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 HAMP TON, NEW YORK’S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT Designation of persons to receive service fo r 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) 955-5616T to 14 C. F Hampto n Associat i Aviation Town d e specific a I n a Brief i referenc e discussi o Town fo u 1 Paragrap who the y 2 otherwis e 3 4 accepted Project N certain s p T he Town o f F .R. § 16.23 ( n Airport, i on Internat i , Inc. (colle c e nies all alle g a lly admitte d n further su p n Support o e (“Brief”), o n of the le g u nd to be in The T . h 1 of the C y are. The T

. e denies the The T . In re s . a grant for N o. 3-36-00 p onsor assu r f East Hamp ( h), respon d Inc., Anal a i onal, Inc., c tively “Co m g ations con t din this Ans w p port of its A o f Its Answ e

with a co n g al principle s

compliance T own is wit h C omplaint, bu

T own does n

allegations o T own admits

s ponse to P

an improv e 2 4-18-01” i r ances and o t A ton, New Y d s to the alle g ar Corporat i

Heliflite S h mplainants”) t ained in th e w er. A nswer, an d e r to the C o n cise statem s demonstra t with its fed e h out suffici e u t states tha t

n ot contest th

o f Paragrap h the allegati o P aragraph 4 e ment proje c n 2001 and therwise de n

2 A NSWE R

ork (the “T o g ations of th i on, Associ h ares LLC, L

as set forth e Complaint

dpursuant t o o mplaint, fil ent of the f t ing that th e e ral obligati e nt informa t t it does not

h e Complai n h 2 of the C o o ns of Para g

of the Co m c t entitled “ R

that the gr a n ies the alle g o wn”), by a n h e Complai n i ated Aircr a L iberty Hel i in the num b except to th

o 14 C.F.R. § l ed herewith facts upon e Complaint ons. t ion to adm tcontest the

n ants’ stand i o mplaint. g raph 3 of t h mplaint, th e R ehabilitate ant obligat e g ations of P a n d through c n t filed by F r a ft Group, i copters, In c b ered parag r h e extent su c § 16.23(i), th hand incorp

which the should be d

m it or deny t Complaina n i ng to file th

h e Complain t e Town ad m

Terminal A e d the Tow n aragraph 4. c ounsel, pu r r iends of th e

Inc., Heli c c ., and Sho r r aphs below. c h allegatio n h e Town su b p orated here

Town relie s d ismissed a n

the allegati o n ts’ stateme n h e Co mplai n

t . m its only t h A pron – Ph a n to comply r suant e East c opter r eline The n s are b mits in by s and n d the

o ns of n ts of

n t, but

h at it a se II,

with5 acknowl e administr to revisi t otherwis e 6 only tha t District o party to raise in t h 7 8 argumen t required , of Parag r Airport i n 9 the right submit a d 1 only tha t and deni e With . e dges that o r ative actio n t , update, a n e denies the In res . tsome of th o f New York that suit an d h is matter. The T . The a . t s about, m a

, the Town d r aph 8 and s n a safe ma n In res p . to object t o d ditional ev i In res p 0. tthe Compl e s all other a regard to t o ver the ye a n in a way th ndcorrect t allegations i ponse to th e h e Complai n k

and that t h dthe issues

T own denies a llegations o a tters of la w d enies the a l s tates affir m n ner in comp p onse to th e o any attemp i dence in a m p onse to th e ainants hav e a llegations o t he allegati o rs, its publi h at creates c e the landing i n Paragrap h e allegation s n ants have f i h e terms of t raised in th the allegati o f the first th w to which n

l legations. T m atively that

p liance with e allegations p t by Comp m anner not p e allegations e alleged vi o o f Paragraph

3 o ns in Par a shed list of e rtain discre p fee schedu l h 5. s of Paragrap i led a suit i n that action s p h at suit are

o ns of Parag h ree senten c n o response T he Town d

the Airport the Sponso r of Paragrap lainants to t p ermitted by

of Paragrap o lations of t 10 except a a graph 5 o f

landing fe e pancies am o l e in the S u

p h 6 of the n the U.S. D peak for th e not materia l

g raph 7 of th e c es of Parag r

is required. d enies the al l

is safe and rAssurance s p h 9 of the C t ake action t y Part 16. p h 10 of the the stated l a s expressly a f the Comp e s has been o ng users. T u mmer of 2 0

Complaint, D istrict Cou r e mselves. T l to the iss u

e Complain t r aph 8 are a To the ex t legations in that the To w s and law. C omplaint, t h

t o amend t h Complaint, a ws and Sp o a dmitted he r p laint, the T

changed th r T he Town i n

0 15. The T the Town a d r t for the E a T he Town is u es Compla i

t . a ssertions o f t ent a respo n

the last se n w n maintai n h e Town re s h eir Compla i

the Town a d o nsor Assur a r ein. T own r ough n tends T own d mits a stern

not a i nants

f, and n se is n tence n s the

s erves i nt or d mits a nces1 did atte m Complai n to resolv issues r a letter to correspo n Septemb Complai n and Co m Howeve r verify w Town h a place to concern s raise the filing th e faith an d 1 1 Complai n support t The T 1 1. mpt to eng a n t, but faile d e those issu e ised b efore the Town n ding to th e er 4, 2014, n ants agree d mplainants’ r , Complai n hether their a s already c o

complete th , they coul d issues raise e Complaint . dwere not a b The T 2 . In re s 3. n ants subm i the allegatio n T own denies a ge in pre- C dto follow- t e s. Further, filing the C raising a n u e issues rai s to discuss d– to provi priorities. n ants never safety and o mpleted m a e others. H dhave avoi d d in Count 3

. Plaintiffs’ b ona fide at t T own denies

s ponse to t i tted docum e n s of the Co m the allegati o C omplaint e through on f

Complaina n C omplaint. S

u mber of i s s ed in Cou n those issu de addition a The Town provided th maintenan c a ny of the p r H ad Complai

d ed filing t h 3 at any tim e efforts at p r t empt to res o the allegati o h e allegati o e nts along w mplaint.

4 o ns of Parag fforts to re s f

ollow-up st e n ts failed to S pecifically , s sues regar d n ts 1 and 2.

es. At th a a l informati o

requested h at informa t c e concerns r ojects dem a nants enga g h is Complai n

e and made r e-Complai n o lve dispute s o ns of Parag o ns of Par a w ith its Co m g raph 11 of t h solve some eps the part i make any e f

, on July 31 d ing mainte

The Tow n a t meeting, o n about C o that infor m t ion or, ap p

had been m a nded by C o g ed in a goo n t. Further m

no effort t o n t resolution

s . g raph 12 of th a graph 13, t mplaint, but h e Complai n of the iss u i es had agr e ffort to reso 1 , 2014, Co m e nance and n met with C

the Town o mplainants ’ m ation in a p arently, m a m et. As de t o mplainants d faith effo r m ore, Comp o resolve its

were not u n h e Complai n the Town a denies that n t. Compla i u es raised i n e ed to in an e

lve several o mplainants s

safety, gen e C omplaina n requested

– ’ safety co n follow-up l a de any eff o t ailed belo w

and has pl a r t to resolve lainants fai l concerns pr i n dertaken in

n t. a dmits onl y those docu m i nants n the e ffort o f the s ent a e rally n ts on

–and n cerns l etter. o rt to w , the a ns in their l ed to i or to good

y that m ents1 4 only tha t those cl a 1 is safe, a facilities 1 only as f closed. taxiway a Town co currentl y safe for u Runway as “clos e allegatio n 1 only as fo at the A i to assur e future, a Paragrap In res p 4 . tParagraph ims. The T 5. a nd the To w are maintai n In res p 6. f

ollows: Th e The Town ’ a nd then, in mpleted the y used for ta x u se. There i 4-22 has no e d” on the n s of Paragr In res p 7. fo llows: Ru n i rport. Ther e continued s shown o n h 17. p onse to th e 14 describe

T own denies w n takes ac t n ed in a saf e p onse to th e e Airport or i

’ s planning the longter m first phase i x iing operat i s no loose o t been per m

FAA-appr o aph 16. p onse to th e n way 16-34 e is no veg e safety. Th e n the Airpor t e allegations

s the claim s the allegat i t ive and pr o e manner. e allegations i ginally had documents m , restoratio i n late 2014 b ions. The p o r disintegr a m anently con v

o ved Airpo r

e allegations

was patche d e tation or st a e Town not e tLayout Pl a

5 of Paragrap s raised by C

ons of Para g o active me a

of Paragrap three opera t call for e m n of Runwa y b y repaving p avement us e a ting materi a v erted to a t r t Layout P

of Paragrap dlast year a n a nding wate r e s that Run w a n. The T o p h 14 of the C omplaina n

g raph 15 of a sures to as s

p h 16 of the a ting runwa y m ergency re p

y 4-22 to fu l and repaint i e d for taxii n a l on the ac t t axiway. R u P lan. The

p h 17 of the n d is safe a n r . The Airp way 16-34 o wn otherw i Complaint, n ts, b ut deni e f the Compl a s ure that th e Complaint, y s. Runway p air for te m l l operation a ing the port i n g is in goo d t ive portion u nway 4-22 i

Town othe r Complaint, ndis in regu l p ort maintai n

is slated to ise denies t h the Town a d e s the valid i

a int. The A i e Airport a n the Town a d 4-22 is curr mporary use a l condition. i on of the ru n dcondition a

of Runway i s currently r wise denie

the Town a d l ar use by ai r n s Runway 1

be closed i h e allegatio d mits i ty of

i rport n d its

d mits r ently

as a The nway a nd is 4-22. listed s the

d mits r craft 1 6-34 i n the ns of1 that the l lighting s year. T h allegatio n 1 that dee r address t the woo d and con s near fut u 2 that gate s imprope r diligent i Paragrap 2 only tha t grant sp e the term s 2 paveme n In res 8. l ighting syst e s ystem wit h h e system h n s of Paragr In res 9. rhave been t he issue. T h d lands surro u s truction of t u re. The To w In res 0. s leading to raccess in th i n keeping g h 20. In res p 1. tit accepte d e ak for the m s of the gran t The a 2 . n t maintena n ponse to th e e m on Taxi w h a state-of-t h as worked w

aph 18. ponse to th e an issue at t h e Town ha s u nding the a the perimet e w n otherwis e ponse to th e the airfield a h e past, the c g ates closed

p onse to th e dthe grant a m selves. Th e

t , as subseq u llegations o f n ce obligati e allegation s w ay Alpha h he-art LED w ithout pro b

e allegation s the Airport a s an active h a irfield. Th e e r fence and e denies the e allegation s are accessib c urrent Airp when not i n

e allegations a ttached as E e Town den u ently modi f f Paragraph ons under t

6 s of Paragrap h ad not ope r

lighting sy s b lems sinc e

s of Paragrap a nd that it h h unting prog r

e Town has anticipates r allegations o s of Paragrap le to Airpor t p ort Directo r n use. The T

of Paragrap E xhibit 9 to

ies all alleg a f ied. 22 of the C the Sponso r p h 18 of th e r ated proper l s tem, which e then. Th e

p h 19 of th e h as taken, a n r am which r directed its receiving a o f Paragrap h p h 20 of th e tstaff and t e rhas instruc t T own other w

p h 21 of the

the Compl a a tions of P a C omplaint ar e

rAssuranc e e Complaint , l y and the T

became op e e Town oth e

e Complaint , n d continue s r educes the n

engineer to scope of se r h 19. e Complaint , e nants. Wh i t ed all staff w ise denies t

Complaint, a int an dtha t aragraph 21

e assertions e s to whic h , the Town s own replac e e rational lat e rwise deni e

, the Town s s to take, st e n umber of d e prioritize d r vices in th e

, the Town s i le there has and tenants the allegati o the Town a d tthe terms o inconsisten t of law reg a h no respo n s tates e d the e last e s the

s tates e ps to e er in d esign e very

s tates been to be o ns of

d mits o f the twith

arding n se isrequired. 22 incon 2 that it h a inspecti o Paveme n this year Mainten a meantim allegatio n 2 4 of the ra m Airport m Resourc e included Mainten a 2 has bee n for Prop o AWOS w 2 only tha t To the ext s istent publ i With 3. a s an inven t o ns dating t o n t Maintena n r . The ra m a nce Plan a e, the ramp i n s in Paragr a The T 4 . mp at the E x m anagemen t e s, Inc. is c u

ramp rehab a nce Plan. The T 5. n diligently i m o sals for a n e w ill be oper a In res p 6. tin June 20 1 ent that a r e i shed standar regard to th t ory of its p o November n ce Manage m mp is in ne e

s one of th i s in good c o aph 23. T own denies x ecutive Ter m tworks wi t u rrently pavi n

b ilitation p r

T own denie s

mplementin e w, federall y a tional in ear p onse to th e 1 4, it increa sponse is re r ds for a Pa v e allegation s p avement, c

2013. The m ent Progr a e d of rehab h e projects t o ndition an d

the allegati o m inal is the th the tena n n g the area s r ojects in i t

s the allegat i g a plan to r y -certified A r ly Summer, e allegations sed the fuel

7 quired, the T v ement Mai n s at Paragrap onducts dai Town ack n a m, b ut is w ilitation an d t o be comp l dsafe for op e

o ns of Para g responsibili t n t to ensure

in its lease h t s Airport C

i ons of Par a r eplace the A A WOS in th e

2015. of Paragrap flowage fe e T own denie s n tenance M a p h 23 of th e ly inspecti o n owledges th w orking wit h dthat work l eted in the e rations. T h

g raph 24 of t t y of the te n

that the w o h old, includ i C apital Imp

a graph 25 o f A WOS. T h e near futur e

p h 26 of the e at the Airp s all allegat i a nagement P e Complaint o ns, and ha s h at it does n h its engine e k

is include next sever a h e Town ot h

the Compla i n ant, Aviatio

o rk is perf o i ng the ramp p rovement P

f the Comp l h e Town wi l e and antici p

Complaint, p ort from $ 0 i ons of Para g P rogram.

, the Town s s records o f ot have a w e r to prepar e d in the A i al years. I n h erwise deni e

i nt. Mainte n n Resource s o rmed. Av i p . The To w P lan and A i

l aint. The T l l issue a R e p ates that th e

the Town a d 0 .15 per gal l g raph

s tates f such w ritten

e one i rport n the e s the

n ance s , Inc. i ation w n has

i rport

T own e quest e new d mits l on to$0.30 p e uniforml y 2 only tha t b ut othe r 2 allegatio n 2 that all b respond. admits th immater i otherwis e 3 in landi n for nece s meet oth e of sever a 3 that it h Virtuall y increase Action P e r gallon, th y by 10%. T In res p 7. tthe Paragr a r wise denies Insof a 8. n s at Paragr a In res 9. b ut the last

To the ex t h at it has i n i al because t e denies the The T 0. n g and fuel f l s sary capita l e r operating a l aeronauti c In res p 1. h as, in the p y none of t h

rents while lan with FA h e first inc r T he Town o t p onse to th e aph contains

the allegati o ar as indivi d aph 28 of th e ponse to th e sentence c o t ent a respo n n creased it s the amount o

allegations o T own denies l owage fees l and maint e

expenses. T al users at th p onse to th e p ast, entere d h ose leases h the leases A to ensure r ease in at t herwise de n e allegations

an accurat e o ns of Para g d ual aircraf t e Complain t e allegation s o nstitute leg a n se is neces s s landing fe o f the fees i s o f Paragrap h the allegati o on the amo u e nance proj e T hat proces s h e Airport. e allegations dinto non- a h as a subor d r emain in e that non-ae r

8 least 20 y e n ies the alle g

of Paragrap e statement o g raph 27. tmay diffe r t . s of Paragrap a l argument s ary, the To es since 2 0 s justified b y h 29. o ns of Para g u nt of inco m e cts, to buil d s was condu c

of Paragrap a eronautica l d ination cla u ffect. The r onautical le e ars, and th g ations of P a p h 27 of the o f the curre n

rin actual w

p h 29 of th e t s to which o wn denies t 0 09, b ut th a y necessary A

g raph 30. T m e needed to

dand maint c ted public a

p h 31 of the l leases at l u se, and th e Town agre e ases are co m at it increa aragraph 26. Complaint, n t landing f e

w eight, the

e Complaint ,

the Town i s those allega t a t the perce n A irport exp e

T he Town ba

support bo n ain an adeq u a lly and with

Complaint, l ess than f a e Town has e s to enter i mpliant goin g sed landin g the Town a d e es at the Ai r

Town deni e

, the Town s s not requi r t ions. The T n tage incre a e nses. The T

a sed the inc r n ds nee d ed t o u ate reserv e h the partici p

the Town a d a ir market v

not been ab i nto a Corr e g forward. g fees

d mits rport,

e s the

s tates r ed to T own a se is T own

r eases o pay e , and p ation

d mits v alue. b le to e ctive3 that it le a Fund fo r Town a g leases ar e 3 approve d capital a n to set th e fees hav e effect co m 3 4 only tha t by the C and the C Agreem e are not r e the Comp challeng i denies th 3 3 recogniz e With r 2 . a ses proper t rthe portio n g rees to ent e e compliant The T 3. dincreases i n n d mainten a e fees at co m e not decrea mpared to th In res p 4 . tthere was l i Committee to C ommittee a e nt. The ter m e levant to th p lainants ha v i ng, inter a l h e allegation s The T 5. The T 6. e s that it ha s r egard to th e t y for fire a n n of the use e r into a Co

going forw a T own denie s n landing a n a nce project s mpetitive lev e

sed usage, a h e comparab p onse to th e i tigation in f Stop Airpo r a nd the dism i m s of the S e h e claims m a

v e sued FA A l ia , the vali d s of Paragrap T own admits T own denie s s an obligati e allegation s n d police fa not attr ibu t rrective Ac t ard. s the allegat i n d fuel flow a s and other A e ls in order n a s operation s b le time peri o e allegations f

ederal court r t Expansio n i ssal of the l e ttlement A g a de by Comp A in the U. S d ity of the 2 p h 34. the allegati o s the allegat i on to maint a

9 s of Paragrap cilities and t able to Airp t ion Plan w i

i ons of Par a a ge fees to p A irport expe n o t to disco u s were high e o d in 2013.

of Paragrap and also b e f n resulted i n l itigation. T g reement an d p lainants he r S . District C o

2 005 Settle m

o ns of Para g i ons of Par a a in a safe A i p h 32 of the that it has b rport purpos i th FAA to

a graph 33 o f p rovide suffi c e nses. In so u rage use o f e r in 2014 a f

p h 34 of the fore FAA, a n a Settlem e T he Town is

d the litigat i r e. The To w o urt for the E m ent Agree

g raph 35 of t a graph 36 o f i rport. Acc o Complaint, b een reimb u es. As ind i ensure that

f the Comp l cient funds t doing, the T f the Airport . f ter the fee i Complaint, a nd that the l e nt Agreem e

not a party t i on speak f o w n further n E astern Dis t ment. The

the Complai n f the Comp l o rdingly, th ethe Town a d u rsing the A i i cated abov e non-aerona u l aint. The T t o pay for n e T own was c a

. In fact, th e i ncreases w e the Town a d l itigation ini t e nt between t o that Settl e o r themselve n otes that so m trict of New

Town othe r

n t. l aint. The T e Town con t d mits i rport e , the u tical

T own e eded areful e new e re in

d mits t iated FAA e ment

s and m e of York r wise

T own t inuesa respon s that work work. C funding t 37. 3 denies th 3 only tha t 22(a), 2 2 allegatio n restricti o 38 set f o state a v i 3 is neces s Paragrap 4 only tha t 2001, a n Paragrap 4 properly s ible mainte k

and has i s omplainant s t o complete

The T 7. h e allegation s In res 8. tit has fol l 2 (h), and 29 n s of Para g ns that are u o rth an irrel e i olation of a n Parag r 9. s ary. To th h 39 that ar e In res p 0. tit accepte d n d that the g

h 40 incons i The T 1. maintainin g nance prog r s sued bond s s allege that

the work. T

T own agrees

s of Paragrap ponse to th e l owed FAA at East Ha m g raph 38. u nreasonabl e e vant and u n n y grant ass u r aph 39 of t h e extent th a e inconsiste n p onse to th e da grant to h

g rant came i stent with t h T own denies g the ramp ar r am. It is i m s totaling al m the Town h a T hat is not a

that federa l p h 37. e allegation s

guidance r mpton after D

The Town e , discrimin a n substantiat e u rance. h e Complai n a t a respon s n t with appli e allegations h elp fund th

with certai n h ose conditi o

the allegati o r eas, includi n

10 mplementing

m ost $1.5 m a s breached avalid clai m l funding is n

s of Paragrap egarding th e D ecember 3 1 specificall y a tory, or oth e e d argumen t

n t sets forth s e is necess cable law a n of Paragrap h e Terminal

n condition s o ns. o ns of Para g n g daily ins p a multi-fac e m illion over

its grant ob l m , as Compl a

n ot part of t

p h 38 of th e e enforceab 1 , 2014. T h y denies th e rwise unla w tthat even C

allegations ary, the To w n d FAA gui d p h 40 of the

Rehabilitati s. The To w

g raph 41 of t p ections an d e ted financi a rthe last ye l igations by a inants con c

this Compla i

e Complaint , b ility of Sp o h e Town oth e h at it has a w ful. Parag r C omplainan t

of law to w wn denies a d ance.

Complaint, on Project o w n denies a

the Compla i dplanned re h a l plan to p a ar to furthe r not using f e c ede in Para g i nt and othe r

, the Town s o nsor Assur a e rwise deni e a dopted an y r aphs 36, 3 7 t s admit do e

w hich no res p

a ll allegatio

the Town a d o n Septemb e a ll allegatio n i nt. The To w h abilitation. a y for r this e deral g raph

r wise

s tates a nces e s the y use 7 , and e s not

p onse ns of

d mits e r 25, n s of

w n is4 poses a s Complai n 4 is neces s Paragrap 4 4 is neces s Paragrap 4 that it h a that the manner c otherwis e 4 that FA A Town is sponsor allegatio n 4 only tha t meteoro l otherwis e The T 2 . s afety risk t o n t. Parag r 3. s ary. To th h 43 that ar e Parag r 4 . s ary. To th h 44 that ar e In res 5. a s been info r

Town is tak c onsistent w e denies the In res 6. A has infor m

taking activ obligations n s of Paragr In res p 7. tFAA has c l ogical cond i e denies the T own denie s o Airport u s

r aph 43 of t h e extent th a e inconsiste n r aph 44 of t h e extent th a e inconsiste n ponse to th e r med by FA A king active w ith sponsor

allegations o ponse to th e m ed it that s e

e steps to m and applic a aph 46 of th p onse to th e c ancelled ni g i tions, the R allegations o s that there s ers and oth e h e Complai n a t a respon s n t with appli h e Complai n a t a respon s n t with appli e allegation s A that seve r steps to re m obligations o f Paragrap h e allegation s e veral obstru itigate thos e able state e n

e Complain t e allegations g httime instr R NAV appr o

o f Paragrap h

11 is any forei e rwise deni e

n t sets forth s e is necess cable law a n n t sets forth s e is necess cable law a n s of Paragrap r al obstructi o m ove or sh o

and applic a h 45 of the C s of Paragrap u ctions pene e , and othe r , n vironmenta l t .

of Paragrap rument appr o ach to Run w h 47 of the C i gn object d e s the alleg a

allegations ary, the To w n d FAA gui d

allegations ary, the To w n d FAA gui d p h 45 of th e o ns penetra t o rten those, able state en v C omplaint. p h 46 of th e e trate the 20 :

obstruction s l law. The

p h 47 of the r oaches to t h w ay 28 may C omplaint. ebris on th e a tions of Pa r

of law to w wn denies a d ance.

of law to w wn denies a d ance. e Complaint , t e the 20:1 v

and other o v ironmental

e Complaint , :1 visual su r s in a mann e

Town oth e Complaint, h e Airport a n

not be avai l e ramp area s r agraph 42 o

w hich no res p

a ll allegatio

w hich no res p

a ll allegatio

, the Town s v isual surfac o bstructions , l law. The T

, the Town s r face and th a e r consisten t e rwise deni e

the Town a d n d that in c e l able. The T s that o f the

p onse ns of

p onse ns of

s tates e and

, in a T own

s tates a t the twith e s the

d mits e rtain T own4 the nigh t Paragrap 4 5 that Run w current A Runway rehabilit a otherwis e 5 only tha t included 5 only tha t Plan. T h as calle d portions longter m Runway 5 5 4 only tha t The T 8. t time instru m h 48 of the C The T 9. In res 0. w ay 16-34 i A irport Lay o

16-34 to a a tion of Ru n e denies the In res 1. tRunway 1 0 in the Airp o In res p 2 . tRunway 4

- h e Town sta t dfor on the

of the Run w m . The To w

4-22 into a t The T 3. In res 4 . tit has dire c T own is not a

m ent appro a C omplaint. T own denies

ponse to th e i s safe for a i o ut Plan. T ataxiway, a n way 4-22, a

allegations o ponse to th e 0 -28 is safe o rt Mainten a p onse to th e 22 was clos t es that it is

Maintenan c w ay for the c w n specific a t axiway. T h T own denies

ponse to th e c ted its engi n a ware of wh a ches are u the allegati o e allegation s i rcraft oper a T he Master a t approxi m a s shown i n o f Paragrap h e allegation s

and is in g a nce Plan an d e allegations

ed due to d i in the midd l c e Plan and c urrent taxii n a lly denies h e Town oth e

the allegati o e allegation s n eer to prio r

12 e ther or wh e u navailable,

o ns of Parag s of Paragrap a tions but is

Plan and A m ately the s n the Airpor t h 50. s of Paragrap g ood conditi o

dotherwise of Paragrap i srepair and l e of a two- s

Airport La y n g operatio n that it has e rwise deni e o ns of Parag s of Paragrap r itize desig n e re aircraft o and theref o

g raph 49 of th

p h 50 of th e scheduled t o A irport Lay o s ame time a tCapital I m

p h 51 of th e on and that denies the a p h 52 of the

is listed as c s tep process yout Plan. n s and plans

permanent l e s the allega t g raph 53 of th

p h 54 of th e n and constru o perators m a o re denies th

h e Complai n e Complaint , o be closed, o ut Plan c a a s the To w mprovement P

e Complaint ,

preventativ a llegations o f

Complaint, c losed on th to rehabilit a The Town to restore th l y converte d t ions of Par a h e Complai n e Complaint , u ction of th e a y choose to h e allegatio n

n t.

, the Town s as shown o a ll fo rconv e w n complete

P lan. The T

, the Town s v e maintena n

f Paragraph the Town a d h e Airport L a a te Runway

has just re p h e Runway i dany porti o a graph 52. n t.

, the Town s e perimeter fly if n s of

s tates o n the e rting s the T own

s tates n ce is

51. d mits a yout 4-22, p aved i n the o n of

s tates fenceand that i active h u airfield. 5 that it ap deer fen c otherwis e 5 5 only tha t otherwis e 5 that FA A otherwis e 5 that it is AWOS i n The To w 6 only tha t late 201 4 Town oth i t anticipate s u nting prog r

The Town o In res p 5. p lied for fe d c e an dthe T e denies the The T 6. In res p 7. tthere have e denies the In res p 8. A encourag e e denies the In res 9. aware that n the near f u w n otherwise In res 0. tit complet e 4 and that t h h erwise den i s receiving a r am that re d o therwise d e p onse to th e d eral grant f u T own state s allegations o T own denies

p onse to th e been two i n allegations o p onse to th e e s airports t o

allegations o ponse to th e

a new A W u ture, and th

denies the a ponse to th e e d installati o h e new light i es the alleg a ascope of s e d uces the n u e nies the all e e allegations u nding in 2 0 s that it is m o f Paragrap h the allegati o e allegations n cidents in w o f Paragrap h e allegations o conduct W o f Paragrap h e allegation s W OS is nee d h at the new A a llegations o e allegation s o n of a state

ing system h a tions of Par

13 e rvices in th e u mbers of d e e gations of P

of Paragrap 0 11 and that m oving for w h 55. o ns of Parag

of Paragrap w hich aircr a h 57.

of Paragrap W ildlife Haz

h 58. s of Paragrap d e d , that it e A WOS sho u o f Paragraph s of Paragrap

- of-the art L h as worked r agraph 60. e very near f e er living i n P aragraph 5 4 p h 55 of the

it has ackn o w ard to ere c

g raph 56 of th p h 57 of the a ft collided w

p h 58 of the

ard Assess m

p h 59 of th e e xpects to r u l dbe opera t

59. p h 60 of th e L ED lightin g

as intende d f uture. The T n the wood s 4 .

Complaint, o wledged th e c t such a f e h e Complai n Complaint, w ith deer o n Complaint, m ents wher e

e Complaint , r equest bids t ional in ear l

e Complaint , g system fo r dand witho u T own also h s surroundi n

the Town a d e need to in s e nce. The T

n t. the Town a d n the airfiel d

the Town a d e appropriat e

, the Town s

to install a l y summer, 2

, the Town s rTaxiway “ A u t problems. h as an n g the

d mits s tall a T own

d mits d , but

d mits e , but

s tates anew 2 015.

s tates A ” in

The6 Answer a each of investig a resolve i t 6 is neces s Paragrap 6 is neces s Paragrap 6 4 is neces s Paragrap 6 only tha t approve d Runway until the the Airp o 6 only tha t The T 1. a nd the sup p

the maint e a te and sub s t s concerns h Parag r 2 . s ary. To th h 62 that ar e Parag r 3. s ary. To th h 63 that ar e Parag r 4 . s ary. To th h 64 that ar e In res p 5. t Runway 4

- dAirport L a

4-22 to a t a Town comp o rt Layout P In res p 6. tFAA has T own denie s p orting Bri e e nance pro j s tantiate its h ave led the m r aph 62 of t h e extent th a e inconsiste n r aph 63 of t h e extent th a e inconsiste n r aph 64 of t h e extent th a e inconsiste n p onse to th e

- 22 is curre n a yout Plan. a xiway. Th e p letes recons

lan. The T o p onse to th e approved t h s the alleg a e f demonstr a j ects identi f

allegations m

to file a b h e Complai n a t a respon s n t with appli h e Complai n a t a respon s n t with appli h e Complai n a t a respon s n t with appli e allegations n tly closed a The Town s e current us truction of R o wn otherwi s e allegations h e current A

14 a tions of Pa a te, the To w f ied in the and failure a seless Co m n t sets forth s e is necess cable law a n n t sets forth s e is necess cable law a n n t sets forth s e is necess cable law a n of Paragrap a s an active s pecifically d e of the ru n R unway 4-2 2 s e denies th e

of Paragrap A irport Lay o aragraph 61 w n has comp

Complain t to engage mplaint that s allegations ary, the To w n d FAA gui d

allegations ary, the To w n d FAA gui d

allegations ary, the To w n d FAA gui d p h 65 of the

runway as d enies that i n way as a t a 2 to the full e allegation s p h 66 of the o ut Plan, w h of the Co m p lete dor is a t . Complai n in good fai t s hould be di s

of law to w wn denies a d ance.

of law to w wn denies a d ance.

of law to w wn denies a d ance.

Complaint, shown on th i t has perm a a xiway is a n

length an d w s of Paragrap

Complaint, h ich shows mplaint. A s a ctively pur n ants’ failu r th discussi o s missed. w hich no res p

a ll allegatio

w hich no res p

a ll allegatio

w hich no res p

a ll allegatio the Town a d h e current, F a nently con v n interim m e w idth depict e p h 65.

the Town a d Runway 4- 2 s this r suing r e to o ns to

p onse ns of

p onse ns of

p onse ns of

d mits F AAv erte d e asure

e d on

d mits 2 2 ascurrentl y otherwis e 6 6 6 that has r paving w complet e allegatio n 7 7 is neces s Paragrap 7 7 discussi o (“BFAC assessin g 7 4 diligentl y Airport. 7 y closed, bu

e denies the The T 7. The T 8. In res 9. r ecently rep a w as complet e e runway. T n s of Paragr The T 0. Parag r 1. s ary. To th h 71 that ar e The T 2 . The T 3. o n at the B u

Subcommi t g fees on to u The T 4 . y pursuing n The T 5. u t that react i allegations o T own denies T own denies

ponse to th e a ved the po r edto full ru he current t a aph 69. T own denies

r aph 71 of t h e extent th a e inconsiste n T own denies

T own deni e u dget and F t tee”) meeti n u ch-and-go tr T own denies n ecessary m a

T own denies i vation of th o f Paragrap h the allegati o the allegati o e allegation s rtion of Run w u nway spec i a xiway mark the allegati o h e Complai n a t a respon s n t with appli

the allegati o e s the alle g F inancial A d n g cited by r aining flig h

the allegati o a intenance p the allegati o

15 h e runway h 66. o ns of Parag o ns of Parag s of Paragrap w ay 4-22 c u i fications a n k ings are te m

o ns of Parag n t sets forth s e is necess cable law a n o ns of Parag g ations of P d visory Co m Plaintiff rel a h ts.

o ns of Para g p rojects to a s

o ns of Parag is propose d

g raph 67 of th g raph 68 of th

p h 69 of th e u rrently use d n d can and w mporary. T h

g raph 70 of th

allegations ary, the To w n d FAA gui d g raph 72 of th P aragraph 7 m mittee, Ai r a ted to the T

g raph 74 of t s sure the co

g raph 75 of th dfor the fu t

h e Complai n h e Complai n e Complaint , dfor taxiing w ill be inc o h e Town oth

h e Complai n of law to w wn denies a d ance. h e Complai n 7 3 of the C rport Finan c T own’s pas t

the Compla i ntinued saf e h e Complai n t ure. The T

n t. n t.

, the Town s operations. o rporated in t

erwise deni e

n t. w hich no res p

a ll allegatio

n t. C omplaint. c e Subcom m texperienc e i nt. The To w e operation o

n t. T own

s tates That t o the e s the

p onse ns of

The m ittee e with

w n is o f the7 b ased th e b onds n e adequat e with the p 7 b ased th e b onds n e adequat e with the p 7 b ased th e b onds n e adequat e with the p 7 b een ch a users. T of 2015. 8 is neces s Paragrap The T 6. e increases i e e d ed to pa y reserve, an d p articipatio n The T 7. e increases i e e d ed to pa y reserve, an d p articipatio n The T 8. e increases i e e d ed to pa y reserve, an d p articipatio n The T 9. a nged throu g he Town in t The Town o Parag r 0. s ary. To th h 80 that ar e T own denie s

n landing a n y for necess dmeet othe r n of several a T own denie s

n landing a n y for necess dmeet othe r n of several a T own denie s

n landing a n y for necess dmeet othe r n of several a T own ackno w g h administr t ends to rev i o therwise d e r aph 80 of t h e extent th a e inconsiste n s the allegat i n d fuel flow a ary capital a r operating e a eronautical s the allegat i n d fuel flow a ary capital a r operating e a eronautical s the allegat i n d fuel flow a ary capital a r operating e a eronautical w ledges tha t r ative actio n i sit, update, e nies the all e h e Complai n a t a respon s n t with appli

16 i ons of Par a a ge fees on a nd mainte n xpenses. T h users at the i ons of Par a a ge fees on a nd mainte n xpenses. T h users at the i ons of Par a a ge fees on a nd mainte n xpenses. T h users at the t over the y e n in a way t

and correct e gations in P n t sets forth s e is necess cable law a n a graph 76 o f the amount n ance proje c h at process w Airport. a graph 77 o f the amount n ance proje c h at process w Airport. a graph 78 o f the amount n ance proje c h at process w Airport. e ars, its pub l that creates

the landing P aragraph 7 9

allegations ary, the To w n d FAA gui d f the Comp l of income n c ts, to build w as conduc t f the Comp l of income n c ts, to build w as conduc t f the Comp l of income n c ts, to build w as conduc t l ished list o f certain dis c g fee schedu l 9 of the Co m

of law to w wn denies a d ance. l aint. The T n eeded to s u

and maint a t ed publicall y l aint. The T n eeded to s u

and maint a t ed publicall y l aint. The T n eeded to s u

and maint a t ed publicall y f landing fe e c repancies a m l e in the Su m mplaint. w hich no res p

a ll allegatio T own u pport a in an y and

T own u pport a in an y and

T own u pport a in an y and

e s has m ong m mer

p onse ns of8 is neces s Paragrap 8 that con t Correcti v forward. 8 that it h a agrees t o complia n that app r minutes fair mark 8 4 $100 pe r otherwis e into a C o forward. 8 that it l e reimburs Parag r 1. s ary. To th h 81 that ar e The T 2 . t ain below f a v e Action P

The Town In res 3. a s, in past y e o enter into a n t going for w r aisals of airp cited by C o k et value. T h The T 4 . r year and e denies th e o rrective A c In res p 5. e ases prope r

ing the Airp r aph 81 of t h e extent th a e inconsiste n T own ackno w a ir market r e P lan with F A

otherwise d e ponse to th e e ars, entere d aCorrective w ar d . The p ort propert y o mplainants h e Town oth T own admit s

that the G u e allegations c tion Plan w

p onse to th e rty in the I n p ort Fund fo h e Complai n a t a respon s n t with appli w ledges tha t e ntal rates. A A to ensu r e nies the all e e allegation s dinto non-a Action Pla n Town speci y did not re f is to an ac c h erwise deni s that it curr u n Club ap p at Paragrap w ith FAA to

e allegations n dustrial Par

r the portio n

17 n t sets forth s e is necess cable law a n tsome nonAs indicate d r e that non- a e gations of P s of Paragrap eronautical n with FAA t

f ically deni e f lect fair mar c ounting val u

es the alleg a r ently has a p ears to qu a p h 84 of th e

ensure tha t of Paragrap rk for fire a n of the use allegations ary, the To w n d FAA gui d aeronautica l dabove, th e aeronautica l P aragraph 8 2 p h 83 of th e leases at le s t o ensure th a e s that the S arket value.

u ation that d a tions of Par

lease with t a lify as a c e Complaint tthe Gun C

p h 85 of the a nd police s

not attribut a of law to w wn denies a d ance. l tenants ha v e Town agr e l leases are 2 of the Co m e Complaint , s s than fair m a t non-aero n S ubcommitt e The referen d id not purp r agraph 83. the Maidst o c ommunity u t . The Tow n lub lease is Complaint, ervices and able to Airp w hich no res p

a ll allegatio

v e existing l e es to enter i

compliant g mplaint.

, the Town s m arket valu e n autical leas e e e acknowl e ce in the m e p ort to dete r

o ne Gun Cl u

u se. The T n agrees to compliant g the Town a d that it has ort purpose s p onse ns of

l eases i nto a g oing

s tates e and e s are e dged e eting r mine

u b for T own

enter g oing

d mits been s . Asstated 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

18CERTIF'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