ) a t 16 , {Aerodynamic s FAD ) state s tha t h i s "incumben t

upo n th e Complainan t

t o prov e it s allegation s o f imjus t discriminatio n b y providin g evidenc e tha t

similar term s an dcondition s wer e requeste dan dwer e subsequentl y denie dwithou t adequat e justification. " I n thi s instan t

complaint , th e Complainan t provide s n o evidenc e t o support tha t i t requeste d fuelin g rights similar

t o thos e grante dt o Cessn awhe n th e Complainan t acquire dth e Scott

leas e i n 2004
. Th e Complainan t provide s n o evidenc e t o support i t requeste dadditiona l fiielin g rights, similar t o Cessna , whe n it

exercise dafive-year

leas e renewa l optio n i n 2007
. Agreein g t o contrac t term s with th e Respondent , an dthe n complainin g late r tha t th e contrac t

term s ar e no t similar t o Cessna's , doe s no t

mean th e Complainan t

ha s bee n treate di n a n unjustl y discriminatory manner . Th e Directo r ha s routinel y foun di n favo r o f th e airpor t

sponso r i n complaint s wher e an aeronautica l tenan t ha s negotiate darenta l agreemen t tha t require s a particular paymen t an drat e schedule , commence s doin g busines s an dearnin g profits , an dthe n complain s that

th e deal wa s unfair
. Unde r thi s typ e o f

scenari o th e Directo r

ha s rejecte dbuyer' s remors e a s arational e o r

justificatio n t o support

a n argumen t

tha t term s previousl y negotiate d an daccepte dshoul db e no w altered
. Absen t an y evidenc e t o demonstrat e tha t th e Complainan t objecte dt o th e term s o f

th e leas e o r

wa s denie dacces s t o pertinen t informatio n durin g negotiations , th e Directo r conclude s tha t

ther e can b e n o unjus t

discrimination
. [Se e Adventur e Aviatio n v Cit

y o f La s Cruces
. Ne w Mexico , FA A Docke t No
. 16-01-14 , (Augus t

7 , 2002 ) (Director' s Determination ) a t 1 3 (Adventure ) an d4 1 North 7 3 West , Inc
. db aAvita t Westcheste r

' Scot t Ai r Charter' s leas e expire do n Marc h 31,2007
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

C ] Sterlin g Aviatio n exercise da

n optio n t o rene w th e leas e fo r a n additiona l five-year

term . Sterling' s notic e exercisin g it s renewa l optio n requeste dchange s t o Sectio n 12 , "Eminen t Domain " an dt o Exhibi t

B
. [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

C an d FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m17 , exhibi t

E ]1 5

V Westcheste r

County , New York
. FA A Docke t No
. 16-07-13 , (Jun e 12 , 2008 ) (Director' s Determination ) a

t 2 5 (Avitat) ] Th e Complainan t

describe s it s history an dScott' s history o f fuelin g al l aircraf

t liste do n it s Part 13 5 certificat e despit e whethe r the y wer e flown for

Part 13 5 o r Part 9 1 operations
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , t 6 an dT[14 ; FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

4 , ^2 ; FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m8 , exhibi t

A , 1 [ 3 an d8 ; an dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m9 , exhibit

A , ^ 3 an d8 ] Th e Responden t dispute s that

i t was awar e o f thi s practic e an dstate s tha t i t "neve r gav e permissio n t o Scott Aviatio n t o engag e i n thos e fiielin g practices. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , exhibit

B , f3 ] Ha dth e Responden t

know n tha t

Scott Aviation/Sterlin g wa s exercisin g fiielin g rights beyon d thos e authorize db y it s lease , th e Airpor t ma y hav e expose ditsel f t o allegation s o f

imjus t discriminatio n fro mothe r tenants . Th e Recor dindicate s th e Responden t me t with th e Complainan t

t o discus s it s fiielin g activitie s an dclarif y it s specifi c leas e term s i n Septembe r o f 2005
. [FA A Exhibi t

I , Ite m5 , AF l 1 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

F ] Takin g step s t o ensur e it s complianc e with it s Federa l obligation s demonstrate s tha t th e Responden t

i s strivin g t o achiev e th e standar do f

complianc e a s state di n Sectio n V o f thi s Determination
. Mos t importantly , th e fac t

that th e Responden t

ha s chose n t o enforc e th e term s o f th e leas e b y limitin g th e Complainant' s fuelin g rights t o self-fuelin g doe s no t constitut e agran t

assuranc e violation
. Agains t thi s background , it

i s simpl y unreasonabl e for th e Directo r

t o findtha t

th e Responden t ha s unjustl y discriminate dagains t th e Complain t

base do n th e fac t

tha t tw o aeronautica l users hav e bee n grante ddifferent fuelin g rights. [Se e Avitat at 25 ] A s state di n Ric k

Aviation , Inc
. v . Peninsul aAirport

Commission , FA A Docke t No
. 16-05-18 , (Ma y 8 , 2007 ) (Director' s Determination ) at

17 , (Novembe r

6 , 2007 ) (Fina l Agenc y Decision ) a t 1 5 (Ric k Aviation) , "Th e FA A wil l not

ste p i n t o overturn aleas e provisio n simpl y becaus e th e aeronautica l tenan t ha s discovere dth e provisio n th e tenan t agree dt o ha s create da

n undesirabl e positio n for th e tenant. " Wit h tha t said , recognizin g tha t

fiiture negotiation s betwee n both partie s wil l hing e upo n whethe r o r no t Sterlin g i s similarl y situate dt o Cessna , th e Directo r wil l addres s thi s issue
. Th e Complainant' s Marc h 30 , 200 9 letter ' raise dthi s issu e an drequeste dFA A guidanc e i n respons e t o th e followin g questions : "I s Sterlin g similarl y situate dt o Cessna ? " "Woul di t b e unjus t discriminatio n t o den y Sterlin g th e sam e o r simila r fuelin g right s a s Cessna? " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m14 , p.5 ] Th e Complainan t

states : "Th e complain t

center s o n unjus t

discriminatio n relate dt o th e disparat e treatmen t o f similarl y situate daeronautica l servic e providers ' abilit y t o fue l aircraft
. Bot

h Sterlin g an dTh

e Cessn aAircraf

t Compan y ('Cessn a) ar e Par t

' " Th e Respondent' s counse l vi alette r date dJun e 29,2009 , advise di t responde dt o Complainant' s Marc h 3 0 lette r by lette r o f Ma y 29
. [FA

A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m3 ] Counse l furthe r advise dtha t

o n th e dat e thi s matte r

wa s docketed , Jun e 19 , 2009 , th e Complainan t sent alette r in respons e t o th e Ma

y 2 9 letter
.1 6

14 5 Repai r

Station s an dGMI

A ' s websit e list s both a s provider s o f 'Aircraf t Maintenance. ' While Milwauke e Count y ha s grante dCessn aabroa drigh t t o fue l aircraf t o f 'it s customers , busines s invitee s an dguests, ' th e airpor t sponso r i s attemptin g t o den y Sterlin g th e sam e righ t t o fue l aircraf

t tha t the y maintai n fo r thei r customers . " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite mI , p . 1 ] Th e Resjwndent : "Admit s tha t

Sterlin g i s aPar t

14 5 Repai r

Station , tha t

Sterlin g provide s Aircraf t Charte r Services , an dtha t

Sterlin g an dCessn aar e liste do n th e employmen t pag e o f GMI A ' s websit e a s companie s tha t perfor maircraf

t maintenance , bu t

denie s tha t th e County hold s Cessn aou t t o th e publi c a s a n aircraf t maintenanc e provider..
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5 , ^2 ] "Denie s tha t

Cessn aan dSterlin g ar e similarl y situated
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 5,14 ] Th e Complainan t

argue s tha t

whe n an airpor t

sponso r offer s aprivileg e t o on e aeronautica l servic e provider
. Gran t

Assuranc e 2 2 compel s that airpor t t o offer tha t sam e privileg e t o othe r similarl y situate daeronautica l servic e providers
. Gran t Assuranc e 2 2 a t

(c) , (h ) an d(i ) provide s tha t a n airport ma y trea t

dissimilar

aeronautica l user s o f

th e airpor t

dissimilarly
. Thi s limit s th e Director' s analysi s t o whethe r o r not th e Responden t

i s treatin g th e Complainan t i n a n unjustl y discriminatory manner . Th e Complainan t

relie s o n astandar dcite dfro mKen t J
. Ashto n v . City o f

Concord , North Carolina , FA A Docke t

No
. 16-99-09 , (Jul y 3 , 2000 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder ) at 1 8 (Ashton) : "Th e FA A wil l determin e tha t

th e airpor t

i s actin g i n amanne r

tha t i s unjustl y discriminator y i f

the y findtha t

'anothe r entity , i n asimila r

situation , wa s unjustl y denie dasimila r

situation. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , ^2 ] However , thi s statemen t

onl y recognize s hal f

o f th e standar duse db y th e FA A i n determinin g whethe r o r no t a n airport sponso r ha s engage di n unjus t

economi c discrimination
. A s note di n Penobsco t

Ai r Servic e LT D v . County o f Kno x Boar do f

Commissioners , FA A Docke t No
. 16

- 97-04 , (Septembe r

25 , 1997 ) (Recor do f

Determination ) a t

2 2 (Penobsco t

ROD) , "Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscriminatio n prohibit s onl y unjus t discriminatio n amon g users . Difference s i n treatmen t includin g renta l rates , ar e permissibl e a s lon g a s thos e difference s ar e no t unjust." " A s aresult , th e FA A ha s lon g hel dtha t i n orde r t o sustai n afinding o f

unjus t economi c discrimination , acomplainan t mus t establis h tha t

i t requeste dsimilar

term s an dcondition s a s othe r similarl y situate dairport user s an dwa s denie dfor unjus t reasons . [Se e Aerodynamic s o f Reading , Inc
. v Readin g Regiona l Airport Authority , FA A Docke t

No
. 16-00-03 , (Decembe r 22 , 2000 ) (Director' s Determination ) a t 1 9 (Aerodynamic s DD) ]

" Th e U.S
. Court

o f Appeal s uphel dthi s finding i n Penobsco t

Ai r Services
. Ltd
. V : FAA
. 16 4 F.3 d713 , 72 6 (l " Cir
. 1999)
.1 7

I n Ashton , th e Associat e Administrato r uphel dth e sponsor' s distinction s an dvariation s i n service s a s reasonabl e becaus e the y reflecte ddissimilar use s o f th e airpor t

an dwer e draw n i n pursuit o f appropriat e goals
. [Se e Ashto n a t 18 ] Th e Responden t

correctl y describe s thi s two
pronge dtes t

i n it s Memorandu mi n Support o f Respondent' s Motion t o Dismiss
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , p . 6 ] Incidentally , applyin g thi s tes t wil l allo w th e Directo r

t o answe r

th e tw o question s relate dt o similarl y situate dtenant s an dunjus t discriminator y treatment . Pron g 1 : Ar e Sterlin g an dCessn asimilarl y situated ? Th e Directo r

wil l analyz e evidenc e i n th e Recor dwhic h discusse s th e Complainant' s an d Cessna' s us e o f

th e Airport

an dth e busines s model s the y utilize
. Thi s evidenc e include s leases , commercia l operatin g permits , th e Respondent' s Schedul e o f Minimu mStandard s for Commercia l Aeronautica l Activities , an ddescription s o f bot h aeronautica l servic e providers
. Lease s GMI A entere dint o lease s with Cessn aan dth e Complainant
. Both leases :
• includ e date dterm s an drenewa l provisions ;
• describ e ho w th e lesse e ma y us e th e airport propert y leased ;
• stipulat e fuelin g rights ; an d
• not e specifi c prohibition s an dlimitation s impose do n th e lessees
. Th e Complainant' s leas e was fo r an initia l ter mofte n year s (fro mApri l 1 , 199 7 t o Marc h 31 , 2007)'^ , an dprovide dth e lesse e with th e righ t t o rene w fo r

tw o additiona l period s o f five year s o n th e sam e term s an dconditions
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibit

C , p . 2 ] Cessna' s leas e provide dfor

an initia l termo f

approximatel y five years' ^ an dautomaticall y renews , subjec t t o a n adjustmen t

o f th e lessee' s renta l payment , for seve n additiona l term s o f five years . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

A , p . 2 ] Both lease s ar e specifi c abou t ho w th e lesse e ma y us e it s leasehold
. Th e Complainan t i s provide d"th e right

an dprivileg e t o engag e i n an dperformAircraf t Charte r an dAi r Tax i Services " a s define di n GMIA' s Minimu mStandards
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

C , p . 2 ] Th e leas e als o specificall y permit s th e Complainan t t o us e it s leasehol d"fo r

th e purpos e o f storage , repair , fiieling, maintenance , an doperatio n o f th e Lessee' s owne do r

lease daircraft. " [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exhibit

C , p . 2 ] Cessna' s leas e is : "for th e purpos e o f

storing , servicing , repairin g an dperformin g maintenanc e o f aircraft , aircraf

t assemblies , aircraf

t accessories , radio s an delectroni c equipmen t

an dan y component s thereof ; fo r th e sal e o r

leas e o f aircraft , aircraf

t assemblies , aircraf

t radi o an delectroni c equipmen t an dcomponent s o r

part s thereof ; and , fo r

th e busines s an doperation s office s an dshop s i n connectio n wit h th e purpose s authorize dherein; " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

A , p . 3 ]

' ^ Th e Complainan t

acquire dScot

t Ai r i n Marc h o f

200 4 an dassume dth e existin g lease
. [FAA Exhibi t 1
. Ite m1 , 117 ]
' ^ Cessna' s leas e describe s it s initia l ter ma s runnin g "fro mth e dat e th e agreemen t i s execute dunti l th e expiratio n o f five (5 ) year s fro

mth e dat e aCit

y o f Milwauke e occupanc y permi t i s issue dfor

thf f propose dCessna^iangar

facility , o r unti l Decembe r

31,1995 , whicheve r

dat e i s earlier. " [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite mI , exhibi t

A , p . 2 ]1 8

Th e lease s discus s specifi c right s an dresponsibilitie s associate dwith fiieling
. Th e Complainant' s leas e allow s i t t o utiliz e th e existin g aviatio n ftiel an doi l storag e an ddispensin g facilitie s i n it s leaseholdarea s o r t o instal l additiona l o r

replacemen t

facilitie s a t

alocatio n approve db y th e Airpor t

Directo r "t o serv e it s requirement s only"
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t C , p . 6 ] Th e Complainant' s leas e furthe r states : "Lesse e agree s tha t

i t shal l not sel l o r furnis h aviatio n fuel s an doi l t o others , excep t t o thos e wh o own , lease , ren t o r operat e aircraf

t fo r exclusiv e us e o f Lessee , i t bein g expressl y understoo dtha t th e permissio n grante dherei n i s intende dt o authoriz e storag e o f sai dproduct s fo r

us e i n airplane s owned , leased , rente do r operate dexclusivel y b y o r fo r Lessee
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t C,p.8 ] Cessna' s leas e states , "[ajviatio n fiiel storag e an ddispensin g facilitie s t o serv e th e requirement s o f Lesse e an dit s customers , busines s invitees , an dguest s only , ma y b e installe do n Lessee' s premises. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

A , p . 9 ] Bot h lease s requir e th e lesse e t o provid e monthl y report s t o th e Airpor t Directo r regardin g th e aviatio n fuel s an doi l delivere dt o it s respectiv e leasehold.'" * [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

A , p p 9-1 0 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

C , p . 7 ] Cessn ai s require dt o pay fiiel flowage fee s base do n it s monthl y reports . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

A , p . 10 ] However , th e Complainan t

ha s th e optio n o f

payin g fiiel flowage fee s o r executin g aseparat e agreemen t t o pa y landin g fees
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibit

C , p . 8 ] Th e Complainan t electe dt o pay landin g fees
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 exhibit

B , T[14an dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m18 , p . 2 ] Bot h lease s contai n specifi c prohibition s an dlimitations
. Th e Complainan t mus t obtai n th e Airport Director' s consen t

befor e storin g aircraf

t i n it s hangar

for any purpos e othe r

tha n thos e specificall y contemplate di n th e lease
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibit

C , p p 3-4 ] Cessn ai s prohibite dfro mengagin g i n an y practice s normall y considere dthos e o f an FBO
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

A , p . 3 ] Both lessee s mus t obtai n Milwauke e County' s approva l befor e engagin g i n any busines s o r activit y not

specificall y authorize do r contemplate dwithi n th e lease
. [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1 , exhibit

A , p p 8- 9 an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

C , p . 9 ] Commercia l Operatin g Permit s Th e Responden t

no w require s tenant s engage di n airsid e commercia l activitie s t o obtai n a commercia l operatin g permit , eve n i f th e tenant' s leas e permit s that activity
. Commercia l operatin g permit s serv e th e followin g purposes :

" ...the y (a ) infor

mGMI A managemen t

o f th e scop e an dlocatio n o f commercia l activitie s bein g conducte do n th e airport ; (b ) requir e insuranc e an d indemnificatio n fo r

th e protectio n o f

th e airpor t

an dit s tenants , user s an dth e public ; (c ) infor

mapermitte e o f

airpor t securit y requirement s an dothe r rule s

'• ' GMI A note s tha t

thi s requiremen t

i s usuall y onl y enforce do n charte r operators-tflirin g a

n audi t o r whe n ther e i s som e reasonable basi s t o conclud e tha t aleas e violatio n may exist
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m18 , p.2 ]1 9

an dregulations ; (d) ensur e tha t apermitte e ha s entere dint o a n agreemen t fo r appropriat e airpor t

spac e fromwhic h t o conduc t it s activities ; (e ) prohibi t discriminatio n b y apermittee ; an d(f ) reflec t th e requirement s o f

GMI A ' s gran t assuranc e obligations
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m18 , p . 1 ] Th e Complainan t

hold s commercia l operatin g permit s t o conduc t aircraf t charte r an dai r tax i services , an dairfram e an dengin e maintenanc e an drepai r and/o r modification
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m17 , exhibi t

A an dB ] Cessn ai s not

require dt o obtai n any commercia l operatin g permit s becaus e i t doe s not offer commercia l service s t o th e genera l public
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m18 , p . 2 ] Respondent' s Schedul e o f Minimu mStandard s for

Commercia l Aeronautica l Activitie s In Octobe r

o f 2003 , th e Responden t

adopte dne w Minimu mStandard s fo r 1 1 differen t aeronautica l activitie s an dspecia l requirement s fo r subtenant s a

t GMIA
. Th e Minimu m Standard s defin e tw o differen t type s o f aeronautica l repai r

activities : 1
. Airfram e an dEngin e Maintenanc e an dRepai r and/o r Modificatio n 2
. Specialize dAircraf

t Repai r Service s [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibit

B , Index ] Th e Complain t

inaccuratel y describe s th e Minimu mStandard s applicabl e t o bot h th e Complainan t

an dCessna
. Th e Complainan t states : ''Both Sterlin g an dCessn ameet th e requirement s t o provid e Specialize dAircraf t Repai r Service s a s define dby th e GMI A Minimu mStandards
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1,112 ] "Sterlin g exceed s th e Minimu mStandard s fo r aSpecialize dAircraf

t Repai r Servic e operator , whic h i s th e sam e minimu mstandar dapplie db y Milwauke e County t o Cessna
. A

n attemp t b y Milwauke e County t o clai mtha t Sterlin g i s no t suc h aservic e provide r

woul dcontradic t

thei r grantin g o f

th e righ t t o perfor m maintenanc e o n othe r

people' s airplane s Sterling' s predecessor , Scot t Ai r Charter , Inc
. (Scot

t Air) , an dwoul db e i n conflic t wit h Milwauke e County' s ow n listin g o f Sterlin g a s aprovide r

o f 'Aircraf t Maintenance ' o n thei r

website
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1, 1 5 ] "GMI A Minimu mStandard s provid e fo r tw o different

categorie s o f

maintenanc e an drepair
. Airfram e an dEngin e Maintenanc e An dRepai r and/o r Modificatio n require s Par t

14 5 Clas s 1 an d3 airfram e rating s a s wel l a s aClas s 1 powerplan t rating
. Neithe r

Sterlin g no r

Cessn ahol dsuc h ratings
. Rathe r both Cessn aan d Sterlin g hol dLimite dRating s fo r specifi c make s an dmodels
. B y natur e o f th e Par t 14 5 Limite dRatin g bot

h Sterlin g an dCessn awoul dmeet th e GMI A Minimu mStandard s fo r

Specialize dAircraf

t Repai r Services
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1,1 1 10 ]2 0

However , th e Respondent' s Answe r states :

" ...neithe r

admit s no r

denie s becaus e o f

insufficient

knowledg e o r

informatio n th e allegatio n tha t

Sterlin g meet s th e requirement s t o provid e Specialize dAircraf t Repai r Service s unde r

th e Minimu mStandards ; denie s tha t Cessn ameet s th e requirement s t o provid e Specialize dAircraf t Repai r Service s unde r

th e Minimu m Standard s becaus e Cessn aperform s maintenanc e onl y o n Cessna' s Citatio n mode l aircraft ; an dstate s tha t neithe r Sterlin g no r

Cessn ai s license dt o perform , o r ha s applie dfo r

alicens e t o perform
. Specialize dAircraf t Repai r Services
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m5,12 ]

" ...Sterlin g i s not

license dt o perform , an dha s no t applie dfo r

alicens e t o perform
. Specialize dAircraf t Repai r Services..
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5 , ^ 5 ] "...neithe r

admit s no r

denies becaus e o f

insufficient

knowledg e o r

informatio n th e allegatio n tha t

both Sterlin g an dCessn awoul dmee t th e Minimu mStandard s fo r Specialize dAircraf

t Repai r Services ; an dstate s tha t neithe r entit y i s license dt o perform , o r

ha s applie dfo r

alicens e t o perform
. Specialize dAircraf t Repai r Services
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5,1 [ 10 ] Whil e th e Complainan t

may believ e i t

me t GMIA' s Minimu mStandard s for specialize daircraf

t repai r services , nothin g i n th e Recor dindicate s tha t th e Complainan t

ha s requeste dsuc h designatio n fro mth e Respondent
. Nothin g i n th e Recor dindicates that Cessn aha s sough t

suc h designation
. However , th e Recor ddoe s establis h tha t th e Complainan t

i s authorize db y th e Resf>onden

t t o performairfram e an dengin e maintenanc e an drepai r and/o r modificatio n activitie s becaus e i t

hold s acommercia l operatin g permi t for thi s activity
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 5 , T[ l an dFA A Exhibi t

I , Ite m1 7 exhibi t

B ] Descriptions o f

Both Aeronautica l Servic e Provider s Th e Complain t

offer s th e followin g description s an dcomparisons : "Sterlin g i s a n FA

A approve dPar t

14 5 Repai r

Statio n fo r

airframe , instrumen t an dradi o repairs
. Sterlin g i s als o aPar t 13 5 charte r

operato r wit h 1 3 aircraf

t liste dfo r operatio n o n it s Par t

13 5 certificate
. Some o f thes e aircraf

t ar e owne d b y privat e individual s wh o hav e contracte dwit h Sterlin g t o maintai n thei r aircraft
. Sterlin g provide s thes e owner s excellen t maintenanc e an da n opportunit y t o minimiz e thei r cost s o f ownershi p by listin g thei r aircraf t wit h Sterling' s Par t

13 5 certificat e fo r

charte r whe n not i n us e b y th e owners . " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1,^11 ] "Cessn ai s aFA

A approve dPar t

14 5 Repai r

Statio n specializin g i n th e repai r o f Cessn aCitatio n aircraft. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , ^2 ]

" While both Sterlin g an dCessn aperfor mmaintenanc e t o th e hig h standard s impose dunde r

Par t 145 , Cessn ai s not

require dt o mee t

the-additiona l2 1

maintenanc e standard s o f Par t 13 5 fo r al l o f it s customers . " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1,113 ] Th e Responden t

offer s th e followin g descriptions : "...admit s tha t

Sterlin g i s a n FAA-approvedPar t 14 5 Repai r

Station..
. " "Admit s tha t

Sterlin g i s aPar t

13 5 charte r

operato r wit h 1 3 aircraf

t liste do n it s FA

R Par t 13 5 Charte r

Certificate..
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5 , HI ] "...Cessn aspecialize s i n th e repai r o f Cessn aCitatio n aircraft ; state s tha t th e onl y activitie s Cessn ai s permitte dt o perfor mar e maintenanc e an dwarrant y wor k o n Cessn aCitatio n aircraft , sale s o f Citatio n aircraf

t (an dparts , equipmen t an daccessories)..
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5,1[2 ] Sterling' s websit e describe s it s busines s as : "Sterlin g Aviatio n i s aprivatel y held , full-servic e corporat e aviatio n firm specializin g i n aircraf

t management , ai r

charter , aircraf

t maintenance , an d acquisitio n suppor t

o f aircraf t fo r privat e travel
. Sterlin g hold s certification s a s a n FA A Par t 13 5 on-deman dai r

carrie r an da n FA

A Par t 14 5 repai r

station
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

E , p . 1 ] Th e Cessn aAircraf

t Company , o n it s website , describe s it s facility at GMI A as : "Th e Milwauke e Citatio n Servic e Cente r i s locate da t

Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airpor t

an di s dedicate dt o th e suppor t o f Citatio n aircraf

t i n th e uppe r Midwest
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m16 ] In it s secon dpleading , th e Complainan t add s th e followin g descriptio n o f Cessna : "Th e Cessn aAircraf

t Compan y i s acharte r

operato r an dha s bee n fo r

th e las t 2 1 years , Cessn ahold s FA

A Certificat e Numbe r

CNQA9I8C
. I n fact , Cessna' s "CitationShare s " program , adivisio n o f Cessn aAircraf

t Compan y accordin g t o th e CitationShare s website , hold s FA A Certificat e Numbe r

Z5FA890K
. Accordin g t o FA

A record s a s o f

Augus t 5 , 2009 , thes e tw o certificate s accoun t fo r 9 3 aircraf t availabl e fo r

charte r fromCessna
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m8 , AF8 , Ite m9 , pp . 2-3 ] T o support

thi s statement , th e Complainan t provide s a

n affidavi t

b y Rober t

Gort , Presiden t

an d Chie f Operatio n Officer

o f Sterling , whic h states :

" I hav e regularl y see n CitationShare s progra maircraf t o n th e Cessn aram p a t Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airpor t ("GMIA ')
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m8 , exhibi t A , H 6 ]

" Cessna' s "CitationShares " programi s no w know n a s "CitationAi r b y Cessna"
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m19 , p.l ]2 2

Th e Complainan t

als o provide s airlin e certificatio n informatio n o n th e Cessn aAircraf t Compan y an dCitationShare s Management , LLC , a s printe dfro mth e FAA' s website
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m8 exhibit s B an dC an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 , exhibit s B an dC ] Additionally , th e Complainan t

provide s informatio n fro mCitationShares ' websit e entitle d"Compan y Overview " whic h states : "CitationShares , adivisio n o f Cessn aAircraf

t Company , offer s th e bes t i n fractiona l je t

ownership , je t

car dmembershi p an dwhol e aircraf t management . " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m8 , exhibi t

D an dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m9 , exhibi t

D ] Th e Respondent' s Rebutta l notes : "Sterlin g doe s no t

offe r ashre do f

evidenc e t o sho w tha t

Cessn aoperate s charte r service s o r

aircraf t managemen t

service s out

o f it s Servic e Cente r

a t GMIA
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m10 , p . 3 ] In fiirtheranc e o f

thi s position , th e Responden t provide da

n affidavi t fro mth e Genera l Manager at th e Milwauke e Citatio n Servic e Cente r wh o state s tha t

"Cessn adoe s not

operat e aircraf

t cheute r o r fi^actional ownershi p managemen t service s for

CitationShare s progra maircraft , o r any othe r aircraft , out

o f th e Servic e Cente r

a t GMIA. " [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m10 , exhibi t

A ] Th e Cessn aAircraf

t Compan y i s alarg e corporatio n engage di n numerou s sector s o f th e aviatio n industry , including , but

not limite dto , fractional ownershi p an dcharte r services
. However , th e Recor ddoe s not

support th e Complainant' s clai mtha t Th e Cessn aAircraf

t Compan y i s engage d i n thes e activitie s at

GMIA
. In fact , whe n th e Directo r reviewe dth e websit e pag e submitte db y th e Complainan t

a s a n exhibi t

(FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m8 , exhibi t

D an dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m9 , exhibi t D ) i n support

o f thi s argument , th e Directo r accesse dth e lin k

labele d"Contac t

Us " an d wa s directe dt o amailin g addres s i n Greenwich , Connecticut
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m19 , p . 3 ] Furthermore , Cessna' s leas e wit h th e Responden t

doe s no t contemplate , no r

doe s i t permit , Cessn at o conduc t

aircraf t managemen t

o r charte r activitie s a

t GMIA
. A s th e Complainan t originall y noted , "Cessn ai s aFA A approve dPar t

14 5 Repai r

Statio n specializin g i n th e repai r o f Cessn aCitatio n aircraft. " [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1,1[2] Therefore , base do n th e Cessn a employee' s statemen t

an dabsen t

an y evidenc e t o th e contrary , it i s reasonabl e t o deduc e tha t an y CitationShare s aircraf

t o n Cessna' s ramp , a s witnesse db y Robert Gort , wer e visitin g th e Cessn a Citatio n Servic e Cente r

for maintenanc e o r

repairs
. Conclusio n o f

Pron g 1 Th e Responden t

originall y envisione dtw o differen t type s o f aeronautica l servic e providers , an d thi s i s reflecte di n th e respectiv e leas e agreements . Th e Complainant' s leas e describe s a n aircraf t charte r an dai r tax i servic e provide r

wit h th e right

t o self-fue l an dmaintai n it s owne do r lease d aircraf t a s guarantee db y Gran t

Assuranc e 22(d ) an d(f)
. Cessna' s leas e i s mor e descriptiv e o f an aeronautica l repai r

statio n an daircraf

t sale s business
.2 3

Whil e both lease s requir e thei r respectiv e lessee s t o pay agroun drent , th e Complainant , a s a n ai r carrier , wa s give n th e choic e t o pay eithe r afuel flowage fe e o r

landin g fees
. Cessn ai s require d t o pay afiiel flowage fee , an dreport s provide db y th e Responden t indicat e i t

ha s don e so . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m18 , exhibi t

D ] Sterling' s operation s hav e evolve dbeyon dthos e originall y contemplate di n th e leas e i t assume d fro mScott
. A t

present . Sterlin g advertise s itsel f a s a'full-servic e corporat e aviatio n firm specializin g i n aircraf

t management , ai r

charter , aircraf

t maintenance , an dacquisitio n suppor t o f aircraf t fo r privat e travel
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

E , p . 1 ] Th e Recor dsupport s tha t i t i s currentl y authorize db y GMI A t o provid e charte r service s an dperfor mmaintenance
. [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m17 , exhibit s A an dB ] Th e Complainan t state s tha t

i t i s indee dengage di n thes e activities
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m\,^\ ] Th e Recor do f evidence , includin g th e Complainant' s initia l descriptio n o f Cessna , indicate s tha t

Cessna' s activitie s hav e consistentl y bee n limite dt o th e sale , repair , an dmaintenanc e o f Cessn aCitatio n aircraft
. Whil e ther e i s som e overlap betwee n th e activitie s o f thes e tw o entitie s - both repai r an dmaintai n aircraf

t - thes e activitie s hav e alway s bee n acomplimentar y componen t t o Sterling' s Par t

13 5 charte r requirements
. Sterling' s busines s mode l an dwid e rangin g men u o f service s i s quit e differen t fromth e Cessn aCitatio n Servic e Cente r at GMIA
. Therefore , th e Directo r finds that

Sterlin g i s not similarl y situate dt o Cessna
. Pron g 2 : Ar e th e Respondent' s reason s fo r th e disparat e treatmen t unjustl y discriminatory ? Althoug h th e Complainan t fail s th e first

o f th e two-pron g tes t

neede dt o establis h a violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 22 , th e Directo r wil l discus s th e secon dpron g i n orde r t o answe r thi s questio n pose db y th e Complainant :

" Woul di t b e unjus t discriminatio n t o den y Sterlin g th e sam e o r simila r fuelin g right s a s Cessna ? " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m14 , p.5 ] Th e FA A ha s lon g hel dthat aeronautica l user s agreein g t o differen t rights, restrictions , responsibilitie s an dterm s i n thei r agreement s with an airport sponso r ma y necessaril y support th e conclusio n tha t

th e partie s ar e no t

similarl y situate dfor

th e purpose s o f

findin g unjus t economi c discrimination
. [See Penobsco t Ai r Services , Ltd
. V
. FAA , 16 4 F.3 d713 , 72 6 (1^ ' Cir
. 1999 ) (Penobscot) ; Aerodynamic s FA D at 13 ; Adventur e a

t 13 ; an dAvita t

at 30 ] A s discusse da t great length above , th e Complainan t accepte ddifferen t

term s whe n i t

assume dth e Scott

leas e i n 200 4 an dmad e n o attempt s t o renegotiat e it s fuelin g right s whe n i t requeste dt o exten dth e leas e i n 2007
. Becaus e th e Complainan t fail s t o establis h that

it i s similarl y situated , th e Directo r canno t findtha t i t ha s bee n treate di n a n imjustl y discriminator y maimer
. WTiateve r reason s o r motivation s th e Responden t hadfo r grantin g Cessn ait s fuelin g privileg e n o longe r matter s becaus e th e Complainant , a t th e tim e i t

assume dth e Scott

leas e i n 200 4 an dexercise dit s righ t t o exten dth e ter mo f

it s leas e i n 2007 , mad e n o attemp t t o negotiat e achang e t o it s leas e with th e County concernin g fiieling
. Ther e i s nothin g i n th e Recor dt o demonstrat e tha t th e Complainan t submitte dapetitio n o r

any othe r writte n reques t

t o expan dit s right

t o fuel i n 200 4 o r

2007
.2 4

Recognizin g tha t

th e tw o partie s ma y revisi t thi s matte r

i n fiiture leeis e negotiations , th e Directo r offer s th e followin g observations :

• A n airport' s prim e obligatio n i s t o serv e th e interes t o f th e aeronautica l usin g public
. [Se e Unite dState s Constructio n Corporatio n v . City o f Pompan o Beach , Florida , FA A Docke t No
. 16-00-14 , (Jul y 10 , 2002 ) (Fina l Agenc y Decision ) at 21
. GMI A mus t remai n mindfii l o f

thi s i n developin g minimu mstandard s an dleases
. However , th e Directo r ha s consistentl y conclude dtha t Gran t Assuranc e 2 2 doe s no t

requir e a n airport sponso r t o offe r leas e rate s an dterm s tha t ar e identica l t o othe r

lease s negotiate dat differen t point s i n time
. A s aresult , asponso r i s permitte dt o pursu e agreement s tha t mor e nearl y serv e th e interest s o f th e publi c with mor e recen t leaseholders
. [See , Penobscot ; Wilson a

t 12-13 ; Sant aMonic aAirport Association
. Kruege r

Aviation , Inc
. an dSant aMonic aai r

Cente r v . City o f

Sant aMonica , California , FA A Docke t No
. 16

- 99-21 , (February 4 , 2003 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder ) a t 17 ; Aerodynamic s FA D at 11 ; an dRic k Aviatio n a

t 28 ] I n goin g forward , th e Responden t shoul devaluat e whethe r o r not specia l fiieling privilege s serv e th e interes t o f th e aeronautica l usin g public
. A s discusse di n it s Memorandu mi n Support o f Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismiss , th e Responden t i s concerne dthat

providin g additiona l fiieling privilege s t o th e Complainan t coul dimpac t th e long-termviability o f it s Fixe dBas e Operator
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , p . 10 ] Th e Responden t

state s that

th e Complainan t

ha s consistentl y "refuse dt o provid e an y records " relate dt o it s fuelin g activities
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , p . 1 0 an dIte m18 , p . 2 ] Give n tha t thes e report s ar e require di n th e Complainant' s lease , th e Responden t may wis h t o enforc e thi s provisio n t o ensur e complianc e with th e minimu mstandard s an dth e rights o f othe r aeronautica l user s a s reflecte di n thei r agreement s wit h th e County
.
• A tenant' s history an drelationshi p with th e airport sponso r matter . [Se e Ric k

Aviatio n at 16 ] Th e Recor ddocument s th e Complainant' s clai mtha t fuelin g was exercise doutside thos e articulate di n it s curren t lease
. [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1,1 6 an d14 ; FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibi t

4,112 ; FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m8 , exhibi t

A , H 3 an d8 ; an dFA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 , exhibi t

A , 11 3 an d8 ] Th e Complainan t wa s unresponsiv e t o th e Respondent' s reques t for informatio n neede dt o conduc t a n audit.' * [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

B , 1|1 4 an dFAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m18 , p . 2 ] Th e Responden t can conside r

thes e factor s i n fiiture contrac t

offer s an dnegotiations
. A n airport

sponso r i s no t obligate dt o provid e applicatio n assistanc e o r incubat e busines s developmen t

proposals
. [Se e Atlanti c Helicopter s Inc./Chesapeak e Bay Helicopter s v Monro e County , Florida , FA A Docke t No
. 16-07-12 , (Decembe r 3 , 2008 ) (Director' s Determination ) at

35 ] T o addres s th e inheren t frictio n amon g competin g aeronautica l servic e provider s an dpromot e th e orderl y developmen t o f th e airport , th e FAA encourage s airport

management , a s amatte r o f prudence , t o establis h minimu mstandard s t o b e me t b y al l wh o woul dengag e in acommercia l aeronautica l activity a t th e airport
. [Se e FAA Orde r

5190.6B , Ij l 0.4 ] Onc e th e airport sponso r ha s establishe dminimu m

' * I n Ric k Aviation , th e Directo r

describe dasponsor' s audi t o f it s tenan t as , "commo n an dacceptabl e busines s practices. " [Se e Ric

k Aviatio n a

t 37 ]2 5

standards , i t

shoul dappl y the mobjectivel y an duniforml y t o al l similarl y situate don airport aeronautica l activitie s an dservices
. [FA A A C 150/5190-7 , sectio n 1.1. ] [Se e Flightlin e v . Shreveport , FA A Docke t No
. 16-07-0 5 (Marc h 7 , 2008 ) (Director' s Determination ) at

1 6 an dGin aMichell e Moore , individually , an dd/b/ aWarbir dSk y Ventures , Inc
. v . Sumne r

Count y Regiona l Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

No
. 16-07-16 , (Februar y 27 , 2009 ) (Director' s Determination ) a t 44 ] Th e Recor dindicates th e Complainant' s history o f evolvin g it s busines s model an d proposin g ne w ventures . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1,1114 ; FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibit

4 , 11 4 an d5 ; FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibi t

B , 1( 5 an d6 ; FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

G ; an dFA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

H ] Th e Responden t

can requir e th e Complainan t t o adap t it s fiiture busines s plan s t o bette r conformt o th e requirement s outline di n th e Airport' s Minimu mStandards
. A n airport

sponso r ha s afundamenta l responsibilit y t o ensur e tha t aeronautica l busines s activitie s can b e conducte dsafel y an dd o no t diminis h th e existin g an dplanne dus e o f th e Airport.'" ' A s note dabove , th e Responden t neve r consente dt o fuelin g practice s beyon dthos e describe di n th e Scott

lease
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m10 , exhibi t

B , 1|3 ] A n affidavi t provide db y Steve n A
. Wright , Airpor t Propertie s Manage r

at GMI A raise s additional concerns : "Sterling' s hangar s ar e currentl y locate di n aro w o f hangar s designate dfo r base dcorporat e aircraf

t storag e nea r

th e intersectio n ofTaxiwa y 'P ' an d Taxiwa y 'B. ' Taxiwa

y 'B ' i s use dby larg e commercia l airlin e aircraft
. Safet y concern s increas e a s mor e aircraf t us e thes e taxiways
. Fo r thi s reason , GMI

A ' s lon g termMaste r

Pla n anticipate s tha t

Genera l Aviatio n suppor t activitie s wil l b e locate dawa y fromth e intersectio n ofTaxiwa y 'P ' an dTaxiway 'B. ' I f Sterlin g succeed s o n it s Complain t an di s allowe dt o fue l alarg e numbe r o f aircraf t tha t Sterlin g neithe r

own s no r

controls , a s i f

Sterlin g wer e a n FBO , the n safety concern s ar e likel y t o aris e a s aresul t o f th e increase dtaxiin g activity o f Genera l Aviatio n aircraf

t mixe dwit

h th e large r

airlin e aircraf

t alread y usin g th e taxiway s nea r

Sterling' s facilities
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 , exhibit

B , 112 2 an d 23 ] Th e Directo r

reviewe dthes e concern s with aSenio r Enginee r i n th e FAA' s Great

Lake s Region
. Th e enginee r

note dthat

th e cumulativ e impac t

o f significant , additiona l fuelin g activitie s o n Taxiwa y P coul dresul t i n capacity an dcongestio n concern s for th e ai r traffi c contro l tower . [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m20 ]

'^ Gran t Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an dMaintenanc e requires , i n pertinen t

part , "[t]h e airport

an dal l facilitie s whic h ar e necessary t o serv e th e aeronautica l user s o f th e airport , othe r

tha n facilitie s owne dan dcond-olle db y th e Unite d States , shal l b e operate dat al l time s i

n asaf e an dserviceabl e conditio n an di n accordanc e wit

h th e minimu m standard s a s ma

y b e require do r

prescribe db y applicabl e Federal , stat e an dlocaragencie s for maintenanc e an d operation. "2 6

Gran t Assuranc e 2 2 at

(h ) an d(i ) provide s tha t

an airport

sponso r may trea t

dissimilarly , dissimilar aeronautica l use s o f

th e airport
. Thi s i s especiall y tru e whe n i t come s t o matter s o f safet y an dth e airport' s operationa l efficiency
. [Se e FA A Orde r 5190.6 B H I 1.5.c ] Th e Responden t

i s obligated ' t o ensur e tha t an y future rights negotiate dwit h th e Complainan t

d o not creat e an advers e impac t o n safet y o r limi t th e future utility o f

th e airport a s planned
. Conclusio n o f Pron g 2 Th e Complainan t

czinnot establis h tha t

i t i s similarl y situated
. Thi s effectivel y preclude s th e Directo r fromfinding unjus t

discrimination
. Gran t

Assuranc e 2 2 permit s a

n airport sponso r t o treat dissimilar

aeronautica l use s o f

th e airport

i n adissimila r

manner . Conclusio n o f

Issu e 1 Th e Complainan t

an dScott

Aviatio n assume dan dexercise dbroade r fiieling rights tha n thos e containe di n it s actual leas e with th e Responden t fo r ove r 2 0 years . Onc e th e Responden t becam e awar e o f

thi s situation , i t

too k step s t o enforc e th e term s stipulate di n it s leas e with th e Complainant
. Thi s doe s no t constitut e aviolatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 22 , an dth e Directo r wil l not abrogat e avali dleas e simpl y becaus e th e Complainan t no w realize s tha t

i t doe s no t contai n th e explici t

rights i t desires
. In orde r t o sustai n afinding o f

unjus t economi c discrimination , acomplainan t mus t establis h that i t requeste dsimilar

term s an dcondition s a s othe r similarl y situate daeronautica l users an dwas denie dfor unjus t reasons . Firs t

an dforemost , th e Complainan t agree dt o mor e limite dfiielin g rights whe n i t

assume dth e Scott

leas e i n 200 4 an dagai n whe n i t exercise dit s optio n t o exten dit s leas e i n 2007
. Secondly , eve n i f th e Complainan t

ha dpetitione dth e County t o expan dit s fuelin g rights i n 200 4 o r

200 7 an dwa s denied , th e Directo r doe s not findth e Complainan t

t o b e similarl y situate dt o th e Cessn aCitatio n Servic e Center
. Th e Recor didentifie s th e Complainan t a s a n aircraf t charte r an dtax i servic e provide r an daircraf

t maintenanc e facility
. Moreover , th e Complainant' s ow n websit e describe s abroade r offerin g o f

services , an dcontradict s it s agreemen t

with th e County
. Lastly , th e Responden t may trea t

dissimilar

user s i n adissimilar manne r whe n it s distinction s ar e reasonable
. Th e Directo r dismisse s th e Complainant' s allegation s wit

h regar dt o Gran t

Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. Issu e 2 : Whether

th e Responden t

ha s grante da n Exclusiv e Righ t t o The Cessn aAircraf

t Compan y by refusin g t o recogniz e th e Complainan t a s aSpecialize dAircraf

t Repai r Servic e operato r i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(4 ) an dGran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights
. Th e Complainan t

states :

" Gran t Assuranc e 29 , Airpor t

Layou t Plan , require s a

n airport t o "kee p u p t o dat e a

t al l time s a

n airport layou t plan o f th e airport

showing..
. th e locatio n an dnatur e o f al l existin g an dpropose dairpor t facilitie s an dstructures.. . Th e sponso r wil l no t mak e o r permi t any change s o r

alteration s i n th e airport

o r an y o f it e facilitie s whic h ar e no t

in conformit y wit h th e airport

layou t plan a s approve db y th e Secretar y an dwhic h might , in th e opinio n o f th e Secretary , adversel y affec t th e safety , utility o r

efficienc y o f

th e airport. "2 7

"Milwauke e County' s implici t refusa l t o recogniz e th e fac t tha t Sterlin g meet s th e requirement s t o provid e Specialize dAircraf t Repai r Services , a s define db y th e Minimu mStandards , i s aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights
. " [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1,1[5 ] A s note dabove , th e Recor dcontain s n o evidenc e t o establis h tha t th e Complainan t requeste dsuc h designatio n fromth e Respondent
. Th e Complainan t provide s n o evidenc e t o establis h tha t

Cessn ai s recognize da s aSpecialize dAircraf t Repai r Servic e operator . I n fact , th e Responden t

state s that

neithe r part y is , no r

ha s applie dt o be , aSpecialize d Aircraf t Repai r Servic e operator . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5 , H 10 ] I n aPart 1 6 investigation , th e Directo r weigh s th e documentatio n an dinformatio n submitte dt o th e Recor db y apreponderanc e o f evidence
. Here , th e recor ddoe s not sho w that anothe r part y similarl y situate dt o th e Complainan t receive dpreferentia l treatmen t denie dt o th e Complainan t i n similar

situations
. [Se e Richar dM
. Grayso n an dGat e 9 Hangar
. LL C v . DeKal b County
. Georgia , FA A Docke t No
. 16-05-13 , (Februar y 1 , 2006 ) (Director' s Determination ) at 11 ] Th e Recor dfail s t o substantiat e Complainant' s claim
. A s such , th e Directo r

dismisse s thi s allegation
. Issu e 3 : Whether

th e Responden t

ha s grante da n Exclusiv e Righ t t o The Cessn aAircraf

t Compan y by refusin g t o allo w th e Complainan t th e righ t t o fue l it s customers , busines s invitees , an dguest s i n violatio n o f 4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(4 ) an dGran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights
. Th e Complainan t

states : "Milwauke e County expressl y grante dCessn ath e righ t t o fue l 'customers , busines s invitees , o r

guests ' wit

h n o referenc e t o th e Minimu mStandards
. The refusa l t o sran t

asimila r righ t t o Sterlin s i s agran t

o f a n exclusiv e rish t

t o Cessn a" [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m1,115 ] Th e Responden t

denie s th e allegatio n tha t i t ha s grante da n exclusiv e right t o Cessna
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5,115 ] In th e Complainant' s secon dpleading , i t clarifie s tha t

it s allegation s relate dt o Gran t Assuranc e 2 3 ar e dependen t

upo n it s allegation s regardin g Gran t Assuranc e 22
. Th e Complainan t states : "...Sterlin g ha s establishe dtha t Cessn aan dSterlin g ar e similarl y situate d entities , ye t

th e County prefer s t o gran t Cessn ath e exclusiv e righ t t o fue l 'it s customers , busines s invitee s an dguests. ' Thi s dissimila r treatmen t

amount s t o both aviolatio n o f

Assuranc e 2 2 an d23
. " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m9 , p . 6 ] Th e Complainan t

cite s Maxi mUnited
. LL C v . Boar do f Count y Commissioner s o f Jefferso n County
. Colorado
. FAA Docke t No
. 16-01-10 , (Apri l 2 , 2002 ) (Director' s Determination ) (Maxim ) in support

o f thi s reasoning
. I n Maxim , th e Complainan t sough t self-fiielin g right s similar t o thos e grante dt o othe r tenants . Th e Complainan t the n sucTcessfiill

y establishe dthat

i t2 8

wa s similarl y situate dt o tw o othe r tenant s with contemporaneou s leases
. Lastly , becaus e onl y Maxi mwa s prohibite dfromself-fiieling , th e Directo r foun dtha t

aconstructiv e exclusiv e right was grante dt o th e grou p o f othe r tenant s wh o wer e allowe dt o self-fue l durin g thi s sam e period
. Th e extan t

cas e i s quit e different
. Sterlin g seek s t o obtai n aright t o fiiel aircraf

t tha t i s no t provide dfor

b y it s leas e with th e County
. Fuelin g i s aprivileg e grante db y a n airport sponso r t o aprospectiv e aeronautica l servic e provider
. I t i s no t aright tha t ma y b e exercise dat

wil l b y a prospectiv e servic e provider
. Secondly , th e Complainan t consente dt o limite drights t o fiiel whe n i t assume dScott' s leas e i n 200 4 an dthe n extende dtha t leas e i n 2007
. Mos t

significantly , th e Complainan t

ha s not establishe dtha t

i t i s similarl y situate dt o an y othe r aeronautica l servic e provide r exercisin g broader

fiieling rights. Give n thes e star k differences , th e Directo r doe s no t vie w th e finding s mad e i n Maxi ma s applicabl e t o thi s Determination
. Gran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights , prohibit s a n airport sponso r fromgrantin g t o on e entity th e right t o provid e aparticular

aeronautica l servic e t o th e publi c whil e preventin g othe r similarl y situate dentitie s fromofferin g th e sam e aeronautica l service
. FA A Orde r 5190.6 B define s an exclusiv e right as , " apower , privilege , o r othe r right excludin g o r

debarrin g anothe r fro menjoyin g o r

exercisin g alik e power , privileg e o r right." [FA A Orde r

5190.6B , 118.2. ] FAA Advisory Circular

150/5190-6 , Exclusiv e Right s a t Federally-Obligate dAirports , note s that th e exclusiv e rights prohibitio n ha s existe dsinc e 1938
. It s purpos e "i s t o preven t monopolie s an dcombination s i n restrain t o f trad e an dt o promot e competitio n at federally-obligate dairports
. Thi s Advisory Circular

fiirther state s "[s]ignifican t

t o understandin g th e exclusiv e right s policy , i s th e recognitio n tha t

i t i s th e impac t

o f th e activity , an dnot

necessaril y th e airpor t

sponsor' s intent , that

constitute s a

n exclusiv e rights violation. " Therefore , th e Directo r wil l analyz e th e impac t o f Cessna' s broader

fuelin g rights. Th e Complainan t

assert s th e gravame n o f

th e Complain t

i s that "both Sterlin g an dCessn aar e stil l similarl y situate daeronautica l servic e provider s with regar dt o thei r repai r servic e classificatio n at

GMIA... " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1,112

] Scott Ai r wa s certifie da s aPart

14 5 Aircraf t Repai r Statio n o n Septembe r

1 , 1993 ; thi s i s approximatel y four year s after

Cessn a execute dit s lease
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1,116

] Scott Air' s leas e was amende ds o that it coul d perfor maircraf t engin e repair s an dmaintenanc e service s i n Octobe r o f 2003
. [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m17 , exhibit

C ] Sterlin g execute dit s mos t recen t Commercia l Operating Permi t t o perfor m airfram e an dengin e maintenanc e an drepai r service s o n Jun e 2 , 2009
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m17 , exhibi t B ] Th e fac t

tha t Cessn amay fiie

l it s customers , busines s invitees , an dguest s ha s no t preclude dth e Complainan t fro mofferin g competin g aircraf t maintenanc e an drepai r

service s wit h gros s revenue s i n exces s o f on e millio n dollar s i n 2008
. [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m1,11 2 an d FAA Exhibi t

I , Ite m8 , exhibi t

A , 114 ] GMIA' s Minimu mStandard s prescrib e requirement s for FBO s imde r

th e operatin g category o f lin e services
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5 , AF7 ] FBO s providin g lin e service s ar e th e onl y aeronautica l servic e provider s authorize db y th e Minimu mStandard s t o sel l fiiel commerciall y t o th e general public
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 , exhibit

B , p . 1 an dFA A Exhibi t I , Ite m5 , AF7 ] Althoug h onl y on e FB O i s currentl y operatin g a t th e Airport , th e Resppnden t solicite dfo

r a2 9

secon dFB O whic h wa s selecte di n Jun e 2008.' ^ [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5 , AF1 7 an dAF l 8 ] Th e Complainan t

opte dno t

t o respon dt o thi s solicitatio n an dstate s that i t ha s n o desir e t o operat e a n FBO
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m5 AFl8 ; FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m8 , A F18 ; FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m8 , exhibi t A , 113 ] Give n tha t

on e FB O i s permitte dt o sel l fiiel commerciall y an dGMI A too k step s t o establis h asecon dFBO , th e Directo r caimo t conclud e that

Cessn aha s a n exclusiv e right t o fiie l aircraf t i t doe s no t ow n o r lease
. Cessna' s fuelin g rights ar e conveye dthroug h it s lease
. However , ther e i s nothin g i n th e Cessn a leas e whic h woul dprohibi t th e Responden t

fromconferrin g th e sam e o r simila r privileg e t o anothe r aeronautica l servic e provider
. Th e Complainan t acquire daleas e with differen t term s a s compare dt o Cessna
. A n airport sponso r doe s not hav e an obligatio n t o awar dne w rights requeste db y it s aeronautica l tenants , especiall y i f suc h rights woul dnot

b e consisten t

with th e airport' s minimu mstandard s o r violat e th e contrac t

rights o f othe r aeronautica l tenants . [See , Penobscot ; Wilso n a

t 12-13 ; Sant aMonic aAirpor t Association , Kruege r

Aviation , Inc
. an dSant a Monic aai r

Cente r v . City o f

Sant aMonica , California , FA A Docke t No
. 16-99-21 , (February 4 , 2003 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder ) at 17 ; Aerodynamic s FA D at 11 ; an dRic k

Aviatio n a

t 28 ] Cessn aenjoy s aprivileg e whic h ma y b e uniqu e at thi s time
. Bu t

th e plai n languag e containe di n th e leas e doe s not

ba r othe r aeronautica l servic e provider s frompotentiall y securin g th e sam e typ e o f privilege
. Moreover , th e impac t o f thi s privileg e ha s no t

preclude dothe r

FB O aeronautica l servic e provider s fromprovidin g competin g service s o r engagin g i n th e commercia l sal e o f fue l unde r th e Minimu mStandards
. Therefore , th e Record , b y apreponderanc e o f reliabl e an dprobativ e documentatio n an dinformation , doe s no t support th e allegatio n that

th e Responden t

ha s grante dan exclusiv e right i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e 23
. VII
. CONCLUSIO N Upo n consideratio n o f

th e entir e Recor dherein , th e applicabl e la w an dpolicy , an dfor th e reason s state dabove , th e Directo r finds an dconcludes : (1 ) Th e Respondent' s refusal t o gran t th e Complainan t

th e sam e fuelin g right s a s thos e grante dt o anothe r

aeronautica l servic e provide r doe s no t constitut e unjus t

discriminatio n i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(1 ) o r Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination
. (2 ) Th e Responden t

ha s no t grante dan Exclusiv e Righ t t o Th e Cessn aAircraf

t Compan y b y refiisin g t o recogniz e th e Complainan t a s aSpecialize dAircraf

t Repai r Servic e operator . Thi s doe s no t

constitut e aviolatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(4 ) o r Gran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights
. (3 ) B y refiisin g t o allo w th e Complainan t th e right t o ftiel it s customers , busines s invitees , an dguests , th e Responden t ha s no t grante dan Exclusiv e Righ t t o Th e Cessn aAircraf

t Compan y i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C
. § 47107(a)(4 ) o r Gran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights
.

'^ GMI A selecte dMercury Aviation' s FB O proposal ; however , Mercury Aviatio n ha s ye t t o begi n constructio n o f

it s ne w facilitie s du e t o economi c uncertainties
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5 , AF l 8 ]3 0 ORDE R Accordingly , i t

i s ordere dthat : 1
. Th e Complain t

i s dismissed ; an d 2
. Al l motion s no t

expressl y grante di n thi s Determinatio n ar e denied
.

RIGH T O FAPPEA L Thi s Director' s Determinatio n i s a n initia l agenc y determinatio n an ddoe s no t constitut e final agenc y actio n an dorde r

subjec t t o judicia l review
. [1 4 CF R16.247(b)(2). ] A part y t o thi s Complain t

adversel y affecte db y th e Director' s Determinatio n ma y appea l th e initia l determinatio n t o th e FA A Associat e Administrato r for Airport s pursuan t

t o 1 4 CF R16.33(b ) withi n thirty (30 ) day s afte r servic e o f

th e Director' s Determination
.


# ^c^^f./J r

AP R' 3 2°' ° Directo r Dat e Offic e o f Complianc e an dFiel dOperation sSTERLIN G AVIATION , LL C
v . MILWAUKE E COUNTY , WISCONSI N DIRECTOR' S DETERMINATIO N DOCKE T NO
. 16-09-0 3 Exhibi t 1 INDE X O FADMINISTRATIV E RECOR D Ite m1 Jvm

e 8 , 200 9 Complain t

filedb y Ken t

S
. Jackso n an dLori N
. Edwards , Attorney s for th e Complainant
. Exhibi t A Leas e Agreemen t

betwee n Milwauke e County an dth e Cessn aAircraf t Company , date dSeptembe r 11,1989
. Exhibi t B Schedul e o f

Minimu mStandard s for

Commercia l Aeronautica l Activitie s o n Milwauke e County' s Airport s a s amende di n Octobe r 2003
. Exhibi t C Leas e Agreemen t

betwee n Milwauke e County an dScott Ai r Charter , Inc
. date dApri l 17 , 1997
. Exhibi t D Affidavi t

o f To mScott

date dOctobe r

10 , 2007
. Ite mA Jun e 12 , 200 9 Lette r fromWisconsi n DO T requestin g t o b e take n of f servic e list
. Ite m2 Jun e 19,200 9 FA A Notic e o f Dockete dComplain t

16-09-0 2 Ite m3 Jun e 29 , 200 9 Notic e o f Appearanc e for

Respondent
. Ite m4 Respondent' s Motion t o Exten dTim e date dJun e 30 , 2009
. Ite m5 Jul y 31 , 200 9 Answe r filedb y Scott

P
. Lewis , Meliss aC
. Allison , an dTimoth y R
. Karaskiewicz , Attorney s for th e Respondent
. Ite m6 Jul y 31 , 200 9 Motio n t o Dismis s filedby Scott P
. Lewis , Meliss aC
. Allison , an d Timoth y R
. Karaskiewicz , Attorney s for th e Respondent
. Ite m7 Jul y 31 , 200 9 Memorandu mi n Support o f Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s filedb y Scot t P
. Lewis , Meliss aC
. Allison , an dTimoth y R
. Karaskiewicz , Attorney s for th e Respondent
.Exhibi t A Affidavi t

o f Barry Bateman , Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport Director , date dJul y 28 , 2009
. Exhibi t B Affidavi t

o f Steve n A
. Wright , Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport Propertie s Manager , date dJul y 28 , 2009
. Exhibi t C Lette r

date dSeptembe r

22 , 200 6 fro mSteve n A
. Wright , Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport , t o Robert Gort , Sterlin g Aviation
. Exhibi t D Lette r

date dAugus t

12 , 200 8 fromScott

Lewis , Anderso n & Kreiger , t o Randal l Fiertz , FAA
. Exhibi t E Excerpt s fro mSterlin g Aviation' s website
. Dat e printe dunknown
. Exhibi t FLette r

date dSeptembe r

16 , 200 5 fro mBarry Bateman , Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport , t o Rober t Gort , Sterlin g Aviation
. Exhibi t G Lette r

date dJul y 25 , 200 7 fromBarry Bateman , Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport , t o Robert Gort , Sterlin g Aviation
. Exhibi t H Lette r

date dAugus t

10 , 200 7 fromBarry Bateman , Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport , t o Robert Gort , Sterlin g Aviation
. Exhibi t I Lette r

date dOctobe r

10 , 200 7 fro mMatthe w J
. Flynn , Quarle s & Brady , t o Barry Bateman , Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport
.

Sub-Exhibi t

1
. Affidavi t

o f Robert Gort , Presiden t

an dChie f

Operatin g Officer o f Steriin g Aviation , LL C date dOctobe r 10 , 2007
. Sub-Exhibi t

2
. Affidavi t

o f To mScott , founde r

o f Scott Aviation , date d Octobe r 10,2007
. Exhibi t J Lette r

date dAugus t

29 , 200 8 fro mJeri Alles , FAA , t o Scott Lewis , Anderso n & Kreiger
. Exhibi t K Lette r

date dMay 26 , 200 9 fromScott Lewis , Anderso n & Kreiger , t o Randal l Fiertz , FAA , with attachmen t lette r date dOctobe r

23 , 2003
. Ite m8 Augus t

7 , 200 9 Repl y filedb y Ken t S
. Jackso n an dLori N
. Edwards , Attorney s for th e Complainant
. Exhibi t A Affidavi t

o f Robert Gort , Presiden t

an dChie f

Operatin g Officer

o f Steriin g Aviation , LL C date dAugus t 7 , 2009
. Exhibi t B Airlin e Certificat e Informatio n for Cessn aAircraf

t Compan y a s printe d fromth e FAA' s websit e o n Augus t 5 , 2009
.Exhibi t C Airlin e Certificat e Informatio n for Citationshare s Managemen t LL C a s printe dfromth e FAA' s websit e o n Augus t 5 , 2009
. Exhibi t D Compan y Overvie w pag e fromvyww.citationshares.co ma s printe do n Augus t 7 , 2009
. Ite m9 Augus t

7 , 200 9 Complainant' s Answe r t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s filedb y Ken t S
. Jackso n an dLori N
. Edwards , Attorney s for th e Complainant
. Exhibi t A Affidavi t

o f Robert Gort , Presiden t

an dChie f

Operatin g Officer

o f Steriin g Aviation , LL C date dAugus t 7 , 2009
. Exhibi t B Airlin e Certificat e Informatio n for Cessn aAircraf

t Compan y a s printe d fromth e FAA' s websit e o n Augus t 5 , 2009
. Exhibi t C Airlin e Certificat e Informatio n for Citationshare s Managemen t LL C a s printe dfromth e FAA' s websit e o n Augus t 5 , 2009
. Exhibi t D Compan y Overvie w pag e fromwww.citationshares.co ma s printe do n Augus t 7 , 2009
. Ite m1 0 Augus t

20 , 200 9 Respondent' s Rebutta l filedb y Scott P
. Lewis , Meliss aC
. Allison , an d Timoth y R
. Karaskiewicz , Attorney s for th e Respondent
. Exhibi t A Affidavi t

o f Pau l Boucher , Genera l Manage r o f th e Milwauke e Citatio n Servic e Cente r

owne db y Cessn aAircraf t Company , date dAugus t 19,2009
. Exhibi t B Supplementa l Affidavi t o f Barry Bateman , Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport Director , date dAugus t

19,2009
. Ite m1 1 Airport

Improvemen t

Progra mGran t

History o f

Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport printe do n Novembe r

23 , 2009
. Ite m1 2 FA A Form501 0 "Airport Maste r Record " for

th e Airport , Date : Octobe r 22 , 2009
. Ite m1 3 Reques t

for Additiona l Informatio n an dNotic e o f Extensio n o f

Time , date dNovembe r 12,2009
. Ite m1 4 Lette r

date dMarc h 30 , 200 9 fromKen t S
. Jackson , Jackso n & Wade , L.L.C , t o Randal l Fiertz , FAA
. Ite m1 5 Lette r

date dApri l 30 , 200 9 fromJer i Alles , FAA , t o Ken t

S
. Jackson , Jackso n & Wade , L.L.C
.Ite m1 6 Lis t o f Cessn aCitatio n Servic e Centers a s printe dwvyw.cessna.co mo n Novembe r 24 , 2009
. Ite m1 7 Complainant' s Respons e t o FAA' s Reques t for Additiona l Information
. Date d Decembe r

10 , 2009
. Exhibi t A Sterling' s Commercia l Aeronautica l Operating Permi t for Ai r Charte r an d Ai r Taxi
. Exhibi t B Sterling' s Commercia l Aeronautica l Operatin g Permi t fo r Airfram e an d Engin e Maintenanc e an dRepai r and/o r Modification
. Exhibi t C Scott

Ai r Charter' s Commercia l Aeronautica l Operatin g Permi t for Airfram e an dEngin e Maintenanc e an dRepai r and/o r Modificatio n an drelate d amendmen t

t o th e Scott

Ai r Charte r Lease
. Exhibi t D Scott

Ai r Charter' s Commercia l Aeronautica l Operatin g Permi t for Aircraf t Managemen t

Service s Operato r

an drelate damendmen t

t o th e Scott

Ai r Charte r Lease. Exhibi t E Sterling' s Leas e Renewa l Notic e t o GMI A date dJanuar y 26 , 2007 , an d GMIA' s acknowledgement
. Ite m1 8 Respondent' s Respons e t o FAA' s Reques t fo r Additiona l Information , date dDecembe r 8 , 2009
. Exhibi t A Lette r

date dJul y 17 , 200 7 fro mRo b Gort , Sterlin g Aviatio n t o Barry Bateman , Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport
. Exhibi t B Lette r

date dAugus t

1 , 200 7 fro mRo b Gort , Sterlin g Aviatio n t o Barry Bateman , Genera l Mitchel l Internationa l Airport , enclosin g excerp t o f Minimu m Standards
. Exhibi t C Fue l flowage record s for Signatur e Fligh t

Support
. Exhibi t D Fue l flowage record s for th e Cessn aServic e Center
. Ite m1 9 Excerpt s fromCitationAir' s websit e a s printe do n Decembe r 22 , 2009
. Ite m2 0 Mem o t o Docke t date dJanuary 21 , 201 0 regardin g Taxiwa y P Concerns
. Ite m2 1 Notic e o f

Extensio n o f

Tim e date dFebruar y 12 , 2010
. Ite m2 2 Notic e o f

Extensio n o f

Tim e date dMarc h 10 , 2010
.