UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Friends of the East Hampton Airport, Inc. et al., 

 Complainants, 

v. 

Town of East Hampton, NY 

 Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-02 

RESPONDENT TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, NEW YORK’S ANSWER TO THE 

COMPLAINT 

Designation of persons to receive service for the Town of East Hampton, New York: 

Elizabeth Vail 

Town Attorney 

Town of East Hampton 

159 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, NY 11937 

EVail@EHamptonNY.Gov 

W. Eric Pilsk 

Catherine van Heuven 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

epilsk@kaplankirsch.com 

cvanheuven@kaplankirsch.com 

Telephone: (202) 955-5600 

Facsimile: (202) 955-5616 

 
T

to 14 C.F

Hampton

Associati

Aviation

Town de

specifica

In

a Brief i

reference

discussio

Town fou

1

Paragrap

who they

2

otherwise

3

4

accepted 

Project N

certain sp

The Town of

F.R. § 16.23(

n Airport, 

ion Internati

, Inc. (collec

enies all alleg

ally admitted

n further sup

n Support o

e (“Brief”), 

on of the leg

und to be in 

. The T

h 1 of the C

y are. 

. The T

e denies the 

. The T

. In res

a grant for 

No. 3-36-00

ponsor assur

f East Hamp

(h), respond

Inc., Anala

ional, Inc., 

ctively “Com

gations cont

d in this Answ

pport of its A

of Its Answe

with a con

gal principles

compliance 

Town is with

Complaint, bu

Town does n

allegations o

Town admits 

sponse to P

an improve

24-18-01” i

rances and ot

A

ton, New Y

ds to the alleg

ar Corporati

Heliflite Sh

mplainants”)

tained in the

wer. 

Answer, and

er to the Co

ncise statem

s demonstrat

with its fede

hout sufficie

ut states that

not contest th

of Paragraph

the allegatio

Paragraph 4 

ement projec

n 2001 and 

therwise den

2

ANSWER

ork (the “To

gations of th

ion, Associ

hares LLC, L

 as set forth 

e Complaint 

d pursuant to

omplaint, fil

ent of the f

ting that the

eral obligati

ent informat

t it does not 

he Complain

h 2 of the Co

ons of Parag

of the Com

ct entitled “R

that the gra

nies the alleg

own”), by an

he Complain

iated Aircra

Liberty Heli

in the numb

except to th

o 14 C.F.R. §

led herewith

facts upon 

e Complaint 

ons. 

tion to adm

t contest the 

nants’ standi

omplaint. 

graph 3 of th

mplaint, the

Rehabilitate 

ant obligate

gations of Pa

nd through c

nt filed by Fr

aft Group, 

icopters, Inc

bered paragr

he extent suc

§ 16.23(i), th

h and incorp

which the 

should be d

mit or deny t

Complainan

ing to file th

he Complaint

e Town adm

Terminal A

ed the Town

aragraph 4. 

counsel, pur

riends of the

Inc., Helic

c., and Shor

raphs below.

ch allegation

he Town sub

porated here

Town relies

dismissed an

the allegatio

nts’ statemen

he Complain

t. 

mits only th

Apron – Pha

n to comply 

rsuant 

e East 

copter 

reline 

 The 

ns are 

bmits 

in by 

s and 

nd the 

ons of 

nts of 

nt, but 

hat it 

ase II, 

with 
5

acknowle

administr

to revisit

otherwise

6

only that

District o

party to 

raise in th

7

8

argument

required,

of Paragr

Airport in

9

the right 

submit ad

1

only that

and denie

. With 

edges that o

rative action

t, update, an

e denies the 

. In res

t some of th

of New York

that suit and

his matter. 

. The T

. The a

ts about, ma

, the Town d

raph 8 and s

n a safe man

. In resp

to object to

dditional evi

0. In resp

t the Compl

es all other a

regard to t

over the yea

n in a way th

nd correct t

allegations i

ponse to the

he Complain

k and that th

d the issues

Town denies 

allegations o

atters of law

denies the al

states affirm

nner in comp

ponse to the

o any attemp

idence in a m

ponse to the

ainants have

allegations o

the allegatio

rs, its publi

hat creates ce

the landing 

in Paragraph

e allegations

nants have fi

he terms of t

 raised in th

the allegatio

f the first th

w to which n

llegations. T

matively that 

pliance with 

e allegations 

pt by Comp

manner not p

e allegations 

e alleged vio

of Paragraph 

3

ons in Para

shed list of 

ertain discrep

fee schedul

h 5. 

s of Paragrap

iled a suit in

that action sp

hat suit are 

ons of Parag

hree sentenc

no response 

The Town d

the Airport 

the Sponsor

of Paragrap

lainants to t

permitted by 

of Paragrap

olations of t

10 except a

agraph 5 of

landing fee

pancies amo

le in the Su

ph 6 of the 

n the U.S. D

peak for the

not material

graph 7 of the

ces of Paragr

is required. 

denies the all

is safe and 

r Assurances

ph 9 of the C

take action t

y Part 16. 

ph 10 of the 

the stated la

s expressly a

f the Comp

es has been 

ong users. T

ummer of 20

Complaint, 

District Cour

emselves. T

l to the issu

e Complaint

raph 8 are a

 To the ext

legations in 

that the Tow

s and law. 

Complaint, th

to amend th

Complaint, 

aws and Spo

admitted her

plaint, the T

changed thr

The Town in

015. The T

the Town ad

rt for the Ea

The Town is 

ues Complai

t. 

assertions of

tent a respon

the last sen

wn maintain

he Town res

heir Complai

the Town ad

onsor Assura

rein. 

Town 

rough 

ntends 

Town 

dmits 

astern 

not a 

inants 

f, and 

nse is 

ntence 

ns the 

serves 

int or 

dmits 

ances 
1

did attem

Complain

to resolv

issues ra

letter to 

correspon

Septemb

Complain

and Com

However

verify w

Town ha

place to 

concerns

raise the 

filing the

faith and

1

1

Complain

support t

11. The T

mpt to enga

nt, but failed

e those issue

ised before 

the Town 

nding to the

er 4, 2014,

nants agreed

mplainants’ 

r, Complain

hether their 

as already co

complete th

, they could

issues raise

e Complaint.

d were not a b

2. The T

3. In res

nants submi

the allegation

Town denies 

age in pre-C

d to follow-t

es. Further, 

filing the C

raising a nu

e issues rais

 to discuss

d – to provi

priorities. 

nants never 

safety and 

ompleted ma

e others. H

d have avoid

d in Count 3

. Plaintiffs’ 

bona fide att

Town denies 

sponse to t

itted docume

ns of the Com

the allegatio

Complaint e

through on f

Complainan

Complaint. S

umber of is

sed in Coun

 those issu

de additiona

The Town 

provided th

maintenanc

any of the pr

Had Complai

ded filing th

3 at any time

efforts at pr

tempt to reso

the allegatio

he allegatio

ents along w

mplaint. 

4

ons of Parag

fforts to res

follow-up ste

nts failed to 

Specifically,

ssues regard

nts 1 and 2. 

es. At tha

al informatio

requested 

hat informat

ce concerns 

rojects dema

nants engag

his Complain

e and made 

re-Complain

olve disputes

ons of Parag

ons of Para

with its Com

graph 11 of th

solve some 

eps the parti

make any ef

, on July 31

ding mainte

 The Town

at meeting, 

on about Co

that inform

tion or, app

had been m

anded by Co

ged in a goo

nt. Furtherm

no effort to

nt resolution 

s. 

graph 12 of th

agraph 13, t

mplaint, but 

he Complain

of the issu

ies had agre

ffort to reso

1, 2014, Com

enance and 

n met with C

the Town 

omplainants’

mation in a 

parently, ma

met. As det

omplainants 

d faith effor

more, Comp

o resolve its 

were not un

he Complain

the Town a

denies that 

nt. Complai

ues raised in

eed to in an e

lve several o

mplainants s

safety, gene

Complainan

requested –

’ safety con

follow-up l

ade any effo

tailed below

and has pla

rt to resolve 

lainants fail

concerns pri

ndertaken in 

nt. 

admits only

those docum

inants 

n the 

effort 

of the 

sent a 

erally 

nts on 

– and 

ncerns 

letter. 

ort to 

w, the 

ans in 

 their 

led to 

ior to 

good 

y that 

ments 
14

only that

those cla

1

is safe, a

facilities 

1

only as f

closed. 

taxiway a

Town co

currently

safe for u

Runway 

as “close

allegation

1

only as fo

at the Ai

to assure

future, a

Paragrap

4. In resp

t Paragraph 

ims. 

5. The T

and the Tow

are maintain

6. In resp

follows: The

The Town’

and then, in 

mpleted the 

y used for tax

use. There i

4-22 has no

ed” on the 

ns of Paragr

7. In resp

follows: Run

irport. Ther

e continued 

s shown on

h 17. 

ponse to the

14 describe

Town denies

wn takes act

ned in a safe

ponse to the

e Airport ori

’s planning 

the longterm

first phase i

xiing operat

is no loose o

t been perm

FAA-appro

aph 16. 

ponse to the

nway 16-34 

e is no vege

safety. The

n the Airport

e allegations 

s the claims

 the allegati

tive and pro

e manner. 

e allegations 

iginally had 

documents 

m, restoratio

in late 2014 b

ions. The p

or disintegra

manently conv

oved Airpor

e allegations 

was patched

etation or sta

e Town note

t Layout Pla

5

of Paragrap

s raised by C

ons of Parag

oactive mea

of Paragrap

three operat

call for em

n of Runway

by repaving 

pavement use

ating materia

verted to a t

rt Layout P

of Paragrap

d last year an

anding water

es that Runw

an. The To

ph 14 of the 

Complainan

graph 15 of 

asures to ass

ph 16 of the 

ating runway

mergency rep

y 4-22 to ful

 and repainti

ed for taxiin

al on the act

taxiway. Ru

Plan. The 

ph 17 of the 

nd is safe an

r. The Airp

way 16-34 

own otherwi

Complaint, 

nts, but denie

f the Compla

sure that the

Complaint, 

ys. Runway 

pair for tem

ll operationa

ing the porti

ng is in good

tive portion 

unway 4-22 i

Town other

Complaint, 

nd is in regul

port maintain

is slated to 

ise denies th

the Town ad

es the validi

aint. The Ai

e Airport an

the Town ad

4-22 is curr

mporary use 

al condition.

ion of the run

d condition a

of Runway 

is currently 

rwise denie

the Town ad

lar use by air

ns Runway 1

be closed i

he allegatio

dmits 

ity of 

irport 

nd its 

dmits 

rently 

as a 

 The 

nway 

and is 

4-22. 

listed 

s the 

dmits 

rcraft 

16-34 

in the 

ns of 
1

that the l

lighting s

year. Th

allegation

1

that deer

address t

the wood

and cons

near futu

2

that gates

improper

diligent i

Paragrap

2

only that

grant spe

the terms

2

pavemen

8. In res

lighting syste

system with

he system h

ns of Paragr

9. In res

r have been 

the issue. Th

dlands surrou

struction of t

ure. The Tow

0. In res

s leading to 

r access in th

in keeping g

h 20. 

1. In resp

t it accepted

eak for them

s of the grant

2. The a

nt maintenan

ponse to the

em on Taxiw

h a state-of-t

has worked w

aph 18. 

ponse to the

an issue at t

he Town has

unding the a

the perimete

wn otherwise

ponse to the

the airfield a

he past, the c

gates closed 

ponse to the

d the grant a

mselves. The

t, as subsequ

llegations of

nce obligati

e allegations

way Alpha h

he-art LED 

without prob

e allegations

the Airport a

s an active h

airfield. The

er fence and 

e denies the 

e allegations

are accessib

current Airp

when not in

e allegations 

attached as E

e Town den

uently modif

f Paragraph 

ons under t

6

s of Paragrap

had not oper

lighting sys

blems since

s of Paragrap

and that it h

hunting progr

e Town has 

anticipates r

allegations o

s of Paragrap

le to Airport

port Director

n use. The T

of Paragrap

Exhibit 9 to 

ies all allega

fied. 

22 of the C

the Sponsor

ph 18 of the

rated properl

stem, which 

e then. The

ph 19 of the

has taken, an

ram which r

directed its 

receiving a 

of Paragraph

ph 20 of the

t staff and te

r has instruct

Town otherw

ph 21 of the 

the Compla

ations of Pa

Complaint are

r Assurance

e Complaint,

ly and the T

became ope

e Town othe

e Complaint,

nd continues

reduces the n

engineer to

scope of ser

h 19. 

e Complaint,

enants. Whi

ted all staff 

wise denies t

Complaint, 

aint and that

aragraph 21 

e assertions 

es to which

, the Town s

own replace

erational lat

erwise denie

, the Town s

s to take, ste

number of de

 prioritize d

rvices in the

, the Town s

ile there has 

and tenants 

the allegatio

the Town ad

t the terms o

inconsistent

of law rega

h no respon

states 

ed the 

e last 

es the 

states 

eps to 

eer in 

design 

e very 

states 

 been 

to be 

ons of 

dmits 

of the 

t with 

arding 

nse is 
required.

22 incon

2

that it ha

inspectio

Pavemen

this year

Maintena

meantim

allegation

24

of the ram

Airport m

Resource

included 

Maintena

2

has been

for Propo

AWOS w

2

only that

 To the ext

sistent publi

3. With 

as an invent

ons dating to

nt Maintenan

r. The ram

ance Plan a

e, the ramp i

ns in Paragra

4. The T

mp at the Ex

management

es, Inc. is cu

ramp rehab

ance Plan. 

5. The T

n diligently im

osals for a ne

will be opera

6. In resp

t in June 201

ent that a re

ished standar

regard to th

tory of its p

o November 

nce Managem

mp is in nee

s one of th

is in good co

aph 23. 

Town denies 

xecutive Term

t works wit

urrently pavin

bilitation pr

Town denies

mplementin

ew, federally

ational in ear

ponse to the

14, it increa

sponse is re

rds for a Pav

e allegations

pavement, c

2013. The 

ment Progra

ed of rehab

he projects t

ondition and

the allegatio

minal is the 

th the tenan

ng the areas

rojects in it

s the allegati

g a plan to r

y-certified A

rly Summer,

e allegations 

sed the fuel 

7

quired, the T

vement Main

s at Paragrap

onducts dai

Town ackn

am, but is w

ilitation and

to be compl

d safe for ope

ons of Parag

responsibilit

nt to ensure 

 in its leaseh

ts Airport C

ions of Para

replace the A

AWOS in the

 2015. 

of Paragrap

flowage fee

Town denies

ntenance Ma

ph 23 of the

ly inspectio

nowledges th

working with

d that work

leted in the 

erations. Th

graph 24 of t

ty of the ten

that the wo

hold, includi

Capital Imp

agraph 25 of

AWOS. Th

e near future

ph 26 of the 

e at the Airp

s all allegati

anagement P

e Complaint

ons, and has

hat it does n

h its enginee

k is include

next severa

he Town oth

the Complai

nant, Aviatio

ork is perfo

ing the ramp

provement P

f the Compl

he Town wil

e and anticip

Complaint, 

port from $0

ions of Parag

Program. 

, the Town s

s records of

ot have a w

er to prepare

d in the Ai

al years. In

herwise denie

int. Mainten

n Resources

ormed. Avi

p. The Tow

Plan and Ai

laint. The T

ll issue a Re

pates that the

the Town ad

0.15 per gall

graph 

states 

f such 

written 

e one 

irport 

n the 

es the 

nance 

s, Inc. 

iation 

wn has 

irport 

Town 

equest 

e new 

dmits 

lon to 
$0.30 pe

uniformly

2

only that

but other

2

allegation

2

that all b

respond. 

admits th

immateri

otherwise

3

in landin

for neces

meet othe

of severa

3

that it h

Virtually

increase 

Action P

er gallon, th

y by 10%. T

7. In resp

t the Paragra

rwise denies 

8. Insofa

ns at Paragra

9. In res

but the last 

 To the ext

hat it has in

ial because t

e denies the 

0. The T

ng and fuel fl

ssary capital

er operating 

al aeronautic

1. In resp

has, in the p

y none of th

rents while 

lan with FA

he first incr

The Town ot

ponse to the

aph contains 

the allegatio

ar as individ

aph 28 of the

ponse to the

sentence co

tent a respon

ncreased its

the amount o

allegations o

Town denies 

lowage fees 

l and mainte

expenses. T

al users at th

ponse to the

past, entered

hose leases h

the leases 

A to ensure 

rease in at 

therwise den

e allegations 

an accurate

ons of Parag

dual aircraft

e Complaint

e allegations

onstitute lega

nse is necess

s landing fe

of the fees is

of Paragraph

the allegatio

on the amou

enance proje

That process

he Airport. 

e allegations 

d into non-a

has a subord

remain in e

that non-aer

8

least 20 ye

nies the alleg

of Paragrap

e statement o

graph 27. 

t may differ

t. 

s of Paragrap

al argument

sary, the To

es since 20

s justified by

h 29. 

ons of Parag

unt of incom

ects, to build

s was conduc

of Paragrap

aeronautical

dination clau

ffect. The 

ronautical le

ears, and th

gations of Pa

ph 27 of the 

of the curren

r in actual w

ph 29 of the

ts to which 

own denies t

009, but tha

y necessary A

graph 30. T

me needed to 

d and maint

cted publica

ph 31 of the 

l leases at l

use, and the

Town agree

ases are com

at it increa

aragraph 26.

Complaint, 

nt landing fe

weight, the 

e Complaint,

the Town is

those allegat

at the percen

Airport expe

The Town ba

support bon

ain an adequ

ally and with

Complaint, 

less than fa

e Town has 

es to enter i

mpliant going

sed landing

the Town ad

ees at the Air

Town denie

, the Town s

s not requir

tions. The T

ntage increa

enses. The T

ased the incr

nds needed to

uate reserve

h the particip

the Town ad

air market v

not been ab

into a Corre

g forward. 

g fees 

dmits 

rport, 

es the 

states 

red to 

Town 

ase is 

Town 

reases 

o pay 

e, and 

pation 

dmits 

value. 

ble to 

ective 
3

that it lea

Fund for

Town ag

leases are

3

approved

capital an

to set the

fees have

effect com

34

only that

by the C

and the C

Agreeme

are not re

the Comp

challengi

denies th

3

3

recognize

2. With r

ases propert

r the portion

grees to ente

e compliant 

3. The T

d increases in

nd maintena

e fees at com

e not decrea

mpared to th

4. In resp

t there was li

Committee to

Committee a

ent. The term

elevant to th

plainants hav

ing, inter al

he allegations

5. The T

6. The T

es that it has

regard to the

ty for fire an

n of the use

er into a Co

going forwa

Town denies

n landing an

ance projects

mpetitive leve

sed usage, a

he comparab

ponse to the

itigation in f

 Stop Airpor

and the dismi

ms of the Se

he claims ma

ve sued FAA

lia, the valid

s of Paragrap

Town admits 

Town denies

s an obligati

e allegations

nd police fa

 not attribut

rrective Act

ard. 

s the allegati

nd fuel flowa

s and other A

els in order n

as operations

ble time perio

e allegations 

federal court 

rt Expansion

issal of the l

ettlement Ag

ade by Comp

A in the U.S

dity of the 2

ph 34. 

the allegatio

s the allegati

on to mainta

9

s of Paragrap

cilities and 

table to Airp

tion Plan wi

ions of Para

age fees to p

Airport expe

not to discou

s were highe

od in 2013.

of Paragrap

and also bef

n resulted in

litigation. T

greement and

plainants her

S. District Co

2005 Settlem

ons of Parag

ions of Para

ain a safe Ai

ph 32 of the 

that it has b

rport purpos

ith FAA to 

agraph 33 of

provide suffic

enses. In so 

urage use of

er in 2014 af

ph 34 of the 

fore FAA, a

n a Settleme

The Town is 

d the litigati

re. The Tow

ourt for the E

ment Agree

graph 35 of t

agraph 36 of

irport. Acco

Complaint, 

been reimbu

es. As indi

ensure that 

f the Compl

cient funds t

doing, the T

f the Airport.

fter the fee i

Complaint, 

and that the l

ent Agreeme

not a party t

ion speak fo

wn further n

Eastern Dist

ment. The 

the Complain

f the Compl

ordingly, the

the Town ad

ursing the Ai

icated above

non-aeronau

laint. The T

to pay for ne

Town was ca

. In fact, the

increases we

the Town ad

litigation init

ent between 

to that Settle

or themselve

notes that som

trict of New 

Town other

nt. 

laint. The T

e Town cont

dmits 

irport 

e, the 

utical 

Town 

eeded 

areful 

e new 

ere in 

dmits 

tiated 

FAA 

ement 

s and 

me of 

York 

rwise 

Town 

tinues 
a respons

that work

work. C

funding t

37. 

3

denies th

3

only that

22(a), 22

allegation

restrictio

38 set fo

state a vi

3

is necess

Paragrap

4

only that

2001, an

Paragrap

4

properly 

sible mainte

k and has is

omplainants

to complete 

7. The T

he allegations

8. In res

t it has foll

2(h), and 29 

ns of Parag

ns that are u

orth an irrele

iolation of an

9. Paragr

sary. To th

h 39 that are

0. In resp

t it accepted

nd that the g

h 40 inconsi

1. The T

maintaining

nance progr

ssued bonds

s allege that 

the work. T

Town agrees 

s of Paragrap

ponse to the

lowed FAA 

at East Ham

graph 38. 

unreasonable

evant and un

ny grant assu

raph 39 of t

he extent tha

e inconsisten

ponse to the

d a grant to h

grant came 

istent with th

Town denies 

g the ramp ar

ram. It is im

s totaling alm

the Town ha

That is not a

that federal

ph 37. 

e allegations

guidance r

mpton after D

The Town

e, discrimina

nsubstantiate

urance. 

he Complain

at a respons

nt with appli

e allegations 

help fund th

with certain

hose conditio

the allegatio

reas, includin

10

mplementing 

most $1.5 m

as breached 

a valid claim

l funding is n

s of Paragrap

egarding the

December 31

specifically

atory, or othe

ed argument

nt sets forth 

se is necess

cable law an

of Paragrap

he Terminal 

n conditions

ons. 

ons of Parag

ng daily insp

a multi-face

million over

its grant obl

m, as Compla

not part of t

ph 38 of the

e enforceab

1, 2014. Th

y denies th

erwise unlaw

t that even C

allegations 

ary, the Tow

nd FAA guid

ph 40 of the 

Rehabilitati

s. The Tow

graph 41 of t

pections and

eted financia

r the last ye

ligations by 

ainants conc

this Complai

e Complaint,

bility of Spo

he Town othe

hat it has a

wful. Paragr

Complainant

of law to w

wn denies a

dance. 

Complaint, 

on Project o

wn denies a

the Complai

d planned reh

al plan to pa

ar to further

not using fe

cede in Parag

int and other

, the Town s

onsor Assura

erwise denie

adopted any

raphs 36, 37

ts admit doe

which no resp

all allegatio

the Town ad

on Septembe

all allegation

int. The Tow

habilitation.

ay for 

r this 

ederal 

graph 

rwise 

states 

ances 

es the 

y use 

7, and 

es not 

ponse 

ns of 

dmits 

er 25, 

ns of 

wn is 
4

poses a s

Complain

4

is necess

Paragrap

44

is necess

Paragrap

4

that it ha

that the 

manner c

otherwise

4

that FAA

Town is 

sponsor 

allegation

4

only that

meteorol

otherwise

2. The T

safety risk to

nt. 

3. Paragr

sary. To th

h 43 that are

4. Paragr

sary. To th

h 44 that are

5. In res

as been infor

Town is tak

consistent w

e denies the 

6. In res

A has inform

taking activ

obligations 

ns of Paragr

7. In resp

t FAA has c

logical condi

e denies the 

Town denies

o Airport us

raph 43 of t

he extent tha

e inconsisten

raph 44 of t

he extent tha

e inconsisten

ponse to the

rmed by FAA

king active 

with sponsor 

allegations o

ponse to the

med it that se

e steps to m

and applica

aph 46 of th

ponse to the

cancelled nig

itions, the R

allegations o

s that there 

sers and othe

he Complain

at a respons

nt with appli

he Complain

at a respons

nt with appli

e allegations

A that sever

steps to rem

obligations 

of Paragraph

e allegations

everal obstru

itigate those

able state en

e Complaint

e allegations

ghttime instr

RNAV appro

of Paragraph

11

is any forei

erwise denie

nt sets forth 

se is necess

cable law an

nt sets forth 

se is necess

cable law an

s of Paragrap

ral obstructio

move or sho

and applica

h 45 of the C

s of Paragrap

uctions pene

e, and other,

nvironmental

t. 

of Paragrap

rument appr

oach to Runw

h 47 of the C

ign object d

es the allega

allegations 

ary, the Tow

nd FAA guid

allegations 

ary, the Tow

nd FAA guid

ph 45 of the

ons penetrat

orten those, 

able state env

Complaint. 

ph 46 of the

etrate the 20:

obstructions

l law. The 

ph 47 of the 

roaches to th

way 28 may 

Complaint. 

ebris on the

ations of Par

of law to w

wn denies a

dance. 

of law to w

wn denies a

dance. 

e Complaint,

te the 20:1 v

and other o

vironmental

e Complaint,

:1 visual sur

s in a manne

Town othe

Complaint, 

he Airport an

not be avail

e ramp areas

ragraph 42 o

which no resp

all allegatio

which no resp

all allegatio

, the Town s

visual surfac

obstructions,

l law. The T

, the Town s

rface and tha

er consistent

erwise denie

the Town ad

nd that in ce

lable. The T

s that 

of the 

ponse 

ns of 

ponse 

ns of 

states 

e and 

, in a 

Town 

states 

at the 

t with 

es the 

dmits 

ertain 

Town 
4

the night

Paragrap

4

5

that Runw

current A

Runway 

rehabilita

otherwise

5

only that

included 

5

only that

Plan. Th

as called

portions 

longterm

Runway 

5

54

only that

8. The T

ttime instrum

h 48 of the C

9. The T

0. In res

way 16-34 i

Airport Layo

16-34 to a

ation of Run

e denies the 

1. In res

t Runway 10

in the Airpo

2. In resp

t Runway 4-

he Town stat

d for on the 

of the Runw

m. The Tow

4-22 into a t

3. The T

4. In res

t it has direc

Town is not a

ment approa

Complaint. 

Town denies 

ponse to the

is safe for ai

out Plan. T

a taxiway, a

nway 4-22, a

allegations o

ponse to the

0-28 is safe 

ort Maintena

ponse to the

22 was clos

tes that it is 

Maintenanc

way for the c

wn specifica

taxiway. Th

Town denies 

ponse to the

cted its engin

aware of wh

aches are u

the allegatio

e allegations

ircraft opera

The Master 

at approxim

as shown in

of Paragraph

e allegations

and is in g

ance Plan and

e allegations 

ed due to di

in the middl

ce Plan and 

current taxiin

ally denies 

he Town othe

the allegatio

e allegations

neer to prior

12

ether or whe

unavailable, 

ons of Parag

s of Paragrap

ations but is 

Plan and A

mately the s

n the Airport

h 50. 

s of Paragrap

good conditio

d otherwise 

of Paragrap

isrepair and 

le of a two-s

Airport Lay

ng operation

that it has 

erwise denie

ons of Parag

s of Paragrap

ritize design

ere aircraft o

and therefo

graph 49 of th

ph 50 of the

scheduled to

Airport Layo

same time a

t Capital Im

ph 51 of the

on and that 

denies the a

ph 52 of the 

is listed as c

step process 

yout Plan. 

ns and plans 

permanentl

es the allegat

graph 53 of th

ph 54 of the

n and constru

operators ma

ore denies th

he Complain

e Complaint,

o be closed,

out Plan ca

as the Tow

mprovement P

e Complaint,

preventativ

allegations of

Complaint, 

closed on th

to rehabilita

The Town 

to restore th

ly converted

tions of Para

he Complain

e Complaint,

uction of the

ay choose to 

he allegation

nt. 

, the Town s

 as shown o

all for conve

wn complete

Plan. The T

, the Town s

ve maintenan

f Paragraph 

the Town ad

he Airport La

ate Runway 

has just rep

he Runway i

d any portio

agraph 52. 

nt. 

, the Town s

e perimeter 

fly if 

ns of 

states 

on the 

erting 

s the 

Town 

states 

nce is 

51. 

dmits 

ayout 

4-22, 

paved 

in the 

on of 

states 

fence 
and that i

active hu

airfield. 

5

that it ap

deer fenc

otherwise

5

5

only that

otherwise

5

that FAA

otherwise

5

that it is

AWOS in

The Tow

6

only that

late 2014

Town oth

it anticipates

unting progr

The Town o

5. In resp

plied for fed

ce and the T

e denies the 

6. The T

7. In resp

t there have 

e denies the 

8. In resp

A encourage

e denies the 

9. In res

 aware that 

n the near fu

wn otherwise 

0. In res

t it complete

4 and that th

herwise deni

s receiving a

ram that red

otherwise de

ponse to the

deral grant fu

Town states

allegations o

Town denies 

ponse to the

been two in

allegations o

ponse to the

es airports to

allegations o

ponse to the

a new AW

uture, and th

denies the a

ponse to the

ed installatio

he new light

ies the allega

a scope of se

duces the nu

enies the alle

e allegations 

unding in 20

s that it is m

of Paragraph

the allegatio

e allegations 

ncidents in w

of Paragraph

e allegations 

o conduct W

of Paragraph

e allegations

WOS is need

hat the new A

allegations o

e allegations

on of a stateing system h

ations of Par

13

ervices in the

umbers of de

egations of P

of Paragrap

011 and that 

moving forw

h 55. 

ons of Parag

of Paragrap

which aircra

h 57. 

of Paragrap

Wildlife Haz

h 58. 

s of Paragrap

ded, that it e

AWOS shou

of Paragraph 

s of Paragrap

-of-the art L

has worked 

ragraph 60.

e very near f

eer living in

Paragraph 54

ph 55 of the 

it has ackno

ward to erec

graph 56 of th

ph 57 of the 

aft collided w

ph 58 of the 

ard Assessm

ph 59 of the

expects to r

uld be operat

59. 

ph 60 of the

LED lighting

as intended

future. The T

n the woods

4. 

Complaint, 

owledged the

ct such a fe

he Complain

Complaint, 

with deer on

Complaint, 

ments where

e Complaint,

request bids 

tional in earl

e Complaint,

g system for

d and withou

Town also h

s surroundin

the Town ad

e need to ins

ence. The T

nt. 

the Town ad

n the airfield

the Town ad

e appropriate

, the Town s

to install a

ly summer, 2

, the Town s

r Taxiway “A

ut problems. 

has an 

ng the 

dmits 

stall a 

Town 

dmits 

d, but 

dmits 

e, but 

states 

a new 

2015. 

states 

A” in 

 The 
6

Answer a

each of 

investiga

resolve it

6

is necess

Paragrap

6

is necess

Paragrap

64

is necess

Paragrap

6

only that

approved

Runway 

until the 

the Airpo

6

only that

1. The T

and the supp

the mainte

ate and subs

ts concerns h

2. Paragr

sary. To th

h 62 that are

3. Paragr

sary. To th

h 63 that are

4. Paragr

sary. To th

h 64 that are

5. In resp

t Runway 4-

d Airport La

4-22 to a ta

Town comp

ort Layout P

6. In resp

t FAA has 

Town denies

porting Brie

enance proj

stantiate its 

have led them

raph 62 of t

he extent tha

e inconsisten

raph 63 of t

he extent tha

e inconsisten

raph 64 of t

he extent tha

e inconsisten

ponse to the

-22 is curren

ayout Plan. 

axiway. The

pletes recons

lan. The To

ponse to the

approved th

s the allega

ef demonstra

jects identif

allegations

m to file a b

he Complain

at a respons

nt with appli

he Complain

at a respons

nt with appli

he Complain

at a respons

nt with appli

e allegations 

ntly closed a

The Town s

e current us

truction of R

own otherwis

e allegations 

he current A

14

ations of Pa

ate, the Tow

fied in the 

and failure 

aseless Com

nt sets forth 

se is necess

cable law an

nt sets forth 

se is necess

cable law an

nt sets forth 

se is necess

cable law an

of Paragrap

as an active 

specifically d

e of the run

Runway 4-22

se denies the

of Paragrap

Airport Layo

aragraph 61 

wn has comp

 Complaint

to engage 

mplaint that s

allegations 

ary, the Tow

nd FAA guid

allegations 

ary, the Tow

nd FAA guid

allegations 

ary, the Tow

nd FAA guid

ph 65 of the 

runway as 

denies that i

nway as a ta

2 to the full 

e allegations

ph 66 of the 

out Plan, wh

of the Com

pleted or is a

t. Complain

in good fait

should be dis

of law to w

wn denies a

dance. 

of law to w

wn denies a

dance. 

of law to w

wn denies a

dance. 

Complaint, 

shown on th

it has perma

axiway is an

length and w

s of Paragrap

Complaint, 

hich shows 

mplaint. As

actively pur

nants’ failur

th discussio

smissed. 

which no resp

all allegatio

which no resp

all allegatio

which no resp

all allegatio

the Town ad

he current, F

anently conv

n interim me

width depicte

ph 65. 

the Town ad

Runway 4-2

s this 

rsuing 

re to 

ons to 

ponse 

ns of 

ponse 

ns of 

ponse 

ns of 

dmits 

FAAverted

easure 

ed on 

dmits 

22 as 
currently

otherwise

6

6

6

that has r

paving w

complete

allegation

7

7

is necess

Paragrap

7

7

discussio

(“BFAC 

assessing

74

diligently

Airport. 

7

y closed, bu

e denies the 

7. The T

8. The T

9. In res

recently repa

was complete

e runway. T

ns of Paragr

0. The T

1. Paragr

sary. To th

h 71 that are

2. The T

3. The T

on at the Bu

Subcommit

g fees on tou

4. The T

y pursuing n

5. The T

ut that reacti

allegations o

Town denies 

Town denies 

ponse to the

aved the por

ed to full ru

he current ta

aph 69. 

Town denies 

raph 71 of t

he extent tha

e inconsisten

Town denies 

Town denie

udget and F

ttee”) meetin

uch-and-go tr

Town denies 

necessary ma

Town denies 

ivation of th

of Paragraph

the allegatio

the allegatio

e allegations

rtion of Runw

unway speci

axiway mark

the allegatio

he Complain

at a respons

nt with appli

the allegatio

es the alleg

Financial Ad

ng cited by 

raining fligh

the allegatio

aintenance p

the allegatio

15

he runway 

h 66. 

ons of Parag

ons of Parag

s of Paragrap

way 4-22 cu

ifications an

kings are tem

ons of Parag

nt sets forth 

se is necess

cable law an

ons of Parag

gations of P

dvisory Com

Plaintiff rela

hts. 

ons of Parag

projects to as

ons of Parag

is proposed

graph 67 of th

graph 68 of th

ph 69 of the

urrently used

nd can and w

mporary. Th

graph 70 of th

allegations 

ary, the Tow

nd FAA guid

graph 72 of th

Paragraph 7

mmittee, Air

ated to the T

graph 74 of t

ssure the co

graph 75 of th

d for the fut

he Complain

he Complain

e Complaint,

d for taxiing 

will be inco

he Town oth

he Complain

of law to w

wn denies a

dance. 

he Complain

73 of the C

rport Financ

Town’s past

the Complai

ntinued safe

he Complain

ture. The T

nt. 

nt. 

, the Town s

operations. 

orporated int

erwise denie

nt. 

which no resp

all allegatio

nt. 

Complaint. 

ce Subcomm

t experience

int. The Tow

e operation o

nt. 

Town 

states 

 That 

to the 

es the 

ponse 

ns of 

 The 

mittee 

e with 

wn is 

of the 
7

based the

bonds ne

adequate

with the p

7

based the

bonds ne

adequate

with the p

7

based the

bonds ne

adequate

with the p

7

been cha

users. T

of 2015. 

8

is necess

Paragrap

6. The T

e increases i

eeded to pay

 reserve, and

participation

7. The T

e increases i

eeded to pay

 reserve, and

participation

8. The T

e increases i

eeded to pay

 reserve, and

participation

9. The T

anged throug

he Town int

 The Town o

0. Paragr

sary. To th

h 80 that are

Town denies

n landing an

y for necess

d meet other

n of several a

Town denies

n landing an

y for necess

d meet other

n of several a

Town denies

n landing an

y for necess

d meet other

n of several a

Town acknow

gh administr

tends to revi

otherwise de

raph 80 of t

he extent tha

e inconsisten

s the allegati

nd fuel flowa

ary capital a

r operating e

aeronautical

s the allegati

nd fuel flowa

ary capital a

r operating e

aeronautical

s the allegati

nd fuel flowa

ary capital a

r operating e

aeronautical

wledges that

rative action

isit, update,

enies the alle

he Complain

at a respons

nt with appli

16

ions of Para

age fees on 

and mainten

xpenses. Th

 users at the 

ions of Para

age fees on 

and mainten

xpenses. Th

 users at the 

ions of Para

age fees on 

and mainten

xpenses. Th

 users at the 

t over the ye

n in a way t

and correct 

egations in P

nt sets forth 

se is necess

cable law an

agraph 76 of

the amount 

nance projec

hat process w

 Airport. 

agraph 77 of

the amount 

nance projec

hat process w

 Airport. 

agraph 78 of

the amount 

nance projec

hat process w

 Airport. 

ears, its publ

that creates 

the landing

Paragraph 79

allegations 

ary, the Tow

nd FAA guid

f the Compl

of income n

cts, to build 

was conduct

f the Compl

of income n

cts, to build 

was conduct

f the Compl

of income n

cts, to build 

was conduct

lished list of

certain disc

g fee schedul

9 of the Com

of law to w

wn denies a

dance. 

laint. The T

needed to su

and mainta

ted publically

laint. The T

needed to su

and mainta

ted publically

laint. The T

needed to su

and mainta

ted publically

f landing fee

crepancies am

le in the Sum

mplaint. 

which no resp

all allegatio

Town 

upport 

ain an 

y and 

Town 

upport 

ain an 

y and 

Town 

upport 

ain an 

y and 

es has 

mong 

mmer 

ponse 

ns of 
8

is necess

Paragrap

8

that cont

Correctiv

forward. 

8

that it ha

agrees to

complian

that appr

minutes 

fair mark

84

$100 per

otherwise

into a Co

forward. 

8

that it le

reimburs

1. Paragr

sary. To th

h 81 that are

2. The T

tain below fa

ve Action P

 The Town 

3. In res

as, in past ye

o enter into a

nt going forw

raisals of airp

cited by Co

ket value. Th

4. The T

r year and 

e denies the

orrective Ac

5. In resp

eases proper

ing the Airp

raph 81 of t

he extent tha

e inconsisten

Town acknow

air market re

Plan with FA

otherwise de

ponse to the

ears, entered

a Corrective 

ward. The 

port property

omplainants 

he Town oth

Town admits

that the Gu

e allegations

ction Plan w

ponse to the

rty in the In

port Fund fo

he Complain

at a respons

nt with appli

wledges that

ental rates. 

AA to ensur

enies the alle

e allegations

d into non-a

Action Plan

Town speci

y did not ref

is to an acc

herwise deni

s that it curr

un Club app

 at Paragrap

with FAA to 

e allegations 

ndustrial Par

r the portion

17

nt sets forth 

se is necess

cable law an

t some nonAs indicated

re that non-a

egations of P

s of Paragrap

eronautical 

n with FAA t

fically denie

flect fair mar

counting valu

es the allega

rently has a 

pears to qua

ph 84 of the

ensure that

of Paragrap

rk for fire a

n of the use 

allegations 

ary, the Tow

nd FAA guid

aeronautical

d above, the

aeronautical

Paragraph 82

ph 83 of the

leases at les

to ensure tha

es that the S

arket value. 

uation that d

ations of Par

lease with t

alify as a c

e Complaint

t the Gun C

ph 85 of the 

and police s

not attributa

of law to w

wn denies a

dance. 

l tenants hav

e Town agre

l leases are 

2 of the Com

e Complaint,

ss than fair m

at non-aeron

Subcommitte

The referen

did not purp

ragraph 83. 

the Maidsto

community u

t. The Town

lub lease is 

Complaint, 

ervices and 

able to Airp

which no resp

all allegatio

ve existing l

ees to enter i

compliant g

mplaint. 

, the Town s

market value

nautical lease

ee acknowle

ce in the me

port to deter

one Gun Clu

use. The T

n agrees to 

compliant g

the Town ad

that it has 

ort purposes

ponse 

ns of 

leases 

into a 

going 

states 

e and 

es are 

edged 

eeting 

rmine 

ub for 

Town 

enter 

going 

dmits 

been 

s. As 
stated above, the Town agrees to enter into a Corrective Action Plan with FAA to ensure that

non-aeronautical leases are compliant going forward.

86. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 86 of the Complaint.

87. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 87 of the Complaint.

88. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 88 of the Complaint.

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of May, 2015.

w

Elizabeth Vail

Town Attomey

Town of East Hampton

159 Pantigo Road

East Hampton, NY 11937

EVail@EHamptonNY.Gov

W. Eric Pilsk

Catherine van Heuven

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP

1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20036

epilsk@kaplankirsch. com

cvanheuven@kaplankirsch. com

Telephone: (202) 95 5 -5600

Facsimile: (202) 955-5616

18
CERTIF'ICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Respondent Town of East

Hampton, New York's Answer to the Complaint on the following parties by e-mail at the

following addresses:

Office of the Chief Counsel

Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

1 copy via E-mail

9-AV/A-AGC-ParI- 1 6 @faa. gov

Leonard D. Kirsch, Esq.

McBreen & Kopko

500 North Broadway

Jericho, NY 11753

lkirsch@mklawnyc.com

Dated this lst day of May,2015

Catherine van Heuven

t9