FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT April 8, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1205 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ FA A N o. 16- 05- 16 BMI SALVAGE CORPORATION, a Fl or ida c or por at iona nd BL UE SID E S ER

VI CE S, IN C., a Florida Co rp or at io n, Pet it io ne rs , ve rs us FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, MIAM I-DADE COUNTY, FL, Re spon de nts .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe al f ro m a n O rd er of the Fe de ra l A viatio n A dm ini str at ion

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 8, 200 8) Before BIRC H and FAY , C ircuit Judg es, and HIN KL E, * District Judge.

____ ____ * Honora ble Robert L . Hinkle, United States Chief District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of Florida , sitti ngby

desig nation.See 49 U.S.C. § 47151-53. 1 2 FA Y, Circuit Judge: W e re vie waf

ina l de ci sio n of

the A sso ci at e A dm ini str at or f or A ir ports ( the

“ A dm ini str at or ”) of

the F ed er al A viatio n A dm ini str at ion( “ FA A ”) dis m iss ing the
com plaint filed byBMI S alvage Corporation (“ BMI”) and Blueside Services, Inc. (“ Bl ue sid e” ), a lle gin g th at Mi am i- D ad e Co unty , F lor ida ha s vi olate d a

ppl ic ab le fe de ra l l awa nd r el at ed

F A A spo nsor

a ssuranc es by

e nga gin g inunj ust dis cr im inatio n init s op er at ionof the O pa -L oc kaA ir

port. Fi ndi ng the c ur

re nt r ec or d la ck s su ff

ic ie nt e vid en ce f

or am eanin gf

ul
re vie w , w e re m an d to the A dm ini str at or in or de r to g ive the part ie s th e oppo rt uni ty to p re se nt a ddi tio na l e vid en ce . S houl d M ia m i- D ad e Co unty ( the “ Co unty ”) f

ai l t o supp ort i ts a ct ion s w ithnon -d isc ri m inator y j ust if ic at ion s, c or

re ct ive ste ps and rel ie f sh ou ldbe ord ered
. I. Ba ck gr ound In 1961, pursuant to the Surplus Property Ac t of 1944, the federa l governm ent convey ed Opa- Locka A irport (the “ Airport”) , a publi c-use, general aviation airport, to the County
. A s a result, the Countyis boun d by the term s of a 1Al tho ug h th e County is o wn e r o f a

nd sp on so r f or fe de ra l g ra

nts re c e ive d b y

the Ai rp or

t, 2 th e M i am i
- D a d e A v i at i o nD e p art m e n t( “ M D A D ” ) a c tu a l l y o p e r at e s th e A i r p o rt . F o r s i mp l i c i ty, our re fer ence s to the County include MDAD
. The AI P was authorized by the Airport a

nd Airwa y I mprovement Ac t of 1982 3 (“A AIA”) , as ame nded, 49 U.S.C. § 47101, et seq. In the intere st of safe ty , secur ity and deve lopment of civil aer onautics, the F eder al 4 Aviation Act of 1958, a s amende d, 49 U.S.C. § 40101, et seq., deleg ates to the F AA Ad min istrator

signif ic ant r e sp on sib ili tie s f

or the re g ulatio n o f a ir

c omm e rc e . Ape rs on

dir e c tly and su bs tanti a lly

a ff e c te d b y an a ir po rt sp on so r’ s a lle g e d n on c omp lia nc e wi th i ts l e g a l dutie s is entitled to file a c omplaint with the FAA. See 14 CFR § 16.23 (West 2008) (“Par t 16”). The c omp la int mus t pr ov ide a

c on c ise but c omp le te state me nt o f t he fa c ts r e lie d u

po n to su bs tanti ate eac h alleg ation. The c omplaint mustalso descr ibe how the c omplainant was dire ctly and su bs tanti a lly

a ff e c te d b y the thi ng s d on e or

omi tte d b y

the a ir po rt sp on so r. Se e 14 CF R § 16.23(b)( 3, 4) (West 2008) . 3 qui tc la im de ed inc or por at ing le ga l du tie s th at a ri se f ro m the S ur plu s P ro pe rty

A ct . 2 Furthe rm or e, a s th e spon sor f or f ed er al gr an ts r ec ei ve d by the A ir port a s part

of the A ir port I m pr ove m en t P ro gr am

( the “ A IP ”) , the Co unty

is obl igate d to c om

ply
w ithf ed er al lawa nd r el at ed

F A A spo nsor

a ssuranc es . S ee 49 U
. S. C. § 47 107. 3 InA ugus t 20 05, S te phe n O ’ N ea l ( “ Appe llant” ), the ow ne r an d P re sid en t of BM I an d B lue sid e, ini tiate d th is c as e by f ili ng a f orm al c om

pla int on b eh al f of both c om panie s w iththe F A A
. T he c om pla int a lle ge d m an y

gr ie vanc es w iththe 4 Co unty a nd i ts m an ag em en t of

the A ir port, inc lud ing c la im s th at the Co unty violated sp ecific provisi ons of federal lawand related F AAspons or assurances re qui ri ng i t t o m ak e the A ir port ava ila

ble to the pub lic w ith out

unj ust dis cr im inatio n.4

BM I is a sm al l aviatio n bu sin es s sp ec ia liz ing in the de co nstru ct iona nd de m oli tio n of

num er ous cate gor ie s of

a ir cr af t. I n 19 99, a ft er

r el oc at ing to the A ir port f ro m ne ar by Mi am i I nte rn at ion al A ir

port, BM I ex ec ute d af

ive -y ear le as e (the “ 1999 Le ase”) and began operating from 2.2 acr es of a lar ge concrete r am p at the A ir port. Since 1999, BMI has operated on the ram p from 13 tem porary work
c o n t a i n e r s a n damo b i l e o f f i c e . B e g i n n i n g i n 2 0 0 2 , b e c au s e B M I ’s r a mp co nta ine d no c onstru ct ed f ac ili tie s, plu m

bin g or a cc es s to uti lit ie s, BM I m ad e num erous form al and inform al requests to the Countyto enter into a new lease that
w oul d pe rm it BM I to o cc upy e xis tin g or

de ve lop ne wc onstru ct ed f ac ili tie s a t the A ir port. B MI a lle ge s th at

the Co unty

ign or ed , de lay ed

r es pond ing to or

de nie d it s nu m ero us req ue st s. T he 199 9 L ea se e xpi re d by it s te rm s onD ec em

be r 31, 200 4. D es pit e ne got ia tio ns f

or ane wlon g- te rm

le as e that oc curr ed

f ro m O ct obe r 2004 to A ugus t 20 05 , BMI cu rren tl y

op erat es on a m on th -to -m on th lea se by ope rat io n o f la w. Mor e than tw o y ears a ft er the f ili ng o f the c om

pla int , the re ha s be enno a gr ee m en t on a new long-term

lease. H owever , ther e is no evidence that the Airport has t a k e n a c t i o n t o r e mo v e B M I f r o m i t s p r e mi s e s . B M I c o n t i n u e s t o o p e r a t e f r o m a ram p a t the A ir

port. I n f ac t, tw ic e dur ing the pr oc ee din gs b el ow , in May a ndA fixed-base ope rator is a commerc ial entity

providing aer onautical se rvice s, such as 5 fueling , maintenanc e, storag e, g round and f light instruction to the public. See F AA Or der 5190.6A, Airport Compliance Requirements (O ctober 2, 1989). 5 D ec em be r 2005 , the Co unty

a nd B MI e xe cu te d tw o L ea se Mo dif ic at ionL ette rs , w hic h e nlarg ed

the A ir port r am p sp ac e av ai la

ble to BM I on a

m onth- to- m onth ba si s. Appellant established Bluesid e, a Florida c orporation and p roposed tenant at the Airport, to provid e fixed-base operator and aircr aft re pair services, as w ell as to e ve ntu al ly

absor b B MI ’ s de m oli tio n bu sin es s. I n O ct obe r 200 4, Bl ue sid e 5 executed a sublease agre em ent to develop and construct facilities at the A irport
w iththe O pa -L oc kaCo m m uni ty D ev el opm en t C or

por at ion( “ CD C” ), w hic h ha s a 30- y ear le as e w iththe Co unty that e nable s it

to de ve lop sig nif

ic an t po rt ion s of

the A ir port. Y et , Bl ue sid e curr en tly doe s no t op er at e at

the A ir port. Su ble as e ag re em en ts e nte re d in to b y CD C r equir e the appr ova l of the Co unty . T he Co unty

ha s no t a ppr ove d C D C’ s su

ble as e w ithBl ue sid e. T he re is
som e ev ide nc e in the r ec or d to the e ff ec t tha t the Co unty ’ s f

ai lur e to a ppr ove the Bl ue sid e subl ea se is due , a t l ea st i n part , to a de fa ult on C D C’ s de ve lop m en t l ea se w iththe Co unty . T he de ci sio n of the A dm ini str at or

a nd the de te rm inatio n of the D ir ec tor of the O ff ic e of A ir port S af ety a nd S tandard s ( “ D ir ec tor ”) do n ot p ro be int o th e spe ci fi cs of

the de fa ult or the r ea sons f

or the Co unty ’ s de lay

in ap pr ovi ngAppellant’s c omplaint included claims that the County was tre atingBMI

and B lueside 6 unfairly due to rule violations alleg edly committed by

BMI with respec t to derelict a ircra ft and airc raf t notification proce dures. We do not addr ess these a lleg ations beca use the County

denies the a lle g e d v iol atio ns ha d a ny imp a c t on

its de c isi on

wh e the r t o g ra

nt B MI and B lue sid e le a se s to occupy or deve lop constructed f

acilities. Ther efor e, we ref rain fr om addre ssing whe ther such alleg ed violations, if they had bee n considere d by

the County , could be a

basis for de nying or 6 the sublease. Som etim e shortly

before Appellant filed his com plaint, the County

offer ed Bl ue sid e a fi ve -y ear le as e to o cc upy spa ce on a

r am p a t the A ir

port. T he le as e ap pe ars si m il ar, i f no t i de nt ic al forall in te nt s an d p ur po se s, t o t he 19 99 lea se . Appe llant r ej ec te d th e pr opos ed le as e be ca

use he a rg ue s th at

the le as e is ina de qua te due to the f

ive -y ear te rm

a nd an op t- out

pr ovi sio n th at

pr ec lud es him from obtainin g the requisite financing n ecessar y to develop con structed facilities on the r am

p. Th e D i re ct o r r ev i ew ed t h e r ec o rd ev i d en ce co n ce rn i n g Ap p el l an t ’s al le gatio ns o f unj ust

dis cr im inatio n inthe a w ar din g of lon g- te rm

de ve lop m en t le as es a nd d et er

m ine d th at

the Co unty ’ s tr eatm en t of BM I an d B lue sid e did

not vio la te it s f

ed er al obl igatio ns unde r 49 U
. S. C. § 47 107( a) a nd r el at ed G rant A ssuranc e 22 ( E co nom ic N ondi sc ri m inatio n)
. O n a dm ini str at ive appe al , the Adm in is tra to r affi rm edth e Dir ect or ’s dec is io n a nd di sm is se d t he co m pl ai nt . T he iss ue s ona

ppe al ha ve be endis til le d f ro m the sw ee pin g a lle ga tio ns i n t h e c o m p l ai n t . In t h i s Co u rt , Ap p el l an tfo cu s es h i s ar g u m en to n t h e C o u n t y’ s

6de layingthe a pp ro va l of

the de sir e d le a se s. 7 al le ge dly unj ust dis cr im inatio n ina w ar din g c er ta in A ir port t en an ts l ea se s to oc cu py or de ve lop c onstru ct ed

A ir port f ac ili tie s, but

r ef usi ng B MI a nd B lue sid e suc h le as es . I n a ddi tio n to c iti ng e vid en ce that the Co unty a w ar de d le as es to oc cu py or de ve lop c onstru ct ed

A ir port f ac ili tie s to sim ilarl y -s itu at ed te nants , Appe llant p oin ts t o th e Co unty ’ s f ai lur e to a ppr ove , or

e ve n of fe r a le as e co m pa rab le to , Blu es id e’s su bl eas e wit h C DC. A cc or din g to Appe llant, the A dm ini str at or e rr ed w he n he a cc ep te d th e Co unty ’ s le ga lly

ins uf fi ci en t r ea sons to ex pla in why BM I an d B lue sid e ar e not sim ilarly -situated with tenants who rece ived allegedly favorable lea ses. F urther, Appe llant arg ue s th at

the Co unty ’ s de fe nse that l ea se s of fe re d to BM I an d Bl ue sid e w er e co m

para ble to le as es a w ar de d to sim ilarl y -s itu at ed te nants is
un su pp or te d b y

th e rec or d. II. Standard of Re view W e m ust appl y the standard

of r ev ie wa rt ic ulate d inthe F ed er al A viatio n A ct , 49 U
. S. C. § 46 110( c) ( W es t 20 08) , a nd b y de fa ult , the A dm ini str at ive Pr oc ed ur e A ct , 5 U . S. C. § 70 6 ( W es t 20 08) , w he n r ev ie w ing af ina l de ci sio n of

the Fe de ra l A viatio n A dm ini str at iondis m iss ing ac om pla int f ile d un de r Part

16. Under the F ederal A viation Ac t, the A dm inistration 's findings of fact ar e8

co nc lus ive if

sup porte d by

sub stanti al e vid en ce . S ee 49 U
. S. C. § 46 110( c) ( W es t 2008 ) (“ Finding s of fac t by the .
. . A dm inistrator, if supported by subst antial
ev ide nc e, a re c onc lus ive
. ”)
. W e co nsi de r the r ec or d init s e nti re ty “ inc lud ing the body of e vid en ce opp ose d to the [ FA A ’ s] vie w , ” w he n r ev ie w ing the r ec or d f or subs tanti al e vid en ce . N L RB v. S
. F la
. H ote l & Mo te l A ss’ n, 751 F . 2d 1 571, 157 9 (1 1thCi r. 198 5) ( quot ing U niv er sa l C am er a v. N L RB , 340 U . S. 474 , 488 , 71 S
. Ct
. 456, 465, 95 L. Ed. 456 (195 1)). “ Substantial evid ence is such relevant evidence
as ar ea sona

ble m ind m igh t a cc ep t a s a de qua te to supp ort a c onc lus ion
. ” S ing er

v. Garv ey , 20 8 F .3d55 5, 5 58 (6t h C ir. 2 00 0)
. Even if two differ ent conclusio ns can be draw n from the evidence, we m ay st il l fi nd th atth e ag en cy ’s fact ua l fi nd in gs are s up po rte d b y su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. See S. Fla. Hotel & Motel Ass’ n, 751 F.2d at 1579. Substantial evidence review

“ giv es the a ge nc y

the be ne fi t of

the doubt, sin ce it

r equir es not

the de gr ee of
ev ide nc e w hic h satis fi es the c ourt tha t the r equis ite f ac t e xis ts, but

m er el y the de gr ee w hic h c oul d satis fy ar ea sona

ble f ac tf ind er . ” A lle nto w n M ac k S al es & Se rv . , I nc . v. N L RB , 522 U . S. 359 , 377 , 118 S
. Ct
. 818 , 139 L . E d. 2d 7 97 ( 1998 ) (italics om itted). Ina ddi tio n, w e m

ust a sc er ta in whe the r the re is a ratio na l c onne ct ion betwee n the facts found and the decision m ade by the agency
. See Bowm an9

T ransp. , I nc . v. A rk an sa s- Be st F re igh t S y s. , I nc . , 419 U . S. 281 , 285 , 95 S
. Ct
. 438 , 442, 42 L
. E d. 2d 4 47 ( 1974 ); N at ’ l W ild lif e Fe d’ n v. Mars h, 721 F . 2d 7 67, 780 (11th Cir. 1983). Thus, not only m ust the agency ’ s factual f indin gs be sup ported by sub stanti al e vid en ce , but the a ge nc y ’ s no nf

ac tua l ana ly sis , inc lud ing it s int er pr et at ionof

the gov er

nin g st at ute , appl ic at ionof

that st at ute to the f

ac ts, a nd
co nc lus ionm

ust a lso be r ea sona

ble a nd n ot arb itr ar

y a nd c ap ri ci ous. S ee S outh Dak ot a v . Civ il Aero na ut ic s B d., 7 40 F.2d 61 9, 6 21 (8t h C ir.1 98 4) ; St arr v . FAA, 589 F.2d 307 , 310 (7th Cir. 1978 ). II I. D isc uss ion T he f ed er al gov er

nm en t pl ay s an im

por tant r ole in de ve lop ing c ivi l aviatio n through various legislativ e acts designed to develop airport fa cilities. U nder program s that provid e funds and surplu s federa l property to local com

m uniti es, an airport’ s spon sor or owner is bou nd bycertain obli gations , e ither through contract or ar es tr ic tiv e co ve nant i n th e pr ope rty de ed or c onve y an ce ins tr

um en t, to
m aintain and op erate the airport fa cilities safely , e fficiently , and in accordance wit h s pe ci fie d c on di ti on s. T he A ir port r ec ei ve s f

ed er al f unds und er

suc h apr ogr am : the A IP . T his pr ogr am pr ovi de s f

inanc ia l a ssi stanc e to a ir

port sp onso rs in ex ch an ge f or bin din gTh e Se c re tary of Tr ans po rt atio n is a

uth or ize d to pr e sc ri be pr oje c t sp on so rs hip 7 require ments to ensure c ompliance with the AA I A. See 49 U.S.C. § 47107(g )(1) (West 2008). As noted, the County ’s oper ation of the Airpor t is also bound by

the terms of a 8 quitclaim deed issued unde r the Surplus Property Act. Proper

ty deeds issued unde r that Ac t provide in re levant par

t that “the prope rty

transfe rre d here by

. . . shall be used f

or public airpor

t purposes, a

nd only for suc h purposes, on re asonable terms and without unjust discrimination.” This deed c ovenant mirror s Grant Assur ance 22 thus, we do not addre ss whether the County ’s 10 co m m itm en ts d es ign ed

to en sur e that the pub lic int er es t i s se rv ed
. T he se 7
co m m itm en ts w er e de ta ile d inthe Co unty ’ s a ppl ic at ion s f

or f ed er al a ssi stanc e an d in the gr an t a gr ee m en t, w hic h in cl ude s ali st o f spon sor a ssuranc es inc or

por at ing ap pli ca ble f ed er al law s, r eg ulatio ns, e xe cu tiv e or de rs , statut e- ba se d a ssuranc es , an d othe r re qui re m en ts b ind ing on the Co unty . A ft er a cc ep tanc e of

a n A IP gr an t, the a ssuranc es be co m e a bin din g ob lig at ionbe tw ee n th e ai rp ort sp onso r an d th e federa l governm ent, and the FAAhas a statutory oblig ation to ensu re that air port spon sor s c om

ply w iththe ir

spo nsor a ssuranc es . S ee 49 U
. S. C. § 47 122 (W es t 20 08 ). Inthi s c as e, Appe llant a lle ge s th at the Co unty

ha s vi olate d F ed er al G rant A ssuranc e 22 ( E co nom ic N ondi sc ri m inatio n) , w hic h pr ovi de s th at the Co unty m ust m ak e the A ir

port ava ila

ble “ fo r publ ic use on r ea sona ble te rm s, a nd w ith out unj ust dis cr im inatio n, to al l ty

pe s, kin ds, a nd c la sse s of a er onauti ca l a ct ivi tie s, inc lud ing c om

m er ci al a er onauti ca l a ct ivi tie s of fe ri ng s er vic es to the pub lic a t the airport.” G rant A ssurance 22(a) ( im plem enting 4 9 U. S. C. § 471 07(a)(1))
. 8 9obligations arise fr om the deed or contra ctual sponsor a ssuranc es bec ause the analy sis would be identical for

purposes of our

revie w. The oblig ation to make the Air port ava ilable to the public without unjust di scrimination 9 is nece ssarily

balanc ed by

provisions permitting the County “to establish such re asonable , and not unjustl y

discriminatory , conditions to be met by all users of the airport a s may be nec essar

y for the sa fe a

nd eff icient oper ation of the a irport.” Gr ant Assura nce 22( h). More over, unde r Gra nt Assuranc e 22(i), the County may “prohibit or limit any

g iven ty pe, kind or c lass of aer onautical use of the a irport if such a ction is nece ssary for the sa fe ope ration of the a irport or nece ssary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public.” B y fa ili ngto r a ise a

vio latio n o f G ra

nt A ssu ra nc e 23 (E xclu siv e Rig hts ) i n h is 10 c omp la int , App e lla

nt h a s w a ive d h is r ig ht t o a rgue su c h a

vio latio n in

thi s Co ur t. 11 Sp ec if ic al ly , BM I an d B lue sid e cl ai m the Co unty

vio la te d G rant A ssuranc e 22
w he n it a w ar de d c er

ta in t en an ts, but

not oth er s, le as es to oc cu

py or de ve lop
co nstru ct ed

A ir port f ac ili tie s. 10 BM I an d B lue sid e cl ai m

in ge ne ra l tha t the y

a re sim ilarl y

sit ua te d w iththe A ir port t en an ts who r ec ei ve d f av or ab le le as es f

ro m the Co unty . T he A dm ini str at or

a nd D ir ec tor

both a cknow le dge d, how ev er , that f ac ts s uppo rt ing these claim s had not b een clearly , c oncisely , or com pletely described as re quired by Part 16. Further

com plicating th e ef

fort to determ ine whether the tenants are sim ilarl y sit ua te d, the r ec or d in cl ude s w ha t c oul d be c onsi de re d c onf lic tin g st at em en ts fro m

BMI a nd Blu es id e. Fo r ex am ple , a s no te d by

the A dm ini str at or , w he n de sc ri bin g ho wthe Co unty a lle ge dly f av or ed f ixe d- ba se ope rator

Mi am i E xe cu tiv e A viatio n, Appe llant c om

pare s th e Co unty ’ s tr eatm en t of Bl ue sid e, but

the n su dde nlyF or e xamp le , th e state me nt: “ B MI Sa lva g e Cor

po ra tio n ma de re pe ate d r e qu e sts to 11 lease . . . in an ef

fort to open a

new a ircra ft repa ir station business” is not necessa rily inconsistent with “B lueside is proposingto offer [fix ed-ba se oper ator] service s, which includes the c reation of a . . . re pair station which a re totally differ ent servic es fr om BMI , which [presently ] offers a ircra ft tear down servic es.” 12 sw itc he s to state m en ts r eg ar din g B MI , onl y the n to j um

p ba ck to state m en ts re gard ing Bl ue sid e. T he A dm ini str at or use d th is i nc onsi ste nc y

to sugg es t tha t the record is not clear

regar ding which corporate entity wishes to establish a new ai rc ra ft r ep ai r statio n. W e m ust a gr ee that w hil e ar gui ng the ir c as e be lowBM I an d B lue sid e did the m se lve s adis se rv ic e by m uddy ing the r ec or d w iththe r ev olv ing use of corporate nam es and presenting in distin ct business plans. H owever , c ertain re cord
ev ide nc e de em ed

inc onsi ste nt b y

the A dm ini str at or

is not , in our

vie w , c ontrary

to Appe llant’ s e xpr es s pl an s to e ve ntu al ly m er ge BM I an d B lue sid e. W e ar e ab le to re co nc ile m an y

of the se se em ing inc onsi ste nc ie s by r ec ogni zi ng tha t the se state m en ts r ef

le ct both f ai le d pa st e ff

orts t o e xpand B MI a nd p re se nt e ff orts t o of fe r ad dit ion al se rv ic es thr oughBl ue sid e, w hic h pl an s to pos sib ly absor b B MI in the future. 11 Our r eading of the record cle arly shows that BMI is an established aircra ft de m oli tio n bu sin es s th at

m ad e num er ous re que sts to obt ai n am or e pe rm an en t le as ing a rr an ge m en t a t the A ir port. T he r ec or d a lso c le ar ly sho w s th at

Bl ue sid e is13

a se parate e nti ty

e sta bli she d by

Appe llant f

or the pr im ar

y pur pose of e nte ri ng i nto
a lon g- te rm

le as e to o pe rate af

ixe d- ba se ope rator

bus ine ss. F urthe r, w e re ad the
re co rd a s c le ar ly

de m onstratin g th at

Appe llant atte m

pte d nu m er ous tim es in va in to o bta in p er

m iss ionto oc cu

py or de ve lop c onstru ct ed

f ac ili tie s a t the A ir

port f or th e p ur po se of o pe ni ng an air craf t re pa ir b us in es s. Ther e is potential confus ion regarding the corporate nam e under w hich that aircr aft re pair business wa s to operate. How ever, there c an be no m istake that Appellant m ade severa l requests, fir st throug h BMI then through Bluesi de, f or a lease to occupy

or develop constructed facilities at the Airport in order to open an ai rc ra ft r ep ai r busi ne ss. T he r ec or d m ay be la ck ing in ce rt ai n sp ec if ic de ta ils , som e of w hic h th e Co unty

or thi rd part ie s are li ke ly

in a be tte r posi tio n to pr ovi de than B MI or

Bl ue sid e. N ev er

the le ss, w e be lie ve Appe llant h as state d w ith sufficient particularity

his allegations that the Countyunjustly discrim inated ag ai nst BM I an d B lue sid e by

r ef usi ng t o gr an t e ith er

c om pany ale as e to o cc upy

or de ve lop c onstru ct ed

f ac ili tie s a t the A ir

port. E xtr ac tin g f

ro m the r ec or d th at

BM I an d B lue sid e w ishto oc cu py or de ve lop c onstru ct ed

f ac ili tie s a t the A ir

port f or the pur pose of ope ratin g ae ro nauti ca l bu sin es se s, w e m ust a ddr es s Appe llant’ s a lle ga tio ns tha t the Co unty re pe at ed ly

de lay ed or de nie d B MI a nd B lue sid e le as es to oc cu py or de ve lop14

co nstru ct ed

f ac ili tie s w hil e gr an tin g su chle as es to sim ilarl y sit ua te d te nants . T he two specific te nants alleged to h ave re ceived favorable tr eatm ent are Clero A viatio n and M ia m i E xe cu tiv e A viatio n. W e be ginw ithCl er o A viatio n. In 2002, on at least two occasions, Appellant expressed to the County an int er es t i n e nte ri ng i nto alon g- te rm le as e that w oul d e nable BM I to e xpand and offer aircr aft re pair services. In Fe bruary 2002 , Appellant no tified the Countythat he w an te d to de ve lop pr ope rty a t the A ir

port i n ale tte r co m

pla ini ng tha t hi s ph one ca lls to Co unty -a

ppr ove d de ve lop er s auth or iz ed to pr ovi de alon g- te rm

le as e w en t unr et ur ne d f or se ve ra l y ears . I n M ar ch200 2, Appe llant s en t a f ac sim ile to a Co un ty offi ci al req ue st in g p erm is si on to lea se Bu il di ng 40 7 a t t he Airp or t , a co nde m ne d bu ild ing BM I of

fe re d to r en ova te a t i ts o w n c ost pr ovi de d th e Co unty would partially

offset such costs with lease cr edits. T hat request wa s not granted
an d t he reco rdpro vi de s n o re as on . Inc ontra st, the r ec or d sh ow s th at the Co unty

pr ovi de d C le ro A viatio n a five-y ear lease to occupy a condem

ned buil ding (Building 6 6). When that bui ldi ng f

ai le d in spe ct ion , the Co unty a nd C le ro A viatio n pr om ptl y e nte re d in to a ne wthr ee -y ear le as e fo r a se parate c onde m ne d bu ild ing ( Bu ild ing 137 ). T he
re ci ta ls t o th e thr ee -y ear le as e state that C le ro A viatio n in te nde d to oc cu py Bu ild ing 137 w hil e ne got ia tio ns w er e sim ult an eo usl y

und er w ay w iththe Co unty15

fo r Cl er o A viatio n to c onstru ct ane wf ac ili ty on A ir port pr ope rty . T he r ec or d a lso ap pe ar s to de m onstrate that the Co unty a gr ee d to f

inanc e, a t l ea st i n part , the refu rb is hm en t an d re -cer ti fic at io n o f th os e co nd em ne d b ui ld in gs . In the fac e of w hat could be reasonably interpreted as discrim inatory tr eatm en t, the A dm ini str at or c onc lud ed

that B MI a nd C le ro A viatio n w er e not sim ilarly situated tenants and , in any event, the B MI and Cler o Aviation leases
w er e in f ac t c om para ble
. T he A dm ini str at or

r ea sone d th at

Cl er o A viatio n w as not sim ilarl y sit ua te d be ca

use it e nte re d in to a

le as e to o pe rate it s ex ist ing r ep ai r station b usiness , whereas the purpose of BMI ’ s request wa s to open a new airc raft rep ai r bu si ne ss an d p os si bl y co nt in ue it s ex is ti ng de m ol it io n b us in es s. Y et , w e fi nd n o e vid en ce in the r ec or d r eg ar din g th e re le vanc e of thi s dis tin ct ionto the Co unty ’ s de ci sio n w he the r to aw ar d an e xis tin g te nant a cc es s to
ac o n d e mn e db u i l d i n g . F u rt h e r , a s w e d i s c u s s b e l o ww i th r e s p e c tt o M i a mi Exec utive Aviation, a policy that aw ards leases m erely based on whether a lessee ope rate s an e xis tin g bu sin es s or ane wbus ine ss l ike ly

vio la te s th e Co unty ’ s du ty to r ef ra in f ro m gr an tin g e xc lus ive r igh ts t o c er ta in t en an ts. Ina ddi tio n to Cl er o A viatio n’ s op er at ionof a n e xis tin g r ep ai r statio n, the decision belo w noted there e xisted a non -aer onautical elem ent to BMI’ s aircr aft de m oli tio n bu sin es s th at

ga ve the Co unty

asuf fi ci en t ba sis to dis cr im inate in favor16

of Cle ro Avi at io n, wh ic h d oe s n ot ha ve a no n- aero na ut ic al ele m en t t o i ts bu si ne ss . T h e d e c i s i o n b e l o wc l a r i f i e dt h a tB M I o b t a i n s a i r c r a f ta n dd i s ma n t l e s t h e m, resulting in the aircr aft never fly ing again, while Cle ro Aviation repairs
non- fl y ab le a ir cr af

t, pe rm itt ing the a ir cr af

t t o f ly a ga in. I f w e unde rs tand this distin ction correctly , a

dem olitio n busi ness is no t sim ilarly -situated with an aircr aft re pair business for purposes of aw arding a lease to occupy a condem

ned bu il di ng be cau se th e fo rm er h as a no n- aero na ut ic al ele m en t. T he F A A c onc ed es that “ the r ec ei pt o f ai rc ra ft ont o th e le as eh old

f or dem olitio n, along with a r easonable tim e period after the aircr aft is last parked unde r its ow n po w er , is ana er onauti ca l a ct ivi ty . ” BM I Sa lva ge Co rp . & Bl ue sid e Se rv ic es , I nc . v. Mi am i- D ad e Co unty , F lor ida , F A A D oc ke t N o. 16- 05- 16, 200 6 W L 25 12 97 4, at *1 0 (De p’t Tran sp . Ju ly 25, 2 00 6) (Dire ct or ’s Deter m in at io n)
. T he im pli catio n, how ev er , is that a t so m e poi nt i n th e de m oli tio n pr oc es s B MI is no l onge r en ga ge d inac om ple te ly a er onauti ca l a ct ivi ty . T he a rg uably hy br id
na tur e of a ny a ir cr af t sa lva ge or

de m oli tio n op er at ionund er standa bly pr es en ts challenges for the m anagem ent of the Air port. W e m

ust cons ider these challenges i n t h e c o n t ex to f r ev i ew i n g a c o m p l ai n tal l eg i n g a v i o l at i o n o f a n ai rp o rt s p o n s o r’sAc c or din gto t he Di re c tor , th e c ha lle ng e s f or a sp on so r i nc lud e the re qu ir e me nt t o 12 rese rve a erona

utical fa cilities for ae ronautica l activities; the require ment to char g e fa ir-mar ket va lue fo r t

he us e of a ir po rt fa c ili tie s f

or no n- a e ro na

uti c a l pu rp os e s; the re qu ir e me nt t o o pe rate and maintain the a irport in a saf e and se rvice able c ondition; and retainingthe ability to develop aer onautical a

rea s of the air

port for pur ely

aer onautical a ctivities. Grant Assura nce 24 inc ludes the re quirement to cha

rg e non-a erona

utical, fa ir-mar

ket value r ates for

non-ae ronautica l activities at th e a ir po rt . F ur the r, the County ’s pr op e rt y de e d a nd its Ai rp or

t L ay out Pla

n ( AL P) de signate a e ro na uti c a l are a s o f t

he a ir po rt that mu st b e us e d f

or a e ro na uti c a l pu rp os e s, un le ss s pe c if

ic a lly au th o ri z edb y

FA A p urs u an tt o a p o s s i b l e A L P ch an ge a n d n o t i ce t o th e p u

b l i c o f t h e c h an ge from ae ronautica l to non-aer onautical use
. 17 fe de ra l ob lig at ion s. 12 W e do n ot r ef

ute the obv iou s f

ac t tha t the tw o bu sin es se s are e nga ge d in dif fe re nt a ct ivi tie s a t the A ir port. B MI is in the a ir cr af t de m oli tio n bu sin es s, w hil e Clero A viation is in the aircra ft repair busin ess. T hus, leases betw een these parties
an d th e Co unty

w oul d a ppl y to busi ne sse s w ithdif

fe re nt p ur pose s. H ow ev er , it

is unst at ed in the r ec or d w ha t r el ev an ce the dif fe re nt b usi ne ss p ur

pose s have to the de ci sio n w he the r to g rant the se part ic ular ex ist ing te nants the r igh t t o r ef ur bis h and occupy

condem ned buil ding s. I f, as the County argues and the rec ord supp orts, BM I m ad e pr opos al s to e xpand i ts o pe ratio n and a dd an a ir cr af t r ep ai r busi ne ss, the r ec or d is sil en t onw ha t e ff ec t the pr opos ed

e xpansi on h as on w he the r BM I an d C le ro A viatio n are sim ilarl y sit ua te d f or pur pose s of le as ing a nd
re furb ish ing ac onde m

ne d bu ild ing
. I f BM I pr opos ed to of fe r ai rc ra ft

r ep ai r se rv ic es , the part ie s’ bus ine ss p ur pose s are le ss d ist inc t. Abse nt f urthe r ex plana tio n, w e fi nd the a lle ge d no n- ae ro nauti ca l a spe ct s ofThe F AA’s de finition of aer onautical a ctivities does not expl icitly rule out the 13 possibili ty

that a business such a s BMI ’s is a complete ly aer onautical a ctivity . A demolition business is not specifically included on the list of ae ronautica l activities; however , the list is by its terms not ex haustive. See A ppendix 5 of FAA Or der 5190.6A , Airport Compliance Re qu ir e me nts . The Dire ctor sug g ested the County could simultaneously

acc ommodate B MI ’s 14 de mol iti on

bu sin e ss a

nd a ssu re c omp lia

nc e wi th i ts f

e de ra l g ra nt a ssu ra nc e s b y pr ov idi nga

tim e l i m i tt o re m o v e n o n -a er o n au t i ca l p art s fr o md es i gn at edae ro n au t i ca l ar ea s . S ee BM IS al v age Corp. & B lueside Service s, Inc., F AA Doc ket No. 16-05- 16, 2006 WL2512974, at *14 (De p’t Transp. July

25, 2006) (Dir ector ’s Dete rmination). 18 BMI’ s busi ness to be an unp ersuasive basis on which to conclu de that the parties
ar e not sim ilarl y sit ua te d. T he r ec or d pr ovi de s no r ea son w hy the non 13
ae ro nauti ca l e le m en t, if

the re is one , is a re as ona ble j ust if ic at ionto dis tin gui sh be tw ee n B MI a nd C le ro A viatio n. I t i s our unde rs tandi ng tha t pr es en ce a t the ai rp ort i s apr er equis ite f

or BM I’ s de m oli tio n bu sin es s. A ir cr af t m ust be f lown to the sit e of BM I’ s bu sin es s f

or de m oli tio n to be gin
. T he re fo re , the na tur al , pe rh ap s onl y log ist ic al ly

f ea sib le , pla ce f

or suc h abus ine ss t o op er at e is w ith in the de si gn at edaero na ut ic al area of t he Airp or t. T he non -a er onauti ca l e le m en t of BM I’ s bu sin es s is a t m ost de m ini m is in lig ht o f the ne ed

to loc at e ana ir cr af

t de m oli tio n bu sin es s inpr oxi m ity to ae ro nauti ca l are as in the A ir port. U nti l the Co unty

c ane xpl ai n ho wthe hy

br id
na tur e of BM I’ s bu sin es s is c ru ci al to its de ci sio n w he the r to aw ar d ale as e to oc cu py ac onde m

ne d bu ild ing , w e fi nd the c ur re nt e xpl an at ionf

or the appare ntl y dis parate tr eatm en t i n th is c as e to b e de fi ci en t. 1419

Im portantly , the dec ision below also concluded that the leases under which B M I a n dC l e r o A v i a t i o n o p e r a t e a r e i n f a c tc o mp a r ab l e . B M I o p e r a t e do n ar a mp at the A ir port purs uant t o astandard f ive -y ear le as e w itha30- day r el oc at e or va cate c lause . C le ro A viatio n in iti al ly ope rate d inBu ild ing 66 p ur suant t o a standard f ive -y ear le as e w itha30- day r el oc at e or

va cate c lause . C le ro A viatio n currently has a three- y ear lease for a separate buildi ng (Buildin g 137 ) including an optio n for an extension and a 30-day relocate or vacate clause. D ur ing or al a rg um en t, Appe llant e m pha siz ed the c ri ppl ing na tur e of

the 30- day r el oc at e or

va cate c lause , w hic h he a rg ue d pr ev en ts B MI f ro m obt ai nin g financing to refurbish or construct facilities at the Air port. While we are unpe rs ua de d by

the Co unty ’ s c la im s th at the 30- day

c lause w as inc lud ed

m er el y for BMI ’ s benefit (in which ca se the clause could be drafted to grant BMI a uni la te ra l r igh t) , it

appe ar s f ro m the r ec or d th at

the 30- day

r el oc at e or

va cate cl au se is a standard

pr ovi sio n inA ir

port l ea se s. E ve n so , notw ith standi ng the presence of a

30-day relocate or vacate clause in both leases, the leases are glari ngl y dif fe re nt i n af

undam en ta l w ay : C le ro is gr an te d a cc es s to abui ldi ng and BM I is d en ie d a cc es s to abui ldi ng. F urthe r, a30- day r el oc at e or

va cate c lause is le ss d am ag ing to a le sse e w he re the le sso r ag re es to as sum e ce rt ai n c ost s as soc ia te d w ithr e- ce rt if

y ing a nd r ef

ur bis hin g th e co nde m

ne d bu ild ing , a s th e20

Co unty a gr ee d to do i n th e ca se of Cl er o A viatio n. W e fi nd the c ur

re nt r ec or d la ck s su ff

ic ie nt l eg al a nd f

ac tua l j ust if

ic at ionto supp ort the c onc lus ionthat B MI a nd C le ro A viatio n are not sim ilarl y sit ua te d f or pur pose s of le as ing ac onde m

ne d bu ild ing
. S ubst an tia l e vid en ce in the r ec or d a lso in di cat es th atBMI a nd Cle ro Avi at io n’s l eas es are n ot co m pa rab le
. W e tur n ne xt t o Appe llant’ s a lle ga tio ns tha t the Co unty ha s un j ust ly dis cr im inate d a ga ins t B MI a nd B lue sid e in f av or of Mi am i E xe cu tiv e A viatio n (“ ME A ”)
. A cc or din g to Appe llant, the Co unty gr an te d a35- y ear de ve lop m en t lease to ME A, which is a sim ilarly situated aeronautical service provider that w as not r equir ed to use a n a

ppr ove d de ve lop er . H ow ev er , a s w ithCl er o A viatio n, the A dm ini str at or

c onc lud ed

that M E A is not

sim ilarl y sit ua te d w ithBM I an d Bl ue si de
. By April 2005, the County

wa s in the process of awarding a 35-y ear developm ent lease to ME A, which is a f ixed-base operator. W e understand that
w he n a er onauti ca l t en an ts p ro pose the sam e or sim ilar use of

the a ir port, if the le ve l of inv es tm en t and b usi ne ss a spe ct s are dis sim ilar, the F A A m ay f ind the
ae ro nauti ca l us er s are not sim ilarl y sit ua te d. S ee S ky danc e H el ic opt er s, I nc . d/b /a Sky dance O perations, Inc. v. S edona Oak-C reek A irport Auth. and Yavapai County , A riz. , F AADocket N o. 16-02-02, 2003 W L 1524500 , at *27-28 (Mar ch21

7, 200 3) ( D ir ec tor ' s D et er m inatio n)
. I n th is c as e, how ev er , w e do n ot b el ie ve the record suffic iently

dem onstrates that BMI and Blueside are com paring them selves to an en ti ty w it h d is si m il ar b us in es s as pe ct s o r le ve ls of i nv es tm en t. From the rec ord we are able to discern that, prior to re ceiving a long -term 35- y ear le as e, ME A c ondu ct ed bus ine ss thr oughastandard f ive -y ear le as e w itha 30- day r el oc at e or

va cate c lause . H ow ev er , onc e the f ive -y ear le as e ex pir ed , the Co unty pr ovi de d M E A a n op portun ity to av oid the pot en tia l r isk

of de ve lop ing on a s h o rt -t er m

l ea s e b y en t er i n g i n t o a l o n g -t er m l ea s e. In co n t ra s t , s i n ce BM I’s fi ve -y ear le as e expir ed , the Co unty ha s no t of

fe re d B MI asim ilar lon g- te rm le as e an d B MI ope rate s f

ro m ar am p onam onth- to- m onth ba sis
. T he r ec or d sh ed s no li ght on why BM I’ s de m oli tio n bu sin es s is suf fi ci en tly dis tin ct f ro m ME A ’ s f ixe d- ba se ope rator

bus ine ss t o j ust if

y dif fe re nti al tr eatm en t
w ithr es pe ct

to a lon g- te rm

le as e. T he re m ay

be num er ous fa ct or s th at c oul d se rv e as th e b as is forleg it im at e d is ti nc ti on s, b ut we fai l t o s ee t he m in th e rec or d. Merely stating th at one busin ess is an existin g tenant while another is a proposed te nant, or that on e busi ne ss i s af

ixe d- ba se ope rator

w hil e an oth er

is a de m oli tio n bu si ne ss , is alo ne in su ffi ci en t t o ju st ify dif fere nt ia l t reat m en t. E ve n a ssu m ing argu en do that B MI ’ s de m oli tio n bu sin es s is suf fi ci en tly dis tin ct f ro m ME A ’ s to j ust if

y dif fe re nti al tr eatm en t r eg ar din g th e ri ght to re ce iveRatification by the County

is require d even though CDC is an approved de veloper at 15 the Ai rp or

t. 22 a lon g- te rm

le as e to d ev el op c onstru ct ed f ac ili tie s, Bl ue sid e an d M E A ha ve ex ac tly the sam e busi ne ss p ur

pose . A sid e fr om

a ny c onf usi on r eg ar din g th e en tity pr opos ing to of

fe r ai rc ra ft

r ep ai r se rv ic es , the r ec or d c le ar ly sho w s th at

Bl ue sid e pr opos ed to of fe r fi xe d- ba se ope rator

se rv ic es und er

alon g- te rm

sub le as e w ith CD C. T hus, the re is sc an t e vid en ce to co nc lud e that the Co unty ’ s r el ianc e on dif fe re nt b usi ne ss p ur

pose s w as ale git im at e j ust if ic at ionto re fu se to ap pr ove Bl ue si de ’s lo ng -te rm

de ve lo pm en t s ub le as e. W e not e that B lue sid e fi na lly se cure d alon g- te rm

de ve lop m en t by

e nte ri ng into a sub lease w ith an approved d eveloper. How ever, m ore than three y ears late r, the Co unty

ha s no t r at if

ie d th at sub le as e the re by

pr ev en tin g B lue sid e fr om de ve lop ing a t the A ir

port. T he re is te sti m ony in the r ec or d st at ing that the 15 Co unty ha s no t a ppr ove d th e subl ea se be ca use CD C i s c ur

re ntl y in de fa ult on i ts le as e w iththe Co unty . N ev er the le ss, the r ec or d sh ow s on ly sup er fi ci al e ff

orts b y the Co unty

to ac co m m oda te Bl ue sid e’ s pl an s to de ve lop , w hic h a cc or din g to the Countyhave been thwar

ted due to CDC’ s actions and no t by any fault of Blueside. T he de ci sio n be lowgiv es dr am at ic c onsi de ratio n to the f ac t tha t M E A is a curr en t t en an t op er at ing a n e sta bli she d f ixe d- ba se ope rator

bus ine ss. B lue sid e, inFur ther, such a

policy could be implemented in a way that would violate Fe dera l Grant 16 As sura nc e 23 (E xclu siv e Rig hts ) b y g ra nti nge xclu siv e ri g hts to e xistin gbu sin e sse s. 23 contrast, has never had a lease w ith the Airport and wa s propos ing to introduce a
ne wf ixe d- ba se ope rator

bus ine ss. T he de ci sio ns b el owr el ie d onthi s di sti nc tio n to c onc lud e that B lue sid e is n ot s im ilarl y sit ua te d w ithME A
. W e fi nd this distin ction troub ling. Per m itting the County

to award favorable lea ses to parties
m er el y be ca use the y a re e sta bli she d bu sin es se s w oul d e re ct apot en tia lly
unsurm ount ab le barr ie r to e ntr y f or ne wope rator s. If the Co unty

w er e pe rm itt ed

to re ly on this pr of

fe re d r ea son al one , it

w oul d ha ve ac hil lin g e ff

ec t onne wbus ine sse s and o pe rator s se ek ing to es ta bli sh the m se lve s a t the A ir

port. T he re is no r ec or d e vid en ce to ex pla in why thi s 16 part ic ular ne wf

ixe d- ba se ope rator

sho uld not be tr eate d th e sa m e w ay

a s th is particular established fixed-base operator. Bec ause a lea se for c onstructed fa ci lit ie s is e sse nti al to es ta bli sh a f ixe d- ba se ope ratio n, the r ec or d sh oul d in cl ude de ta ils about

ME A a nd B lue sid e that c anse rv e as le git im at e j ust if ic at ion s f or dis cr im inatin g inf

av or of the e sta bli she d bu sin es s ov er

the ne wbus ine ss. T he r ec or d in de ed

ind ic at es that the Co unty ha s of fe re d B lue sid e a dir ec t five-y ear lease. H owever , the proposed lease does not grant Blueside access to an
ex ist ing bui ldi ng. F urthe r, the le as e is dra ft ed f or ate rm of f ive y ea rs , w orkin gThe re cord is devoid of any such evide nce. 17 24 a g a i n s tAp p e l l a n t ’s p l a n s t o d e v e l o p a tt h e A i r p o rto v e r t h e l o n g - t e rm. Ne gotiatio ns for this lease appear to have stalled. T here is som e indication th at Blueside m ay

be rej ecting the lease solely due to the five-y ear term and the 30-day relocate clause. If the C ount y

can provide further e vidence that the 30-day clause is standard in all Airport lease s and that sim ilarly situated tenants h ave used five-y ear leases
w ith30- day

r el oc at e cl au se s to suc ce ssf ull y de ve lop A ir

port pr ope rty , Bl ue sid e w ill ha ve le ss f

oot ing f ro m w hic h to a rg ue that the pr opos ed le as e is dis cr im inator

y . A nd, if

the Co unty ’ s c la im

is ge nui ne that the 30- day c lause 17 exists m erely

for the benefit of the lessee, the Countyshoul d be willing at Bl ue sid e’ s r eque st t o r ev ise the pr opos ed le as e to m ak e the c lause uni la te ra l. W e do n ot s ugge st tha t the Co unty ha s avoi de d ne got ia tin g ingoo d f ai th
w ithBM I an d B lue sid e. T he de ci sio ns b el ownot ed that the Co unty

ha d of fe re d to work through various issues and even had exp anded the am ount of ram p space available to BMI under its m onth -to-m onth lease. N evertheless, the record evidence paints a picture that over num erous y ears B MI and Blueside have been
co nti nuou sly

de nie d w ith out

le git im at e j ust if

ic at ionthe r igh t t o oc cu

py or de ve lop
co nstru ct ed

f ac ili tie s a t the A ir

port.25

The pro po ne nt of a m ot io n, re qu es t, o r or de r ha s t he bu rd en of p ro of
. L ike w ise , aparty

w ho h as a sse rt ed

a n a ff irm at ive de fe nse ha s th e bur de n of pr ovi ng the a ff

irm at ive de fe nse . T his standard bur de n of

pr oof is co nsi ste nt w ith fe de ra l c as e lawa nd the A dm ini str at ive P ro ce dur e A ct pr ovi sio n st at ing , “ [e ] xc ep t as oth er w ise pr ovi de d by

statut e, the pr opon en t of ar ule or or de r ha s th e bur de n of pr oof
. ” 5 U . S. C. § 55 6( d) ( W es t 20 08)
. T he re fo re , w e be lie ve the Co unty sho uld ha ve the opp ortun ity

to supp le m en t the r ec or d, if it c an , w ithle git im at e ex plana tio ns f

or it s di ff er en tia l tre atm en t of

BM I an d B lue sid e as c om pare d to ME A a nd C le ro A viatio n. W e ar e not

in a posi tio n to spe cu late c onc er nin g un ar tic ulate d m oti ve s th e Co unty m ay ha ve ha d inde ny ing BM I an d B lue sid e the r igh t t o oc cu py or de ve lop
co nstru ct ed

f ac ili tie s a t the A ir

port. T he r ec or d pr ovi de s a bund an t i nst an ce s of pe rs ona l f

ri ct ionbe tw ee n Appe llant and v ar iou s C ounty e m plo y ee s. Y et , ha vin g disclaim ed any

unarticulated m otives and rely ing on ly on tho se discussed abo ve, the Co unty

ha s no t pr of

fe re d va lid , part ic ulari ze d r ea sons f or de ny ing BM I an d Bl ue sid e the r igh t t o oc cu py or de ve lop c onstru ct ed

f ac ili tie s a t the A ir

port. Oper at in g t he air

po rt f oraero na ut ic al us e is a sp on so r’s pr im ary ob li ga ti on . Part of thi s pr im ar

y obl igatio n is the opp ortun ity f or le as eh old er s to de ve lop ai rp ort pr ope rty

f or a er onauti ca l us e. S ee U nit ed S ta te s C onstr. Co rp . v. Ci ty of26

Po m pano B ea ch , F l. , F A A D oc ke t N o. 16- 00- 14, 200 2 W L 182 1882 ( Jul y 10, 2002 ) (F ina l A ge nc y

D ec isi on)
. F ed er al a ssi stanc e is n ot ava ila ble f or im pr ove m en ts t o a ir

ports whe re the be ne fi ts o f suc h im pr ove m en ts w ill not

be fu ll y real iz eddu e to in he ren t re st ric ti on s o n a ero na ut ic al act iv it ie s. IV . Co nc lus ion It w oul d se em

r athe r ba sic that the Co unty w oul d r equir e al l a

ppl ic an ts who d e s i r e dt o d o b u s i n e s s a tt h e Ai r p o rtt o p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e o f f i n a n c i a l s t ab i l i t y, co m pe te nc e in the spe ci fi c ar ea of a ct ivi ty , the abil ity

to co m ply w iththe law s and
re gul at ion s go ve rn ing suc h a ct ivi ty a nd s im ilar fundam en ta ls. H ow ev er , thi s re co rd r ef le ct s no thi ng o f the sor

t. Wha t w e ar e hol din g is that i t i s no t a de qua te unde r the lawto de ny

a n a ppl ic an t the opp ortun ity

to ope rate a t the A ir

port si m ply be ca use the re is ane xis tin g op er at or pr es en t. T he re m ay

be som e m ax im

um num be r of f ixe d- ba se ope ratio ns tha t the a ct ivi ty a t the A ir

port w oul d su

ppor t, but this record contains no such evidence. I t m ay be that som e existing bu ildin gs are sim ply be y ond re furb ish ing
. B ut this r ec or d is sil en t i n th at r eg ar d. N eg oti at ion s can go on for extended periods. How ever, when they go on for y ears, that fact al one r ai se s se ri ous que sti ons ab out the la ck of “ good f ai th. ” T his r ec or d is sim

ply in ad eq ua te forus to m ak e a m ean in gf ul rev ie w. A cc or din gly , w e RE MA

N D thi s c as e to the A dm ini str at or in or de r that heWe note that the County stated that it was “r eady , willing and a vailable” to work 18 towards e x ecutinga lea se that will acc ommodate Appellant’ s business needs. We ar e encour ag ed by

this statement and, g iven that seve ral year s have pa ssed since this statement wa s made, this ca se could be come moot if the pa rties wer e to set aside the ir past disag ree ments and ag ree on a lea se that will enable Appellant to occ upy or deve lop constructed f

acilities at the Ai rp or t. 27 m ay giv e the Co unty

the opp ortun ity

to pr es en t l eg al ly

a nd f ac tua lly suf fi ci en t j ust if ic at ion s f or it s r ef usa l or de lay in aw ar din g B MI a nd B lue sid e the oppo rt uni ty to oc cu py or de ve lop c onstru ct ed

f ac ili tie s a t the A ir

port. I n th e 18 ab se nc e of

suc h, c or re ct ive ste ps s houl d be or de re d. RE V E RS E D a nd R E MA

N D E D w ithins tr

uc tio ns.