Friends of East Hampton Airport, Inc. et al. v. Town of East Hampton, NY – No. 16-15-02
Director’s Determination (12/03/2023)
| FAA Docket No.: | 16-15-02 |
|---|---|
| Author: | Kevin C. Willis, Director of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis |
| Complainant(s): | Friends of the East Hampton Airport, Inc.; Analar Corporation, Associated Aircraft Group, Inc., Helicopter Association International, Inc., HeliFlite Shares LLC; and Shoreline Aviation, Inc. |
| Respondent(s): | Town of East Hampton, NY |
| Airport(s): | East Hampton Airport (JPX) |
| History: | Director’s Determination with Regard to Uncontested Claims (01/31/2017) |
| Holding: | Affirmed in Part and Overturned in Part No Violation of Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights Violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination No Violation of Anti-Head Tax Act Corrective Action Plan Ordered |
Abstract:
In 2017, the Director issued a Director’s Determination with Regard to Uncontested Claims requiring the Respondent-Town to submit a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) concerning nonaeronautical revenues and the preparation and implementation of a formal Pavement Maintenance Management Program. (Director’s Determination, p. 1.) In its CAP, the Town stated that “to the extent that this clarification causes the FAA to reconsider the scope of its Determination on any issue, the Town respectfully requests that such issues be transferred to the contested portion of the case and addressed in the final Director’s Determination in the case.” (Director’s Determination, p. 1.)
The Director declined the Town’s request to transfer issues to this Director’s Determination because they had been previously and sufficiently adjudicated in a January 2017 Director’s Determination. Further, neither party appealed the January 2017 Determination under 14 C.F.R. § 16.33. Therefore, the January 2017 Determination became a final decision and order under 14 C.F.R. § 16.33(h). Under these circumstances, the Town’s April 2017 CAP remains separate from the findings in this Determination, and consideration of the CAP will be addressed in a separate communication with the Town.
Regarding the Contested Claims, the Director dismissed the allegations that the Town was in violation of its federal obligations involving Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance; Grant Assurance 20, Hazard Removal and Mitigation; Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure; and Grant Assurance 29, Airport Layout Plan. (Director’s Determination, p. 9.)
Even if the Director determined that the airport sponsor was in noncompliance with these grant assurances prior to September 2021, the 20-year useful life of the grants statutorily expired on that date, and the allegations regarding these specific grant assurances became moot. (Director’s Determination, p. 9.)
With respect to the only remaining assurance at issue, Grant Assurance 25, Airport Revenues, the Director noted that it applied in perpetuity as long as the airport was operated as an airport and thus was not expired. (Director’s Determination, p. 2.) However, the Director also found that the allegations concerning Grant Assurance 25 were addressed in the Town’s CAP in 2017 and he previewed that a separate ongoing FAA Part 16 investigation, Doupe Service, LLC d/b/a Curtis Air Taxi, et al. v. Town of East Hampton New York, FAA Docket No. 16-22-05, will address the Town’s compliance with Grant Assurances 25, among others. (Director’s Determination, p. 2.)
| Index Terms: | Corrective Action Plan; Nonaeronautical Revenues; Pavement Maintenance Management Program; Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance; Grant Assurance 20, Hazard Removal and Mitigation; Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure; Grant Assurance 25, Airport Revenues; Grant Assurance 29, Airport Layout Plan |
|---|
